Carl Trueman and Political Judgment

39 thoughts on “Carl Trueman and Political Judgment”

1. I agree with the central premise of the article: Trump is the clear lesser of two evils, and he is the clear option for Christians.

   However, I think the article downplays the Bible controversy too much. Comparing the addition of new documents and ideals from the minds of sinful man to be bound together with Holy Scripture is highly hdols betrays either one of two things. Either the one who created it does not hold scripture in very high regard, or they hold the constitution/declaration/pledge of allegiance in such high regard that they have made idols of them. Either way, this is a very real problem.

   Reply

2. Sabo, and Trueman too, has something backwards. Only one party seeks to weaponize laws against political rivals? What does he think that the Republican Party has been trying to do since 2022? However, there are differences between the legal efforts of both parties? One party has presented court worthy evidence so as to produce 91 charges while the other party can’t even produce court worthy evidence to convince a chamber of Congress controlled by their own party of the need for impeachment. So just perhaps one of the parties in the discussion wasn’t weaponizing the law afterwards while the other party is seeking to avoid accountability for their leader.

   Only one party sees America as being ‘racist to the core’? And so it protects those who tear down statues that honor the fight to defend slavery? At least that is what Sabo should have said. In addition, Sabo implies that America isn’t racist to the core. But how racist is America? Sabo doesn’t say though our nation’s early history up through the end of Jim Crow would suggest that America was racist to the core. The question is what about now? Sabo doesn’t mention that only one party also denies climate change, denied the seriousness of the pandemic, still denies the legitimacy of the 2020 election, and denies the guilt of those who have been convicted of crimes committed in the January 6th insurrection.

   Trueman denies the serious threat that the emergence of Christian Nationalism presents to the nation. Doesn’t he see the rising of authoritarian ethnocratic movements in Europe too? This very website is a testimony to the threat that Christian Nationalism brings to whatever remains of our democracy–conservatives should note that thesauruses list the words ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’ as synonyms of each other and they can be when leaders of a republic are fairly elected.

   What Trueman and Sabo miss about Trump is that he is a dumbed-down version of Putin. Putin has sold his nation on its Russian Orthodox identity even though only a small minority of Russians attend church. In addition, that religious identity is a cover for an oligarchy that Trump, not Biden, seeks to establish. Note here that if what I am saying about Trump is true, then he regards Christian Nationalists as useful idiots.

   Finally, let’s get to the Transgender Day of Visibility. Isn’t Biden merely confirming the full equality of the Transgendered with such an announcement? Note that if many religiously conservative Christians, including Trueman, have their way, then the whole LGBT community would be sent back to the margins of society. And though the medical community must provide better criteria for determining which children should be undergo the beginning measures of attempting to change their biological sex, it is an erroneous assumption to imply that all children who suffer from gender dysphoria are merely confused. That is especially true for those whose conditions have physical causes. And though Europe is stepping back from its former approach in treating children with dysphoria, it isn’t abandoning it and its stepping back is due to medical concerns.

   Speaking of someone hawking something, it sometimes seems that some who contribute articles to this website are hawking Christian Nationalism as a way to further the prospects of a particular politician and his remade political party. And because those people here have not only produced faulty arguments, they have been joined by others who present Christian control of the nation at various levels. One has to wonder then what is behind all of it. We should note that recent Western history shows a strong tendency for the dominant branch of the Church to support those with wealth and power. And we should note that in America, it is the Republican Party that grants more favors to the wealthy than the Democratic Party does. That makes the overwhelming evangelical support for the Republican Party a mere following of the trend of the last few centuries.

   Reply

   1. Go away, Curt Day.

      Reply

   2. Curt, you appear to be confused on a number of issues related to this issue, and use your comment not to address what was actually written, but to forward your own concerns about perceived problems.

      For example, after completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding the role of the Orthodox Church in Russia, you seek to minimize the problem of transgender ideology and excuse-away the problems therein. To resort to the notion that it is “merely confirming the full equality of the Transgendered with such an announcement” is either ignorant of the nature of this topic and how it relates to society as a whole, or purposefully targeted and forwarding an unhealthy ideology — neither of which is healthy for Christianity as a whole.

      “Note that if many religiously conservative Christians, including Trueman, have their way, then the whole LGBT community would be sent back to the margins of society.”

      When we write, “note that…” it implies that whatever is to be noted is a fact — that it is established through research, or at the very least normative practices. Is it? Do we have a wide body of documentation demonstrating this to be true?

      Also, do you understand what “margins of society” actually means? I’m in the margins of society — should we embark on a national campaign to address my own plight?

      “And though the medical community must provide better criteria for determining which children should be undergo the beginning measures of attempting to change their biological sex…”

      Stop right there. 1) The only criteria to this point was the individual’s and individual parents’ _assertion_ of this supposed change and the Almighty Dollar. That’s it. That is what has been the criteria. 2) You can’t change biological sex. I know this is somehow radical in 2024, but it was a pretty well accepted fact by, for example, everyone in the history of Christianity and science, and somehow now we are supposed to bow to nonexistent evidence to the contrary in the name of “inclusion.” No.

      “We should note that recent Western history shows a strong tendency for the dominant branch of the Church to support those with wealth and power. And we should note that in America, it is the Republican Party that grants more favors to the wealthy than the Democratic Party does.”

      It’s hard to quantify how false this is, but I’ll take a very brief stab: what is the calculated value of Google, Microsoft, Disney, and Netflix (just to name a few), and which side of this ideological struggle do they fall on? Pro-Christian, conservative, and anti-Progressive, or….? Also, remind me, out of the last three White House tenures, which has been the predominant direction?

      And what, exactly, is the “dominant branch of the Church” in the West? I am deeply curious as to how you classify that, given that no one else has been able to do it for 100 years or more (hint: “Protestant” is not _a_ branch).

      In short, I reject your unaddressed presuppositions, as they stand on perilous grounds.

      Reply

      1. Gregory,
         I am not sure why you think that I misunderstood the role of the Orthodox Church in Russia. Between 2 to 10 percent of Russians attend the Orthodox Church on a regular basis. In addition, I didn’t really say anything about the Orthodox Church. What I did say is that Putin has sold Russians on its Russian Orthodox identity. And so my comment was made about Putin, not the Orthodox Church. One of the lines given by Putin for the invasion of Ukraine was that his invasion was protecting Russia from Western decadence, which was a statement heartily endorsed by the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church.

         As for the rest of that paragraph, you are actually attacking freedom and equality in this nation. We are free to do many things that are not good for us provided that we are not violating the rights of others. We are free to worship false gods. We are free to put some toxins into our bodies–like tobacco smoke. We are free to practice sex outside of what the Scriptures allow. And we are free to try to change our biological sex. Those are just some of our freedoms. Now, should the state not recognize the full equality of those who pursue those unhealthy practices or should society punish such people? Whether some of those practices can be defined as being unhealthy depends on whether the government gives preference to certain religious views. And that might be the crux of our disagreement here.

         Some fellow religiously conservative Christians believe that the government should act as a parent in that it should do what it can to raise virtuous citizen so long as religiously conservative Christianity defines what is virtuous. In fact, that is one of the consistent themes promoted on this website. That is to ask government to give preference to our faith. But that is not what The Constitution says the government is for. The Establishment Clause shows that.

