Well said. Lots of good quotes here. As well as moral and practical points to ponder.
KCOS
World editors: Is it REALLY okay with you to have a writer promoting his work here using a slur?
https://x.com/joe_rigney/status/1940399599996621202
not silent
I agree that it’s important to speak the truth. But speaking the truth is not enough in and of itself. Hard truths can be spoken in a way that is not helpful or compassionate.
I’ve been bullied and mocked about aspects of who I was that may have been true…but weren’t sinful. The result was alienation and shame. Truth can be spoken in anger and even with malice. Having that done to me mostly just convinced me that the person doing the speaking was not trustworthy and likely should be avoided. Truth can also be spoken in pride and judgment (e.g., acting “holier than thou”). Being on the receiving end of that tended to make me unreceptive to anything the person was saying and tempted me to double down on being and doing the exact opposite.
I’m not saying my responses were necessarily appropriate-just trying to show that speaking truth isn’t helpful if done in unhelpful way and/or with questionable motives.
As a believer, my goal in speaking hard truths is generally to help the other person in some way-often to proclaim God’s word and his will so that the hearer will be moved to seek him for redemption and abundant life. There’s a right time and a right way, and it’s not necessarily aligned with how I feel. It’s about letting God lead and give me the right words.
I’ve seen the difference when truth is spoken in love vs when it is not. I’ve seen how God worked when I sought ways to show love to my enemies while speaking truth to them. And…I’ve seen how ineffective it was to speak truth when I was not living according to the truth I was proclaiming. True compassion isn’t “just” speaking the truth or naming and condemning sin. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. He came to serve those who were sinners.
Final notes: hard truth isn’t just something we speak to opponents but also something we speak to ourselves, our allies, our friends, and our brothers. It’s not being truthful to point fingers at everyone else and tell them how terrible we think they are while ignoring our own sins and the sins of others like us.
I raise a perfectly rational argument, that is loaded with truth, that no one is talking about. The “trans-gender” is the same thing as the “trans-disabled”. Both have the same problem, they are mentally confused about something. To make sure the readers know what I am writing about, the “trans-disabled” is a person who believes they are physically disabled even though their body parts are in perfectly good working order. When they fail to get the proper mental help many of them actual go about injuring their hands, arms, and legs etc., to the point that they become really disabled. No sane person will argue that damaging or destroying their physical appendages is the correct solution. The person needs proper mental help. For the gender confused the solution is the same. There is one difference, the trans-disabled can become really physically disabled, but with all the drugs and surgeries the trans-sexual can never become the other gender. No one can change their gender assignment written in their DNA.
One Way
Case in point, Guy Benson, a Fox News radio host, is a "married" homosexual man. They have a baby by way of a surrogate. There is no other honest way to put it than to say those two men are perverts, and they are committing child abuse (even if not physically).
And I add to my comment, as was well-stated by pjp, he is a man. (See pjp's earlier comment.) Using the word "homosexual" is wrong. He is a perverted man who is somehow (sin nature) attracted to other men.
I'm not sure if "Using the word 'homosexual' is wrong" for someone who is "a perverted man who is somehow (sin nature) attracted to other men." Is there another one-word description? I know the one that perverted movement has co-opted is inappropriate and wrong. Gay. Blithe, carefree, happy. They are anything but, and of course, that's why hijacking language is an important foothold toward power and control.
I don't disagree. I was referring to the comments by pjp, about 22 hours before I'm typing this (see below). I thought his point was well-taken, and he brought in a historical perspective. Gay is clearly the wrong term. I usually try to say homosexual instead, as it doesn't co-opt a (formerly?) good word.
MIKE54
Thank you, Joe Rigney, for your Biblically based encouragement and your excellent vocabulary.
KCOS
It was Paul who wrote about "speaking the truth in love." But Paul's idea of truth-telling was really nuanced. He was explicit about there being a time and a place; in another letter he said, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." Paul describes in those verses (1 Cor 9:19-23) times when he subjugated his own beliefs in order to relate to people who didn't share them. Was he lying/practicing deception? Of course not. The truth of whether he WAS weak, or an observant Jew, or someone not under the law, or whatever, was not the truth that he was concerned about.
Folks I don't know what to say. I have trans friends and I personally am not trying to change or convert them. But if you ARE, this is just not not not the way. A trans kid who hears that they are triggering "your moral gag reflex" will RUN. No one profits. (Well, I should say the trans kid does, at least for the moment, because that is simply not a safe place for him or her to be.)
I'm sure that very very few openly trans people read World magazine! But everyone here should be clear: there ARE trans kids in Christian homes who are reading this, and it is devastating. In an effort to tell "the truth" (God help us), this column just tosses them aside. They are "the aggrieved,” the “sexually perverse,” “perverted and wicked,” guilty of “vile affections and vile acts.” For us to put ourselves in their shoes would be to “sear the conscience.” We must be careful lest our empathy for them veer into the “toxic.”
Leave aside deadnaming and misgendering!--by this telling, trans people are a threat to civilization. And forget the sins that Jesus spoke of the most--greed, hypocrisy, pride, lack of compassion, moral blindness, love of money, hatred and anger. "Trans ideology" is definitely the largest challenge we face right now. Or so you would think from World's front page, which regularly features two, three, or four stories AT A TIME on the subject.
Trans kids will run far away. They will never come to their parents or to the church with their deepest struggles, and who can blame them? But they are not "the aggrieved," out to swindle you into caring or hoodwink you with their "deviant" identities. They are vulnerable kids. Does World care? Do its readers? My heart breaks.
What was the name of Joe's recent book? Toxic Empathy. You cannot change your biological sex. Period. You can certainly destroy your health trying though. And there's plenty of evidence of that.
Yeah, I know. I don’t buy Joe Rigney’s premise that many evangelicals or folks on the Christian right just got TOO soft-hearted and lost their moorings trying too hard to identify with others.
But even accepting that idea for the sake of argument, here’s Rigney’s solution (from an interview this year):
“if someone’s drowning, empathy wants to jump in with both feet and get swept away. Empathy jumps in. Whereas compassion says, I’m going to throw you a life preserver. I’m going to even step in with it and grab you with one arm, but I’m remaining tethered to the shore.”
The problem is that it doesn’t work out that way in real life. Where’s the life preserver in this column? It’s not there. This is more like, pull up the ladder and drive the boat in the opposite direction, lest the person’s beliefs trigger our moral gag reflex.
“Language instructs,” as Rigney says. The language here instructs Christians to protect themselves FIRST. Don’t risk your conscience being seared. Don’t risk being swept away. Don’t let your empathy “poison” you! The language here also instructs trans people that they are gross, gag-worthy, dangerous. Not to mention aggrieved whiners out for a pity party.
Ugh. Those instructions are just SO much more damaging (on both sides) than any of the language Rigney is warning his readers about.
