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.

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘One Flesh’ by Peter Sammons (2012).

This very readable and accessible book sets out the biblical perspective on marriage and male-female relationships generally. Taking its title from Genesis 2:24 (which Jesus endorses in Matthew 19:5), the main theme is the uniting of the two genders according to God’s purposes.

The author’s aim is for his readers to get “a clearer idea of how God wants them to live out their lives as regards the opposite sex”, adding that “we will see some pitfalls to avoid and discover some principles which, if adopted, will help us to make good and healthy choices for the way we live our lives and with whom we share them” (p12).

This is no starry-eyed approach to what can be a difficult topic, both in theory and in practice. Living ‘happily ever after’ may be the hope and dream but reality is often very different, and the author is well aware of the hurts and disappointments that can occur in the pursuit of one of life’s main blessings. He tackles very sensitively the risks and rewards of entering into marriage and explains well the enormous responsibilities that such a lifelong commitment carries with it.

This is no starry-eyed approach to what can be a difficult topic.

Soul Mates?

One interesting point is where he discusses the modern idea of a soul mate. Sammons asserts that “the Bible in no place so much as hints at such an idea” (p48). He adds that this concept owes much to the New Age movement and actually has pagan roots. He states that Scripture “gives us no indication at all that there is only one person in all eternity that we might marry”, which he describes as “extremely liberating” (p48). In principle, happiness can be found with any one of many people, if both partners are prepared to work at building a life together. It should be added, however, that the author is clear that once a marriage takes place, there is then only one partner while each is alive.

One good section of the book is the account of the ‘true love story’ of Isaac and Rebecca, from which the author draws several godly principles.

Further scriptural passages given lengthy treatments include the romance between Ruth and Boaz and, inevitably perhaps, the Song of Songs. In these cases the author brings out the clear distinction between the Hebraic mindset on such matters and that portrayed by Greek thinkers, such as Plato and Augustine, which has so influenced Western culture.

The Definition and Purpose of Marriage

It is not until we get halfway through the book that the author attempts a biblical definition of marriage (too lengthy to quote here), the main point being to contrast it with a legal dictionary definition (even lengthier!) where it is called a contract rather than the more biblically accurate description of marriage as a covenant.

Interestingly, Sammons asserts that the first task of marriage is to banish loneliness, and only of secondary significance is that it enables a man and woman to join with God in the process of creation of new life.

Legally marriage is a contract, but the more biblically accurate description of marriage is a covenant.

Also at this halfway point, we are given a fuller understanding of the meaning of ‘one flesh’ which is too often assumed to refer primarily, or even exclusively, to sexual union. Sammons suggests the phrase in Genesis means much more, namely “to become a single functioning unit that draws its strength from itself. Being one flesh entails the complete identification of one personality with the other in a community of interests and pursuits, a union that is consummated in the act of physical unity” (p93). Much to ponder there!

Tricky Issues

As well as explaining the ‘leaving and cleaving’ aspect of becoming ‘one flesh’, the author also touches on the related topics of singleness and polygamy. Furthermore, he does not shirk the tricky issues of male headship, cohabitation and divorce, all of which he approaches with sensitivity yet firm convictions. It is also pleasing to note that he has stern words for those who promote sexual experimentation under the guise of sex education.

Boy meets girl – it happens all the time. But then what? Writers and musicians down the centuries have depicted many scenarios that could follow, often with less-than-happy consequences. The Bible never claims that marriage is easy, or that it will be a bed of thornless roses. But, Sammons believes, “the genius of marriage is that it provides a wonderful medium for love to grow…love is not so much the basis for marriage, but rather marriage is the basis for love” (p162).

Sexual sin may or may not be the worst form of sin, but its consequences can be more far-reaching than most. In this area of life, as in all others, Christians will want to live by godly standards but, as Sammons points out, “we are up against a powerful alliance of enemies: our own natural inclinations, the propaganda of the world, and the propaganda of the devil” (p101-102). We will have a better chance to stand against ‘the world, the flesh and the devil’ after reading this book.

One Flesh (171 pages, Glory to Glory Publications) is available from the publisher for £9.99 inc. P&P, or for free as a downloadable e-book. Also available on Amazon.

What underlies the BBC's efforts to re-shape British culture?