         As for my contention about Trueman and many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians wanting to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society, it is shown by their own words and attempts. Think about what they believe children should not be exposed to besides explicitly sexual material–here review the actions of Moms For Liberty. Think about their objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage and why they objected. Think about the background of the Romer v Evans SCOTUS case as well as the majority and dissenting opinions.

         We should also note where Christians aligned themselves in the Bowers v Hardwick, Lawrence v Texas, Christian Legal Society v Martinez, and The United States v Windsor cases. Prior to the intervention of the SCOTUS rulings, there were no state legal protections for homosexuals from harassment and even job dismissal in 28 states. And you will find in at least one of those cases the SCOTUS supported notions of personal autonomy. What is Trueman’s big complaint against the modern age? It is the acceptance of the notion of personal autonomy–the right to define oneself.

         Now, of course, many Christians are not familiar with those cases. But laws that either allowed discrimination against were actually discriminatory against homosexuals were supported by many Christians. I still remember when homosexual acts illegal acts and homosexuals were regarded as perverts and criminals in society. I remember hearing stories about homosexuals being beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation. Do most of our fellow religiously conservative Christians want a return to at least some of the views and practices of those ‘good ole days’? Is that marginal enough for you? Is that what you are experiencing now from the margin in which you reside?

         I could continue with other examples if you wish.

         What is driving the acceptance of transgenderism? The medical evidence I’v seen and even conversations with medical professionals is concern for the mental and emotional state of those with gender dysphoria. That the social and family stigmas for many who suffer from gender dysphoria compounds their suffering. As for the rest of what I said on transgenderism, you can reread my first comment.

         As for the predominant branch of the Church aligning itself with wealth power, one only needs to consider the pre-Revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain and was seen in Chile before their 9/11 occurred. As for today in America, evangelicals, which are part of the Protestant branch of the Church, are the dominant part of the Church. And with whom do they align themselves and do so in the name of small government? And there is the inconsistency. Religiously conservative Christians now tend to see that government should be intrusive in private affairs in the name of a parental government and should be small in business affairs, as in reduced regulations including environmental and workplace protection ones and reduced taxes.

         Reply

         1. Curt, there’s a lot to address there. I’m not able solve all of it, simply because there is only so much time in a day. I will, however, address a few key points.

            First, I’m not sure how you can state that “Putin has sold Russians on its Russian Orthodox identity” and claim that it is a statement only about Putin and not the Church or its role in Russia. That’s an odd comment, but I suppose it matters little, given its lack of relationship to the topic as a whole (and the rest of the discussion, which is headed in a different direction).

            Second, when you state that I am “attacking freedom and equality in this nation,” could you point to which of my words were an attack on those concepts? Be specific, please (note: you were referring to a specific paragraph, it appears?). The rest of your paragraph is a non-starter in relation.

            Third, your paragraph starting with “As for my contention…” largely misses my point, which is that your original phrasing of “sent back to the margins of society” implies some grave ill that has yet to be explained, while simultaneously ignoring what “margins of society” means or how it applies, or how it could be applied to everyone. Moms for Liberty, which boasts a whopping 100K members (in a country of over 330M), is by definition on the “margins of society.” Should we have a nationwide campaign backed by Google and Disney to support their cause and have them be recognized? Should Joe Biden dedicate a day to them to recognize their marginalization?

            In other words, marginalization, in and of itself, is not de facto evil.

            Yes, let’s “think about” some of these legal cases and where “Christians aligned themselves” — let’s think about how radically different some of the views are within the fold of Christianity, to the level that well-meaning people can’t even agree on what the term “conservative” actually is — which will point us in the direction of realizing that so-called Christians are all over the map on these issues. There is very little consistency to call upon here. As a result, thinking about how legal cases writ large were argued doesn’t really help this conversation (at least I don’t see it, but I’m willing to be wrong on that), at least not in the direction I see you taking.

            Short history lesson: people who would have been considered *radically* progressive 150 years ago now state that they are “conservative Christians” with a straight face, Progressives go even further left, and then consider today’s self-labeled conservatives as radical — and at no point do they have enough education in the history of Christianity to see the irony. But I digress.

            (As related aside, it’s interesting that you bring up US v Windsor, and the implications therein.)

            You questioned: “What is Trueman’s big complaint against the modern age? It is the acceptance of the notion of personal autonomy–the right to define oneself.”

            Even though I’m not Reformed (I personally side with Thomas Jefferson’s take on Calvin, which assuredly makes me anathema at this site), I’m not sure what their is to disagree with here in Trueman’s position if one is following the Christian faith. That’s pretty standard, Classical Christianity. Are you suggesting that is wrong?

            You stated that you “remember hearing stories about homosexuals being beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation.”

            Yes, awful things happen to people for awful reasons. But I’m not sure how pointing that out helps your argument here. You seem to be offering a vague contention that “back in the old days” homosexuals and transgendered persons were murdered with impunity, so to counteract that, we must assert their rights. But (and this is contingent on my guess being accurate) this ignores some historical realities and also gets you into a host of philosophical problems that we haven’t even uncovered yet.

            You wrote, “Do most of our fellow religiously conservative Christians want a return to at least some of the views and practices of those ‘good ole days’?”

            Again, “conservative Christians” is a non-starter of a term. I can go into detail as to why, but suffice to say now that it won’t suffice just to throw out labels that are philosophically unstable simply because you know what you mean by them — others don’t.

            “Is that marginal enough for you? Is that what you are experiencing now from the margin in which you reside?”

            I’m really not sure what your argument is here. Is what marginal enough for me — the vague notion that people in the past were mistreated? This seems like a very confused line of questioning that, if followed, leads down a path that doesn’t help your original argument.

            “What is driving the acceptance of transgenderism? The medical evidence I’v seen and even conversations with medical professionals is concern for the mental and emotional state of those with gender dysphoria.”

            Societal phronema, to answer your question.

            Regarding “medical evidence,” the problem there is that it was always greatly lacking in supporting the assertions, and the scientific process was upended in the name of making money and caving in to people’s personal desires (see: WPATH (in addition to numerous other sources), which *should* cause people in favor of this kind of thinking to start some serious questioning, but it won’t because their minds were already made up prior to the evidence). Yes, it was all couched in “concern for the mental and emotional state of those with gender dysphoria,” but that’s pretty vague, first of all, and second, according to whom? The individual?

            I can go much deeper down that road, given what I’ve been doing for the last few years, but the bottom line is that this supposed evidence was never what was claimed, and those who knew it was lacking were shouted down; not argued down with evidence, but “run out of Dodge,” so to speak, in the name of “caring.” I don’t buy it.

            “That the social and family stigmas for many who suffer from gender dysphoria compounds their suffering.”

            In 2024, everything compounds everyone’s suffering, and no one is happy, despite us moving further and further down the road of appeasing numerous individual’s perceptions of social stigmas, which may or may not exist — and may or may not be valid. But we can’t have that conversation because we are told it is bigoted and closed-minded to even pose the questions necessary to begin unpacking some of this.

