- Satanic Strategy By Paris Reidhead
Published On :- 2014-Jan-5th
Admittedly I have listened in on Juanita Bynum’s take on Eddie Long’s untimely transition a few times.
And, I summarized her comforting words here.
A short, less than 10 minutes, segment that talks of the Work of the Holy Spirit is here.
She mentioned a name Daniel Lamont, I think it was.
As I am not familiar with that name, googled it, but did not find correlative matches.
But, found an interesting article by my Tocayo, Daniel Davis.
I think listening into his thinking will help yours.
Bruce Jenner’s Vanity Fair coming-out party reaffirms traditional gender norms, even as he attempts to flee from them.
By Daniel Davis
JUNE 3, 2015
Judging from the new cover of Vanity Fair, it appears that Bruce Jenner’s highly publicized transformation to purported womanhood has finally reached its climax. The title reads, “Call me Caitlyn.” The actual meaning? “Call me woman.”
As we’ve seen in recent months, the transgender movement sees itself as the next civil-rights frontier. It clearly hopes to copy the LGBT movement in winning public approval by securing more and more media exposure. But as the movement makes its public appeal, some internal contradictions in liberal sexual ideology are quickly emerging. One major contradiction looms large for the transgender movement, and it deserves attention.
For years, a major aim of the sexual revolution has been to deconstruct gender differences as being “social constructs,” mere cultural projections of what maleness and femaleness are and mean. This critique evacuated gender of any physical meaning and reduced it to an existential feeling—a feeling of being male or female, regardless of one’s sexual biology.
The effect of this critique has been to relativize gender, and thus to abolish it as a meaningful category. Because you can no longer tie “femaleness” to a normative set of traits or acts (for example, wearing dresses or marrying men), the category itself cannot help but lose its meaning. To call any particular act a “male” or “female” act would be to revert back to antiquated, repressive, patriarchal norms—norms that only serve to foster social inequality.
This is the ideology that governs liberal sexual philosophy, and it collides head-on with major aspects of the transgender movement. Transgenderism is unavoidably based on a kind of gender essentialism. It recognizes gender identities as being associated with certain socially accepted norms. What does it mean, for example, that Jenner’s “gender” is female? It means that he gets a sex change. It means that he poses in traditionally female attire for the cover of Vanity Fair. It means that he reaffirms traditional gender norms, even as he attempts to flee from them.
In fact, he cannot help but reaffirm them, for they are the only tangible way of expressing gender. Inner feelings must inevitably take on flesh, and gender—understood as a mere feeling—must inevitably express itself in material form.
This is a problem for the broader liberal sexual movement. It wants to celebrate transgenderism, but it cannot do so without referring to—and thus, at least tacitly affirming—gender norms. To celebrate Jenner’s femininity is actually to commit a liberal heresy: to revert back to a form of gender essentialism.
There’s a flip side to this coin. As we noted, liberal sexual philosophy strips the term “gender” of all normative meaning. It reduces gender to a cultural phenomenon. In doing this, it robs transgenderism of its key claims to gender authenticity, and therefore of its right to moral affirmation. Consider it this way: If gender has no real connection to biology and certain social traits, then someone’s claim to a gender identity is virtually meaningless. And if it is meaningless, how can we be morally obliged to recognize it—let alone even understand it?
Marc Lamont Hill of the Huffington Post caught on to at least part of this problem on Twitter recently. After making clear that he supports for Jenner’s new gender identity, he wrote:
Between the Vanity Fair spread and “she’s so pretty” convos, we’ve smuggled in the same old cis/Eurocentric narratives about womanhood.
If we only celebrate and welcome Caitlyn Jenner bc she conforms to tradition cis/and European standards of beauty, we are making a mistake.
Hill understands that affirming someone’s gender identity involves affirming some cultural instantiation of that gender identity. As a post-colonial liberal, he wants to tear down those standards because, in his view, they perpetuate social injustice and gender inequality. Hill wants to affirm people’s gender identity in the abstract, but refrain from affirming the particular instantiation of that identity.
Unfortunately for Hill, the transgender community is seeking an embodied affirmation, one that sees gender identities as rightly fitting with a certain biology, a certain set of clothes—a lived femininity. Caitlyn Jenner doesn’t want to be affirmed in the abstract. He wants America to affirm his gender identity in terms of a lived femininity, and that means affirming his sex change and clothes as feminine. Those cultural norms are exactly the kind of “repressive” gender norms that Hill and other progressives want to abolish.
Hence, the liberal contradiction. If you truly celebrate Jenner’s transition, you have to do it by recognizing some cultural narrative about womanhood, thereby perpetuating gender “inequality.” But if you’re committed to the abolition of gender norms, there’s no way you can affirm Jenner’s femininity, except in the meaningless abstract. It’s a lose-lose.
The root problem that led to this contradiction was the divorcing of gender from sexual biology and social traits. Having critiqued gender norms as being social constructs (and oppressive ones at that), gender has now become a free-floating abstraction that is wholly disconnected from material norms.
