Paul Luckraft reviews ‘God and the Transgender Debate’ by Andrew T Walker (2022)

Thoughts on attending a same-sex wedding

The truth our kids need to hear

Church leaders fail to understand its true subversive agenda

Episodes in the battle for truth.

Whom will it serve?

You don’t have to be a prophet, or even a believer, to recognise that deep divisions are wracking Britain today. The 2016 Referendum exposed some of these. People are starting to realise that ‘politics as usual’ is no longer possible: we have entered a period of unprecedented turmoil and upheaval: what we have frequently referred to on Prophecy Today UK as part of the ‘shaking of the nations’.

While the spiritual forces underneath this shaking may be black and white, so to speak, how all this bears out in individual thinking and behaviour was never going to be clear-cut, because human beings are complicated. For instance, the unforgiving binary options of the Referendum masked complex concerns and ideological standpoints on both sides, which has been a point of frustration for many.

But despite this complexity, the oppositional worldviews underlying the battle for the soul of the West are gradually becoming more and more apparent. At the polls and in virtually every sphere of daily life, people are increasingly being forced to choose, one way or the other.

Political Polarisation

It may have taken a generation for the cultural Marxism being preached in universities to filter down into mainstream culture, but that project is now nearly complete, enabled and encouraged by a political establishment purporting to take the centre ground. Those who accept this radical left-wing worldview are lining up on one side of the debate; those who react against it on the other. Because the worldviews at stake are vastly opposing, we are witnessing a general movement away from the political centre towards the extremes.

This polarisation is visible in the recent EU election results, which saw centrist parties lose considerable ground to parties both farther to the left (e.g. greens, ultra-liberals) and farther to the right (e.g. nationalists). Whether ordinary citizens are becoming more radical in their politics, or simply expressing frustration, the result is an empowering of parties farther outwards on the political spectrum.

We are witnessing a general movement away from the political centre towards the extremes, underlain by worldviews that are vastly opposing.

Dig a little deeper than left-right divisions, however, and the battle lines are really being drawn up either around the defence of the ‘old order’ that emerged from Christendom (including the nation-state system, a strong family unit and the importance of individual freedom from state interference), notwithstanding its imperfections, or around its destruction and replacement with the inverse (i.e. globalism, anti-life and anti-family movements including LGBTQ+/radical feminism/abortion/euthanasia, and the subjection of the individual to increasing state control).

All this means that wherever one sits on a variety of hot-button issues, it is increasingly difficult to forge a compromise path or remain neutral. This is especially the case for Christian institutions and ministries, who ostensibly hold the truth. The time has come to nail some colours to the mast.

Oceans Apart

The reality of this was exposed strongly this week with news of a vicar in Essex resigning, from both his positions as governor of a CofE primary school and local vicar, over the promotion of transgender ideology. The school had allowed a child under 12 to announce his gender transition to his class, without any agreed procedures and without informing other parents, but with the full support of the diocese. The Revd John Parker submitted his resignation letter, in which he expressed concerns that children are being “sacrificed on the altar of trans ideology”.¹

Mr Parker is one of many clergy and lay Anglicans who have borne the CofE’s drift away from biblical principles and into radical left-wing identity politics (the schools issue being just one manifestation of this) for as long as they can, hoping and praying for change from the inside, but who have finally decided that enough is enough.

These defectors are seeking spiritual safe havens in other denominations or breakaway Anglican groups, including GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference, an international Anglican body championing traditional biblical teaching), while the CofE establishment has drifted ever farther out to sea, lured by siren calls of ‘compassion’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘welcome’.

Across the vast distance that has opened up in between, calls for unity, dialogue and peaceful disagreement sound ever-more faint and hollow. It is difficult to see any other future for the CofE than one of disintegration, barring some drastic repentance, especially within the upper tiers of its leadership.

Mr Parker is one of many clergy and lay Anglicans who have borne the CofE’s drift away from biblical principles for as long as they can, but have finally decided that enough is enough.