            That’s a Societal Phronema — not scientific-based practice.

            “As for the predominant branch of the Church aligning itself with wealth power, one only needs to consider the pre-Revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain and was seen in Chile before their 9/11 occurred.”

            Yes, and let’s look at what happened when those institutions were toppled, especially in France and Russia (but also, since when was Russia considered part of “The West”? Weird inclusion, given my question).

            “As for today in America, evangelicals, which are part of the Protestant branch of the Church, are the dominant part of the Church.”

            Okay, first, define “evangelicals” (hint: no one agrees on what this term means — it’s far too vague), second, as stated previously “Protestant” is not a branch (it’s simply too broken and fragmented and lacking any kind of cohesion to be considered in that context), third, the single biggest “denomination” that has any kind of cohesion is the Roman Catholic Church, which itself possesses numerous internal disagreements relating to the very subject at hand (and, directly related, POTUS himself claims to be Roman Catholic, and yet grossly misunderstands his own church’s teachings, which kinda sorta puts a huge hole in your whole argument here).

            So, your implication that the “dominant part of the Church” is somehow either small-government-minded or that they are inclined to offer more support to those who have wealth and power (which are contradictory positions) has no foundation.

            The entire assertion falls apart before it begins for the reasons I just outlined.

            “And there is the inconsistency.”

            This is the first thing you’ve said that is 100% accurate. Both parties are *radically* inconsistent with both their own principles and the principles of the Christian faith. Not partially, not your-side-but-not-my-side biased tribalism, and not in a sort-of kind of way — both major political parties have colossal sins to atone for, no caveats.

            Keep going on that line of thought, and we would probably be friends.

            Reply

            1. Gregory, you’re wasting your time with Curt Day. He will dance around issues but not come out with much specificity on anything, and he will not hesitate to put words in your mouth and accuse you of saying things you just didn’t say. Case in point, you “attack freedom and equality in this country.” Equality for me but not for thee, or something like that.

            2. Gregory,
               I wrote a comment before but it is being moderated because of the name of a music groups I referenced is questionable. So I will try again. In this comment I will address Putin’s efforts to tie the Russian identity to the Orthodox Church.

               There are a number of articles on the web from college papers to articles from legitimate sources, including the Air Force Academy, that talk about Putin’s efforts to tie Russian identity to the Orthodox Church. Such is camouflage for the fact that Russia is an oligarchy with Putin being the biggest and dominating oligarch of all.

               Such ties are seen in Russia’s laws that prohibit churches that don’t belong to the Russian Orthodox Church from evangelizing outside of their own buildings because of the fear of western influence on Russia. They are seen in the prosecution and conviction of people for blasphemy. They are seen in Russians who are convicted for offending the feelings of those in the Russian Orthodox Church. And so we have laws that favor the Russian Orthodox Church despite the fact that only between 2 and 10 percent of Russians attend Orthodox Church services on a regular basis. In 2008, it was 7% who attended Church services on a regular basis and yet 72% of Russians identified as Orthodox Christian.

               This tie between Russian identity and its Orthodox Church started after the demise of the Soviet Union. The Church made political connections such as with some in the military in order to increase its influence. But Putin provided the biggest push to tying Russian identity with the Orthodox Church.

               Finally, noting this connection is relevant to the above article since it talks about Trump and his Presidential campaign. In addition, Trump is trying to make the same connection between America and the (conservative) Christian faith that Putin has made between the Russia and the Orthodox Church. In addition, both Trump and Putin are really using the religious appeal to mask the government’s oligarchy. Here we should remember that it was really only the wealthiest 10% of Americans who benefited from Trump’s tax cuts while he slashed environmental regulations and spiked military spending all of which caused the deficit to spike. And we should also note that Trump is an admirer of Putin and has trusted him over our nation’s intelligence agencies.

            3. DRW1,
               I didn’t dance around anything, especially in my last comment to you. I addressed your points and now you are saying the opposite happened so that others will not have a conversation.

               I understand your perspective though, we have two completely different standards by which we judge the government, equality, freedom, and so forth. Mine goes against any religious favoritism, and yours does not. I tried to point out to you that when you say that Christians should protest any law that does not coincide with God’s nature, then you are asking for some sort of theonomy. I also said that the way to object to certain laws dealing with personal morals and behaviors was to do so in our evangelism. That way we are not imposing our religious values on others. Imposing our religious personal values and personal morals on others through laws goes against equality. And that is the problem, either many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians don’t care about equality or their partisan concerns blind them from recognizing when they are promoting inequality.

               But if you want to make your claim, you’re free to do so. It just isn’t a claim that can be backed up by examining our conversation.

            4. Gregory,
               BTW, What is the dominant branch of the Church in the West? Note that I was referring to the dominant branch on a nation by nation basis, not the West overall. During the pre-Revolutionary times in France and Spain, the dominant branch of the Church for those nations was the Roman Church. The dominant branch of the Church in pre-revolutionary Russia was the Orthodox Church. Here in America, it is the conservative evangelical wing of the Protestant churches. And right there, you have the 3 branches of the Church: Orthodox, Roman, and Protestant.

               Do you understand what it really means to be on the margins of society and to be marginalized? Moms for Liberty aren’t there. Marginalization isn’t defined by percentages of the population. And that the marginalization of groups of people is a vague notion ignores a lot of suffering that many groups have had to endure. So let’s go to a specific example. Were Blacks marginalized in the South during the Jim Crow era? If so, why do you think that? If not, why don’t you think so?

               As for what you wrote that speaks against equality, consider your words when talking about Biden’s declaration of the Transgender Day of Visibility:

               ‘To resort to the notion that it is “merely confirming the full equality of the Transgendered with such an announcement” is either ignorant of the nature of this topic and how it relates to society as a whole, or purposefully targeted and forwarding an unhealthy ideology — neither of which is healthy for Christianity as a whole.‘

               You say that transgenderism is an unhealthy ideology to what end? After all, their day of visibility was established in 2009, not 2024. And transgendered people are American citizens with some of them having served our nation in the military and other government positions. And they have probably been the most marginalized group of people from the LGBT community. What is the purpose of declaring their day of visibility but to erase the remaining effects of past and present marginalization. And isn’t that your main objection here. To the extent that you want society to treat transgenderism as being unhealthy with the end effect of marginalizing or trying to make them invisible again is the extent to which you are attacking equality in general and theirs in particular.

               Do you object to Black History Month or Women’s History Month? Is it unhealthy to focus on the history of Blacks including their past suffering and their past and current contributions to to this nation? Is it unhealthy to do the same for women? And yet, you don’t want the Transgendered to even have a day when the nation focuses on their existence. All three groups have had their equal rights denied to them for a majority of time in the history of the nation.

               And btw, did you know that there are possible physical causes to gender dysphoria. One of them involves genetic caused problem with how the body processes certain hormones and another is that at least some with gender dysphoria have a different structure brain than their genitalia would indicate. Yes, there is a male structure and a female one. At least some with gender dysphoria have the brain structure of the biological sex they identify as being.