For gender to actually mean anything, it must instantiated in particular ways of being—a particular biology, particular clothes, and a particular way of relating to the opposite sex.
Even if these ways of being were all socially constructed, they would be essential to any meaningful understanding of gender. When gender is unhinged from biological sex and from generic social traits, it is an empty term, devoid of content and meaning.
The transformation of Bruce Jenner into Caitlyn Jenner only proves this reality. For Bruce to actualize his “true gender”—his femininity—he had to get a sex change and dress up as a woman. His “gender” had obvious implications for how he would live.
There’s no getting around this connection between gender and sex, between gender and social traits. It testifies to the eternal fact that human beings are fundamentally soul and body. However much we might try to be gender Gnostics and suppress this objective connection between the body and the soul, we cannot achieve the separation. Just as the soul depends on the body, gender depends on biology. If we wish to speak of gender, we must speak of the body—and that’s not going to change.
Daniel Davis is editor at Ecclesiam.org, a Christian journal dedicated to contemporary cultural issues.
Other good write-ups from ecclesiam.org
Agabus (Greek: Ἄγαβος) or Agabo was an early follower of Christianity mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as a prophet.
He is traditionally remembered as one of the Seventy Disciples described in Luke 10:1-24.
According to extra-biblical tradition, Agabus appears to have been a resident of Jerusalem. He is said to have been one of the seventy disciples, mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, commissioned to preach the gospel.
It is said that Agabus was with the twelve apostles in the upper room on the day of Pentecost.
According to Acts 11:27-28, he was one of a group of prophets who travelled from Jerusalem to Antioch.
Agabus had received the gift of prophecy, and predicted a severe famine which the author of Acts says occurred during the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius.
Also, according to Acts 21:10-12, ‘a certain prophet’, (Greek: τις) named Agabus met Paul the Apostle at Caesarea Maritima in 58 AD. He was, according to the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, ‘no doubt the same’ Agabus as had been mentioned in Acts 11:27-28, and Heinrich Meyer stated that ‘there is no reason against the assumed identity of this person with the one mentioned in Acts 11:28.
Agabus warned Paul of his coming capture; he bound his own hands and feet with Paul’s belt to demonstrate what would happen if he continued his journey to Jerusalem, stating the message of the Holy Spirit:
“So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles“.
Paul, however, would not be persuaded to stay away.
Herschel Walker is widely regarded as one of football’s greatest running backs. He led the University of Georgia to victory in the Sugar Bowl on the way to an NCAA Championship and he capped a sensational college career by earning the 1982 Heisman Trophy. Herschel spent twelve years in the NFL, where he rushed for more than eight thousand yards and scored sixty-one rushing touchdowns.
But despite the acclaim he won as a football legend, track star, Olympic competitor, and later a successful businessman, Herschel realized that his life, at times, was simply out of control. He often felt angry, self-destructive, and unable to connect meaningfully with friends and family. Drawing on his deep faith, Herschel turned to professionals for help and was ultimately diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, formerly known as multiple personality disorder.
While some might have taken this diagnosis as a setback, Herschel approached his mental health with the same indomitable spirit he brought to the playing field. It also gave him, for the first time, insight into his life’s unexplained passages, stretches of time that seemed forever lost. Herschel came to understand that during those times, his “alters,” or alternate personalities, were in control.
Born into a poor, but loving family in the South, Herschel was an overweight child with a stutter who suffered terrible bullying at school. He now understands that he created “alters” who could withstand abuse. But beyond simply enduring, other “alters” came forward to help Herschel overcome numerous obstacles and, by the time he graduated high school, become an athlete recognized on a national level.
In Breaking Free, Herschel tells his story — from the joys and hardships of childhood to his explosive impact on college football to his remarkable professional career. And he gives voice and hope to those suffering from DID. Herschel shows how this disorder played an integral role in his accomplishments and how he has learned to live with it today. His compelling account testifies to the strength of the human spirit and its ability to overcome any challenge.
Leonard Ravenhill (June 18, 1907 – November 27, 1994) was an English Christian evangelist and author who focused on the subjects of prayer and revival. He is best known for challenging western evangelicalism (through his books and sermons) to compare itself to the early Christian Church as chronicled in the Book of Acts.
His most notable book is Why Revival Tarries which has sold over a million copies worldwide.
Among others influenced by Ravenhill were Keith Green, Ravi Zacharias, Tommy Tenney, Steve Hill, Michael L. Brown, Charles Stanley, Bill Gothard, Paul Washer, and David Wilkerson.
He was a close friend of pastor and writer A.W. Tozer.
Through his teaching and books, Ravenhill addressed the disparities he perceived between the New Testament Church and the Church in his time and called for adherence to the principles of Biblical revival.
Tozer said of Ravenhill:
“To such men as this, the church owes a debt too heavy to pay. The curious thing is that she seldom tries to pay him while he lives.
Rather, the next generation builds his sepulchre and writes his biography –
as if instinctively and awkwardly to discharge an obligation the previous generation to a large extent ignored“.