In June 2019, Governor J.B. Pritzker issued an executive order that should have been the proverbial straw that broke the backs of already oppressed conservative families with children remaining in our broken school indoctrination centers. The order had two parts.

The first part mandated the establishment of a “trans” task force whose members “have experience or expertise related to supporting transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students in schools,” and who would concoct the many and diverse ways that government schools must participate in the “trans”-cultic fiction.

The second part mandated that the Illinois State Board of Education “develop and make publicly available a model policy or procedures” that does the same thing as the “trans” task force was charged with doing.

Take note of the unstated assumptions embedded in the words “related to supporting” sexually confused minors in the executive order. In the Upside Down, where Pritzker and his collaborators live, “supporting” does not mean helping minors accept their immutable biological sex and scientific reality. Oh no, “supporting” means affirming their sexual confusion and their rejection of objective reality.

The recommendations were posted in Jan. 2020 and are as destructive as all “trans”-cultic beliefs are.

They include the following:

• Schools are to add the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected bases for extracurricular opportunities. In other words, schools must allow biological males—also known as boys—to participate in girls’ sports.

• Schools are to allow students who pretend to be the sex they are not to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms.

• Schools are to “provide ongoing training to all staff members.” In other words, taxpayer-subsidized schools are expected to indoctrinate all staff and faculty with leftist beliefs about gender dysphoria.

• All school employees are to use the incorrect or goofy invented “pronouns” that sexually confused and tyrannical teens want them to use, and schools are to discipline “promptly” any district employee who refuses to use such pronouns.

• Schools are to hire “Gender Support Coordinators” to provide “gender-affirming support for transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.” Yes, Illinois taxpayers will be paying the salaries of school employees to harm children.

• And straight from the task force recommendations: “When a transgender, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming student does not have a supportive home environment, regardless of their age, the Gender Support Coordinator can work with the student to identify what course of action will prioritize their safety.” Can you discern the meaning in the thicket of weedy rhetoric? In plain English, the task force is saying that if parents oppose their children’s participation in a sexual masquerade, viewing it rightly as false and destructive, then school employees led by the Gender Support Coordinator will help these students deceive their parents.

The task force recommendations also include this remarkable statement about student privacy:

Under state and federal law, the discomfort or privacy concerns of students, teachers, or parents are not valid reasons to deny or limit the equal use of facilities by transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students. Rather, the interest of any student seeking more privacy should be addressed by providing that student a more private option upon their request. “The prejudices of others are part of what the [Human Rights Act] was meant to prevent.” …  “[T]here is no right that insulates a student from coming in contact with others who are different than them or a Bathroom Privacy Act, unless the behavior violates a school policy or is criminal.” … The presence of a transgender student in a locker room simply does not “implicate the constitutional privacy rights of others with whom such facilities are shared.”

Note the obfuscation: Boys in girls’ locker rooms are described as merely “different.” By not specifically identifying the nature of this difference, the “trans” task force avoids discussion of whether sex differences have any meaning relative to undressing.

Now girls who do not want to undress in the presence of a biological boy in the girls’ locker rooms have to request a “more private option.” In other words, girls’ locker rooms are no longer private spaces for girls.

Just curious, why is student opposition to using private spaces with persons whose sex they don’t share a “prejudice,” but student opposition to using private spaces with persons whose “gender identity” they presumably don’t share is not a prejudice?

Moreover, since gender identity is a subjective internal experience, how do boys who pretend to be girls know the gender identities of the boys in boys’ locker rooms or girls in girls’ locker rooms?

Who—you may be wondering—concocted these God-forsaken policies? Serving on this ideologically non-diverse task force of 27 people were 3 recent high school graduates and 2 then-current high school students. So, five leftist students were involved in setting policy for all Illinoisans but not one conservative adult was involved.

One of the propagandists was A. J. Jennings an early childhood education teacher at the University of Chicago Lab Schools, who wrote about her goal of using her classroom to indoctrinate other people’s children with her sexuality ideology:

As an educator (and a person), I value conversation as a way to build understanding and transform perspectives. It is an incredible curricular tool for addressing issues of identity (e.g., race, class, size, gender, sexuality, ability, religion). It can be especially meaningful when our students initiate the conversations. So I work to create a classroom environment where differing points of view can be addressed and explored. My goal is for the children to feel confident about articulating their point of view and safe enough to consider other perspectives. As teachers. … we can model nonjudgmental behavior and challenge binary thinking.

This is especially significant in early childhood education. As young children develop their understanding of the world, they tend to rely heavily on binaries. If we understand the binaries a child is working within, we can encourage that child to think of counterexamples or introduce counterexamples ourselves into the conversation. These provide useful stumbling blocks that encourage them to expand their thinking.

Does “transforming perspectives,” “challenging binary thinking,” and introducing “stumbling blocks” to children’s binary thinking constitute non-judgmentalism, or is it tendentious leading?