               What is unknown at this time is why some with gender dysphoria have a different brain structure than their genitalia would indicate. That such occurs might legitimately cause us to expand the definition of what is intersex or perhaps to put it on a continuum..

               Now I fully agree with you that Christians should not agree with transgenderism and that the Church should stand against it for its members who are considering transitioning. But we are not talking about the Church here, we are talking about society. We may disagree on what laws should govern society but I think that there is a general agreement we have that says that Church laws and society’s laws should not be identical. Where we disagree is in the specifics of what laws should be there and what ones should not be there.

            5. Response to Curt Day from 15th at 10:20.

               By all means, let folks examine the conversation and draw their own conclusions.

               You state the following: “I tried to point out to you that when you say that Christians should protest any law that does not coincide with God’s nature, then you are asking for some sort of theonomy. I also said that the way to object to certain laws dealing with personal morals and behaviors was to do so in our evangelism. That way we are not imposing our religious values on others. Imposing our religious personal values and personal morals on others through laws goes against equality. And that is the problem, either many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians don’t care about equality or their partisan concerns blind them from recognizing when they are promoting inequality.”

               there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I have not called for some sort of “theonomy.” The system of government in the US is established already, and I have not called for it to change. Christian Americans are free to evangelize AND they are free to participate in the political process. They may legally and ethically do so by lobbying lawmakers at the local, state and federal level to pass laws that coincide with what their faith shows them to be just and moral. This is not “imposing our religious values on others,” any more than an LGTBQ advocate who legally lobbies for laws he or she favors is imposing values on me. It is execution of a citizen’s rights. Christian Americans can further vote for candidates at the local, state and federal level whom they deem will take their concerns about moral and just laws seriously. If candidates are elected who pass what Christians consider to be immoral or unjust laws, the Christians are further free to petition the government to change those laws and/or to advocate for their fellow citizens to vote the lawmakers out of office. This is the execution of rights, not the trampling of other’s rights.

               Further, this is not some weird, theoretical form of government you claim it to be, this is the constitutional republic in which we live. Your claims that people who invoke their own legal rights either don’t care about inequality or are blinded by partisan politics are simply ignorant and unfounded. Please stop making such accusations. They are nonsense.

            6. Curt,

               There is a great deal of dancing around without getting to the meat and addressing my comments, so I’ll write a whole lot less here until you can actually answer some questions that you haven’t yet.

               “There are a number of articles on the web from college papers to articles from legitimate sources, including the Air Force Academy, that talk about Putin’s efforts to tie Russian identity to the Orthodox Church.”

               Yes, there are a number of people in both government and academia who write on things they don’t understand. This is not new. How many of these folks are Orthodox or understand the Orthodox Church at all, or at least the history of Orthodoxy in Rus? Next to zero.

               My point with you misunderstanding this is twofold:

               1) you’re reading sources that are entirely Western and are writing about non-Western things they don’t understand (Google James Jatras, and also a hint: I’ve worked with some of these folks in the intel community, and I have good reason not to trust a lot of what the US intel apparatus is selling).

               2) All of that is essentially irrelevant when considering the big picture, which is that the Russian Orthodox Church *is* a part of Russian identity, when we consider that it has been for 1000 years and only wasn’t during Soviet rule (and even then it was just “marginalized” (see what I did there?) and never truly went away). Your whole construct seems to assume that the Soviet rule was normative — it wasn’t. It was a 70 year interruption that was the bloodiest catastrophe in human history.

               Moving on, because none of that is relevant to anything that addresses your further problems.

               In your comment to DRW1, you wrote that you “didn’t dance around anything…” But you did, and I’m going to demonstrate exactly that.

               Curt Day: “…you are actually attacking freedom and equality in this nation.”

               Me: “…could you point to which of my words were an attack on those concepts? Be specific, please.”

               Curt Day: “As for what you wrote that speaks against equality, consider your words when talking about Biden’s declaration of the Transgender Day of Visibility:”

               Aaaaannnnd I’m still waiting for which words, exactly, were “attacking freedom and equality.” Seriously, which ones? I said what you wrote was either ignorant of what a certain ideology is, or that it is forwarding it, either of which is unhealthy. What part of that is an attack on freedom and equality? Do the words I wrote have some secret, back-door challenge to Natural Rights of which I am unaware?

               You failed to provide any sort of answer, rendering the rest of your commentary on that subject effectively irrelevant. Either address it or drop it.

               Moving on.

               Curt Day: “And we should note that in America, it is the Republican Party that grants more favors to the wealthy than the Democratic Party does.”

               Me: points out the blatantly obvious fact that the biggest powers in America for the last decade-plus have been overwhelmingly Progressive and tied to the Democratic Party.

               Curt Day: *no answer, problem unaddressed and ignored.*

               Moving on.

               Me: please identify the “dominant Church” in America.

               Curt Day: names nation-state Church bodies, fails to note that when they were toppled, mass bloodshed and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale occurred. Insinuates that conservative, Protestant evangelicals are somehow the dominant Church in America.

               Me: Demonstrates how it is both mathematically and philosophically impossible for this to be the case, especially because you can’t even define the term “evangelical.”

               Curt Day: “Here in America, it is the conservative evangelical wing of the Protestant churches.”

               Either you address what I wrote before this, or you bow out and admit your commentary on all things related to that subject is entirely irrelevant and misguided.

               Curt Day: insinuates that Carl Trueman is wrong about his concept of identity.

               Me: points out that his concept of identity is fairly well in keeping with Classical Christianity.

               Curt Day: *no answer, problem unaddressed and ignored.*

               Now, to briefly address something new you wrote:

               “What is unknown at this time is why some with gender dysphoria have a different brain structure than their genitalia would indicate.”

               Do you know what is known? That there is a drastically high correlation between ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) and gender dysphoria. Now, imagine taking an autistic kid and dropping him into a middle school or high school with teachers who forward an ideology that, on its surface, seems to be an easy fix — “that’s it! I’m not actually a boy/girl! That’s why I struggle!”

               Guess what happens? Ever seen an autistic kid latch on to something like an idea? I have. Guess what? No sane person in the world until about 20 years ago would assume that just because an autistic kid started hyper-perseverating on something that it was therefore healthy.

               Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a bit more critical in our thinking.

               But now I want you to imagine what else is unknown about brain function from a scientific perspective: nearly everything about consciousness, especially as it relates to a concept like “identity.” So, why the shift? Why the sudden desire among so many to assert that we should bow to the Almighty-Self as an arbiter of identity, despite the fact that doing so is counter to nearly everything we’ve known about the human condition for thousands of years?

               Why, despite the complete lack of a materialistic-based scientific explanation for consciousness, we are claiming that someone’s self-desire for identity, which is decidedly rooted in consciousness, is somehow scientific (without evidence for doing so)?

               I can walk you through the steps of how we got here, but 1) it’s not going to lead where you want it to, and 2) you have not been able to address some of my most basic points above, so I’d say you’re not there yet.

               Curt Day: “Now I fully agree with you that Christians should not agree with transgenderism and that the Church should stand against it for its members who are considering transitioning. But we are not talking about the Church here, we are talking about society.”

               When did we establish this, exactly? Why are you shifting goal posts and setting rules for a conversation, when you can’t even address some of your own erroneous assertions?

