Written by Megan Basham

In September, Wheaton College dean Ed Stetzer interviewed National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins on his podcast, “Church Leadership” about why Christians who want to obey Christ’s command to love their neighbors should get the Covid vaccine and avoid indulging in misinformation.

For those not familiar with Stetzer, he’s not just a religious liberal arts professor and this wasn’t just another dime-a-dozen pastorly podcast. To name just a few of his past and present titles in the evangelical world, Stetzer is also the executive director of the Billy Graham Center and the editor-in-chief of Outreach media group. He was previously an editor at Christianity Today and an executive director at LifeWay, one of the largest religious publishers in the world. That’s to say nothing of the dozen-plus books on missions and church planting he’s authored.

Which is why, when Stetzer joined a line of renowned pastors and ministry leaders lending their platforms to Obama-appointee Collins, the collaboration was noteworthy.

During their discussion, Collins and Stetzer were hardly shy about the fact that they were asking ministers to act as the administration’s go-between with their congregants. “I want to exhort pastors once again to try to use your credibility with your flock to put forward the public health measures that we know can work,” Collins said. Stetzer replied that he sometimes hears from ministers who don’t feel comfortable preaching about Covid vaccines, and he advises them, in those cases, to simply promote the jab through social media.

“I just tell them, when you get vaccinated, post a picture and say, ‘So thankful I was able to get vaccinated,’” Stetzer said. “People need to see that it is the reasonable view.”

Their conversation also turned to the subject of masking children at school, with Collins noting that Christians, in particular, have been resistant to it. His view was firm—kids should be masked if they want to be in the classroom. To do anything else is to turn schools into super spreaders. Stetzer offered no pushback or follow-up questions based on views from other medical experts. He simply agreed.

The most crucial question Stetzer never asked Collins however, was why convincing church members to get vaccinated or disseminating certain administration talking points should be the business of pastors at all.

Christians and Conspiracy Theories

Stetzer’s efforts to help further the NIH’s preferred coronavirus narratives went beyond simply giving Collins a softball venue to rally pastors to his cause. He ended the podcast by announcing that the Billy Graham Center would be formally partnering with the Biden administration. Together with the NIH and the CDC it would launch a website, coronavirusandthechurch.com, to provide clergy Covid resources they could then convey to their congregations.

Much earlier in the pandemic, as an editor at evangelicalism’s flagship publication, Christianity Today (CT), Stetzer had also penned essays parroting Collins’ arguments on conspiracy theories. Among those he lambasted other believers for entertaining, the hypothesis that the coronavirus had leaked from a Wuhan lab. In a now deleted essay, preserved by Web Archive, Stetzer chided, “If you want to believe that some secret lab created this as a biological weapon, and now everyone is covering that up, I can’t stop you.”

It may seem strange, given the evidence now emerging of NIH-funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, to hear a church leader instruct Christians to “repent” for the sin of discussing the plausible supposition that the virus had escaped from a Chinese laboratory. This is especially true as it doesn’t take any great level of spiritual discernment — just plain common sense — to look at the fact that Covid first emerged in a city with a virology institute that specializes in novel coronaviruses and realize it wasn’t an explanation that should be set aside too easily. But it appears Stetzer was simply following Collins’ lead.

Only two days before Stetzer published his essay, Collins participated in a livestream event, co-hosted by CT. The outlet introduced him as a “follower of Jesus, who affirms the sanctity of human life” despite the fact that Collins is on record stating he does not definitively believe, as most pro-lifers do, that life begins at conception, and his tenure at NIH has been marked by extreme anti-life, pro-LGBT policies. (More on this later).

But the pro-life Christian framing was sure to win Collins a hearing among an audience with deep religious convictions about the evil of abortion. Many likely felt reassured to hear that a likeminded medical expert was representing them in the administration.

During the panel interview, Collins continued to insist that the lab leak theory wasn’t just unlikely but qualified for the dreaded misinformation label. “If you were trying to design a more dangerous coronavirus,” he said, “you would never have designed this one … So I think one can say with great confidence that in this case the bioterrorist was nature … Humans did not make this one. Nature did.”