I think you’ve misunderstood our brother, here. Rigney has not said that transgender people are an inherent threat to civilization, but is speaking about the ideology that drives the movement. The ideology indeed is a threat to civilization because it denies creation order.
He also isn’t saying the right has become too soft hearted — he’s critiquing the progressive argument that uses empathy to strong arm people into abandoning their convictions.
In terms of “searing the heart”, you’re mixing metaphors a little bit. We aren’t worried about the damage to us — Jesus was a friend of tax collectors after all. We are worried about the effects of sin on people (especially impressionable children.) By lying to confused individuals by using preferred pronouns, etc, we are encouraging them to continue in their sin — and that is not loving. The longer we engage in sin, the more our conscience becomes seared. The language comes from 1 Timothy 4 where Paul is speaking about false teachers who have devoted themselves to demons — sounds familiar.
Sin ought to disgust us. We realize that we’re just as sinful as our neighbors. One wonders if you are having a moral gag reflex yourself, albeit misguided, that is leading you to object to Mr. Rigney’s words.
I hear you. It’s just that…I had a similar reaction to KCOS. I get that the article is about a specific topic. It’s an important topic. Vulnerable kids should absolutely be protected.
Thing is…this topic gets addressed over and over and over again by MANY other articles here-sometimes more than one a day. And there are none about many other prevalent and problematic forms of wrongdoing and injustice, which definitely disgust me; and which are done by and affect very large percentages of people.
It seems like…the writers here (and maybe readers …no doubt me as well) care more about speaking truth when it involves those they view as “the other side,” but they may be just as reluctant to speak truth to their own side as the people who are criticized in this article. For what it’s worth, this is a significant and troubling change in World since I first started reading it 40 yrs ago.
That’s a fair criticism for the editors at WORLD. I feel similarly about discussions concerning racism and diversity in other contexts, so I can understand a weariness. But it doesn’t address the content of this article. One might wish Rigney wrote about something different—but he didn’t. Furthermore, I understood our friend KCOS originally as saying that Rigney was wrong — even immoral — in his approach to truth telling, which I take issue with.
I agree that criticisms are justified both ways. I used to share the gospel on secular forums several years ago, and…let’s just say I’m glad they didn’t have a downvote feature. It would have made the hostility I encountered from militant atheists seem even worse. But…thing is, I didn’t expect them or the writers to know the truth. I was there to tell THEM the truth. And I knew there would be pushback, if not outright persecution. However, I DO expect a journal which claims to report from a biblical perspective to tell the truth.
I obviously can’t speak for RCOS, though their frustration resonated with me in some ways on an emotional level. For myself, re this article and Rigney’s approach: as I said repeatedly, I don’t disagree with speaking truth. I also agree that it’s easy to adopt language that sanitizes sin and allows it to continue.
But, if Rigney’s main issue is about being genuinely compassionate and telling the truth-at least based on what I’ve seen here-I think Rigney, like World, is being rather one sided in his criticism.
Rigney (and World) seem to be focused on very specific and targeted issues and people to criticize repeatedly in multiple articles, while completely ignoring the many other people who are doing basically the same things with other issues…not to mention many other issues involving great harm to individuals and society. I have seen a lot of ways conservatives and Christians have become desensitized, seared their consciences, and suppressed their moral gag reflexes which rarely, if ever, get mentioned here. (The only writing by Rigney I am familiar with is what I’ve read here.)
Re your comment: My problem is not with someone writing about this topic at all but with the continued and constant focus on this topic as if it is all that matters…and the complete silence about other very important topics that also have to do with speaking truth and employing genuine compassion. It’s also the fact that the focus seems to be exclusively on condemning and judging with little or nothing about guiding, helping, sharing the gospel, restoring, and discipling.
There also appears to be a common tendency to use the word “conservative” interchangeably with “Christian” or “biblical.” I think there are aspects of what has generally been viewed as conservative which align with what is biblical, but not everything does. I mention it here because I’ve seen for myself how blurring that distinction allows and encourages people to do the very things this article criticizes: avoiding speaking uncomfortable truth and justifying falsehood and sin.
I should add this: It’s easy for ME to seek soft words that justify my sin. I desire understanding and forgiveness for myself but find it easy to condemn what I perceive as sin in others. I’m also biased based on prior experience and etc. So I appreciate having these discussions which help me understand different perspectives.
Sorry to go on: this article and the comments obviously hit a nerve with me. Re “language instructs”: While it IS important not to use language that softens and justifies sin, I think it’s equally important not to use language which demonizes and dehumanizes other people.
Jesus was just AND loving. He never justified sin…but he welcomed sinners and ate with them. He gave his life for us when we were his enemies. We are called to follow him…and we can only do it through the guidance and empowering of the Holy Spirit.
Yah I hear you and agree, it’s never okay to dehumanize. Yet in our day and age, we are told that to tell someone that their chosen “sexual identity” is sinful and wrong is inherently dehumanizing because, according to the zeitgeist, you are denying an essential and immutable part of what makes them human. The Bible says “no,” while we are sinners God created us good and in his image, and it’s our own fault that we fell into sin. We have no one to blame but ourselves. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” He’s given us, and all those who are in Christ, the gift of salvation so we no longer must be enslaved to sin—it is not a dehumanizing characteristic. We must tell people that!
So I agree with you — it’s never okay to dehumanize. But that accusation of the OP has been asserted over and over again here without being demonstrated.
I acknowledge that I started this exchange. Perhaps it wasn’t clear, but my intent was not to “speak for” the OP. It was to share how their comment affected me and where I was coming from.
For what it’s worth, I don’t expect society in general to agree with me or promote biblical values. I’ve been persecuted for my faith since I became a believer in the 1970’s. That tension is part of being a follower of Christ. Secular sources are not going to treat us like God expects us to treat them. Responding as God leads (vs reacting based on how I may feel at a given time) is part of following Christ.
A few more comments (sorry, I can’t seem to stop-and please understand that all of this isn’t necessarily aimed at you): if the goal in speaking truth is genuinely for the good of the hearer and for society, speaking the truth in love may not look exactly the same in every circumstance and with every person. Jesus didn’t use the same words or the same exact methods with everyone he ministered to. Paul also didn’t approach everyone in the same way. I didn’t share the gospel the same way with every atheist, occultist, satanist, etc, etc, etc that God sent me to. There were formulas that helped, but no formula, or words, or presentation could change someone’s heart. Only the Holy Spirit could do that.
The atheists I debated online expected judgment and condemnation from Christians and were prepared for it. (Many even tried to provoke it so they could discredit us or even silence us.) They were not at all prepared for how God often lead me: to speak truth, yes, absolutely; but also to show love and mercy, to be willing to listen and show I cared how they felt, and to admit when I was wrong.