However, there is yet a sense that the CofE has not capitulated completely, but is still being pulled in both directions. The Lambeth 2020 international meeting of bishops, for example, is being boycotted by both conservative GAFCON members and ultra-liberal bishops who think the Church is not going far enough in its ‘welcome’ of gays and lesbians.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s weak attempts to appease both sides in the sexuality debate have failed to give strong leadership one way or the other, permitting the gradual permeation of the Church with LGBTQ+ ideology in a way that has angered both pro-LGBTQ+ activists (for not being fast or far-reaching enough) and those trying to remain faithful to Scripture. In other words, attempts to forge a middle-ground, compromise position have only made matters worse, fuelling polarisation – just as we have seen more widely in national politics.

The Time is Now

All this is really to say that the era of easy ways out – of fudging compromises, of appeasement and of sitting on the fence – is all but over. But perhaps that is not a bad thing, for, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm…I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:15-16).

The Church in all quarters badly needs to choose whom it will serve (Deut 30:19; Josh 24:15), heeding James’s warning that “whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God” (4:4). The disagreements in which the CofE is mired result from it befriending a worldly ideology that stands in total opposition to God. This ideology cannot save, and only leads to division and disintegration. As with the Church, so with the nation.

Our study this week looks at Jeremiah, the ‘weeping prophet’, and expresses hope that in our day we will see people who humbly cleave to the Lord’s council, grieving over the nation and daring to speak prophetically from that place to both king and priest. If ever Britain needed such prophets, it is now.

Meanwhile, may the faithful continue to rally – not primarily to one political party or another, but to the Lord and his word, just as the Levites rallied to Moses (Ex 32). Therein we will find salvation, security, hope and light which will radiate out through us to the nation.

References

1 Read more at Christian Concern.

The institutional Church has capitulated completely to transgender ideology.

At the General Synod meeting in July 2017, the CofE formally agreed to welcome and affirm transgender individuals, as part of Justin Welby’s agenda of ‘radical inclusion’. At the time, the Synod agreed merely to ‘consider’ how to go about this (official theological debates are not expected to conclude until 2020) and the idea of a new liturgy was later rejected. Now, somewhat confusingly, a guidance document has been released for clergy, adapting existing liturgy to mark gender transition.

Some are already claiming it to be compulsory, prompting calls for clarification from the House of Bishops, which produced the document in conjunction with three transgender vicars.¹

The guidance not only asks clergy to welcome transgender individuals ‘unconditionally’ into their congregations; it instructs them to celebrate gender transition with a special service conveying the Church’s blessing on the person’s new gender and new name. So the CofE now calls for transgenderism to be celebrated as part of our God-given human diversity!

Statements of opposition have been released from such as GAFCON and Synod member Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, who remarks that the guidance “continues the Church of England’s devastating trajectory towards an outright denial of God and his word”.

Indeed, it is difficult to see the document as anything else but another step towards – or off – a cliff from which there may be no possibility of return for Britain’s established Church.

Affirmation and Celebration

The guidance starts with the unequivocal statement: “The Church of England welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people, equally with all people, within the body of Christ, and rejoices in the diversity of that body into which all Christians have been baptized by one Spirit.”²

It goes on to make suggestions for services to mark gender transition, recommending readings and including advice for rites, gifts and certificates. There is no mention at all of the age of participants; one is left to assume that if you are old enough to be confirmed in the Church of England, you are old enough to change your gender and receive a formal blessing from your vicar.

The CofE now calls for transgenderism to be celebrated as part of our God-given human diversity!

At least there can be no allegations of obfuscating the issue: the CofE’s position is as plain as day and makes no attempt to concede anything to those who hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching on these matters.

As previously with the issue of homosexuality, Christian welcome and care are conceived of only in terms of affirmation and celebration, as if the former were not possible without the latter.

Unsurprisingly, then, the guidance omits mention of the deep psychological, physiological, emotional, social and spiritual issues which accompany transgenderism and which – one would think – would be of central importance to address in ‘pastoral’ guidance to clergy seeking to discharge proper care for their congregants. Only last month, a tortured trans person wrote to The Telegraph in protest of the Government’s proposals to make transition easier, saying “I would not want others considering such drastic, irreversible action to end up like me, lost in a twilight world of fear and loneliness.”³

In its celebratory stance, the guidance rejects any sense that change may be necessary, as it is with everyone - not in order to come to Christ but as the only possible consequence of receiving Christ - as unfair, unequal and un-Christian. It therefore leaves by the wayside that part of the Gospel which involves repentance, turning away from ungodly lifestyles and being set free from the power of sin to live a completely new life of righteousness, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Hijacking Baptism

Except that, oddly enough, that part of the Gospel isn’t left by the wayside entirely. Instead, it is inverted and appropriated, particularly through the hijacking of the concept of baptism, which the guidance document recommends that clergy reference as part of their celebration services.