Jennings also provided an illustration from her own class of 4-year-olds on exactly how she leads little ones, baby step-by-baby step, into her dark world of ignorance while they are yet too young to understand sexuality issues in their moral, ontological, and epistemic complexity:

One day, Rory approached me during playtime, visibly shaken. “Those kids are telling me that girls can’t marry girls and they can!”

“Well, let’s go and talk with them about it,” I responded. When we reached the two girls, I told them that Rory was worried about the conversation they were having and asked what they were talking about. I learned that, just as Rory reported, the two girls had been discussing marriage and how girls couldn’t marry girls. Rory had been insisting they could. He was certain of it. His mom had told him. The other two were skeptical. They all looked to me to clarify this point of contention. …

I was delighted to be a part of the conversation. …  I generally feel that when talking about marriage, most children mean adults loving one another, so I went that route.

“Two girls can be in love with each other,” I responded.

“Yeah!” agreed Rory, vindicated by his teacher’s affirmation of this point.

I continued: “And girls can love boys. And boys can love boys.” The three children mulled this over.

“Like my mom and dad love each other,” one of them answered.

“Right,” I said. The kids continued their conversation of marriage and were no longer looking for my input. I listened for a few more minutes as they tossed around the idea that love might not be constrained to a mom loving a dad. Rory mentioned that he had a friend who had two moms who were married. The other two children were willing to accept this and incorporate the new information into their understanding of the boundaries of love and marriage.

There you have it. Binaries successfully challenged. Perspectives changed. Love is love, man. And no need to introduce the confounding ideas of different types of love. This “teacher” is one of the people setting policy for all Illinois public schools.

Here are a few more members of Pritzker’s Posse Propagandus:

Jax Wokas is a girl who pretends to be a boy and is committed to “intersectional activism.”

Jordon Eason is a girl who pretends to be a boy. She testified on behalf of a male student who pretends to be female—“Nova” Maday—in Maday’s  lawsuit against District 211 and conservative community group Students and Parents for Privacy. Maday was suing for the legal “right” to have unrestricted access to girls’ private spaces.

Benton Goff is a girl from Marion, Illinois who pretends to be a boy and is also a “trans”-activist.

Tre Graham is a cross-dressing boy from Marion, Illinois who identifies as “genderqueer.” Here’s a Dec. 2020 tweet from Graham:

i just want you to know that you insulting my gender expression will not get you head!!! You dumbass faggot!!! BTW it is 2020! Come out!!! We don’t care that you [want] men to suck your d***!!!!

Yes, this is the kind of young person Pritzker thinks should set policy for all Illinois schools.

Graham and Benton Hoff have been friends for years, so, the “trans” Posse Propagandus is not even finding a diverse cross-section of current students/recent grads. Of the five students on the Posse, all are activists and two are from the same social group.

Myles Brady Davis is a Chicago woman who pretends to be a man who is married to a man who pretends to be a woman. So, they are a heterosexual couple deeply involved in cosplay. Davis like many cross-sex narcissists manages to get herself in the press—a lot—most recently for the perfectly natural thing for women to do. She gave birth. The Chicago press refers to Davis and her husband as a “trans” power couple.

Jamie Gliksberg is a senior attorney with Lambda Legal, a law firm that self-identifies as a “civil rights” organization and is dedicated to the proposition that all sexually deviant men and women are more equal than the rest of society.

Channyn Lynne Parker is a man who pretends to be a woman and identifies as a “human rights advocate” even as he works like the devil to deny women and men the right to be free of opposite-sex persons in private spaces. He also works for the “LGBT”-affirming Howard Brown “Health” Center.

Jordee Yanez is a young woman and former CPS student who pretends to be a man.

Nat Duran is a young woman who pretends to be a man and works for the pro-“trans/pro-homosexuality propaganda machine deceptively named the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance

Veronica Noland: Her name should be familiar to regular IFI readers. She’s the Illinois School District U-46 board member who referred to parents who oppose co-ed locker rooms as “narrow-minded fear mongers.”

Mika Yamamoto is the mother of a 10-year-old boy who pretends to be a girl. His parents, mother Yamamoto and father Brian Freireich, have renamed their son. His new name is “Admiral Ocean Freireich.” The family moved from Chicago to Oak Park, which jumped aboard the “trans” train long ago.

We cannot expect culture to improve if we keep placing our children under the tutelage of activists who teach children that body- and soul-destroying sexual deviance is good. Remember, these “trans” recommendations are in addition to the Illinois law requiring that all children in grades K-12  be taught positively about homosexuality and “trans”-cultism.

Parents, the fix is in. Get out now.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Transing-Gov-Schools.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

While theologians Dr. Denny Burk, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Dr. John Piper, and Pastor Douglas Wilson say Christians should not use incorrect pronouns when referring to people who pretend to be the sex they aren’t, increasing numbers of purportedly theologically orthodox Christians believe Christians should use them. They believe that refusing to use “preferred pronouns” will result in “trans”-identifying persons severing relationships. And to “woke” theologians and pastors, maintaining relationships supersedes truth.