It was the same message his subordinate, Dr. Anthony Fauci, had been giving to secular news outlets, but Collins was specifically tapped to carry the message to the faithful. As Time Magazine reported in Feb. 2021, “While Fauci has been medicine’s public face, Collins has been hitting the faith-based circuit…and preaching science to believers.”

The editors, writers, and reporters at Christian organizations didn’t question Collins any more than their mainstream counterparts questioned Fauci.

Certainly The Gospel Coalition, a publication largely written for and by pastors, didn’t probe beyond the “facts” Collins’ offered or consider any conflicts of interest the NIH director might have had before publishing several essays that cited him as almost their lone source of information. As with CT, one article by Gospel Coalition editor Joe Carter linked the reasonable hypothesis that the virus might have been human-made with wilder QAnon fantasies. It then lectured readers that spreading such ideas would damage the church’s witness in the world.

Of course, Stetzer and The Gospel Coalition had no way of knowing at that point that Collins and Fauci had already heard from leading U.S. and British scientists who believed the virus had indeed escaped from a Chinese lab. Or that they believed it might be the product of gain-of-function engineering, possibly with funding from the NIH itself. Nor could they have predicted that emails between Collins and Fauci would later show the pair had a habit of turning to friendly media contacts (including, it seems, Christian media contacts) to discredit and suppress opinions they didn’t like, such as questioning Covid’s origins and the wisdom of masks and lockdowns.

What Stetzer and others did know was that one of the most powerful bureaucrats in the world was calling on evangelical leaders to be “ambassadors for truth.” And they were happy to answer that call.

The question was, just how truthful was Collins’ truth?

Evangelicals of a Feather

Stetzer, CT, and The Gospel Coalition were hardly alone in uncritically lending their sway over rank-and-file evangelicals to Collins. The list of Christian leaders who passed the NIH director their mics to preach messages about getting jabs, wearing masks, and accepting the official line on Covid is as long as it is esteemed.

One of the most noteworthy was the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), an organization funded by churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.

While a webinar featuring Collins and then-ERLC-head Russell Moore largely centered, again, on the importance of pastors convincing church members to get vaccinated, the discussion also moved on to the topic of masks. With Moore nodding along, Collins held up a basic, over-the-counter cloth square, “This is not a political statement,” he asserted. “This is not an invasion of your personal freedom…This is a life-saving medical device.”

Even in late 2020, the claim was highly debatable among medical experts. As hematologist-oncologist Vinay Prasad wrote in City Journal this month, public health officials like Collins have had a truth problem over the entire course of Covid, but especially when it comes to masks. “The only published cluster randomized trial of community cloth masking during Covid-19,” Prasad reported, “found that…cloth masks were no better than no masks at all.” [emphasis mine].

At this point, even the CDC is backing away from claims that cloth masks are worth much of anything.

Yet none of the Christian leaders platforming Collins evidently felt it was worth exploring a second opinion. And the list of pastors who were willing to take a bureaucrat’s word that matters that could have been left to Christian liberty were instead tests of one’s love for Jesus goes on.

Former megachurch pastor Tim Keller’s joint interview with Collins included a digression where the pair agreed that churches like John MacArthur’s, which continued to meet in-person despite Covid lockdowns, represented the “bad and ugly” of good, bad, and ugly Christian responses to the virus.

During Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren’s special broadcast with Collins on behalf of Health and Human Services, he mentioned that he and Collins first met when both were speakers for the billionaires and heads of state who gather annually in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. They reconnected recently, Warren revealed, at an “off-the-record” meeting between Collins and “key faith leaders.” Warren did not say, but one can make an educated guess as to who convened that meeting and for what purpose, given the striking similarity of Collins’ appearances alongside all these leading Christian lights.

Once again, Warren and Collins spent their interview jointly lamenting the unlovingness of Christians who question the efficacy of masks, specifically framing it as a matter of obedience to Jesus. “Wearing a mask is the great commandment: love your neighbor as yourself,” the best-selling author of “The Purpose-Driven Life” declared, before going on to specifically argue that religious leaders have an obligation to convince religious people to accept the government’s narratives about Covid.