Last week we commented on the BBC’s deliberate promotion of the transgender element of the LGBT agenda. This week, Dr Clifford Hill offers a biblical-sociological framework for understanding just why the BBC is trying to reshape society to fit these values.

*****

The Apostle Paul was way ahead of his time in teaching principles that are in accord with the modern discipline of Sociology, whose founding fathers (such as Durkheim and Weber) were early 20^th Century scholars. Paul perceptively outlined a five-stage theory of social change in his letter to the Romans, written from prison in Caesarea, around the year AD 60.

Paul had travelled widely across the Roman Empire and was a keen observer of human nature. He had lived for several years in the city of Ephesus with its fertility cults and sex symbols in full view of the public – the relics of which can still be seen by visitors today. He had experienced an incredible amount of hardship and suffering through pursuing his missionary zeal. He described some of his travel experiences:

I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea…I have laboured and toiled and often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Cor 11:23-27)

But whilst being an intrepid traveller, Paul was also no mean scholar who ably debated with the Greek philosophers in Athen’s famous Areopagus. Paul brought his vast resources of knowledge and experience to focus upon the forces of social change that he perceived to be at work in the Roman Empire, that would inevitably lead to the decline and fall of that great empire.

He wrote about this in the opening chapter of his weighty theological treatise to the Christians in Rome. Luther, when a professor in the University of Wittenberg, declared Romans to be the greatest book in the Bible. It sets out Paul’s mature thinking about the current condition of humanity in the context of God’s eternal purposes.

Romans 1 sets out Paul’s mature thinking about the condition of humanity in the context of God’s eternal purposes.

Paul’s Analysis of the Forces of Social Change (Romans 1:18-32)

Stage 1 (verses 18-21): Paul begins with a statement that human beings in rebellion against God deliberately become involved in the leading of society astray from fundamental truth rooted in God’s principles and good design. Paul says that when people suppress the truth about Creation, they are at beginning of a slippery slope towards the degradation of hearts and minds. In other words, once you deny the central truth of the existence of the God of Creation (which can be understood clearly by all human beings), you open the way to the whole gamut of forces of social and moral corruption. Every true perspective on life becomes warped. Paul’s teaching is that once you reject the truth you automatically come under the sway of the forces of darkness.

Stage 2 (verses 22-23, 25): The second stage in the degradation of society comes when human beings pass from the denial of the God of Creation into idolatry. Paul recognises that all human beings have an innate tendency to worship something or someone. Once the basic truths of Creation are denied, people seek alternatives and find them in bits of wood and stone or anything created by human hands – which they worship.

Modern forms of this idolatry include worship of wealth and property (just consider the preponderance of TV programmes about finding the perfect house – e.g. seeking A Place in the Sun or Location, Location, Location - plus our worship of cars which we fondly clean and polish, the jewellery we wear, the fashions we parade and the wealth we own). They also include worship of people – including celebrity cults or the adoration of self. In our era, the individual is now god.

Stage 3 (verse 24): The third stage in this social change is the relaxation of personal and corporate morality, when we begin to cheat on our partners. In Romans 1 the emphasis is on sexual desire, but cheating can extend to every area of life (e.g. finances, relationships, legal responsibilities). We abandon standards of truth and integrity and we worship our bodies and our “sinful desires”.

Stage 4 (verses 26-27): The fourth stage is where human beings are no longer content with simply indulging their God-given sexual desires but “[exchange] natural relations for unnatural ones”. Paul describes this delicately: “men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another”.

Stage 5 (verses 28-32): The fifth and final stage in the corruption of society, Paul says, is God giving people over to “a depraved mind”. This is a vital stage and a tipping point – a point at which society has deliberately refused and rejected God’s efforts to rescue them to such an extent that God gives them over to their chosen course of rebellion, allowing them to become completely enslaved and deceived by it. He does not necessarily abandon them to this forever – but it is by far the more painful road for humans to walk, and many can be lost forever as a result.

Human beings in rebellion against God deliberately become involved in the leading of society astray from fundamental truth.

Brainwashing and Reversal of Truth

In national terms, this means the whole mindset of society becoming warped through being brainwashed with false teaching. This includes the deliberate injection of false values into our children – the calculated, strategic changing of society by social engineering to make everyone conform to a false ideology. This is what happened in Germany in the 1930s, when the majority of the population accepted the Nazis’ ideology of a super race, and acquiesced to the murder of 6 million Jews.