Christian capitulation to sin will always be accompanied by theological rationalizations that will sound superficially reasonable. In a recent episode of his “Ask Me Anything” podcast, JD Greear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, proffered such rationalizations as he revealed that he uses incorrect pronouns when referring to “trans”-identifying persons. He argued that his complicity with the false and destructive “trans” ideology constitutes “generosity of spirit,” which he contrasts with “truth-telling.” Greear also claimed that Preston Sprinkle, president of the Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, does likewise.

Before going further, I want to note that several of the quotes cited by Greear and to which I will be responding appear to be wrongly attributed by Greear to Sprinkle. These incorrectly attributed quotes come instead from a paper by Gregory Coles who identifies as a “celibate, gay Christian” and is part of the celibate, “gay” Christian movement criticized by many, including Denny Burk who wrote this about Coles’ memoir:

Coles seems to equate differences about homosexual immorality with differences that Christians have about second order doctrines. But how can homosexual immorality be treated in this way when the Bible says that those who commit such deeds do not inherit the kingdom of God.

Coles doesn’t merely say Christians may use incorrect pronouns. In his paper titled, “What Pronouns Should Christians Use for Transgender People,” which is littered with PC language created by the “LGBTQ” community to advance its ideology, Coles argues Christians should use incorrect pronouns:

… [T]he most biblical response to transgender people’s pronouns is a posture of unequivocal pronoun hospitality. That is, I believe that all Christians can and should use pronouns that reflect the expressed gender identities of transgender people, regardless of our views about gender identity ethics. If a person identifies herself to you as “she,” I hope you will consider it an act of Christ-like love to call her “she” out of respect, whether or not you believe that the way she expresses her gender identity is honoring to God.

Astonishingly, Coles grounds his defense of appeasement “Christ-like pronoun hospitality” in this passage from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 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. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Coles applies this passage to the current pronoun mandates, appealing also to “respect” to justify appeasement:

When we apply Paul’s linguistic approach to the pronouns we use about transgender people, I believe we arrive at a posture of pronoun hospitality: a willingness to accommodate the pronouns of our transgender neighbors regardless of our own views about the Christian ethics of gender identity. That is, when we order our language toward making sure that the truth of the gospel can be heard in an understandable way by those around us, we are compelled to use pronouns in a way that effectively communicates our respect for transgender people, even if we still believe that followers of Jesus are called to express their gender identity in accordance with their appointed sex.

If, instead of referring to “our own views about the Christian ethics of gender identity,” Coles had referred to “the truth of Christian ethics regarding gender identity,” the problem with his worldview would become clearer. Imagine a Christian saying, “We should be willing to use the pronouns of our transgender neighbors regardless of the truth of Christian ethics regarding gender identity.”

Does the anger of “trans”-cultists toward Christians who refuse to mis-sex people signify lack of understanding or does it signal rebellion? Is it an act of respect to concede to demands to call someone something that is an integral part of an ideology that denies reality, affirms sin as good, and grievously harms both individuals and society?  Can true respect—like true biblical love—ever entail denial or even the appearance of denial of another person’s embodiment as male or female?

Coles’ interpretation of the passage in Corinthians is at odds with that of theologian Thomas Schreiner:

Cultural flexibility, however, is not infinitely elastic. For instance, Paul does not compromise on moral norms or on fundamental truths of the gospel.

Theologian Paul E. Garland shares a similar understanding:

[Paul] does not think that fundamental and distinctive Christian demands are negotiable depending on the circumstances. He did not eat idol food in order to become “as one  without the law to those without the law.” He did not tone down his assault on idolatry to avoid offending idolaters or curry favor with them. His accommodation has nothing to do with watering down the gospel message, soft-pedaling its ethical demands.

Evidently, Coles doesn’t view Genesis 1:27 (“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”) or Deuteronomy 22:5 (“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.) as fundamental, distinctive, and non-negotiable.

It should trouble Coles, Greear, and Sprinkle that they are participants in what New Testament scholar N.T. Wright describes as a new and damaging incarnation of the heresy of Gnosticism:

The confusion about gender identity is a modern, and now internet-fueled, form of the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism. The Gnostic, one who “knows”, has discovered the secret of “who I really am”, behind the deceptive outward appearance. … This involves denying the goodness, or even the ultimate reality, of the natural world. Nature, however, tends to strike back, with the likely victims in this case being vulnerable and impressionable youngsters who, as confused adults, will pay the price for their elders’ fashionable fantasies.

To bolster his position, Coles points to Christianity Today (CT), which has now regrettably adopted secular journalistic practices, using incorrect pronouns for cross-sex passers.

A 2015 article by Dr. Mark Yarhouse in CT provides evidence that both CT and Yarhouse have capitulated to the wicked and deceitful “trans” ideology. Yarhouse writes,

I still recall one of my first meetings with Sara. Sara is a Christian who was born male and named Sawyer by her [sic] parents. As an adult, Sawyer transitioned to female.