All that to say: I hear your frustration, but I can only express my views. I have included my views about the “zeitgeist.” But I can’t speak to or resolve your issues re the OP’s comment. (I suspect you know that and are just giving additional explanation. If so, I hear you. Happy July 4.)
My point is, the truth doesn't change based on context. Rigney wrote an article on Mr. French's capitulation on preferred pronouns and referring to confused individuals by falsehoods. Of course we must allow the Spirit to lead us in our witnessing — but that witnessing is not going to be more efficient by telling lies in the process to make people feel more "comfortable" with our message. "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:16-17
Yes, truth itself doesn’t change. Hopefully it’s clear that I am not suggesting telling lies. I AM trying to explain that HOW truth is told matters-if the reason we are telling the truth is actually for the good of the hearer. There’s more in my comment above re sharing the gospel. And now I really must dash.
Just wanted to say re: this
"the truth doesn't change based on context"
...It would sound like heresy to say I disagree. But I do think that statement is simplistic. What if I said, there is Truth, and there is truth. I think there are many times when we don't tell the "truth" (lowercase) in our interactions with people, and it's not dishonesty; it may be an expression of love! I honestly don't see how you can read Paul's bit about "all things to all people" without accepting that he was talking about the importance of context--and that "truth" on some level, at least, DOES change depending upon whom you are interacting with.
"(The only writing by Rigney I am familiar with is what I’ve read here.)"
I don't know if you are interested, but here's a long interview that Albert Mohler did with Joe Rigney earlier this year. I find it deeply disturbing to say the least; the implications of his ideas about empathy are wide. This, e.g., on women & doctrine:
"[Empathy in a context] in which you have to draw clear lines and show fortitude and courage in the face of threats, it is not an asset. It is a liability. There is a reason that [women] are barred from the pastoral office... pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill suited to that role."
https://albertmohler.com/2025/02/19/joe-rigney/
Women are barred from pastoral office per 1 Timothy 2:12-14. If you’re disturbed by the Bible, Sock, it’s not the Bible’s problem.
It’s also repugnant that you promote the lie of transgenderism and accept the mutilation of children. Please repent and read the Bible to actually understand it. You’ll have to stand before the Lord one day, and unless you repent, you’ll be on the broad road that leads to eternal conscious torment. You might not believe that, this might be a parody account or a bit of a laugh for you, but one day you won’t be laughing. Come before the Cross, repent of your unbelief, make Jesus Lord of your life and get to know Him as He really is—love and truth together.
Believe me, I'm not here for a laugh, and my account's not a sock puppet. My user name is a straightforward abbreviation of my actual name. I hadn't noticed that it spells "sock" backwards, but that is kind of fun and I don't mind if you call me that.
"it's not the Bible's problem"...
I agree. I believe the problem is with misinterpretation of the Bible, with claims being made for the text that it does not even make for itself.
You have succeeded in putting into words for me, what I find troubling about this column. Rigney’s column about empathy was also disturbing. You make some valid points, and I appreciate your comments on this thread.
I appreciate this. Please see my replies here to "not silent" (who I'm very glad is not silent!). It's really heartening to see these responses expressing concern, and I'm moved.
It was also Paul who wrote Romans 1:28-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Is this not also Paul's "nuanced" truth-telling? Is Paul conflicted? We must not have a failure of nerve in telling the truth in love, by presenting the dangers of sin and the goodness of Christ in the gospel, because of an emotionally charged comment "for the children." When Bruno wants to use the girl's bathroom — we must not let him in because we "have become all things to all people." It is not for the children when we lie to them, or Bruno, by telling untruths as Mr. French is doing.
Just as an aside, this comment follows an all-too-common pattern from the progressive: speechless apoplexy -> contrast of "Jesus' ethics" to the biblical truth -> dire consequences if you don't heed them -> heart broken (but not over sin). For too many, the Gospel has become toxic. But what does the Bible teach us to say? "Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand." Souls are dying — we must proclaim the good news to captives held in captivity to their sin. "For such were some of you... But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified..."
"heart broken (but not over sin)"
I listed quite a few specific sins, relevant to this discussion, that break my heart. I expect you think I'm picking & choosing. I might say, so are you. :(
You wrote: “… And forget the sins that Jesus spoke of the most--greed, hypocrisy, pride, lack of compassion, moral blindness, love of money, hatred and anger.” This is the move I am talking about—accusing the other side of ignoring other parts of God’s law when we’re specifically speaking about one that is culturally unpopular. This is peak whataboutism. Yes I agree, those are real sins we should eschew. We must be two table Christians, all Ten Commandments. But that included the 9th commandment, too. I understood your heart break to be what you were complaining about — Rigney’s perceived dangerous othering of “trans kids”.
Paul did not "subjugate his own beliefs" to relate to people; he did not adjust his beliefs at all for others. He limited his Christian liberty (without sinning) in order to win others for Christ.
As for time and place, this is an article that warns about people acting sinfully and their advocates, as well as about Christians who are willing to speak falsely in order to accommodate the language of the world. Certainly there is a place to warn people about such things, and why wouldn't World be an appropriate place for that? Certainly World should be free to judge how much to warn about sins that the editors believe are becoming more prevalent.
As for young people reading the article, the article focuses on people who advocate for lies, and who change the language in order to lie, or who accommodate by adopting the lying language when they should know better. I see no clear indication that the author intends to include impressionable young people within that focus. His criticism is for the deceivers, not the deceived. So the young people should not be so quick to view themselves as the author's target and run away, as you seem to want them to do. I hope, if they are indeed reading this in Christian homes, that they can be given good guidance in that regard.
That being said, I believe the criticisms in the article are right overall, but I think the article could have benefitted from a word of encouragement to those who have been lied to.
Thanks for sharing. For myself, I am definitely not opposed to speaking truth. I did it for years on a secular forum while sharing the gospel with militant atheists…and I was subjected to threats, vile and blasphemous language, and bullying. I hope the forum will forgive me if I share a few lessons I learned and which I think are pertinent.
When I first started out, I humiliated another commenter so badly the entire forum smelled blood and piled on. He was a sexist jerk, and it felt powerful to speak the truth and put him in his place. But later…I felt sick. I knew God had not called me to that forum so I could humiliate people with the truth or put jerks in their place. He called me to share the gospel.
Ironically, the atheists often tried to provoke Christians into attacking them, judging them, telling them they were going to hell, etc. This confirmed their belief that Christians were wrong and terrible. Some hoped to exploit their victimhood to stop all public religious speech. It also allowed them to avoid examining their own suppositions. They were not at all prepared for reasonable and respectful discussion.
Some had been through terrible experiences in churches and/or with Christians, and having someone listen to those experiences-REALLY listen, without making excuses-often made a surprising difference. It’s one thing to say, “We all sin. That’s why we need Christ.” It’s another to listen to and care about the people who have been harmed by those sins.