            7. Gregory,
               Regarding Putin tying Russian identity to the Russian Orthodox Church, I gave statistics, laws and examples of convictions, and the mentioning of articles that support that point. I didn’t list those article so you did not read all, if any, of them, so why would you say that the writers of those articles don’t know what they are talking about. You have neither read their arguments, the evidence they cited, nor their concluding statements. So how do you know that they don’t know what they are talking about? All I attempted to do was to give evidence to support, not necessarily to prove beyond all doubt. And how did you replay while saying dancing around arguments?

               Btw, the Russian Orthodox Church has not always been a part of Russian identity. There were times during the Soviet rule of Russia when the Orthodox Church was not part of the Russian Identity. BTW, there is a tendency in Russia to build its identity around its leaders. It was like that with the Tsars and during that time the Russian identity was tied to the Orthodox Church.

               During Lenin’s time, the Orthodox Church was persecuted because of its association with the Tsars. It’s not that everyone turned their back on the Church, it is that, just like the Tsars, Lenin, and Stalin after him tied Russian identity with the Revolution and those who opposed Lenin and Stalin, even if they were socialists were labeled as counter revolutionaries.

               It was after the end of Soviet Rule that the Russian Orthodox Church took steps to reestablish its previous place in Russian society and it did so by first reaching out to the military and then politicians. And then that identity grew and had its biggest help from Putin.

               Did I dance around your response as to whether you were attacking freedom and equality in this nation? Notice what you quoted from me vs what I wrote. I mention that because you left quite a bit out from what I wrote:

               ‘You say that transgenderism is an unhealthy ideology to what end? After all, their day of visibility was established in 2009, not 2024. And transgendered people are American citizens with some of them having served our nation in the military and other government positions. And they have probably been the most marginalized group of people from the LGBT community. What is the purpose of declaring their day of visibility but to erase the remaining effects of past and present marginalization. And isn’t that your main objection here. To the extent that you want society to treat transgenderism as being unhealthy with the end effect of marginalizing or trying to make them invisible again is the extent to which you are attacking equality in general and theirs in particular.

               Do you object to Black History Month or Women’s History Month? Is it unhealthy to focus on the history of Blacks including their past suffering and their past and current contributions to to this nation? Is it unhealthy to do the same for women? And yet, you don’t want the Transgendered to even have a day when the nation focuses on their existence. All three groups have had their equal rights denied to them for a majority of time in the history of the nation.‘

               And so those two paragraphs are dancing around the argument? Why not fully quote what I wrote when trying to make your point.

               I will address other issues later.

            8. DRW1,
               I was not putting words in your mouth, I was stating what logically follows your statement that we should protest any laws that do not coincide with God’s nature. What is God’s nature? Isn’t it holy? Doesn’t it abhor sin? Does freedom of religion coincide with God’s nature or is it enabling idol worship? Does allowing the worship of false gods coincide with God’s nature?

               I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. I was showing you what is implied by what you wrote.

            9. Gregory,
               I haven’t had time to respond to everything you write. But you seem to argue not with facts but declarations. Consider what I wrote about the Republican Party and its favoritism toward Big business. It shows it favoritism through legislation as in tax breaks and the elimination of regulations many of which protect the environment or workers.

               What is your response?

               ‘Me: points out the blatantly obvious fact that the biggest powers in America for the last decade-plus have been overwhelmingly Progressive and tied to the Democratic Party.‘

               How does that response even address my statement on evangelical support for the Republican Party and the Republican Party’s favoritism toward big business? Furthermore, how do you back your claim? You don’t back your claim. And so consider the following study that statistically shows that most of the legislation by Congress favors the wealthy (see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B ). Note what that study says in the abstract:

               ‘Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.‘

               Though the data for that study is based the years 1981 to 2002. But have we seen any government trends that would indicate a change in the results? If not, our system is leaning toward more of a plutocracy if not an oligarchy. And both political parties support that leaning because both contributed to those results. But the party contributes the most is the Republican Party.

               The next subject is regards my claim that in the last few centuries in the West, the predominant branch of the Church has supported wealth and power. I gave the pre-revolutionary times of France, Spain, and Russia as 3 historical examples. I gave the evangelical wing of the Protestant branch with its support for the Republican Party as the current example. What was your response?

               You mentioned that I failed to mention the mass bloodshed that occurred when they were toppled. Of course I failed to do that. I was talking about the pre-revolutionary times of those countries, not the revolutionary times. But since you brought up what happened during those revolutionary times, because the predominant branch of the Church had aligned itself with wealth and power back then, it was associated with the rule of the tyrants who were overthrown because of their backing of those tyrants during pre-revolutionary times.

               You added that I said that the evangelical wing of the Protestant branch is the dominant branch of the Church in America. Then you said that this is mathematically and philosophically impossible and added that I can’ define evangelical.

               First, let’s look at some recent demographics. Protestants make up 4 in 10 of Americans (44%). Regarding the Protestants, there were white evangelical Protestants (14%), white mainline Protestants (16%), Black Protestants (7%), Hispanic Protestants (4%), and other Protestants of color (4%). White Catholics make up 12% of the population, Hispanic Catholics make up 8%, and other Catholics of color are 2%. By demographics, Protestants make up the dominant branch of the Church. Furthermore, while any evangelical can define the term, when used in demographic studies the term has a broader meaning. The last study showed that 14% of Americans are white evangelicals while 16% are white mainline Protestants. However one should note that within those mainline churches are evangelical denominations of those mainline churches and individual evangelical believers in the non-evangelical denominations. I know of the latter from personal experience. The wife and I are evangelicals and we used to belong to a mainline denomination Church for close to 10 years.

               How about the party affiliation of members of the 118th Congress. 87.8% identify as Christian, 56.7% are Protestant, 27.7% are Catholic, and the other 3.4% are Orthodox Christians, Mormons, or Messianic Jewish. The breakdown of Protestants go to Baptists at 12.5%, Methodists at 5.8%, Anglican Episcopal at 4.1%, Presbyterian at. 4.7%, Lutheran at 4.1%, Congregationalists at 0.6%, non-denominational Protestants at 2.2%, Pentecostal at 0.4%, Restorationist at 0.7%, Adventist at 0.4%, Reformed at 0.4%, Pietists at 0.2% and unspecified other at 20%. We should note here that though evangelical affiliation is not explicitly mentioned, conservative branches of each denomination exists. For example, 90% of all Baptists belong to one of 5 Baptist denominations with 3 of them being conservative. The Methodist Church is now divided between mainline and conservative branches. And it is unclear if all of the conservative branches of the Presbyterian denominations registered as Presbyterian or Reformed. And just those conservative branches does not include all Christians who would identify themselves as being Evangelical.

               Just from the above data, contrary to your claim, it is quite possible that the Evangelical wing of the Protestant branch of the Church is the dominant branch of the Christian Church. Certainly white Christians overwhelmingly favor the Republican Party. That is especially true of white evangelicals.

               BTW, the definition of Evangelical includes a personal belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, and a belief in the Bible as God’s Word.

               In short, your comments show that your polemic is surpassing your use of rational argument.