Sara would say transitioning—adopting a cross-gender identity—took 25 years. It began with facing the conflict she [sic] experienced between her [sic] biology and anatomy as male, and her [sic] inward experience as female.

With absolute certainty, Sprinkle offers this dire warning about refusal to participate in the “trans” lie:

“If you want to immediately cut off a relationship with somebody, which is ending all opportunity to embody and share Jesus with the person, then don’t use the pronouns they want you to use. It is an immediate relational killer.”

He is saying that if unbelievers lost in spiritual darkness will become so angry at the refusal of Christians to participate in their reality-denying, body- and soul-destroying fiction that they sever relationships, Christians should capitulate. This position will result in an enfeebled relinquishment of culture-making to sinners lost in darkness.

The homosexual and “trans” communities use language as a tool to transform culture. They redefine words, emptying them of their former meanings, and invent new words that embody subversive and false assumptions. They become enraged at anyone who refuses to yield to their language diktats, and then some faith leaders say, “If we refuse to use their language, we kill relationships thereby killing our ability to witness.” What a diminished view of God’s sovereignty such a position reveals.

Moreover, enraged responses to encounters with truth sometimes signify the pricking of a conscience. Sometimes a respectful demurral from participating in serious sin is a seed planted. The ethics of speech are not determined by the subjective response of hearers of that speech. The ethics are determined by the content (i.e., is it true) and the delivery (i.e., is it civil).

Coles repeatedly appeals to the feelings of “trans”-identifying persons as determinative of the terms Christians should use. If, Coles argues, “trans”-identifying persons feel—or claim to feel—“shamed, invisible, sidelined, defiled, invalidated, microaggressed, disappeared, or leprous,” Christians should use whatever pronouns these people prefer, or we destroy our witness.

Is there any evidence that Jesus engaged in such “relational/missional” evangelism or fretted about how sinners would feel if he refused to affirm the sin they engaged in or placed at the center of their identities? When he encountered the rich, young ruler; the woman caught in adultery; or Zacchaeus, the tax collector, how long did Jesus dally in relationships before he told them to repent of their sins?

If refusing to concede through our language that a biological man is a woman makes such a man feel “defiled” or “microaggressed,” imagine if he had been part of the multitude that John the Baptist called a brood of vipers.

Dr. Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics, makes clear what Greear’s, Coles’, and Sprinkle’s purported hospitality and respect signify:

It is not an act of “hospitality” or “respect” to the offender to use fake pronouns and proper names but rather (1) a scandal to the “weak” and young in the church and a rightful violation of conscience for many that will lead many to stumble to their ruin; (2) an accommodation to sin that God finds utterly abhorrent, to say nothing of the fact that it is an egregious lie; and (3) a complicity in the offender’s self-dishonoring, self-degrading, and self-demeaning behavior that does him or her (and the grieving ex-spouse and children, if there are any) no favor because it can get the person in question excluded from the kingdom of God.

What’s next? Treating as a married couple an incestuous union involving a man and his mother, allegedly as a show of hospitality and respect? Is that what Paul would have done at Corinth? Addressing the man and his stepmother as “husband” and “wife” so as to extend “hospitality” and “respect”? What kind of revisionist lunacy is this? Paul would not have taken this approach even for those who don’t profess to be believers.

Attorney, journalist, senior editor at the recently launched political website The Dispatch, and Christian, David French exposes the error in manipulative tactics used to shame Christians into rhetorical concessions to the destructive “trans” ideology:

When I use a male pronoun to describe Chelsea Manning, I’m not trolling. I’m not being a jerk. I’m not trying to make anyone angry. I’m simply telling the truth. I’m reflecting biological reality, and I’m referring to the created order as outlined in Genesis 1 — “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Nor is this a matter of “manners.” I’ve encountered many well-meaning people who’ve told me that I should acquiesce to new pronouns because it’s the polite thing to do. I want to avoid hurting feelings, don’t I? I want to treat someone the way I’d like to be treated, right? What’s the harm in a little white lie?

But when your definition of manners requires that I verbally consent to a fundamentally false and important premise, then I dissent. You cannot use my manners to win your culture war. I will speak respectfully, I will never use a pronoun with the intent of causing harm, and if I encounter a person in obvious emotional distress I will choose my words very carefully. But I will not say what I do not believe.

Coles asserts there are two assumptions “about the nature of language” on which Christians who reject “trans” language diktats rely:

Assumption #1: Pronoun gender always and only refers to an individual’s appointed sex.

Assumption #2: When our definitions of words differ from other people’s definitions, “telling the truth” means using our own definitions.

Assumption #2 implicitly rejects the Christian view that objective truth exists. Christians have no obligation to treat assumption #2 as if it’s true. It’s passing strange that a Christian would treat his own definitions of words like “he,” “she,” and “they” as just other assumptions. Coles seems to hold the view that Peter Kreeft disdains when he says the phrase “your truth” is both oxymoronic and moronic.