Back to the article: Several of my church friends have kids who are atheist, gay, or transgender. Their hearts desire is that their children would have peace through Christ and live an abundant life. Telling someone they are terrible using the most blunt available terminology-or shaming them-is extremely unlikely to help them find abundant life through Christ.
Here is some truth: Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 9:10-13 And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 20:26-28 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Thank you for taking the time to type all of this out. Huge respect to you. Thank you for the references/quotes, too.
Scots WhaHae
“We have been ably catechized beneath the progressive gaze. The left has not only commandeered the dictionary — redefining words as it sees fit — But it has also become the arbiter of manners and politeness, ostracizing those who refuse to repeat its fine-sounding lies.”
Reminds me of the mic #6 incident @ PCA GenAss where triggered moderator KDYoung scolded pastor Tim for being intemperate & lacking decorum & relevance (3 untruths) at the slightest scent of Christian candor to call out Ince’s incompetence @ MNA Director.
To be fair, there was a point of order which according to Roberts Rules of Order the moderator has to acknowledge. Brindle had a gracious take on Mathew Everhard's YT channel yesterday. He wasn't necessarily "triggered."
To be fair, that doesn't pass the stink check.
I watched Brindle & Matt yesterday… very odd. Both men showed strange & undeserved deference to KDY by redirecting & deflecting the focus on the difficulty of doing the job of moderator. But, Matt admits (para): "Kevin did a great job, until that mic #6 moment."
Am I to believe KDY -- suddenly -- failed to do the good job he was doing until Tim @ mic#6? No. I'll stick w/ "triggered" bc that's exactly what it looked & sounded like… bc it was.
Their "gracious take" made no rational sense of the situation. They can forgive KDY for his inappropriate interruption and accusations if they want, but don’t act like DeYoung wasn't wrong & rude to shut down debate, as he did. That is not grace and it is not edifying.
Brindle should stick to his guns and stand by his original response from the floor: "Sir, I'm not sure how more temperate I can be!" Everyone knows MNA overture was hot & ready to face on race cards Ince has been playing. World wrote OpEd on him in FEB. It's why the PCA is all a-buzz post-GA... bc KDY was extremely out of place. And it's why Matthew's podcast w/ Tim was on the topic.
As for RRO, it was well after stopping Tim that KDY asks: "Was there a point of order over here?" So the "point of order" is out of order for defending DeYoung bc it came after KDY smacked down mic #6. It's irrelevant to KDY stopping Tim mid-sentence to call him "intemperate & lack decorum." Furthermore, those shouting "point of order" had no point, other than shutting up Tim. But, no need bc DeYoung already did... amidst hissing TE's according to those present. Nasty.
I expect leftists to use polity plays and calls for decorum to silence honest debate... not the PCA.
Duane_E
Good article. I believe that one of the more subtle word changes by language manipulators of our day is the pervasive use of "they" to refer to an individual--even when the person is known to be a man or a woman. Hallmark even sells a plaque that says, "You can spot a dad by *their* courageous heart and a love that lasts" (emphasis added by me). (Not "his" heart, and not "his" love.) I believe this move is to enable people to avoid saying "him or her," which would contradict their lie that there are more than two human genders. I resist.
pjp
I would add to the linguistics we have fallen into are the words: abortion, reproductive health and homosexual and heterosexual. Abortion is either infanticide (because the unborn child is an infant) or child sacrifice (to the gods of self-autonomy). Reproductive health is a euphemism that attempts to obfuscate the sins of infanticide/child sacrifice the same way slaveholders used the euphemism "a peculiar institution" to hide the sins of slavery.
The words homosexual and heterosexual are relatively new words (1880s) which obscure the reality of God creating man and woman. Sex is something that human beings do - not who they are. We are not homosexuals or heterosexuals but men and women.
Big Jim
"My guess is that some readers flinched in the previous paragraph when I used the term “'sodomites'.” That's funny, when I read that I was thinking, "way to tell it like it is, Mr. Rigney."
Well, at lease David French has an exciting career writing for the New York Times.
bk1bennett
David French flew the conservative coop a long time ago. It’s sad.
David French flew the PCA coop after he and his wife faced racism from church members directed at them/the child they adopted from Ethiopia. Can't speak for him, but I would guess the empathy he expresses today is not unrelated to that experience.
MRS D
Commenter Ila May's link apparently gives a different translation to Solzhenitsyn's quote in this article, which I like better:
"And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!"
Tom Greenwood
Thank you Joe Rigney. I've noticed that modern Christians trend to adopt the culture's revisionist dictionary. "When you surround yourself with those who have already surrendered to the moral revolutionaries (as French has done), you begin to talk and act like them. " My point is this: why not use God's Word as the guide for describing our culture? See Romans 1 (the unrighteous that suppress the truth, foolish thinkers, darkened hearts) , Ephesians 2 (son's of disobedience, children of wrath). Speaking the truth plainly makes the need for gospel of Jesus more compelling than does excusing sin by white-washing our verbiage. Great job Joe!
Laura Fredrickson
Wow, didn't expect a hit piece on David French this morning! He must have cut Joe off on the freeway or something.
Hit piece? Really? I am grateful for the good summary. From what I’ve seen, David French has been walking toward progressivism for years now.
ILA MAY
Love the Solzhenitsyn quote, so apt. The whole open letter from which is it excerpted can be read here:
https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
WTON5415
I would love to hear David's response to this post.
Well written, “moral gag reflex” such a vivid, spot on description. Words have meaning and the crux of the difference between compassion and empathy is so significant. Truth and love are the same person, you cannot compromise one without impacting the other. In my experience when in a truth and love communication with an individual in sin for which I have compassion he or she does not understand or feel that for me to compromise speaking truth would be to compromise my love for them. This is so very hard to do and live out especially when the truth pushes that someone you love further away. Sure, it can be socially and economically difficult and costly (i.e. Mr. French), but it is heartbreaking when your family member or friend is that individual and they choose to alienate you for not compromising truth.
Yes, It is possible to speak the truth without doing it in love. I know. I’ve done it, and I regret it. Giving love and truth in harmony can be very, very difficult. It is among the most difficult things we are called to do, and it is especially so in the era when people demand that their sin be celebrated.
BobK
Progressives should be more accurately called regressives. "Gender-affirming care" is truthfully called "Gender mutilation & harm." "Pro-choice" should be called murder of babies. "Love is love" actually means, "Sexual desire and romantic feelings are sexual desire and romantic feelings." I totally agree with Mr. Rigney. When we use words that are lies, we lie ourselves and aid our enemy who is the father of lies.
Jason Maas
Many American Christians just want to appear to be nice and to fit in with the crowd. These days they have to choose between that and speaking the truth. Once you’re willing to let go of your worldly reputation and stop worrying about people-pleasing it’s incredibly freeing to your heart, soul and mind. Sometimes Jesus really meant it when he said that following him would come at a cost.