Baptism is commended to unbaptised transgender individuals as the “natural liturgical context for recognizing and celebrating their identity in Christ and God’s love for them”. Those who have already been baptised are encouraged to re-affirm their commitment under their new name, with the sprinkling of water and the use of anointing oil.

Our established Church is misappropriating one of the deepest and most profound symbolic acts God has given humankind.

The guidance states that “it is important not to give the impression of a second baptism”, since baptism is a statement of faith in Christ and should only be done once. However, its mere referencing as part of marking gender transition confuses the issue of identity and implies strongly that transition should be viewed as a profound spiritual step worthy of public celebration; even as comparable with/part of receiving ‘new life’ in Christ: “In the journey of a trans person this liturgy will probably constitute a watershed in their Christian discipleship.”

So, our established Church is misappropriating one of the deepest and most profound symbolic acts God has given humankind, not only to mark something other than Christian conversion (that alone is deeply disturbing) but to affirm practices and lifestyles which the Bible clearly teaches are part of our fallen nature and sinful world – things that should be shed upon receiving Christ.

The depth of this perfidy is difficult to verbalise. Theologian Ian Paul argues, “not only is [baptism] central to Christian understandings of initiation and discipleship, baptism actually enacts bodily death and bodily resurrection in the immersion in and coming up out of the water. We tamper with these foundational understandings at our peril…Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.⁴

Inverting the Gospel

As part of their services, clergy are encouraged to offer individuals some kind of written commemoration, like a certificate or an inscribed Bible, to mark the occasion – using their new name and preferred gender pronoun, of course.

Outrageously, the guidance actually tries to justify this biblically, saying “It should be noted that the giving or adoption of a new name has a long history in the Judeo-Christian tradition as may be evidenced from Scripture.” Later, passages such as the changing of Sarai’s name to Sarah, or Jacob’s name to Israel, are recommended for use in the service.

It would be laughable if it were not so awful. Again, we see transgenderism not only being celebrated, but being made equivalent to a life-changing spiritual milestone - even to the biblical concept of leaving behind one’s former life as part of Godly spiritual transformation.

This amounts to little more than a hijacking of Christianity to serve transgender ideology, in a barefaced inversion of the Gospel that should be untenable to any believing CofE member – congregation or clergy.

Heaping Judgment Upon Itself

Caught up in all this, of course, are well-meaning members of the CofE who are trying avidly to avoid a Christianity that forces people with gender confusion to suffer in silence or feel rejected by God. But responding with a Christianity that sanctions and encourages this confusion (and all the demonic life upheavals to which, unchecked, it can lead) as somehow a normal expression of being made in God’s image, to be embraced and celebrated as part of a faithful Christian life, is simply abusive of those who are suffering, who are in desperate need of God’s loving rescue. It is not real love and it is not true Christianity.

This ill-conceived ‘guidance’ document goes beyond a poor understanding of Scripture to an inexcusable warping of the Gospel, affirming practices which deny and deface God’s beautiful, deliberate creation of man and woman: even deigning to call these practices biblical. Truly, the CofE is calling good evil and evil good.

This guidance document goes beyond a poor understanding of Scripture to an inexcusable warping of the Gospel.

It is a frightening fulfilment of Romans 1:32, that “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (my emphasis).

The CofE is harming the vulnerable and heaping judgment upon itself – as is already evident from its plummeting membership and deep divisions. And the unbelieving world justifiably heaps contempt on its pathetic attempts to curry favour.

Thankfully, it is the Lord’s responsibility to sort out this dire situation. Nevertheless, believing Christians can at least defend those ministries who support people trying to escape and recover from LGBTQ+ lifestyles, as well as ‘dissenting’ clergy who take a stand against the prevailing direction of the Synod. God help us all.

References

1 See the official press release for more information.

2 Read the guidance document here.

3 Read the full letter on this page.

4 Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome. Blog post, 13 December 2018.

Catharine Pakington reviews ‘The New Normal: The Transgender Agenda’ by Dr Lisa Nolland et al (2018, Wilberforce Publications).