“Let me just say a word to the priests and pastors and rabbis and other faith leaders,” he said. “This is our job, to deal with these conspiracy issues and things like that…One of the responsibilities of faith leaders is to tell people to…trust the science. They’re not going to put out a vaccine that’s going to hurt people.”

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that government does have a record of putting out vaccines that “hurt people,” is it truly the pastor’s job to tell church members to “trust the science?” Is it a pastor’s job to slyly insult other pastors who chose to handle shutdowns differently, as Warren did when he quipped that his “ego doesn’t require” him to “have a live audience to speak to.”

And still the list goes on.

The same week MacArthur’s church was in the news for resisting California Governor Gavin Newsom orders to keep houses of worship closed, Collins participated in an interview with celebrated theologian N.T. Wright.

During a discussion where the NIH director once again trumpeted the efficacy of cloth masks, the pair warned against conspiracies, mocking “disturbing examples” of churches that continued meeting because they thought “the devil can’t get into my church” or “Jesus is my vaccine.” Lest anyone wonder whether Wright experienced some pause over lending his reputation as a deep Christian thinker to Caesar’s agent, the friends finished with a guitar duet.

Even hipster Christian publications like Relevant, whose readers have likely never heard of Collins, still looked to him as the foundation of their Covid reporting.

Throughout all of it, Collins brought the message to the faithful through their preachers and leaders: “God is calling [Christians] to do the right thing.”

And none of those leaders thought to question whether Collins’ “right thing” and God’s “right thing” must necessarily be the same thing.

Why not? As Warren said of Collins during their interview: “He’s a man you can trust.”

A Man You Can Trust

Perhaps the evangelical elites’ willingness to unhesitatingly credit Collins with unimpeachable honesty has something to do with his rather Mr. Rogers-like appearance and gentle demeanor. The establishment media has compared him to “The Simpson’s” character Ned Flanders, noting that he has a tendency to punctuate his soft speech with exclamations of “oh boy!” and “by golly!”

Going by his concrete record, however, he seems like a strange ambassador to spread the government’s Covid messaging to theologically conservative congregations. Other than his proclamations that he is, himself, a believer, the NIH director espouses nearly no public positions that would mark him out as any different from any extreme Left-wing bureaucrat.

He has not only defended experimentation on fetuses obtained by abortion, he has also directed record-level spending toward it. Among the priorities the NIH has funded under Collins — a University of Pittsburgh experiment that involved grafting infant scalps onto lab rats, as well as projects that relied on the harvested organs of aborted, full-term babies. Some doctors have even charged Collins with giving money to research that required extracting kidneys, ureters, and bladders from living infants.

He further has endorsed unrestricted funding of embryonic stem cell research, personally attending President Obama’s signing of an Executive Order to reverse a previous ban on such expenditures. When Nature magazine asked him about the Trump administration’s decision to shut down fetal cell research, Collins made it clear he disagreed, saying, “I think it’s widely known that the NIH tried to protect the continued use of human fetal tissue. But ultimately, the White House decided otherwise. And we had no choice but to stand down.”

Even when directly asked about how genetic testing has led to the increased killing of Down Syndrome babies in the womb, Collins deflected, telling Beliefnet, “I’m troubled [by] the applications of genetics that are currently possible are oftentimes in the prenatal arena…But, of course, in our current society, people are in a circumstance of being able to take advantage of those technologies.”

When it comes to pushing an agenda of racial quotas and partiality based on skin color, Collins is a member of the Left in good standing, speaking fluently of “structural racism” and “equity” rather than equality. He’s put his money (or, rather, taxpayer money) where his mouth is, implementing new policies that require scientists seeking NIH grants to pass diversity, equity, and inclusion tests in order to qualify.

To the most holy of progressive sacred cows — LGBTQ orthodoxy — Collins has been happy to genuflect. Having declared himself an “ally” of the gay and trans movements, he went on to say he “[applauds] the courage and resilience it takes for [LGBTQ] individuals to live openly and authentically” and is “committed to listening, respecting, and supporting [them]” as an “advocate.”

These are not just the empty words of a hapless Christian official saying what he must to survive in a hostile political atmosphere. Collins’ declaration of allyship is deeply reflected in his leadership.