Well said. Lots of good quotes here. As well as moral and practical points to ponder.
World editors: Is it REALLY okay with you to have a writer promoting his work here using a slur?
https://x.com/joe_rigney/status/1940399599996621202
I agree that it’s important to speak the truth. But speaking the truth is not enough in and of itself. Hard truths can be spoken in a way that is not helpful or compassionate.
I’ve been bullied and mocked about aspects of who I was that may have been true…but weren’t sinful. The result was alienation and shame. Truth can be spoken in anger and even with malice. Having that done to me mostly just convinced me that the person doing the speaking was not trustworthy and likely should be avoided. Truth can also be spoken in pride and judgment (e.g., acting “holier than thou”). Being on the receiving end of that tended to make me unreceptive to anything the person was saying and tempted me to double down on being and doing the exact opposite.
I’m not saying my responses were necessarily appropriate-just trying to show that speaking truth isn’t helpful if done in unhelpful way and/or with questionable motives.
As a believer, my goal in speaking hard truths is generally to help the other person in some way-often to proclaim God’s word and his will so that the hearer will be moved to seek him for redemption and abundant life. There’s a right time and a right way, and it’s not necessarily aligned with how I feel. It’s about letting God lead and give me the right words.
I’ve seen the difference when truth is spoken in love vs when it is not. I’ve seen how God worked when I sought ways to show love to my enemies while speaking truth to them. And…I’ve seen how ineffective it was to speak truth when I was not living according to the truth I was proclaiming. True compassion isn’t “just” speaking the truth or naming and condemning sin. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. He came to serve those who were sinners.
Final notes: hard truth isn’t just something we speak to opponents but also something we speak to ourselves, our allies, our friends, and our brothers. It’s not being truthful to point fingers at everyone else and tell them how terrible we think they are while ignoring our own sins and the sins of others like us.
Amen.
You make some very good points. I agree with you. Thanks.
I raise a perfectly rational argument, that is loaded with truth, that no one is talking about. The “trans-gender” is the same thing as the “trans-disabled”. Both have the same problem, they are mentally confused about something. To make sure the readers know what I am writing about, the “trans-disabled” is a person who believes they are physically disabled even though their body parts are in perfectly good working order. When they fail to get the proper mental help many of them actual go about injuring their hands, arms, and legs etc., to the point that they become really disabled. No sane person will argue that damaging or destroying their physical appendages is the correct solution. The person needs proper mental help. For the gender confused the solution is the same. There is one difference, the trans-disabled can become really physically disabled, but with all the drugs and surgeries the trans-sexual can never become the other gender. No one can change their gender assignment written in their DNA.
Case in point, Guy Benson, a Fox News radio host, is a "married" homosexual man. They have a baby by way of a surrogate. There is no other honest way to put it than to say those two men are perverts, and they are committing child abuse (even if not physically).
And I add to my comment, as was well-stated by pjp, he is a man. (See pjp's earlier comment.) Using the word "homosexual" is wrong. He is a perverted man who is somehow (sin nature) attracted to other men.
I'm not sure if "Using the word 'homosexual' is wrong" for someone who is "a perverted man who is somehow (sin nature) attracted to other men." Is there another one-word description? I know the one that perverted movement has co-opted is inappropriate and wrong. Gay. Blithe, carefree, happy. They are anything but, and of course, that's why hijacking language is an important foothold toward power and control.
I don't disagree. I was referring to the comments by pjp, about 22 hours before I'm typing this (see below). I thought his point was well-taken, and he brought in a historical perspective. Gay is clearly the wrong term. I usually try to say homosexual instead, as it doesn't co-opt a (formerly?) good word.
Thank you, Joe Rigney, for your Biblically based encouragement and your excellent vocabulary.
It was Paul who wrote about "speaking the truth in love." But Paul's idea of truth-telling was really nuanced. He was explicit about there being a time and a place; in another letter he said, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." Paul describes in those verses (1 Cor 9:19-23) times when he subjugated his own beliefs in order to relate to people who didn't share them. Was he lying/practicing deception? Of course not. The truth of whether he WAS weak, or an observant Jew, or someone not under the law, or whatever, was not the truth that he was concerned about.
Folks I don't know what to say. I have trans friends and I personally am not trying to change or convert them. But if you ARE, this is just not not not the way. A trans kid who hears that they are triggering "your moral gag reflex" will RUN. No one profits. (Well, I should say the trans kid does, at least for the moment, because that is simply not a safe place for him or her to be.)
I'm sure that very very few openly trans people read World magazine! But everyone here should be clear: there ARE trans kids in Christian homes who are reading this, and it is devastating. In an effort to tell "the truth" (God help us), this column just tosses them aside. They are "the aggrieved,” the “sexually perverse,” “perverted and wicked,” guilty of “vile affections and vile acts.” For us to put ourselves in their shoes would be to “sear the conscience.” We must be careful lest our empathy for them veer into the “toxic.”
Leave aside deadnaming and misgendering!--by this telling, trans people are a threat to civilization. And forget the sins that Jesus spoke of the most--greed, hypocrisy, pride, lack of compassion, moral blindness, love of money, hatred and anger. "Trans ideology" is definitely the largest challenge we face right now. Or so you would think from World's front page, which regularly features two, three, or four stories AT A TIME on the subject.
Trans kids will run far away. They will never come to their parents or to the church with their deepest struggles, and who can blame them? But they are not "the aggrieved," out to swindle you into caring or hoodwink you with their "deviant" identities. They are vulnerable kids. Does World care? Do its readers? My heart breaks.
What was the name of Joe's recent book? Toxic Empathy. You cannot change your biological sex. Period. You can certainly destroy your health trying though. And there's plenty of evidence of that.
Yeah, I know. I don’t buy Joe Rigney’s premise that many evangelicals or folks on the Christian right just got TOO soft-hearted and lost their moorings trying too hard to identify with others.
But even accepting that idea for the sake of argument, here’s Rigney’s solution (from an interview this year):
“if someone’s drowning, empathy wants to jump in with both feet and get swept away. Empathy jumps in. Whereas compassion says, I’m going to throw you a life preserver. I’m going to even step in with it and grab you with one arm, but I’m remaining tethered to the shore.”
The problem is that it doesn’t work out that way in real life. Where’s the life preserver in this column? It’s not there. This is more like, pull up the ladder and drive the boat in the opposite direction, lest the person’s beliefs trigger our moral gag reflex.
“Language instructs,” as Rigney says. The language here instructs Christians to protect themselves FIRST. Don’t risk your conscience being seared. Don’t risk being swept away. Don’t let your empathy “poison” you! The language here also instructs trans people that they are gross, gag-worthy, dangerous. Not to mention aggrieved whiners out for a pity party.
Ugh. Those instructions are just SO much more damaging (on both sides) than any of the language Rigney is warning his readers about.