‘The New Normal’ aims to help the Church face changing attitudes to gender and sexuality, being a follow-up to the November 2016 conference of the same name.¹

Since then, the campaign for ‘transgender rights’ has gathered pace with bewildering intensity but the Church seems to be largely ‘missing in action’. Theresa May has now launched the delayed consultation on removing safeguards to legally ‘change sex’. How will Christians respond?

Informative and Practical

This book is a vital tool to inform those willing to engage with the issue through the experienced contributors who have researched the background, development and implications of the movement. From the preface onwards, the reader is challenged to act on practical suggestions rather than be a passive observer. But as one author says, “we cannot know how to respond to something unless we first know what that something is”.

The 11 contributors come from backgrounds of theology, medicine, philosophy, sociology and literature to produce a work divided into two halves: ‘Other LGBT Issues’ helps to understand the context for ‘The Transgender Agenda’ and includes the personal experience of those who grew up with same-sex parenting and the abusive atmosphere of the LGBT movement.

It is shocking to read of the intensity of abuse faced by those who dare to resist or expose the lengths that this community will go to, whether against children or academics doing sound research.

This book is a vital informative tool, from experienced contributors who have researched the background, development and implications of the transgender movement.

Building a Comprehensive Picture

Chapters are naturally written in different styles, being the work of different authors. All are thought-provoking and worth reading while varying in accessibility, with some being more academic and others speaking more from personal experience. Together they build a picture by seeking answers to deep questions (although unbiased evidence may be hard to find). Why is it that this agenda is becoming the ‘new normal’ when a large proportion of the population in this secular society is not comfortable with it?

As Britain’s Christian foundations have weakened, individualism and demand for personal rights have grown. Laws are changed with concern for costly litigation under European directives without considering the impact on children and families, schools, healthcare, the integrity of official data and so many other areas of our society.

The final chapter, written by a literary critic, looks for evidence that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ (in the words of key LGBTQ+ authors) but finds graphic descriptions of negative upbringing and expectations and abusive sexual relations that result in individuals ‘turning gay’. These examples reveal confusion in the LGBTQ+ movement and are useful for that purpose but you may not wish to dwell on them.

Clearing the Fog

Definitions for terms are given but the book also highlights the difficulty in defining ‘gender identity’ in law when a fluid, chosen state of mind is being regarded as a more trustworthy indicator of identity than sex, a fixed, biological characteristic.

Is sex reassignment surgery even a proper medical procedure if the aim of medicine is to restore body faculties to their proper function or prevent dysfunction? Is it morally permissible? Yet we live in times when it is increasingly unacceptable to suggest that gender identity should be brought into line with biological truth.

All the chapters thought-provoking and worth reading while varying in accessibility, with some being more academic and others speaking more from personal experience.

The great confusion over defining terms such as ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ has been enough to create a fog that disables opposition. Can we recognise the lies perpetuated through the history of the movement that are promoted with such virulence in the Western world today? As we seek truth, we need to be prepared to support gender-conflicted people who come to us needing compassion and empathy while we hold to the biblical teaching that God created mankind in his image, male and female.

The book was launched with the view that the transgender movement could collapse if more people were prepared to challenge it, because it is so contrary to truth and science.² Be informed by reading the book, follow up with suggested websites, encourage others including church leaders and politicians to engage and, above all, pray.

‘The New Normal’ (211pp) is available on Amazon for £9.99 (paperback) or £5.99 (Kindle).

References

1 Christian Concern has created an online hub of resources to accompany the conference, available here.

2 Click here for coverage of the book's launch.

Full list of Contributors: Lisa S Nolland, Carys Moseley, Carlos D Flores, Robert Oscar Lopez, James D Lopez, Daniel Moody, John Nolland, Peter Saunders, Rick Thomas, Julia Gasper, Brittany Klein. As listed in the book cover.

Has the glory departed from the Church of England?

A great tragedy has befallen the Church of England, whose Synod (parliament) has just completed a session in the ancient city of York. It could well be argued that, as a result of decisions made there, the lights have gone out and the glory has departed.

Having already conveyed mixed messages on sexual ethics and failed to rule out ‘marriage’ for same-sex couples, the body has now voted to provide special services designed to mark a person’s gender transition. And the Archbishop of York has effectively rejected the authority of the Bible.