Social engineering produces human minds so corrupted that they completely abandon the whole concept of ‘truth’– in fact they reverse truth. In the words of the Prophet Isaiah:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isa 5:20)

Paul says that at this stage in the corruption of society, the mindset of humanity is so degraded that people can no longer recognise the truth and are no longer aware of the forces of evil that are driving them towards destruction. He says:

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice…They invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Paul sees this as the final degradation of humanity leading to what we would describe today as a ‘dysfunctional society’ – or the end of civilisation.

Paul’s analysis is sociologically sound, though written c.2000 years ago. It is a timeless way of understanding any society – no matter what culture, geographical location or place in history. It would be interesting to take a poll of a cross-section of the population in Britain today asking which stage in this framework of social change we have reached.

What is your assessment?

Author: Dr Clifford Hill

Photo Credits: Wikimedia Commons / CC BY 2.0

Dr Clifford Hill reflects on the BBC's social engineering agenda.

What is the BBC doing? Last night they broadcast an hour-long piece of pernicious propaganda purporting to be a serious documentary called 'Transgender Kids'.¹

As a documentary giving serious consideration to the subject it was a total flop – it was neither informative nor interesting. But it was very revealing about the BBC's clear agenda to change the moral values of the nation.

There were very few children actually featured in the programme and their stories were interspersed with long speeches from so-called 'experts' on what was described as 'gender dysphoria'.

The programme was all about what's happening in Canada - the only mention of the UK came in the last few minutes, when the commentators were trying to persuade viewers that gender dysphoria is now a worldwide issue with expansive statements about the need for "gender affirmation" being universal! The implication was that children all over the world are clamouring to change their sex. But there were no hard facts or statistics given to back up these sweeping claims.

Canada Leading the Way

Two or three children spoke about their experiences and the experts said that children as young as two or three can express unhappiness about their gender. In Canada they are treated in a Toronto clinic which practises "developmentally affirmative therapy".

They prescribe gender-blocking drugs to children to delay the onset of puberty and when they become teenagers, if they still want to change gender, they can proceed to sex-reassignment surgery. The programme admitted that 88% of boys, when reaching this stage, do not proceed but decide to stay with their birth gender.

In Canada, 'gender dysphoric' children are treated with gender-blocking drugs before being offered sex-reassignment surgery.

The stories of the girls who wanted to be boys were mixed in with scenes of gay pride marches and placard-waving transgender adults, leaving the distinct impression that the whole so-called 'documentary' was just a cover for LGBT propaganda.

Again, there were no statistics given to show how widespread it is for children to express unhappiness about their gender. The statements from parents certainly did not give confidence that the adults in these children's lives had shown wisdom in their counselling.

A Global Phenomenon?

A major object of the programme appeared to be to give the impression that clinics around the world are flooded with children wanting to change their gender. It implied that this is a universal phenomenon that requires a major attitudinal change among parents and teachers to be able to identify the so-called 'classic symptoms', so that publicly-funded 'gender affirmative treatment' can be universally available.

Many of the statements made in the programme were anecdotal rather than evidence based research data to support the views of the 'experts'. But there were a number of times when the transgender slogans about "the new normal" were slipped into the script which revealed the real purpose of the so-called 'documentary' - blatant social engineering.

It is sad that the LGBT community are going to such lengths to try to convince the public that their lifestyle is "normal". Clearly, they recognise that it is not normal and that is why they are campaigning to change the definition of 'normal' to 'new normal'!

The programme gave the impression that this is a universal phenomenon that requires major attitudinal change.

Imposing A Different Value System

Those caught in or choosing a homosexual or transgender lifestyle have every right to pursue this course for their lives – although what a Christian response to this looks like is obviously a controversial topic worthy of much discussion and prayer.

What I object to is the values promoted by the LGBT lobby being imposed forcibly on the rest of society as is apparently being advocated by Dame Louise Casey, the Government's 'integration' czar. In a recent speech to a select committee in the House of Commons, she labelled church schools who support traditional marriage as "homophobic". The BBC appears to be participating in this campaign of social engineering to change our national attitude to family, marriage, love and gender away from God's original design.