Under his watch, the NIH launched a new initiative to specifically direct funding to “sexual and gender minorities.” On the ground, this has translated to awarding millions in grants to experimental transgender research on minors, like giving opposite-sex hormones to children as young as eight and mastectomies to girls as young as 13. Another project, awarded $8 million in grants, included recruiting teen boys to track their homosexual activities like “condomless anal sex” on an app without their parents’ consent.

Other than his assertions of his personal Christian faith, there is almost no public stance Collins has taken that would mark him out as someone of like mind with the everyday believers to whom he was appealing.

How did Collins overcome all this baggage to become the go-to expert for millions of Christians? With a little help from his friends, who were happy to stand as his character witnesses.

Keller, Warren, Wright, and Stetzer all publicly lauded him as a godly brother.  When presenting Collins to Southern Baptists, Moore gushed over him as the smartest man in a book club he attends that also includes, according to Time Magazine, such luminaries of the “Christiantelligentsia” as The Atlantic’s Pete Wehner and The New York Times’ David Brooks.

In October, even after Collins’ funding of the University of Pittsburgh research had become widely known, Moore continued to burnish his friend’s reputation, saying, “I admire greatly the wisdom, expertise, and, most of all, the Christian humility and grace of Francis Collins.” That same month, influential evangelical pundit David French deemed Collins a “national treasure” and his service in the NIH “faithful.” Former George W. Bush speechwriter and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson struck the most poetic tone in his effusive praise, claiming that Collins possesses a “restless genius [that] is other-centered” and is a “truth-seeker in the best sense.”

Except, apparently, when those others are aborted infants or gender-confused children and when that truth pertains to lab leaks or gain-of-function funding.

Since news began breaking months ago that Collins and Fauci intentionally used their media connections to conspire to suppress the lab-leak theory, none of the individuals or organizations in this story has corrected their records or asked Collins publicly about his previous statements. Nor have they circled back with him to inquire on record about revelations the NIH funded gain-of-function coronavirus research in Wuhan. They also haven’t questioned him on the increasing scientific consensus that cloth masks were never very useful.

The Daily Wire reached out to Stetzer, Keller, Wright, Warren, Moore, and French to ask if they have changed their views on Collins given recent revelations. None responded.

Francis Collins has been an especially successful envoy for the Biden administration, delivering messages to a mostly-Republican Christian populace who would otherwise be reluctant to hear them. In their presentation of Collins’ expertise, these pastors and leaders suggested that questioning his explanations as to the origins of the virus or the efficacy of masks was not simply a point of disagreement but sinful. This was a charge likely to have a great deal of impact on churchgoers who strive to live lives in accordance with godly standards. Perhaps no other argument could’ve been more persuasive to this demographic.

This does not mean these leaders necessarily knew that the information they were conveying to the broader Christian public could be false, but it does highlight the danger religious leaders face when they’re willing to become mouth organs of the government.

What we do know about Collins and his work with Fauci is that they have shown themselves willing to compromise transparency and truth for PR considerations. Thus, everything they have told the public about the vaccines may be accurate and their message a worthy one for Christians. But their credibility no longer carries much weight. It would’ve been better had the evangelical establishment never platformed Collins at all and shipwrecked their own reputations to showcase their lofty connections to him.

While these evangelical leaders were warning about conspiracy theories, Collins was waging a misinformation campaign himself — one these Christian megaphones helped further.

Why they did it is a question only they can answer. Perhaps in their eagerness to promote vaccines, they weren’t willing to offer any pushback to Collins’ other claims. Certainly, the lure of respect in the halls of power has proved too great a siren call for many a man. Or perhaps it was simply that their friend, the NIH director, called on them for a favor. If so, a friend like Collins deserved much, much more scrutiny.

There’s an instructive moment at the end of Warren‘s interview with Collins. The pastor misquotes Proverbs 4, saying, “Get the facts at any price.”

That, of course, is not what the verse says. It says get wisdom at any price. And it was wisdom that was severely lacking when so many pastors and ministry heads recklessly turned over their platforms, influence, and credibility to a government official who had done little to demonstrate he deserved them.

This article was originally published by The Daily Wire, which is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. 