I think you’ve misunderstood our brother, here. Rigney has not said that transgender people are an inherent threat to civilization, but is speaking about the ideology that drives the movement. The ideology indeed is a threat to civilization because it denies creation order.
He also isn’t saying the right has become too soft hearted — he’s critiquing the progressive argument that uses empathy to strong arm people into abandoning their convictions.
In terms of “searing the heart”, you’re mixing metaphors a little bit. We aren’t worried about the damage to us — Jesus was a friend of tax collectors after all. We are worried about the effects of sin on people (especially impressionable children.) By lying to confused individuals by using preferred pronouns, etc, we are encouraging them to continue in their sin — and that is not loving. The longer we engage in sin, the more our conscience becomes seared. The language comes from 1 Timothy 4 where Paul is speaking about false teachers who have devoted themselves to demons — sounds familiar.
Sin ought to disgust us. We realize that we’re just as sinful as our neighbors. One wonders if you are having a moral gag reflex yourself, albeit misguided, that is leading you to object to Mr. Rigney’s words.
I hear you. It’s just that…I had a similar reaction to KCOS. I get that the article is about a specific topic. It’s an important topic. Vulnerable kids should absolutely be protected.
Thing is…this topic gets addressed over and over and over again by MANY other articles here-sometimes more than one a day. And there are none about many other prevalent and problematic forms of wrongdoing and injustice, which definitely disgust me; and which are done by and affect very large percentages of people.
It seems like…the writers here (and maybe readers …no doubt me as well) care more about speaking truth when it involves those they view as “the other side,” but they may be just as reluctant to speak truth to their own side as the people who are criticized in this article. For what it’s worth, this is a significant and troubling change in World since I first started reading it 40 yrs ago.
That’s a fair criticism for the editors at WORLD. I feel similarly about discussions concerning racism and diversity in other contexts, so I can understand a weariness. But it doesn’t address the content of this article. One might wish Rigney wrote about something different—but he didn’t. Furthermore, I understood our friend KCOS originally as saying that Rigney was wrong — even immoral — in his approach to truth telling, which I take issue with.
I agree that criticisms are justified both ways. I used to share the gospel on secular forums several years ago, and…let’s just say I’m glad they didn’t have a downvote feature. It would have made the hostility I encountered from militant atheists seem even worse. But…thing is, I didn’t expect them or the writers to know the truth. I was there to tell THEM the truth. And I knew there would be pushback, if not outright persecution. However, I DO expect a journal which claims to report from a biblical perspective to tell the truth.
I obviously can’t speak for RCOS, though their frustration resonated with me in some ways on an emotional level. For myself, re this article and Rigney’s approach: as I said repeatedly, I don’t disagree with speaking truth. I also agree that it’s easy to adopt language that sanitizes sin and allows it to continue.
But, if Rigney’s main issue is about being genuinely compassionate and telling the truth-at least based on what I’ve seen here-I think Rigney, like World, is being rather one sided in his criticism.
Rigney (and World) seem to be focused on very specific and targeted issues and people to criticize repeatedly in multiple articles, while completely ignoring the many other people who are doing basically the same things with other issues…not to mention many other issues involving great harm to individuals and society. I have seen a lot of ways conservatives and Christians have become desensitized, seared their consciences, and suppressed their moral gag reflexes which rarely, if ever, get mentioned here. (The only writing by Rigney I am familiar with is what I’ve read here.)
Re your comment: My problem is not with someone writing about this topic at all but with the continued and constant focus on this topic as if it is all that matters…and the complete silence about other very important topics that also have to do with speaking truth and employing genuine compassion. It’s also the fact that the focus seems to be exclusively on condemning and judging with little or nothing about guiding, helping, sharing the gospel, restoring, and discipling.
There also appears to be a common tendency to use the word “conservative” interchangeably with “Christian” or “biblical.” I think there are aspects of what has generally been viewed as conservative which align with what is biblical, but not everything does. I mention it here because I’ve seen for myself how blurring that distinction allows and encourages people to do the very things this article criticizes: avoiding speaking uncomfortable truth and justifying falsehood and sin.
I should add this: It’s easy for ME to seek soft words that justify my sin. I desire understanding and forgiveness for myself but find it easy to condemn what I perceive as sin in others. I’m also biased based on prior experience and etc. So I appreciate having these discussions which help me understand different perspectives.
Sorry to go on: this article and the comments obviously hit a nerve with me. Re “language instructs”: While it IS important not to use language that softens and justifies sin, I think it’s equally important not to use language which demonizes and dehumanizes other people.
Jesus was just AND loving. He never justified sin…but he welcomed sinners and ate with them. He gave his life for us when we were his enemies. We are called to follow him…and we can only do it through the guidance and empowering of the Holy Spirit.
Yah I hear you and agree, it’s never okay to dehumanize. Yet in our day and age, we are told that to tell someone that their chosen “sexual identity” is sinful and wrong is inherently dehumanizing because, according to the zeitgeist, you are denying an essential and immutable part of what makes them human. The Bible says “no,” while we are sinners God created us good and in his image, and it’s our own fault that we fell into sin. We have no one to blame but ourselves. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” He’s given us, and all those who are in Christ, the gift of salvation so we no longer must be enslaved to sin—it is not a dehumanizing characteristic. We must tell people that!
So I agree with you — it’s never okay to dehumanize. But that accusation of the OP has been asserted over and over again here without being demonstrated.
I acknowledge that I started this exchange. Perhaps it wasn’t clear, but my intent was not to “speak for” the OP. It was to share how their comment affected me and where I was coming from.
For what it’s worth, I don’t expect society in general to agree with me or promote biblical values. I’ve been persecuted for my faith since I became a believer in the 1970’s. That tension is part of being a follower of Christ. Secular sources are not going to treat us like God expects us to treat them. Responding as God leads (vs reacting based on how I may feel at a given time) is part of following Christ.
A few more comments (sorry, I can’t seem to stop-and please understand that all of this isn’t necessarily aimed at you): if the goal in speaking truth is genuinely for the good of the hearer and for society, speaking the truth in love may not look exactly the same in every circumstance and with every person. Jesus didn’t use the same words or the same exact methods with everyone he ministered to. Paul also didn’t approach everyone in the same way. I didn’t share the gospel the same way with every atheist, occultist, satanist, etc, etc, etc that God sent me to. There were formulas that helped, but no formula, or words, or presentation could change someone’s heart. Only the Holy Spirit could do that.
The atheists I debated online expected judgment and condemnation from Christians and were prepared for it. (Many even tried to provoke it so they could discredit us or even silence us.) They were not at all prepared for how God often lead me: to speak truth, yes, absolutely; but also to show love and mercy, to be willing to listen and show I cared how they felt, and to admit when I was wrong.