Burk reveals the sullied underbelly of Coles’ expectation that Christians treat their biblically informed definitions—not as true—but as merely one set of assumptions in the diverse universe of competing assumptions:

So much of the evangelical conversation on these issues has been colonized by secular identity theories. Those theories are premised on an unbiblical anthropology which defines human identity as “what I feel myself to be” rather than “what God designed me to be.” If there is to be a recovery and renewal of Christian conscience on sexuality issues, secular identity theories must give way to God’s design as revealed in nature and scripture.

Coles justifies the redefinition of pronouns by the “trans” cult by arguing—accurately—that language changes, but the reality of linguistic shifts doesn’t mean that Christians should acquiesce to politically driven changes that embody lies and which are increasingly imposed by force.

Greear also quoted conservative theologian Andrew T. Walker’s book God and the Transgender Debate in which Walker says,

“My own position is that if a transgender person comes to your church, it is fine to refer to them by their preferred pronoun.”

Greear failed to include what Walker said in an article published four months after publication of his book:

“Though it is politically incorrect to do so, I will not refer to someone with their desired pronoun in a public venue such as a talk. Those with writing or speaking platforms have an obligation to speak and write truthfully and not kowtow to political correctness or excuse falsehood.”

The abandonment of theological orthodoxy always happens incrementally, as it’s happening today. C. S. Lewis warned of this in The Screwtape Letters in which the senior demon Screwtape writes this to his nephew Wormwood, a Junior Tempter:

My dear Wormwood,

Obviously, you are making excellent progress. My only fear is lest in attempting to hurry the patient you awaken him to a sense of his real position. For you and I, who see that position as it really is, must never forget how totally different it ought to appear to him. We know that we have introduced a change of direction in his course which is already carrying him out of his orbit around the Enemy; but he must be made to imagine that all the choices which have effected this change of course are trivial and revocable. He must not be allowed to suspect that he is now, however slowly, heading right away from the sun on a line which will carry him into the cold and dark of utmost space.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pronouns_2.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special feature!

This past weekend, I contacted a committed Christian friend who is a public middle school administrator in another state to ask if his school mandates that staff, faculty, and administrators use incorrect pronouns when referring to “trans”-identifying students. He responded that his school does not currently have any such students; that neither the administration nor school board has discussed the issue; and that if or when a “trans”-identifying student demands to be referred to by incorrect pronouns, the administration will consult school attorneys about what to do.

I was, as the British say, gobsmacked.

The “trans” issue has been roiling the cultural waters for years now. Students who masquerade as the sex they are not are suing school districts; teachers are being fired for refusing to use incorrect pronouns (i.e., they refuse to lie); a male middle school teacher was disciplined for refusing to supervise a masquerading girl as she used the boys’ locker room; Obama sent “Dear Colleague” letters to every public school in the country ordering them to treat sexual delusions as reality; children are being taught that in order to be compassionate, they must share restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers; and girls and boys are being forced to compete in sports against opposite-sex peers. In the face of this science-denying, privacy-eradicating, intellectually and morally vacuous ideology, it’s both incomprehensible and indefensible that school districts are burying their heads and moral compasses deep in the shifting sand.

It’s also baffling that deeply committed Christ-followers who work in public schools have not begun preparing for the inevitability that they will be ordered by the government—that is, their employer—to speak lies in the service of a body- and soul-destroying ideology.

In answer to a question regarding how Christians should refer to “trans”-identifying persons, esteemed pastor, author, and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary, John Piper, writes that he would “probably… submit to [using the preferred first name] in the short run at least” because the gender-association of proper names is arbitrary and shifting. For example, the name “Joycelyn” is a boy’s name in France, and “Aubrey” is a boy’s name in England, whereas both are deemed girls’ names in the United States. More important, Piper provides the reasons Christians must not use incorrect pronouns when referring to “trans”-identifying persons:

[I]f in the office…  I was compelled to identify every so-called transgendered person by the pronoun they preferred in all of my emails, or conversations… or I would get disciplined… I would say to my superiors, I cannot treat he’s as she’s and she’s as he’s.

“I will draw a line and say that I will not call he ‘she.’ I will not call she ‘he.’”

…. I would be lying to call a he a “she”…. And it would be contrary to my understanding of sexuality and I would start looking for another job.

The same thing applies to bathrooms, locker rooms, and hotel rooms where women identify as men or vice versa. I would refuse to have a roommate who said she was a man, even though I share a room in my travels with my assistant all the time. He is a man, and I know he is a man, and that is a perfectly normal thing to do. But if they insisted that I share the same bathroom, share the same locker room, or share the same hotel room, I am looking for another job.

…. Naming may have a certain ambiguity and arbitrariness to it, but the language of “he” and “she” and the use of bathrooms and hotel rooms does not. And I will draw a line and say, I will not call he “she.” I will not call she “he.” And I will not intrude on the sexual privacy of a person of the opposite sex or walk into a situation where they would intrude upon mine.

So, what should every Christian administrator and teacher employed by Big Brother in government schools do? They should immediately ask their superiors and school board this question:

If a “trans”-identifying student were to request that I use incorrect pronouns when referring to them, would I be required to do so even if it conflicts with beliefs about sexuality and about lying that derive from my religious faith?   