When a motion called for politicians to “prioritise the common good of all people”, synod member Andrea Williams proposed an amendment inserting the words “as revealed in the Bible and taught by the church”.

She spoke of the need for the Bible to inform our understanding of the common good and proposed a further amendment calling for the protection of life, the promotion of marriage and family and the maintenance of Christian freedoms.

Bishop John Sentamu. See Photo Credits.But both amendments were rejected, with Archbishop of York John Sentamu replying: "If you’re going to serve the whole community, please don’t limit our language…The Word became flesh and sadly we are now making it Word, Word and Word again. Resist the amendments."¹

Conforming to the World

In an interview with Premier Radio, Andrea said it was “unkind – not gracious – to leave people in their sin,” adding that the Church had merely reflected the world and its standards by ingratiating herself to man’s demands, which of course flies in the face of St Paul’s teaching against being conformed to the world’s pattern of thinking (Rom 12:2).

She said she was “so upset at the lack of witness to the truth, beauty and glory of the gospel,” which was a message of healing, hope and transformation, adding that “Jesus welcomes us just as we are, but doesn’t leave us where we are.”

She said it was possible that the Church of England’s mission to the nation had been irreparably damaged, and that it was “absolutely shocking” that the Archbishops had failed to give a lead on the subject.²

Andrea Williams' amendment recognising the authority of the Bible was rejected.

Indeed, we are urged by Jude, Jesus’ half-brother, “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3). As Sam Gordon puts it in his new book, Cuckoos in the Nest (Christian Year Publications), “It is the written Word of God that he is focusing on. It is the truth of God, penned by men of God, under the control and illumination of the Spirit of God, for all the people of God.”

He goes on: “This truth has not been thought up by a handful of people sitting in a committee room…it has come from God. It is the good news that the holy God has revealed and made known to man…It has come from heaven.”

The Glory Has Departed

Andrea had earlier reminded the Synod of how, 64 years ago, the Queen had assented to a Coronation Oath acknowledging the Bible as “the most valuable thing that this world affords”. Clearly, its value has significantly diminished among today’s bishops.

However, most of the world’s 70 million Anglicans neither live, nor worship, in England – and the Synod’s latest suicide pact is unlikely to bring the whole house down because most of our African brothers, for whom many British missionaries gave their lives, will have no truck with it. And despite the diabolical vote, neither will a significant minority of C of E clergymen.

It is possible that the Church of England’s mission to the nation has been irreparably damaged.

One of them, a vicar known to me, told of a harrowing experience which conveyed to him that the lights had gone out in the Church of England, and the glory of the Lord had departed.

“At the very time the transgender vote was being passed, I was leading communion and in the middle of the consecration prayer when an altar candle went out. And it was in a glass container, so it was not blown out by a breeze.

“At the next service at another of my churches, when I was talking about the state of the nation, I noticed that none of the altar candles had been lit, which was highly unusual as the person in charge is so vigilant – and worse still, I saw petals and leaves from a large display of flowers suddenly fall to the floor!³ I was so overwhelmed that I cried and, at that moment, the Lord said to me, ‘Ichabod – the glory of the Lord has departed!’

“In 1 Samuel 4.21, the boy Ichabod was so-called because he was born after the capture of the Ark of God by the Philistines. In the same way, it would seem, God’s presence has left an institution whose leaders have denied his glory and his unchanging word.”

A Profound History…But What Future?

Jesus warned the early Christians at Ephesus that he would remove their lamp-stand if they did not recover their first love for him (Rev 2:5), and conveyed dire warnings of intense suffering to those in the church at Thyatira who tolerated teaching which leads to sexual immorality (Rev 2:20).

Far from being merely the result of Henry VIII’s pique at the Pope’s refusal to grant him a divorce, the C of E was largely a product of the Protestant Reformation – as can be attested by its thoroughly biblical ‘39 Articles’. As such, she has served this country – and indeed the world at large – with great distinction.

Christianity across the globe has been profoundly shaped by figures such as John Wesley, William Wilberforce, Bishop J C Ryle and John Stott, and the Church’s sons and daughters have taken the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

Historically, the C of E has served the world with great distinction – but a light has undoubtedly been snuffed out.

I owe a great debt to my own Anglican background, which was steeped in a biblical liturgy that proved a strong foundation when I finally put my personal trust in Christ. At All Souls, Langham Place, in London’s West End I was thoroughly grounded in the scriptures and even now I am proud to be associated with the Church’s Ministry among Jewish people, an Anglican society dedicated to the spiritual re-birth of Israel.