All that to say: I hear your frustration, but I can only express my views. I have included my views about the “zeitgeist.” But I can’t speak to or resolve your issues re the OP’s comment. (I suspect you know that and are just giving additional explanation. If so, I hear you. Happy July 4.)
My point is, the truth doesn't change based on context. Rigney wrote an article on Mr. French's capitulation on preferred pronouns and referring to confused individuals by falsehoods. Of course we must allow the Spirit to lead us in our witnessing — but that witnessing is not going to be more efficient by telling lies in the process to make people feel more "comfortable" with our message. "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:16-17
Yes, truth itself doesn’t change. Hopefully it’s clear that I am not suggesting telling lies. I AM trying to explain that HOW truth is told matters-if the reason we are telling the truth is actually for the good of the hearer. There’s more in my comment above re sharing the gospel. And now I really must dash.
In that we are agreed. Peace to you, brother.
Thank you (genuinely) for engaging.
Just wanted to say re: this
"the truth doesn't change based on context"
...It would sound like heresy to say I disagree. But I do think that statement is simplistic. What if I said, there is Truth, and there is truth. I think there are many times when we don't tell the "truth" (lowercase) in our interactions with people, and it's not dishonesty; it may be an expression of love! I honestly don't see how you can read Paul's bit about "all things to all people" without accepting that he was talking about the importance of context--and that "truth" on some level, at least, DOES change depending upon whom you are interacting with.
"(The only writing by Rigney I am familiar with is what I’ve read here.)"
I don't know if you are interested, but here's a long interview that Albert Mohler did with Joe Rigney earlier this year. I find it deeply disturbing to say the least; the implications of his ideas about empathy are wide. This, e.g., on women & doctrine:
"[Empathy in a context] in which you have to draw clear lines and show fortitude and courage in the face of threats, it is not an asset. It is a liability. There is a reason that [women] are barred from the pastoral office... pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill suited to that role."
https://albertmohler.com/2025/02/19/joe-rigney/
Women are barred from pastoral office per 1 Timothy 2:12-14. If you’re disturbed by the Bible, Sock, it’s not the Bible’s problem.
It’s also repugnant that you promote the lie of transgenderism and accept the mutilation of children. Please repent and read the Bible to actually understand it. You’ll have to stand before the Lord one day, and unless you repent, you’ll be on the broad road that leads to eternal conscious torment. You might not believe that, this might be a parody account or a bit of a laugh for you, but one day you won’t be laughing. Come before the Cross, repent of your unbelief, make Jesus Lord of your life and get to know Him as He really is—love and truth together.
Believe me, I'm not here for a laugh, and my account's not a sock puppet. My user name is a straightforward abbreviation of my actual name. I hadn't noticed that it spells "sock" backwards, but that is kind of fun and I don't mind if you call me that.
"it's not the Bible's problem"...
I agree. I believe the problem is with misinterpretation of the Bible, with claims being made for the text that it does not even make for itself.
Thank you. I have tears in my eyes, it warmed my heart so much to read this here, today.
You have succeeded in putting into words for me, what I find troubling about this column. Rigney’s column about empathy was also disturbing. You make some valid points, and I appreciate your comments on this thread.
I appreciate this. Please see my replies here to "not silent" (who I'm very glad is not silent!). It's really heartening to see these responses expressing concern, and I'm moved.
It was also Paul who wrote Romans 1:28-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Is this not also Paul's "nuanced" truth-telling? Is Paul conflicted? We must not have a failure of nerve in telling the truth in love, by presenting the dangers of sin and the goodness of Christ in the gospel, because of an emotionally charged comment "for the children." When Bruno wants to use the girl's bathroom — we must not let him in because we "have become all things to all people." It is not for the children when we lie to them, or Bruno, by telling untruths as Mr. French is doing.
Just as an aside, this comment follows an all-too-common pattern from the progressive: speechless apoplexy -> contrast of "Jesus' ethics" to the biblical truth -> dire consequences if you don't heed them -> heart broken (but not over sin). For too many, the Gospel has become toxic. But what does the Bible teach us to say? "Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand." Souls are dying — we must proclaim the good news to captives held in captivity to their sin. "For such were some of you... But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified..."
"heart broken (but not over sin)"
I listed quite a few specific sins, relevant to this discussion, that break my heart. I expect you think I'm picking & choosing. I might say, so are you. :(
You wrote: “… And forget the sins that Jesus spoke of the most--greed, hypocrisy, pride, lack of compassion, moral blindness, love of money, hatred and anger.” This is the move I am talking about—accusing the other side of ignoring other parts of God’s law when we’re specifically speaking about one that is culturally unpopular. This is peak whataboutism. Yes I agree, those are real sins we should eschew. We must be two table Christians, all Ten Commandments. But that included the 9th commandment, too. I understood your heart break to be what you were complaining about — Rigney’s perceived dangerous othering of “trans kids”.
Paul did not "subjugate his own beliefs" to relate to people; he did not adjust his beliefs at all for others. He limited his Christian liberty (without sinning) in order to win others for Christ.
As for time and place, this is an article that warns about people acting sinfully and their advocates, as well as about Christians who are willing to speak falsely in order to accommodate the language of the world. Certainly there is a place to warn people about such things, and why wouldn't World be an appropriate place for that? Certainly World should be free to judge how much to warn about sins that the editors believe are becoming more prevalent.
As for young people reading the article, the article focuses on people who advocate for lies, and who change the language in order to lie, or who accommodate by adopting the lying language when they should know better. I see no clear indication that the author intends to include impressionable young people within that focus. His criticism is for the deceivers, not the deceived. So the young people should not be so quick to view themselves as the author's target and run away, as you seem to want them to do. I hope, if they are indeed reading this in Christian homes, that they can be given good guidance in that regard.
That being said, I believe the criticisms in the article are right overall, but I think the article could have benefitted from a word of encouragement to those who have been lied to.
Thanks for sharing. For myself, I am definitely not opposed to speaking truth. I did it for years on a secular forum while sharing the gospel with militant atheists…and I was subjected to threats, vile and blasphemous language, and bullying. I hope the forum will forgive me if I share a few lessons I learned and which I think are pertinent.
When I first started out, I humiliated another commenter so badly the entire forum smelled blood and piled on. He was a sexist jerk, and it felt powerful to speak the truth and put him in his place. But later…I felt sick. I knew God had not called me to that forum so I could humiliate people with the truth or put jerks in their place. He called me to share the gospel.
Ironically, the atheists often tried to provoke Christians into attacking them, judging them, telling them they were going to hell, etc. This confirmed their belief that Christians were wrong and terrible. Some hoped to exploit their victimhood to stop all public religious speech. It also allowed them to avoid examining their own suppositions. They were not at all prepared for reasonable and respectful discussion.
Some had been through terrible experiences in churches and/or with Christians, and having someone listen to those experiences-REALLY listen, without making excuses-often made a surprising difference. It’s one thing to say, “We all sin. That’s why we need Christ.” It’s another to listen to and care about the people who have been harmed by those sins.