               I will address other points you made as time allows.

            10. Response to Curt Day, 16th 8:59

                I suppose I’ll address this for the benefit of any readers. You’re presenting some kind of false equivalency/false analogy. My line of reasoning, which is plainly stated, and which you’ve continuously refused to address, does not logically lead to where you suggest.

                Outlawing other religions is unconstitutional and I don’t personally know any Christians who call for it. You cant, by force of law, make someone love or follow God, so its a waste of time and effort. I suppose American Christians, exercising their rights to participate in the political process could, in theory, call for the outlawing of other religions or the establishment of some new form of government if they wished; but such calls would gain no traction and I would counsel against them. Serious American Christians understand this and therefore do not call for such things.

                You, on the other hand, seem to think that American Christians have no right to participate in the political process at all, or at least cant morally participate in it, which I’ve demonstrated is clearly false. I suspect what you really want is this: no one who disagrees with you can participate in the process. In other words, anyone who shares your views is morally, ethically and legally free to engage fully in the process.

                At least as far as I can tell, since you wont come out and state plainly what you do stand for in the political process.

            11. Curt Day,

                What your comments show, without question, is an effort to obfuscate and use a really long-form comment to establish a point that, on its surface, seems valid, but 1) doesn’t address what I wrote, 2) moves the goal posts, and 3) regurgitates naked assertions and cultural misconceptions without establishing them as true.

                Case in point, why give me a lesson in Russian history, specifically on a scenario that I already told you was true? I stated that the Russian Orthodox Church was a big part of Russian identity for a thousand years, which was interrupted by Soviet rule. You then proceeded to…give me a lesson in how the Soviets interrupted the Church. “Btw, the Russian Orthodox Church has not always been a part of Russian identity. There were times during the Soviet rule of Russia when the Orthodox Church was not part of the Russian Identity.”

                This is bordering on the absurd, Curt.

                “Did I dance around your response as to whether you were attacking freedom and equality in this nation?”

                Yes, you did. I’m not sure why this is hard to understand. I asked to you point to specifically where I “attacked” these concepts. You quoted the whole block, and yet failed to provide any specific argument as to why any of those words fit the model of “attack” on “freedom and equality.”

                You couldn’t, of course, because none of those words do any such thing. Me stating that the transgender ideology is “unhealthy” is not an attack on freedom and equality. It offers zero challenge to Natural Rights as such, nor does it subvert any individual’s equality of opportunity in accordance with that concept. Not one of my words is equal to an “attack.”

                You offering a series of non sequiturs, false equivocations, and hasty generalizations does not absolve you of failing to demonstrate any correlation between my words and an “attack on freedom and equality” — unless of course you are relying solely on your own definition of those terms, in which case, I’m not sure what to tell you (more importantly, I’m not going to, as it would be a lost cause).

                “How does that response even address my statement on evangelical support for the Republican Party and the Republican Party’s favoritism toward big business? Furthermore, how do you back your claim? You don’t back your claim.”

                Because it points out that your original assertion is absurd in light of basic common knowledge. Do I really need to back up the claim that the White House is the most powerful entity in the world, and that, even under Republican Presidents, has been Moderate-to-ultra-Progressive (i.e., decidedly not conservative) on the issues we’re discussing for the last 20 years, especially? Do I really need to back up the claim that Google, Disney, Amazon, the largest unions in America (including the teachers unions), and most large universities are radically Progressive, especially in historical context?

                I’m pretty sure that those are fairly well established facts at this point. Or are you really going to make the argument that “conservative Evangelicals” (more on this in a moment) are somehow in bed with these organizations? Even accounting for Trump — a pro-gay marriage, tax-and-spend Republican — the overwhelming majority of “power” in this country is decidedly in the Progressive-Democrat camp.

                The problem here, as I see it, is that you are equivocating the idea that “our system is leaning toward more of a plutocracy if not an oligarchy” with “Republican Party,” which is nonsense. You rightly point out after that point that it is both parties, but then somehow shift gears in to claiming that it’s more so the R’s fault.

                Again, Google, Disney, Amazon, all green energy (except Tesla), Starbucks, Nvidia, Adobe, IBM, Saleslforce, Microsoft, Apple, PayPal, Cisco, Facebook, nearly all of Hollywood, most news media, NPR, the overwhelming majority of large universities, teachers unions, and the Department of Education as a whole (just to name a few) are all overwhelmingly supporters of the Democratic Party, specifically (all of this is easily verifiable), and Progressive political and religious ideology in general.

                And yet we still have people such as yourself laboring under the delusion that “big business” is synonymous with “Republicans.” Nonsense.

                Good heavens, even the Defense Department is now fully supporting transition surgeries at the taxpayer’s expense.

                Moving on, as this will not be addressed again.

                You wrote: “For example, 90% of all Baptists belong to one of 5 Baptist denominations with 3 of them being conservative. The Methodist Church is now divided between mainline and conservative branches. And it is unclear if all of the conservative branches of the Presbyterian denominations registered as Presbyterian or Reformed. And just those conservative branches does not include all Christians who would identify themselves as being Evangelical.”

                Let’s break this down and hopefully you’ll be able to see where all this goes awry and your argument falls apart. First, those five Baptist denominations, three of which are supposedly “conservative” — was this before or after their most recent schism, which was quite large? And, importantly, how is “conservative” defined (theologically or politically? Both?)? Is this Curt Day’s definition? Or the definition of Ligonier Ministries (which isn’t any better) or some other organization who does similar polls and that is equally untrustworthy?

                Second, the Methodist Church — are we talking about them before or after their most recent schism, which was quite large? And how do we define “conservative” in a church that is actively splitting apart over basic issues?

                Third, there is a reason that it is “unclear” how Presbyterian churches are classified — because they don’t know themselves. Seriously, these folks can’t agree on what “Reformed” even means and have been in schismatic events for decades now (Presbyterians often still argue that 5-Point-Affirming Baptists can’t be Reformed, which is a really fun example of how no one in that world agrees on terminology).

                Finally, your last comment in that paragraph is pure naked assertion without any substance, so it will be left unaddressed.

                Tying this in, you wrote: “Just from the above data, contrary to your claim, it is quite possible that the Evangelical wing of the Protestant branch of the Church is the dominant branch of the Christian Church.”

                You’re extrapolating way too much from the data, given what I just wrote above. Nothing here is contrary to my claim at all because you’re drawing conclusions that are unwarranted based on presented evidence, and you can’t even define the terms necessary to do so.

                Case in point, you followed that up with this: “BTW, the definition of Evangelical includes a personal belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, and a belief in the Bible as God’s Word.”

                Thank you for proving me correct in what I’ve been writing throughout these comments. I can walk away now as the decisive victor in an online argument! Haha.

                Seriously, you just gave away the store. I can’t recall the last time someone so obviously proved my point for me without realizing it. Thank you.

                You basically just defined all of Christianity (at the very least, all of Protestantism), which means every instance of the word “Evangelical” you used throughout your writing is rendered pointless in its designating power.

                I challenged you to define the term Evangelical, and all you could come up with is something so vague that it includes nearly every Christian in America.

                Again, thank you for proving my point.