But a light has undoubtedly been snuffed out, and maybe God is calling those who refuse to bow the knee to Baal to “come out from among them”? As St Paul asks in this context, “What fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14-17).

References

1 Christian Concern, 7 July 2017.

2 Premier Christian Radio, 10 July 2017.

3 “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.” (Isa 40:8)

The new wave of feminism is nothing to do with love, life or liberation.

On Wednesday of next week (8 March), it will be International Women’s Day.

Coinciding with this, some 673 protest marches are being planned in cities around the world – 35 countries have expressed interest so far – and a ‘general strike’ is being called, that women everywhere might express their resentment about inequality by walking out of their jobs and onto the street, placards held high. It’s being called ‘A Day Without a Woman’.

This strike and the marches are the latest in an apparent ‘new wave’ of feminist activism since Trump took the US presidency – though actually it started before this and elsewhere, with protests against gender violence in Argentina and a mass revolt in Poland against a proposed abortion ban.

But, as with the many other increasingly militant manifestations of liberal protest, this new wave of feminist demonstration deserves some closer analysis.

Boycotting What?

So, what is Wednesday’s march all about?

Last month, several prominent female academics and activists introduced ‘A Day Without a Woman’ in The Guardian, as “a day of striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work, boycotting, calling out misogynistic politicians and companies, striking in educational institutions.”¹

The article presents a stirring call to women to stand up against wage inequalities, job insecurity and male violence. It seems attractive at first – indeed, for many decades the feminist movement has been inviting, even for Christian women. It is hard to argue against recognising the contribution that women make to national economies, or the need to protest against domestic violence.

A new wave of increasingly militant feminist activism is beginning.

However, there is more to it than this. Further down the manifesto, the group ally themselves with a “new, more expansive feminist movement” that not only protests the usual inequalities, but also radically pushes the LGBT agenda and rails against “xenophobic immigration policies”.²

The National Review criticises the planned demonstrations as representing “a standard, vague list of clichéd left-wing hobbyhorses, not a principled protest engaging current policy problems.”³

So what is really going on – and why are these protests being described as more ‘militant’⁴ than ever before?

Behind the Scenes

Co-organisers of Wednesday’s march (the US variant) include Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who spent 10 years in prison for her part in two bombings of Israeli students, and Angela Davis, former leader of the Communist Party USA and long-time supporter of the violent Black Panther movement. This kind of leadership alone suggests that more is going on here than merely a groundswell of popular concern for the welfare of women.

Despite this, the campaign is being presented in a very positive, accessible light. The website is pleasant to look at (with more than a hint of pink in the colour scheme – surely not!) and encourages women to join a movement happening “In the same spirit of love and liberation that inspired the Women's March” of January.⁵

The problem with this statement is that it’s simply not true; news coverage of the January march made it clear that it was far from loving and liberating – from Madonna’s virulent and vulgar speech to the hate and rejection directed at pro-life women trying to join the proceedings. In fact, it rapidly became clear that only one brand of feminism is welcome in this new ‘movement’: that which accepts ultra-left-wing attitudes towards life and liberty.

There is more going on here than merely a groundswell of popular concern for the welfare of women.

It should come as no surprise, then, that one quarter of the feminist groups that took part in the January march owe some $90 million in funding to ultra-left-wing billionaire George Soros.⁶ Soros, a former Clinton supporter, is well-known for using his fortune to fund groups around the world that promote (among other things) abortion, the destruction of biblical gender roles and relations, and the globalist vision of broken-down national borders, too often by seeding anarchic protests.

Selective Campaigning

Women's march in Washington, January 2017. See Photo Credits.So, despite appearances, these protests are not just popping out of the ground spontaneously, but represent some deeper and more insidious agendas. Meanwhile, back on the surface, the fact that these agendas fail to translate into genuine concern for women is drawing accusations of hypocrisy.

For instance, commentators are lamenting that thousands of women are somehow being mobilised to shout about perceived gender inequalities in the Western world (where women have more freedoms and opportunities than anywhere else on earth) whilst completely ignoring situations of far worse oppression elsewhere (e.g. much of the Middle East, where women are prohibited from walking unaccompanied down a street, for example).