No parent should place their children in a purportedly educational environment in which the adults charged with teaching do not respect the reality and meaning of biological sex, who use incorrect pronouns, who pretend that boys can be girls or vice versa, who teach implicitly or explicitly that compassion and inclusivity require students to share private spaces with opposite-sex peers, and who require them to lie about the sex of peers through the use of incorrect pronouns. So, parents too should ask their administrators and school board these questions now:

1.) If a “trans”-identifying student were to request that teachers use incorrect pronouns, will teachers be doing so?

2.) If a “trans”-identifying student were to request that peers refer to them by incorrect pronouns, would peers—like my child—be required to do so?

3.) If a “trans”-identifying student were to request use of opposite-sex locker rooms and restrooms, will they be permitted to use them? If so, would those students whose parents do not permit them to share private spaces with opposite-sex peers—like my child—be forced out of restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex?

4.) Will teachers be telling students—like my child—that in order to be compassionate and inclusive, they must use incorrect pronouns when referring to “trans”-identifying students and should share private spaces with opposite-sex peers?

Parents are entitled to this information and should have it sooner rather than later so that they can make informed decisions about how and where to train up their children in the ways they should go. And Christian employees in public schools are entitled to this information because they need to know whether they should start looking for alternative employment.

We don’t get to choose whom God calls to the frontlines of cultural battles or to what task he may call us. Right now, it seems obvious that he has called—among others, including church leaders—Christians employed in wedding-related businesses and in government schools to the frontlines. I hope I’m wrong, but it appears that, apart from a handful of notable cases that become court cases and news stories, Christians are taking the broad and easy road, seeking the approval of man over God.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Christian-Teachers-and-Parents-What-Will-You-Do.mp3

Save the Date!

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information.

May I propose a New Year’s resolution for 2019? Let’s determine to speak up and to speak out, to raise our voices with clarity and compassion, to refuse to hold back regardless of cost or consequence. Will you join me?

To those of you who are already doing this, I encourage you to continue to stand strong.

To those who are not, now is most certainly the time. What are you waiting for?

One of the most important principles taught by Jesus was that if we try to save our lives, we lose them. But if we lose our lives for Him – for the gospel – we find them.

To apply this concept to our contemporary situation, if we try to avoid controversy and conflict so as to preserve our presence on social media platforms, we lose our souls in the process. We become compromisers, fearers of man rather than fearers of God. We are no longer guided by conviction; we are guided by convenience. We survive but we do not thrive.

If we speak what is right and do what is right and live what is right, we might lose a lot in the process, but we will find our souls. We become alive!

We can learn a lesson here from Wang Yi, pastor of Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, Sichuan, China. He was addressing the sinful policies of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is fashioning himself to be the new Mao and is actively persecuting Christians and other minorities.

In a sermon dated September 9, 2018, Pastor Yi said, “President Xi Jinping does not repent he will perish!”

Yes, he said, “The government he is leading has sinned greatly against God, for it is persecution the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and if he does not repent, he will perish!”

But won’t Pastor Yi suffer consequences for preaching such a message? No doubt. In fact, he was subsequently arrested and is currently imprisoned. Yet he still preached with boldness and conviction.

“When we are not being persecuted,” he said, “we spread the gospel. And when persecution comes, we continue spreading the gospel. If we are talking about a President, we declare he is a sinner. And if we are talking about a general secretary, we still declare that he is a sinner. We believe that we have the responsibility to tell Xi Jinping that he is a sinner.”

What a contrast with today’s “gospel of nice,” a PC-compliant, made-for-America message if ever there was one. Whatever you do, don’t offend! Better to skirt the truth. Better to mislead. Just be sure to smile and be nice!

Of course, we should speak the truth in love. With broken hearts. With compassion.

Being mean is no more Christian than being weak.

But if ever there was time to crucify our cowardice, it is now. If ever there was a time to speak up and to speak out, regardless of cost or consequence, it is now. If we don’t, day by day, our freedoms will be taken from us, one at a time, until we find ourselves confined to a tiny, silent corner. This is how those words of Jesus’ apply.

Back in March, 2018, despite not being a fan of Infowars myself, I wrote an article titled, “Why YouTube’s Conflict with Infowars Should Concern Us All.”

I closed the article with this poem, inspired, of course, by the famous World War II poem of Martin Niemoller:

First they came for Infowars, and I did not speak out—because I found them offensive.

Then they came for Geller and Spencer, and I did not speak out­—because I found them obnoxious.

Then they came for Prager U, and I did not speak out—because I found them opinionated.

Then they came for a host of others, and I did not speak out—because I have my own life to live.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I followed this up with an article on August 6, 2018, “Conservative Speech Be Banned!” This added further documentation and closed with the same poem.

Since then, many other conservative and Christian outlets have been affected (see this shocking list for 2018 compiled by Allum Bokhari). And most recently, Rev. Franklin Graham, arguably the best-known, most-prominent evangelical voice in America, was banned from posting on Facebook for 24 hours because of an innocuous post dating back to 2016.