                I’ll walk away from this thread now, but with the final thoughts that follow.

                “In short, your comments show that your polemic is surpassing your use of rational argument.”

                Yeah, I’m so irrational that I asked you to point out how I was attacking freedom and equality and you couldn’t.

                I’m so irrational that I stated the Russian Orthodox Church was a major part of Russian identity for a thousand years, interrupted by Soviet rule, and you responded by telling me about how the Russian Orthodox Church’s influence was interrupted by Soviet Rule.

                I’m so irrational that I pointed out how the biggest power structures in America (from the White House to massive businesses and our educational institutions) are overwhelmingly in bed with Progressive politics, and yet you still think that it’s a Republican problem.

                I’m so irrational that I pointed out how you don’t have a definition of Evangelical that is commensurate with your own polemic, and you responded by giving me a definition so broad as to include all of Christianity in America.

                In short, just as I pointed out in my original comment, your unaddressed presuppositions are full of holes.

                I’m out.

            12. Gregory,
                To address some other points you made.

                You said that I suggest that Carl Trueman is wrong about his concept of identity. You responded by saying that it is in line with Classical Christianity and thus implying that he right. At that point, all you have done is begged the question of Classical Christianity’s concept of identity along with ignoring the context of my comments on Trueman.

                First, what have I said about Trueman’s views of identity? I said very little but I was speaking within the context of society, not the Church. I said the following:

                ‘What is Trueman’s big complaint against the modern age? It is the acceptance of the notion of personal autonomy–the right to define oneself.‘

                So let me ask, is one of the Church’s job to provide the definition of identity for the state to use in determining how anyone in society, including unbelievers, can define themselves? Of course, much of Classical Christianity was written during Christendom and so we have to ask what value is that in a democratic, pluralistic nation? If Trueman’s objection to the notion of personal autonomy is stated in evangelistic messages or teachings for those in the Church, I have no problem with that. But outside of that, we are then dealing with the question of the Church directing the state as to how people are allowed to define themselves and that gives power to the Church over the state and thus the ability of the Church to impose Christian values on unbelievers. Is that practice supported by the New Testament.

                As for gender dysphoria, as with other comments, you don’t give my whole comment on the subject. You provide just enough to insert your own spin. What did I say about gender dysphoria? I wrote:

                ‘And btw, did you know that there are possible physical causes to gender dysphoria. One of them involves genetic caused problem with how the body processes certain hormones and another is that at least some with gender dysphoria have a different structure brain than their genitalia would indicate. Yes, there is a male structure and a female one. At least some with gender dysphoria have the brain structure of the biological sex they identify as being.

                What is unknown at this time is why some with gender dysphoria have a different brain structure than their genitalia would indicate. That such occurs might legitimately cause us to expand the definition of what is intersex or perhaps to put it on a continuum.‘

                And so you ask what is it that I do know about gender dysphoria. Regarding my quote, I was pointing out the possible physical causes for gender dysphoria. I said possible because the research has not provided adequate evidence to come to some firm conclusions. Again, that is why I said the there are possible physical causes for gender dysphoria. That is especially true regarding when a person with gender dysphoria as the brain structure of the gender they identify with. What is unknown is why such a person has that kind of brain structure. But then again, that is why I said that there were possible physical causes

                And so you add, actually overstated, the link between autism and gender dysphoria. But what causes autism? It is not well understood at this moment but, again, there are possible physical causes for autism that includes genetics, the age of parents, and environmental factors. So again, we go to possible physical causes for gender dysphoria.

                I will respond more when time allows. Again, your writing is polemic with a great deal of declarations without grounds. And your quotes of my words are incomplete and that colors how you portray my points.

            13. Gregory,
                BTW, it came to mind last night that we have been using different working definitions of ‘dominant’ when talking about the dominant branch of the Church. While I am talking about the branch that has the most influence in the Protestant churches and in society itself–power in some spheres is defined by the ability to influence. I am not talking about the branch of the Church or the wing of a given branch that rules over the branches of the Church. You are not using the definition of dominant which I just provided. Just because of demographics, Protestantism is the dominant branch of the Church in the US. It doesn’t matter if Protestantism is divided, it is the dominant branch of the Church here. And because of the lingering effects of Christendom that still has kept a significant number of people in mainline denominations, the evangelical wing of the Protestant Branch of the Church is the most influential wing of the Protestant Branch. The common definition for evangelical evolves a few core beliefs 2 of which I’ve already mentioned. In fact, evangelical is partially built on the first definition of Christian Fundamentalism that was used to distinguish Christian Orthodox from Liberal Theology.

                When I refer to Protestantism being the dominant branch of the Church or evangelicalism being the dominant part of the Church, it is like saying that Dispensationalism is the dominant school of eschatology in America. Dispensationalism doesn’t have a controlling or ruling hand over other schools of eschatology. But it is the school of eschatology that has the most influence. And voting demographics tell us which political party evangelicals not just lean, but embrace.

                Will address other points when I have time.

            14. DRW1,
                First, I never said or implied or suggested that Christians cannot participate in government. I have simply challenged the idea taught on this website that Christians should seek a privileged place for Christianity in the state and society.

                Second, quite a few articles teach that one of the responsibilities of government is to make the people virtuous? And to the extent that government must punish lawbreakers and give incentives to doing good, like tax breaks for donating to charities, that is true. But it isn’t government’s job to use a specific religion and its teachings to create a virtuous people. We need to remember that without faith, people cannot please God and government cannot do anything to make people believe. To make people believe they must hear or read the Gospel and the Spirit must change their lives so that they believe what they hear or read.

                The world is in conflict over two approaches to the state and society: democracy with equality or authoritarianism with hierarchy. The moment that a government privileges one religion about all others, we have replaced equality with hierarchy and we head toward authoritarianism regardless of the presence of elections. And the question we Christians have is this, is it consistent with the teachings from and examples in the New Testament for Christians to seek a hierarchy in society where Christianity is at the top of that hierarchy in one’s nation? My claim is that the New Testament opposes such a venture. Many of the writers whose articles appear on this website say that not only can Christians seek a privileged place for Christianity in state and society, it’s is mandated to do that. But the problem is that the vast majority of reasons for supporting such a position relies on Christian traditions that emerged during Christendom.

            15. Gregory,
                We both write long notes but you seem to find fault when I don’t address every point in your notes. I don’t have the time to address every note.

                Regarding the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian identity, if we both believe that that identity was interrupted, where is you beef about Putin’s efforts to tie Russian identity to the Russian Orthodox Church especially when the vast majority of Russians do not attend church services on a regular basis. Add to that that Putin gave religious/moral reasons for invading Ukraine, Putin has had people incarcerated for offending the feelings of Russian Orthodox believers, and that Putin and Krill have such a close political relationship where they support each other?

                Regarding Autism and gender Dysphoria, you overstated the relationship. Though Autism in those with gender dysphoria is dramatically higher than in those in the general population, the vast majority of those with gender dysphoria do not have autism. there are other problems some of them have and that is why I wrote, perhaps in my first comment, that medical science needs to do a better job in determining which children should get gender affirming care. And the link to autism is physical and so if autism serves as part of having gender dysphoria, again there are physical causes for gender dysphoria. And none of that contradicts what I wrote about there being possible physical causes for gender dysphoria.