In Britain, we already have laws protecting minority groups from discrimination - our so-called 'hate laws' are there for this very purpose. In a civilised society, it is right that we should respect the rights of minority groups; but it is not right that the BBC (as our national broadcaster) should use its power at prime time to broadcast a blatant piece of social engineering - such as the 'Transgender Kids' programme last night.

Postscript: Clearly this is not just a social issue which is part of the natural movement of change that occurs from one generation to the next, reflecting changes in technology and living conditions. What is happening here is a deliberate attempt to change the foundational values and beliefs of our society, which are rooted in our understanding of Creation, the nature of existence and the health and well-being both of individuals and society as a whole. These are essentially 'spiritual' concepts that we will be examining in greater depth in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we value comments from our readers.

Dr Lisa Nolland reports on an up-coming conference tackling sexuality and gender from a biblical perspective.

Many Christians and other social conservatives are becoming concerned by the LGBT rights takeover in the public (including religious) realms in the West. For increasing numbers of children, this social engineering is becoming embedded in the classroom.

Even Christian teachers are needing to 'explain' how two men or two women can now marry, leading children as young as seven or eight to start to believe that they are 'gay' because they too 'love' their same-sex best friend. Of course they do, but that doesn't mean they are gay!

The Church seems to be wanting to sit this one out, hoping against hope that things will return to normal. Sadly, of course, not only is that not going to happen, but indeed, the activists have only just begun! 'Stage Two' is that of totalitarian enforcement: just look at Canada to see how (in)'tolerant' it is now in places.¹

Silent Church

The average person does not begin to know how to navigate these minefields. Christian leaders of mainstream evangelical organisations in this country say very little, concentrating on politically correct or 'feel good' projects, or (like Archbishop Welby) wax lyrical about the needs of the LGBT communities. The very rare conservative 'extremist' willing to stand up for the truth is fined, fired or (at best) humiliated for making politically incorrect comments.

Mostly, however, the average Christian just wants to get on with life and the normal routines of family, work, etc. Even this, though, is increasingly difficult. Stonewall is in several hundred schools and it is only one of various LGBT programmes being pushed at the moment. With LGBT matters being pushed to the fore comes a turning up of the volume of all things sexual for children and teenagers.

Robbing Children

How do children know if they are gay or not? How can they find out if they are? As the excellent video Robbing children of their innocence notes, kids are tacitly encouraged to explore their sexuality in such programmes. That may or may not be the intention, but it is one of the outcomes. See for instance the subtexts of the 'sexual advice' on the highly-acclaimed, NHS-endorsed 'Respect Yourself' site for teenagers in Warwickshire.

Even more troubling is that such high risk and potentially life-altering sex acts as 'felching', 'fisting' and 'rimming' are whitewashed and tacitly promoted to under-age children.² This is complete madness - and yet few, if any, blow the whistle.

Being Prepared to Respond

Closer to home, though, how can one respond when your daughter tells you she is gay or your son insists he is a girl? What to do about the increasingly vociferous demands of Stonewall to 'make your school "safe"'? How about when your child comes home from a school RE session and asserts that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so loving gay relationships must be OK?

Messy Church, Alpha and Christianity Explored simply cannot do the necessaries here. What can help, though, is The 'New Normal', a Christian Concern conference in November which will engage at the cutting edge of these issues. We will have leading people in their fields coming to update and inform, educate and inspire us as to how parents, pastors and youth workers, in particular can respond.

Beyond Our Borders

We also are doing our bit for those in the developing world who are at the mercy of the activists. The Diocese of Machakos, Anglican Church of Kenya, has created a unique and holistic programme on sex and gender issues which we are thrilled to support in The 'New Normal'. A collection of used clothing, shoes, toiletries, bags and suitcases as well as money will be taken at the London conference.

Proceeds will help at-risk-kids, families, the church and wider community in Machakos, near Nairobi, Kenya. Currently, we are not aware of any other kind of response by any church anywhere. So we want to give Bishop Joseph every possible support. Funds from 'progressives' will be denied to him, so it is vital we do our bit!

The 'New Normal' conference will be held on 12 November 2016 at the Emmanuel Centre, London (10am-5pm). For the full programme and to book tickets, click here.

Lisa Nolland (MA, MCS, PhD) is Convenor of Anglican Mainstream's Marriage, Sex and Culture Group. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to email Lisa.