For those who find unpersuasive the warnings of conservatives about the cultural implications of “trans”-cultism, perhaps the words of “progressive” New York City father George Packer who experienced firsthand the effects in his children’s grade school of the totalitarian, anti-liberal “identity” dogma that now poisons America and wrote about them in an article for The Atlantic titled, “When the Culture War Comes for the Kids” will be more convincing:

The bathroom crisis hit our school the same year our son took the standardized tests. A girl in second grade had switched to using male pronouns, adopted the initial Q as a first name, and begun dressing in boys’ clothes. Q also used the boys’ bathroom, which led to problems with other boys. Q’s mother spoke to the principal, who, with her staff, looked for an answer. They could have met the very real needs of students like Q by creating a single-stall bathroom—the one in the second-floor clinic would have served the purpose. Instead, the school decided to get rid of boys’ and girls’ bathrooms altogether. If, as the city’s Department of Education now instructed, schools had to allow students to use the bathroom of their self-identified gender, then getting rid of the labels would clear away all the confusion around the bathroom question. A practical problem was solved in conformity with a new idea about identity.

Within two years, almost every bathroom in the school, from kindergarten through fifth grade, had become gender-neutral. Where signs had once said boys and girls, they now said students. Kids would be conditioned to the new norm at such a young age that they would become the first cohort in history for whom gender had nothing to do with whether they sat or stood to pee. All that biology entailed—curiosity, fear, shame, aggression, pubescence, the thing between the legs—was erased or wished away.

The school didn’t inform parents of this sudden end to an age-old custom, as if there were nothing to discuss. Parents only heard about it when children started arriving home desperate to get to the bathroom after holding it in all day. Girls told their parents mortifying stories of having a boy kick open their stall door. Boys described being afraid to use the urinals. Our son reported that his classmates, without any collective decision, had simply gone back to the old system, regardless of the new signage: Boys were using the former boys’ rooms, girls the former girls’ rooms. This return to the familiar was what politicians call a “commonsense solution.” It was also kind of heartbreaking. As children, they didn’t think to challenge the new adult rules, the new adult ideas of justice. Instead, they found a way around this difficulty that the grown-ups had introduced into their lives. It was a quiet plea to be left alone.

…

At times the new progressivism, for all its up-to-the-minuteness, carries a whiff of the 17th century, with heresy hunts and denunciations of sin and displays of self-mortification. The atmosphere of mental constriction in progressive milieus, the self-censorship and fear of public shaming, the intolerance of dissent—these are qualities of an illiberal politics…. It took me a long time to see that the new progressivism didn’t just carry my own politics further than I liked. It was actually hostile to principles without which I don’t believe democracy can survive.

But it’s not just conditioning of other people’s children that “trans”-cultists have in their sights. In a 2009 article in Travel and Leisure Magazine titled, “The World’s Ugliest Buildings,” the Portland Building in Portland, Oregon is called “one of the most hated buildings in America.” Well, that building likely just became a tad more hated—if that’s possible.

The 15-story municipal office building deemed an “icon of postmodernism” just entered the post-truth era through a $195 million renovation that includes the elimination of all urinals—thereby substantially increasing water usage costs—and turning the large, multi-stall single-sex bathrooms on the 1^st, 3^rd, and 15^th floors into co-ed restrooms. If the single occupancy restroom on each of those floors is occupied, employees who don’t want to go to the bathroom in a stall next to an opposite-sex colleague doing the same will have to traipse to another floor to find some privacy and retain their dignity.

Tom Rinehart, Portland’s chief administrative officer, sent an email to all employees, proclaiming from his high horse, “I am convinced that this is the right way to ensure success as your employer” and “to remove arbitrary barriers in our community.”

Does Rinehart know what “arbitrary” means? “Arbitrary” means “determined by whim or impulse, not by reason or law.” Separate facilities in which biologically distinct humans—also known as men and women—engage in personal bodily functions is the antithesis of “arbitrary.” What the heck did he learn at the University of Notre Dame?

Such separate facilities are based on the incontrovertible, scientifically verifiable, immutable fact that the human species is sexually dimorphic and the truth that sexual dimorphism is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy on which sex-separate private spaces are based. If Rinehart thinks sex-separate private spaces are “arbitrary barriers,” then is he advocating for all restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, dorm rooms, nursing home rooms, jail cells, and prison cells to be sexually integrated?