Instead, critics are suggesting, the feminism currently taking to our streets seeks to stir up anger amongst thousands of normal and well-meaning citizens, against vague and easily warped ideas of ‘oppression’, whilst turning a blind eye to genuine issues of real inequality.

In other words, it seems more concerned with fomenting anarchy than with solving real problems.

LGBT Agenda

As such, these marches and protests are not the place to go if you’re looking for a constructive definition of femininity or womanhood. In fact, the entire movement fails to offer a concrete, helpful vision for what being a woman actually means – largely because it isn’t concerned with that.

The Guardian manifesto pitches the movement as “anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-heterosexist and anti-neoliberal”⁷ – but this long list of ‘antis’ revealingly leaves out any ‘fors’. The entire movement is negative and destructive - and as such, risks leaving women feeling confused about what they are actually fighting for.

However, a key part of what the campaign is really for is hidden in the term ‘anti-heterosexist’, above. Rather than being about the welfare of all women, regardless of sexual orientation, this campaign is more about pushing LGBT ‘rights’ and challenging heterosexual norms, in the guise of protest against ‘gender oppression’.

The campaign is less about the welfare of all women and more about pushing LGBT rights.

The manifesto deliberately pitches the purposes of Wednesday’s strike and marches as “to mobilize women, including trans women, and all who support them in an international day of struggle”.⁸

This positions the whole movement as part of the much bigger sexual revolution that has been going on since the 1960s, seeking to ‘liberate’ people from the perceived ‘shackles’ of heteronormativity - that is, the established, biblical norms of heterosexual family life. In other words, it is simply the latest manifestation of revolt against the boundaries set by God, in direct rebellion against our Creator.

Don’t be fooled by the use of Donald Trump as a focus for anger and protest on Wednesday. This is not one bit about Trump – it’s about God.

Ugly Anarchy

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I believe this entire movement is actually satanic in origin, because it involves such clear and orchestrated rebellion against biblical principles. Personally, I am delighted that God made me female – but I am equally passionate about promoting his vision for womanhood (and all that this entails, including femininity, sexuality, marriage, motherhood), not the morally relative vision of postmodern feminism, which is already a long way down a very slippery slope.

Whilst thousands of women are being mobilised by vague talk of ‘inequality’ and ‘injustice’, inspired to march by a confusing mixture of causes, by its fruits shall this new movement be known. Nobody is being ‘liberated’ by the protests, which are increasingly angry, vulgar and violent. They seem to be more of a Trojan horse for anti-establishment anarchy than for genuine democratic protest – the enemy thrashing his tail, as we noted last week.

But the word says “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21).

The latest 'feminist' protests are a Trojan horse for anti-establishment anarchy, not genuine democratic protest.

What Can We Do?

It’s time for Christians everywhere – men and women – to turn to the word and ask God to open our eyes afresh to a positive, scriptural definition of femininity and womanhood (and masculinity and manhood!). It is this biblical vision alone that can offer a living, breathing, soul-quenching alternative to modern feminism.

If you were considering joining the strike on Wednesday (apparently 15 cities and towns in the UK will host a march of some kind), I would urge you to abstain – and perhaps instead to consider hosting some kind of alternative event in the near future, to help others near you explore the Lord’s vision for the two genders.

Let’s also respond to the ‘new wave’ of feminism with a ‘new wave’ of prayer. Today happens to be the Women’s World Day of Prayer, and women (and men) all around the world will be gathering to hold a special service celebrating God’s creation of women and thanking him for his blessings.

Why not use this as a reminder to pray over Wednesday’s marches: that they will fail to foment violence, and actually cause disillusionment amongst women, prompting them to question what they are getting involved with and the kind of vision for gender, sexuality, life and liberty that it promotes. Pray that God will turn the enemy’s plans for good.

References

1 Alcoff, LM, Arruzza, C, Bhattacharya, T et al. Women of America: we're going on strike. Join us so Trump will see our power. The Guardian, 6 February 2017.

2 Ibid.

3 Wilhelm, H. The embarrassing confusion of the 'women's strike'. The National Review, 22 February 2017.

4 See note 1.

5 Women's March website.

6 Soros gave $90m to feminist anti-Trump protest groups. Liberty Headlines, 17 January 2017.

7 See note 1.

8 See note 1.