References

1 E.g. Van Maren, J. Transgender madness is sweeping our schools. Parents, protect your children. LifeSite News, 26 August 2016.

2 See the Respect Yourself website.

The American College of Pediatricians speaks out about the damage that politically correct gender ideology can do to children.

After Dr Lisa Nolland's article last week on the LGBT movement, today we quote at length from a statement made by the American College of Pediatricians (March 2016), which gives a professional medical perspective on the harm that gender ideology can do to children. You can read the full statement by clicking this link.

Originally posted March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016. Updated with Clarifications on April 6, 2016.

"The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: "XY" and "XX" are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child's subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as "feeling like the opposite sex" or "somewhere in between" do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.

3. A person's belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V). The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries. What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to "gender clinics" where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will "choose" a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

The bottom line: Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned. Specifically, they advise: affirmation of children's thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones.

There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging young GD children to impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. If a boy who questions whether or not he is a boy (who is meant to grow into a man) is treated as a girl, then has his natural pubertal progression to manhood suppressed, have we not set in motion an inevitable outcome? All of his same sex peers develop into young men, his opposite sex friends develop into young women, but he remains a pre-pubertal boy. He will be left psychosocially isolated and alone. He will be left with the psychological impression that something is wrong. He will be less able to identify with his same sex peers and being male, and thus be more likely to self identify as "non-male" or female.

Moreover, neuroscience reveals that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain which is responsible for judgment and risk assessment is not mature until the mid-twenties. Never has it been more scientifically clear that children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions.

For this reason, the College maintains it is abusive to promote this ideology, first and foremost for the well-being of the gender dysphoric children themselves, and secondly, for all of their non-gender-discordant peers, many of whom will subsequently question their own gender identity, and face violations of their right to bodily privacy and safety."

For the full statement with footnotes and explanations, click here.

Quoted with permission from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS). The ACPEDS website contains a wealth of scientific information and resources in defence of biblical principles regarding family, sexuality, health and life.

Dr Lisa Nolland, convenor of Anglican Mainstream's Marriage, Sex and Culture Group and a leading expert on gender issues, takes a critical look at the LGBT movement.

Have you noticed that the Sexual Revolution, beginning as it did in the 1960s, has unfolded in waves – each with its own specific focus?

The first wave involved 'liberating' sex from its previously close connections to traditional Judeo-Christian understandings of marriage, family and procreation.

The second wave has been about 'liberating' alternative sexualities (gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc) from the biblical structure of male/female relationships in God's created order. The third wave, which is happening right now, involves challenging the very idea of male and female through 'transgender' issues.

These are explosive topics, even within the Church – but as such, it is all the more vital to talk about them. Underneath all the arguments about rights, acceptance and love, the trend has clearly been towards the total breakdown of God's framework for gender and male/female relationships. This article presents a brief analysis of LGBT 'progress' in British culture and in the Church today and suggests some practical responses.

When Tolerance Becomes Intolerant

As Ecclesiastes notes, "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9). There have always been various 'alternative' forms of sexuality around. However, up until now, the majority population were not forced to endorse them or face punishment for bigotry by an increasingly vigilant state! This is a new and deeply pernicious development. Dissidents (as those who continue to hold to 'traditional' biblical structures for sex and relationships now are) must hope that they can keep a low profile or, if forcibly confronted about their beliefs, must either appease the establishment or suffer the consequences.

There have always been alternative forms of sexuality around. But up until now, the majority population weren't forced to endorse them or face punishment for bigotry!

In 2014, during the debates on same-sex 'marriage' (SSM), leading evangelical groups got behind the moderate campaign group Coalition for Marriage (C4M). It raised awareness about the nature and importance of marriage and collected almost 700,000 signatures against the SSM bill - a huge accomplishment. It also highlighted the frighteningly draconian aspects of the new politically correct culture of 'toleration'.

However, the downside of the C4M was its avoidance of several key but controversial aspects of SSM and the LGBT movement. For instance, in focusing on defending the biblical definition of marriage, C4M underplayed the unhealthy realities of gay sex and different relationship norms (eg Elton John's and David Furnish's 'open marriage'¹).