Is it possible that Rinehart actually believes co-ed restrooms “ensure success”? If so, he may need to go back to business school.

For years, deceitful homosexual and “trans” activists sniffed under their sprouting snouts, “How will you be affected” by the “trans”-ideology and the addition of “gender identity” to anti-discrimination laws and policies? Some people provided answers to those questions. “Progressives” responded by howling “hater” back at them, and most conservatives responded with silence and blank stares. And now private spaces are being eradicated.

No one’s being affected no way, no how, nowhere. Yeah, right.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Privacy-in-Bathrooms-Soon-Gone_audio.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

You’ve heard the old saying that starts, “Hell hath no fury”? It pretty well describes today’s transgender activists.

If you want to see how far down the slope civic discourse has slid in the land of free speech and “tolerance,” I give you an article in The Atlantic by Jesse Singhal [sic] entitled, “When Children Say They’re Trans.”

Rather than the unabashed cheerleading you might expect in a secular, progressive magazine, the article is surprisingly balanced. And that’s just the problem for transgender activists.

Said one on Twitter: “This guy’s one-man crusade against trans people has gone on for years. It really doesn’t make sense. Sad that the Atlantic gave him a cover story to spread his pseudoscience and bigotry.”

Said another: “This article can and will cause real, tangible harm to the trans community and trans youth.”

And finally this: “[Bleep] off with this transphobia. And on pride month too. This article and cover are an absolute disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Fabulist: a liar or someone who invents and tells dishonest stories

(*CAUTION: Not for younger readers*)  

Perhaps you’ve been living in the real world—and by real, I mean the world that actually exists, where actual science matters, where language exists that corresponds to objective phenomena, where truth is valued more than subjective feelings, and where life is yet enveloped in a cozy blanket of freedom.

Because of your immersion in reality, perhaps you’ve been blissfully unaware that an alternate ontological, epistemological, teleological, and moral universe has sprung up in our midst. Let’s call it Wonderland. No, that’s too much fun. Let’s call it Oceania. Oceania has its own language whose purposes are to obfuscate reality and compel linguistic, political, social, and religious obeisance to the gods of sexual deviance who now rule. That language is Newspeak.

Who speaks Newspeak? Leftists of every color of the rainbow. Perversion-activists, academicians, public school teachers, political leaders, physicians, psychologists, attorneys, actors, musicians, novelists, and members of the fabulist Fourth Estate.

While you’ve been living relatively peaceful lives suffused with liberty and reality, you may have felt some disturbances in the created universe that you dismissed as kind of icky but ultimately trivial. I mean, that’s what our political leaders—always the founts of wisdom—keep telling us abut the so-called “social issues.”

Well, prepare for the incursion. Dark unreality is poised to break through in ways so profound that your comforting blankets of freedom will be torn asunder.

A recent piece in the formerly respectable The Atlantic illustrates the idiocy of leftist journalists who have packed up their computers and moved lock, stock, and poison pens to Oceania. The article titled “What it’s Like to Chestfeed” and subtitled “The many obstacles trans men and other transmasculine people run into when feeding infants” is infused with delusional, deceitful leftist rhetoric itself informed by anti-science leftist ideology.

The article profiles a chemically induced bearded lady who mutilated her body in a futile effort to convince herself and the world that she is in reality a man. This woman, “Trevor” MacDonald, is legally married to a man. She’s had a double-mastectomy, which removed milk ducts and glandular tissue, but she left her nether region and internal female organs intact. In 2010, she stopped taking testosterone so that she and her husband who “identifies” as “gay” could have children the old-fashioned way. She and her husband now have two children, a 5-year-old and an 18-month-old. Here’s an excerpt from the deceitful Atlantic article:

When Trevor MacDonald started chestfeeding about five years ago, he didn’t know anyone who had attempted it, nor had any of his doctors ever encountered someone who had. In fact, he was shocked that his body could even produce milk. As a trans man—someone who was assigned female at birth but has transitioned to identifying as male—he was born with the mammary glands and milk ducts required for lactation, but he’d had his breasts removed.