Facebook quickly apologized and said he was banned in error, but the fact that this could happen at all is another sobering wake-up call.

In 2016, I drew attention to a ridiculous attempt at Princeton University to ban the “m” word (man!) from its campus. No more “man hours” or “manpower” or “layman.” Different, non-sexist terminology must be employed, such as “person hours” (for “man hours”) or “personnel” (for “manpower”) or “non-specialist” (for “layman”).

You might say, “But who cares about what happens on a university campus. That’s already an extreme PC-environment.”

Of course, we should care about what happens on our campuses, since that’s where the next generation is being educated.

But these things are not just happening on college campuses. The UK Telegraph reported on December 27, 2018, that “The European Parliament is attempting to stamp out the use of words such as ‘mankind’ and ‘manpower’ and have them replaced with more gender neutral terms such as ‘humanity’ and ‘staff”.”

Yes, the European Parliament is trying to enforce this hyper-PC speech control.

And, on a related note, let’s not forget that Canada passed a law in 2017 against “misgendering” people, while a similar law had already been passed (with stiff fines) in New York City.

So what will we do? Will we continue to retreat in order to avoid conflict, thereby muting our own voices? Or will we speak the truth in love – as compassionate as we are bold, as Christlike as we are firm, as wise as we are unwavering?

If not now, then when? If not you and me, then who?

Let’s make this our resolution in 2019: “I will not hold back for fear of consequences. I will speak up and speak out as the occasion demands. I will love my neighbor by speaking the truth.”

Are you in?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Solecism: a grammatical mistake in speech or writing

On March 9, 2017, the Illinois Association of School Boards issued an update to a 2016 guide titled “Transgender Students in Schools Frequently Asked Questions for Public School Boards and Staff,” which is a publication of the National Association of School Boards (NASB). Since so much of what goes in our government schools is barely visible through the noxious bureaucratic fog that envelops them, conservative parents and teachers should peruse this document to get a clearer picture of where the “trans” cult and its sycophants are shoving us.

Let’s take a quick look at just three of the questions, all dealing with pronoun mandates:

Question: If a school administrator has advised school staff that a transgender student wants to be addressed by that student’s preferred name or pronoun, can a school staff member refuse to do so?

Under most circumstances, a school staff member should abide by the parent’s/student’s wishes as to how to address the transgender student. In accepting employment with a school district, administrators and school staff agree to abide by, uphold, and enforce all of their school board’s policies and procedures, as well as federal and state laws, including a wide variety of non-discrimination, harassment, and bullying policies and procedures. Complying with the school administrator’s directive and abiding by the school district’s anti-discrimination policies and procedures likely will not interfere with an employee’s personally held beliefs. Moreover, consistent with the school board’s mission, an employee’s religious or other sincerely held beliefs should not prevent that employee from treating all students with respect and dignity.

To be clear, according to the NSBA (and IASB) all staff members should use incorrect pronouns or newly invented words when referring to  students who masquerade as the opposite sex, or those who “identify” as both male and female (e.g., “pangender,” “bigender,” or “genderfluid”), or those who claim to be “genderless” (e.g., “agender”). Maybe the NSBA will next direct teachers to ask  daily how their “gender fluid” students wish to be addressed.

How many teachers are made aware in job interviews that their prospective administrations are going to compel them to use incorrect grammar in the service of a controversial ideology? How many teachers are made aware in job interviews that a condition of employment is that they must be willing to bear false witness (i.e., lie)?

There are no laws in Illinois that require teachers to use incorrect pronouns for students who have decided that pronouns have no connection to their sex. There are no federal laws that require such a bizarre practice. And yet, school administrators are issuing pronoun diktats to their staff without notifying the public and despite never having created policy mandating the use of solecisms.

How can the NASB possibly know that mandating lying does not “interfere with,” for example, a theologically orthodox Christian “employee’s personally held beliefs”? And what does a willingness to lie say about staff members? What does a teacher’s willingness to lie about biological sex teach students?

“Progressives” seem to believe they have a unilateral right to control language. They establish Orwellian language rules, changing grammar and redefining terms like “safety,” “hate,” and “tolerance.” And now they’re trying to circumscribe what respect and dignity entail. Don’t be bullied. No one has an obligation to defer to Leftist Newspeak. For many people of faith, treating others with respect and dignity includes respect for the truth and meaning of their physical embodiment as male or female. To deny the truth that they are created in the image of God—male or female—is to disrespect them. To facilitate, affirm, or appear to affirm a lie as true is an act of profound disrespect. 

Question: Can an employee be disciplined for insubordination for failure to comply with an administrator’s directives, or the student’s or parent’s expressed name and pronoun preferences?