Crucially, it also failed to challenge the LGBT claim that sexuality is core to the human identity – i.e. that it is a defining part of who you are. This claim, which immediately transforms a challenge to someone's sexual practices into an assault on who that person is – is now undergirding the present pro-transgender movement (see below).

The Rainbow Flag over Britain

Many countries now have massive LGBT+ 'Pride' events. London's Pride lasts almost two weeks, backed by powerful businesses (e.g. Starbucks) and the Government (e.g. the Mayor of London).² Its goal: "Make London the best LGBT+ City in the World".³ Even the Church of England is getting involved: York Cathedral flew the Rainbow flag during 2015's Pride, while the Archbishop of Canterbury praised "just stunning" gay relationships and now publicly foregrounds the issues of "LGBTI people".⁴

Meanwhile, Stonewall's 'Education Champions' programme has now been rolled out in hundreds of schools.⁵ Mandatory 'literacy' programmes like CHIPS (involving mock-SSM ceremonies for 8-9 year olds and Pride promotion to slightly older children) and 'Pride in Primary' (its replacement) mean that increasing numbers of children are now being marinated in pro-LGBT teaching from nursery age onwards.⁶

So far, the Church has failed to challenge the LGBT claim that sexuality is core to the human identity - that it is a defining part of who you are.

Gay as the 'New Black'

C4M and other Christian leaders have so far failed to address the new ideology which is filtering into every British institution and which underpins gay rights advocacy. This ideology is most clearly articulated in Kirk and Madsen's seminal After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the 90s (1989). It is written by marketing and psychology gurus who miscalled only the timing:

The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color ... (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay)...And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. [emphasis in original, p184]⁷

The idea of being 'born gay' is foundational to the claim that sexual attraction is a core component of human identity – and therefore something that should not be challenged or criticised but celebrated.

Before this, homosexuality was widely considered to be a complex of sexual feelings and behaviours. But through this brilliant sleight of hand, homosexuality (and other politically correct sexual orientations and gender identities) is now included in 'protected' categories and perceived and treated as comparable to race. To object to this new definition is considered 'racist' and evil.

Not Born This Way

But the truth is that no-one is born gay. Identical twin studies demonstrate this (if one identical twin is gay, in most cases the other is not) - and even gay activists like Peter Tatchell and Julie Bindel admit it.⁸ The Royal College of Psychiatrists altered its statement on homosexuality originally submitted to the Church of England's Pilling Commission, conceding sexual 'orientation' is not set at birth, nor is it immutable.⁹ Lesbian psychologist Lisa Diamond's 'Sexuality is fluid: it's time to get past "born this way"' also makes this point (New Scientist, 22 July 2015).

Because this reasoning no longer holds up to scientific scrutiny, the claim of being 'born gay' is increasingly giving way to claims of sexual fluidity (as Diamond notes, above). Many report spontaneous change in sexual attraction/orientation which 'just happens'.¹⁰ This view is affirmed by 'ex-gays' who have experienced change through therapy.¹¹ Ex-gays exist even in the UK, though they tend to be closeted (the US is different, e.g. see the powerful clip of ex-gay voices and perspectives, Suchweresomeofyou.org).

The truth is that no-one is born gay. The assertion that they are does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Psychology and Sexual Orientation

From his work with over 900 clients, ex-gay therapist Floyd Godfrey understands homosexuality as the "sexualisation of emotional needs and wounds", à la Simone Weil's "all sins are attempts to fill voids".¹² Such attractions "will remain until the individual discovers the meaning of them and fulfils them in legitimate, non-sexual ways", according to another ex-gay therapist Christopher Doyle.¹³

Drivers of same-sex attraction frequently include early conditioning, perception and/or experience. There is no one easy explanation - but then, there never is in the world of psychology. However, it is important to acknowledge that same-sex attraction is often a fruit of an underlying emotional issue. To ignore this, says ex-transgender activist Walt Heyer, is unwise and (regarding children specifically) could even be tantamount to abuse.¹⁴

It is not the purpose of this article to propose a solution to the sexuality crisis currently plaguing our nation – but it bears stating that it is vital that those battling unwanted same-sex attraction are able to access help and support.¹⁵ And yet, the current transgender campaign perceives this kind of support as offensive. But even if we use their own logic, that all individuals have a right to choose their gender identity from a rainbow of options, surely people then have the right (if desired) to identify with their biological birth gender, with its heterosexual physiology and function?