Back to the article: Several of my church friends have kids who are atheist, gay, or transgender. Their hearts desire is that their children would have peace through Christ and live an abundant life. Telling someone they are terrible using the most blunt available terminology-or shaming them-is extremely unlikely to help them find abundant life through Christ.
Here is some truth: Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 9:10-13 And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 20:26-28 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Thank you for taking the time to type all of this out. Huge respect to you. Thank you for the references/quotes, too.
“We have been ably catechized beneath the progressive gaze. The left has not only commandeered the dictionary — redefining words as it sees fit — But it has also become the arbiter of manners and politeness, ostracizing those who refuse to repeat its fine-sounding lies.”
Reminds me of the mic #6 incident @ PCA GenAss where triggered moderator KDYoung scolded pastor Tim for being intemperate & lacking decorum & relevance (3 untruths) at the slightest scent of Christian candor to call out Ince’s incompetence @ MNA Director.
To be fair, there was a point of order which according to Roberts Rules of Order the moderator has to acknowledge. Brindle had a gracious take on Mathew Everhard's YT channel yesterday. He wasn't necessarily "triggered."
To be fair, that doesn't pass the stink check.
I watched Brindle & Matt yesterday… very odd. Both men showed strange & undeserved deference to KDY by redirecting & deflecting the focus on the difficulty of doing the job of moderator. But, Matt admits (para): "Kevin did a great job, until that mic #6 moment."
Am I to believe KDY -- suddenly -- failed to do the good job he was doing until Tim @ mic#6? No. I'll stick w/ "triggered" bc that's exactly what it looked & sounded like… bc it was.
Their "gracious take" made no rational sense of the situation. They can forgive KDY for his inappropriate interruption and accusations if they want, but don’t act like DeYoung wasn't wrong & rude to shut down debate, as he did. That is not grace and it is not edifying.
Brindle should stick to his guns and stand by his original response from the floor: "Sir, I'm not sure how more temperate I can be!" Everyone knows MNA overture was hot & ready to face on race cards Ince has been playing. World wrote OpEd on him in FEB. It's why the PCA is all a-buzz post-GA... bc KDY was extremely out of place. And it's why Matthew's podcast w/ Tim was on the topic.
As for RRO, it was well after stopping Tim that KDY asks: "Was there a point of order over here?" So the "point of order" is out of order for defending DeYoung bc it came after KDY smacked down mic #6. It's irrelevant to KDY stopping Tim mid-sentence to call him "intemperate & lack decorum." Furthermore, those shouting "point of order" had no point, other than shutting up Tim. But, no need bc DeYoung already did... amidst hissing TE's according to those present. Nasty.
I expect leftists to use polity plays and calls for decorum to silence honest debate... not the PCA.
Good article. I believe that one of the more subtle word changes by language manipulators of our day is the pervasive use of "they" to refer to an individual--even when the person is known to be a man or a woman. Hallmark even sells a plaque that says, "You can spot a dad by *their* courageous heart and a love that lasts" (emphasis added by me). (Not "his" heart, and not "his" love.) I believe this move is to enable people to avoid saying "him or her," which would contradict their lie that there are more than two human genders. I resist.
I would add to the linguistics we have fallen into are the words: abortion, reproductive health and homosexual and heterosexual. Abortion is either infanticide (because the unborn child is an infant) or child sacrifice (to the gods of self-autonomy). Reproductive health is a euphemism that attempts to obfuscate the sins of infanticide/child sacrifice the same way slaveholders used the euphemism "a peculiar institution" to hide the sins of slavery.
The words homosexual and heterosexual are relatively new words (1880s) which obscure the reality of God creating man and woman. Sex is something that human beings do - not who they are. We are not homosexuals or heterosexuals but men and women.
"My guess is that some readers flinched in the previous paragraph when I used the term “'sodomites'.” That's funny, when I read that I was thinking, "way to tell it like it is, Mr. Rigney."
Well, at lease David French has an exciting career writing for the New York Times.
David French flew the conservative coop a long time ago. It’s sad.
David French flew the PCA coop after he and his wife faced racism from church members directed at them/the child they adopted from Ethiopia. Can't speak for him, but I would guess the empathy he expresses today is not unrelated to that experience.
Commenter Ila May's link apparently gives a different translation to Solzhenitsyn's quote in this article, which I like better:
"And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!"
Thank you Joe Rigney. I've noticed that modern Christians trend to adopt the culture's revisionist dictionary. "When you surround yourself with those who have already surrendered to the moral revolutionaries (as French has done), you begin to talk and act like them. " My point is this: why not use God's Word as the guide for describing our culture? See Romans 1 (the unrighteous that suppress the truth, foolish thinkers, darkened hearts) , Ephesians 2 (son's of disobedience, children of wrath). Speaking the truth plainly makes the need for gospel of Jesus more compelling than does excusing sin by white-washing our verbiage. Great job Joe!
Wow, didn't expect a hit piece on David French this morning! He must have cut Joe off on the freeway or something.
Hit piece? Really? I am grateful for the good summary. From what I’ve seen, David French has been walking toward progressivism for years now.
Love the Solzhenitsyn quote, so apt. The whole open letter from which is it excerpted can be read here:
https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
I would love to hear David's response to this post.
Same!
You’d be better off reading the Bible.
Well written, “moral gag reflex” such a vivid, spot on description. Words have meaning and the crux of the difference between compassion and empathy is so significant. Truth and love are the same person, you cannot compromise one without impacting the other. In my experience when in a truth and love communication with an individual in sin for which I have compassion he or she does not understand or feel that for me to compromise speaking truth would be to compromise my love for them. This is so very hard to do and live out especially when the truth pushes that someone you love further away. Sure, it can be socially and economically difficult and costly (i.e. Mr. French), but it is heartbreaking when your family member or friend is that individual and they choose to alienate you for not compromising truth.
Yes, It is possible to speak the truth without doing it in love. I know. I’ve done it, and I regret it. Giving love and truth in harmony can be very, very difficult. It is among the most difficult things we are called to do, and it is especially so in the era when people demand that their sin be celebrated.
Progressives should be more accurately called regressives. "Gender-affirming care" is truthfully called "Gender mutilation & harm." "Pro-choice" should be called murder of babies. "Love is love" actually means, "Sexual desire and romantic feelings are sexual desire and romantic feelings." I totally agree with Mr. Rigney. When we use words that are lies, we lie ourselves and aid our enemy who is the father of lies.
Many American Christians just want to appear to be nice and to fit in with the crowd. These days they have to choose between that and speaking the truth. Once you’re willing to let go of your worldly reputation and stop worrying about people-pleasing it’s incredibly freeing to your heart, soul and mind. Sometimes Jesus really meant it when he said that following him would come at a cost.