                And how does mentioning 2 of the basic foundational beliefs that are part of evangelism prove your point? And what false moral equivalences did I make? Just name one.

                Your note is self-congratulatory which means that you look at our exchanges as a contest to be won or lost. Declaring oneself to be the winner is not very high praise. The real winners in any debate are those who are reading the comments. And they win when they see legitimate points from each side causing them to question their own beliefs, to think more about what is being debated. I’ve already pointed out how you have selectively quoted me and I’ve provided full quotes that you needed to address to adequately respond to what I wrote. But instead, you have been in too much of a hurry to declare yourself a winner in a game that only you were playing

3. “He makes a convincing case that rather than forming moral judgments based on enduring principles, we moderns tend to chase the truth out with the pitchfork of individual self-expression. We follow Friedrich Nietzsche and “speak of morality in terms of taste or aesthetics,” Trueman writes.”

   This is exactly what Trueman does: he finds Trump’s bible tacky aesthetically; it is not to his taste. I thought that was what this whole article was going to be about! Trueman’s true objection isn’t to the bundling with political documents; it’s to the aesthetic. That Nietzschean objeciton is the real objection of a huge number of people to Trump, especially intellectuals. It’s not his political views; it’s his face and voice.

   Reply

4. On the topic of adding Man’s words to God’s word: we do this all the time. The Geneva Bible had marginal comments. That’s one of the few things King James told his translation committee: no editorial comments in the margins like the Geneva Bible. Any Study Bible does it. The Macarthur and the Holman Study Bibles even put a man’s name in the title.
   Putting other documents we hold in high esteem into the Bible is fine. Putting the Apocrypha in has a long history. The 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession are added sometimes, I bet. There used to often be a place to put a family genealogy, which is not a sacred document, just an important one.

   Reply

5. Trueman is not wrong in his analysis, nor in his closing sentences: “Which is more threatening? Trumpite “evangelicalism” or Biden’s brand of “devout” Catholicism? A party whose leader confuses the biblical canon with the writings of Jefferson or a party that is legislating the very abolition of man and gloats about that in its election campaign?…And it will be a truly difficult one to answer with any great conviction when entering the voting booth.” I appreciate his voice on the horrible choice in front of us. It is refreshing to hear from a platformed Evangelical who hasn’t declared a party preference. Can anyone name another Evangelical with social impact who is undeclared?

   Reply

   1. Jill,
      Which party is doing the following?

      ‘a party that is legislating the very abolition of man and gloats about that in its election campaign‘

      Reply

      1. I have no interest in stating a party or candidate preference in this comment section. The choice before us is difficult, as both candidates and parties are unworthy of our vote. And yet we must choose, because choosing to abstain is not a valid option, imo.

         Reply

         1. Jill,
            But you did have in mind one specific party. And the question is, why that party? You can say why without naming names.

            Reply

            1. I’m not sure where you’re going with your comment. There is nothing surreptitious in my assertion. Both parties present serious concerns.

            2. Jill,
               You wrote in your first comment that there is a political party that is legislating the abolition of man. Since you didn’t name that party, I am asking to which political party are you referring?

            3. Curt, Those were not my words. That was a quote taken from Trueman’s article, to which the author of this AR piece provided a link. (fyi there is no ‘reply’ button to enable this response to your most recent comment, so this comment will probably appear out of order with your question)

            4. Jill,
               Your comment appeared in sequence. And you stated that Trueman was not wrong in saying those words from the quote.

            5. Curt, I choose to not engage off the topic with which I began because it’s an important one, and also because I don’t have time in my day to start down another road of discussion to suss out your truth vs. mine, or the nuanced meaning of this word of that, or the statistical data that disproves this sentence or that one.

               As a refresher, my original, main point was this: The two major party candidates, as it stands today, seem truly awful. Carl Trueman is a good and godly man with an important voice. He wrote a much-need analysis of the political situation in which we find ourselves. I pray for both of them and for the country.

            6. Jill,
               Again, you agreed with Trueman’s words and now you won’t identify the party that you think favors the abolition of man.

               Trueman has several fine characteristics that I respect in him. At the same time, he as authoritarian tendencies that interfere with his interpreting both people and the times. That is why he fails to see the threat that the emergence of Christian Nationalism brings. At least in the article Sabo cited, he doesn’t see the threat that Christian Nationalism poses to Christianity itself. Christian Nationalism isn’t a heresy, but it employs some seriously erroneous views and practices.Tureman’s authoritarian tendencies are also, at least in the article cited by Sabo, that he doesn’t seem to see that Trump is a dumbed-down version of Putin.

               But regardless of who Trueman is, if the Bereans checked what Paul said about Jesus with the Scriptures, shouldn’t we do the same with each other and even with people like Trueman?

               Finally I agree with you and Trueman on the fact that neither of the major parties are worth voting for. And that brings up a question posed by Martin Luther King Jr when he equated the denial of a person’s right to vote with having no one to vote for. Personally, I voted against Trump by voting for Biden. Without the Trump and is Republican minions, I generally vote for 3rd Party Presidential candidates.

            7. Curt, You are tenacious. I came back simply to see if you were still here, and also to suggest you might like a YouTube guy named Paul VanderKlay. Your comments on this site are indicative of an active mind, and Paul is somebody who will scratch that itch. No ill-will or ulterior motive intended–just the thought in my own mind that you might enjoy his erudite, philosophical, broad-ranging, and thoughtful commentary and interviews.

            8. Jill,
               Thank you for the recommendation and kind words. Will follow up on the recommendation when time allows. We watch grandchildren 3-4 times a week and that cramps the schedule for accessing resources.

   2. Hi Jill, I could care less whether you name one party or the other but could you clarify what you mean by “legislating the very abolition of man?” Is this a reference to Lewis’ book and a commentary on modern education in America or some other reference?

      Thoughts on Christians voting (for anyone out there): 1st century Christians didnt have this option, so “how to vote” is not a lesson in Scripture. Its disingenuous at best for people in this country to say, “if Jesus were here today, He would vote__________.” Yet I occasionally hear folks making such claims, even religious leaders. The right to vote, like so many citizen’s rights in America are true blessings. So Christians can vote as stewards of their civic duty, or not vote, if their conscious tells them neither party is worthy. God calls us to be good stewards of all with which He blesses us. In other words, to use what He gives us effectively, efficiently and in a way that first glorifies Him and advances His kingdom. So, any Christian who chooses to vote should educate themselves on the issues of the day, on where a candidate or their party stands on these issues, and execute their vote wisely, fully recognizing the human flaws of the candidates involved.

      Reply

      1. DRW1, I did not write those words. They’re from the article to which Mr. Sabo, the author of this article, was referring. You can click on the link within Sabo’s article to Trueman’s First Things piece and read it in full to perhaps find an answer to your question.

         Reply

         1. ok thanks, didnt realize you were quoting an article the writer cited.

            Reply

            1. No problem. I felt it was only fair to Mr. Trueman to read his article before considering Mr. Sabo’s, since the latter was based on the former.