Some Practical Responses

The basic biblical truth that is in danger of being lost here is that God made human beings male and female as a central part of his creation. When we tamper with this truth, we put ourselves against God. Ultimately, if we are to recover this truth today, we need to hold out a different definition of identity: one which has our position as divinely created human beings, male and female, at its core, not sexual preference. At its heart, the gender crisis in this nation is precisely this: a crisis of lost identity.

So what can ordinary, Bible-believing Christians do in response? Here are a few suggestions.

1. Pray: for the mythology and damage to be exposed; for the many victims of the tyranny of political correctness; and that groups such as CORE will be able to help the increasing numbers of strugglers who want out of homosexuality.
2. Equip your Church: ask experts to address these issues and raise awareness in your church or fellowship.
3. Give: groups like the Christian Legal Centre are spending a small fortune defending the victims of political correctness in the UK now. Can you help?
4. Educate: discover what your children are being taught and get fully involved in their education; Lovewise has excellent resources. Safe at School is another great resource.
5. Disseminate: pass on helpful resources to your networks.
6. Sign Petitions: Sign petitions and ask your network to do the same, such as AFA's Boycott Target petition or CitizenGO's petition against the World Psychiatric Association's condemnation of therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction.
7. Attend Events: The Wilberforce Academy is one of the most cutting edge events for 20s and 30s in the UK, aiming to resource them to deal effectively with issues like this. Encourage students and young professionals to attend.

If you would like more information or are interested in greater involvement, please contact me. I run a group (below) which does this 24/7 and we are always interested in meeting 'like minds'.

Lisa S Nolland, MA MCS PhD (Bristol)

Convenor, Marriage, Sex and Culture Group, Anglican Mainstream

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

References

1 Cook, M. How Elton John has changed marriage. MercatorNet, 27 April 2016.

2 Capital gets ready for London Pride 2015, ITV News, 26 June 2015. See also Pride in London's What's On page for the plethora of LGBTI events around London alone.

3 See Pride in London's Pledge for politicians.

4 Archbishop speaks of challenge posed to Church by 'stunning' gay couples. Pink News, 21 March 2013. Also Welby sorry for Anglican 'hurt' to LGBT community. BBC News, 15 January 2016, and Mawhinney, R, Evangelism in an age of terror, homophobia and indifference: an interview with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, Christianity Today, 31 March 2016. Also private communication with Lambeth Palace, 22 April 2016.

5 See Stonewall's member list.

6 See Pride in Primary Education., also Gay and lesbian values to be taught in 36 primary schools in Birmingham. Birmingham Mail, 12 December 2014. For copies of CHIPs contact me (see below for details).

7 See online outline of After the Ball (pdf). Also commentary in The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media, MassResistance.org.

8 See Tatchell, P. Born Gay or Made Gay? Biology is not Destiny. Also Julie Bindel: You can choose to be gay - I choose to live my life as a lesbian. Pink News, 4 July 2014. See also Whitehead, NE, 2013. My Genes Made Me Do It! Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Click here for a synopsis. 

9 Royal College of Psychiatrists' statement on sexual orientation (pdf), April 2014.

10 Savin-Williams, RC and Ream, GL, 2007. Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components during Adolescence and Young Adulthood, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 36:385-394. Also Diamond, L, 2008. Female Bisexuality from Adolescence to Adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 44(1):5-14, and Diamond, 2015, above.

11 E.g. Schwab, J. Open letter to Psychology Today: You cannot ignore ex-gays that have changed! Voice of the Voiceless, 18 March 2015. Also Jones, SL and Yarhouse, MA. Honest Sex Science. First Things, October 2012 (though this cohort did not have proper psychotherapy, but engaged in religiously-mediated support group work to reduce their unwanted SSA).

12 Family Watch International. Understanding Same-Sex Attraction. Youtube, 17 November 2013.

13 Doyle, C. Hotel Homosexuality: Yes, you can check out, and leave. MercatorNet, 17 June 2015.

14 Smith, S. Ex Transgender: Parents who don't put their trans kids in psychotherapy are 'abusing' their children. Christian Post, 18 February 2016.

15 Dr Mike Davidson's CORE Issues Trust works with many such individuals.