A school district could pursue disciplinary action against the offending employee for insubordination for failing to comply with the administrator’s directives and/or the student’s/ parent’s wishes…. Where the employee has refused to comply based on her genuine belief that the directive is contrary to her religious convictions, she may claim that the district has violated her First Amendment rights by disciplining her. Whether that claim would be successful in federal court is unclear…. If the employee not only refuses to comply with the directive, but also allows other students to disregard the student’s name and pronoun preference, which creates a harassing or hostile environment for the transgender student, the school board also could pursue disciplinary action against the offending employee for allowing student-on-student harassment.

Pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex. Referring to objectively male students by female pronouns is a lie and disrespects something real and profoundly meaningful about them: their physical embodiment. To the government, a refusal to lie is an act of insubordination for which an employee could be disciplined.

Worse still, it appears that administrators may order teachers to require their students to lie as well. How can any serious Christ-follower be part of such malfeasance and ontological treachery?

Question: How should schools handle objections by non-transgender students or families to sharing locker rooms or restrooms?

Ensure that your schools are places where all students are made to feel welcome, respected, and protected. While remaining sensitive to the rights of all students, a practical way of addressing these concerns is to make spaces available for any student who does not want to share locker rooms or restrooms with other students. Such options can include privacy curtains in locker rooms and separate restrooms. Keep in mind, however, that OCR takes a strong stance on this issue. In at least one recent case, OCR indicated the use of such separate facilities must be voluntary, and contrary policies could result in enforcement action.

To the relief of many conservatives, on February 22, 2017, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to all public schools informing them that the OCR has “decided to withdraw and rescind” the “policy and guidance” issued by the OCR under President Obama, which commanded schools to sexually integrate restrooms, locker rooms, and even hotel accommodations for school-sponsored overnight events. The relief of conservatives may have been premature because on June 6, 2017, the OCR sent out further clarifications that included this:

OCR may assert subject matter jurisdiction over and open for investigation the following allegations…:

failure to assess whether… gender-based harassment (i.e., based on… sex or sex-stereotyping, such as refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred name or pronouns when the school uses preferred names for gender-conforming students…) of a transgender student created a hostile environment.

Schools do not now nor ever have used pronouns in accordance with “gender-conforming” students’ preferences. Schools use pronouns in accordance with the objective, immutable, biological sex of students. All students are, therefore, treated equally. And yet, the OCR may come after Newspeak transgressors.

There are several reasons why the incoherent, deceitful, anti-science “trans” ideology is transforming the country at breakneck speed, two of which  are the ignorance and cowardice of conservatives. Conservatives need to learn about this ideology and resolutely resist the efforts of “trans” cultists to control language and sexually integrate private spaces. Church leaders need to teach about the “trans” ideology. Church leaders need to help their congregations understand the biblical view of maleness and femaleness, and they need to help them understand the fallacious propositions that comprise the “trans” ideology. Conservatives need to expect far more knowledge, wisdom and courage from political and school leaders. And finally, conservatives should think deeply about whether it’s wise and good to have their children trained up by those who don’t understand that the body and soul constitute an inseparable unity.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TWO_Illinois-Association-of-School-Boards-Disturbing-Document.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It does make a difference.

The Trump administration’s Department for Civil Rights at the Department of Education has issued a memo to schools stating that civil rights investigations will be launched against individuals at schools who refuse to address transgender students by their preferred gender pronouns.

The memo, signed by Candice Jackson of the Office of Civil Rights reads in part:

“OCR may assert subject matter jurisdiction over and open for investigation gender-based harassment… (i.e., based on sex stereotyping, such as acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping, such as refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred name or pronouns when the school uses preferred names for gender-conforming students.”

This directive equates a refusal of a student or teacher to refer to another student by their preferred name as “verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility.” A student can decide that one day they want to be referred to by one name and another day an entirely different name, and if a teacher or another student refused to address them by that name, that teacher or student would be penalized.

Practically speaking, this means that the federal government will pressure teachers and students to refer to transgender students as “ze, em, ver, xyr, perself,” or a whole multitude of other gender pronouns. For teachers, the consequences of not complying could easily look like being forced to resign, and students could possibly be expelled for non-compliance.

Don’t teachers and school districts already have enough problems to deal with? The last thing teachers need to be concerned about is whether they could get fired if they forget each transgender student’s preferred gender pronoun or preferred name. The last thing students need to deal with is a multitude of gender pronouns confusing their proper learning of the English language.

Family Policy Alliance notes:

…[P]erhaps the directive shouldn’t have come as a big surprise.  The person who issued the memo, Candice Jackson, is the acting director of the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education.  Given that she was appointed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos – who has been attacked mercilessly by the Left – some may assume that Jackson is a pro-family conservative.

Yet Jackson, who has been in a same-sex marriage for more than ten years, is known for her vocal support of the LGBT movement. In January, she tweeted an article about the gay community getting an ally in Trump, adding the comment: “Reasonable LGBT citizens (as opposed to the militant leftwing LGBT movement) have reason to cheer POTUS Trump; he’s shifting the GOP.”

This directive must be rescinded or altered or it will continue to pose a threat  to free speech and religious liberty of faculty and students across the entire nation.