Ms. MacDonald has written a book titled Where’s the Mother?: Stories from a Transgender Dad  that Buzzfeed says offers “insight into what it was like for MacDonald to be both male and pregnant.” Her book has also been positively reviewed by the non-credible Publisher’s Weekly, which describes it as a “refreshing and insightful narrative,” that details “circumstances that…challenge his privilege.”

Ms. MacDonald was also instrumental in forcing a change to the La Leche League’s policy on leadership requirements. When Ms. MacDonald originally applied to be a leader, La Leche responded,  “Since [a La Leche League Canada] leader is a mother who breastfed a baby, a man cannot become an LLLC leader. This enraged the homosexual and sex-rejecting communities.

But in 2014, La Leche League Canada changed its policy saying,  “It was thought that only women could breastfeed. Once it became clear it wasn’t as straightforward as that, the policy had to change.” In 2016, La Leche League International changed its policy. Bearded Trevor MacDonald is now a La Leche League breastfeeding coach.

Ms. MacDonald was not yet done with her science-denying pursuits. Her next effort involved using the money of hardworking Canadian taxpayers to conduct a pseudo-scientific study. The Atlantic, while referring to the scientifically female MacDonald as “he,” calls her study “a scientific approach.” Apparently The Atlantic doesn’t see the irony. Here’s The Atlantic’s description of Ms. MacDonald’s study:

He teamed up with a diverse group of lactation experts, nurses, midwives, and researchers to publish “Transmaculine individuals’ experiences with lactation, chest feeding, and gender identity,” a study that was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research….It’s a qualitative attempt at defining the internal and external difficulties transmasculine people face when chestfeeding. 

The study recruited 22 participants who self-identified as transmasculine and who either were or had been pregnant. MacDonald and his team interviewed these participants about their experiences, and analyzed the conversations “with a goal of describing and interpreting patterns and themes that emerged,” in the study’s words. It’s an approach that’s community-based and trans-led. [emphasis added]

I can just imagine the chortles of laughter from real scientists reading this description of Ms. MacDonald’s “scientific” study. Evidently anticipating potential push-back from real scientists, another of the study’s authors defended their research study. Again from The Atlantic:

Alanna Kibbe, a registered midwife out of Toronto, Ontario…explains this approach by contending that “the wisest people in a community who can speak for it are those people living in the community and with lived experience, not the person with the most degrees or years of clinical practice.

No need for any pesky science degrees when employing a “scientific approach.” No siree, all that’s needed is a smidge of wisdom and a dollop of “lived experience.”

Kibbe does have some advice derived from her and Ms. MacDonald’s “scientific” research. She urges the use of Newspeak:

Kibbe…is urging care providers to….educate themselves about terminology that is gender neutral, as opposed to the gendered-female language that currently dominates lactation support.

The Fourth Estate, having moved to Oceania, refers to women who have given birth as “men” and breastfeeding as “chestfeeding.” Clearly, the untethering of journalism from reality means journalists are no longer using their noggins, and the ideas they promote are phantasmagorical at best. So I, while still inhabiting a shrinking corner of reality, will refer to mainstream journalists as fabulists and their untruths as fanny-fancies.

Influential 20^th Century journalist Walter Lippmann, borrowing from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I, said, “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Now 21^st Century journalists tell lies and honor the devil.

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

IFI is pleased to announce a new feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags.” In light of changes in the way many Americans prefer to access information, we’re adding podcasts to our articles. Podcasts will accompany both our new articles as well as previous articles that are of particular importance and relevance. As we add podcasts to previous articles, we will republish them for our subscribers’ convenience.

We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers, and we would appreciate any constructive feedback.

Friday’s attack in Paris, when ISIS terrorists attacked a concert hall, a soccer stadium, and a neighborhood known for its cafes, killing at least 129 people and wounding another 350, was the second wave of terror launched against the City of Light just this year. Back in January, terrorists attacked the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket, killing a dozen people.

According to French president Francois Hollande, ISIS has “declared war” on France and that France’s response will be “pitiless.”

And the most common reaction here in the States, besides pity for the victims, is fear… that what happened there could happen here, wherever “here” might be for you. So let’s start by making one thing clear: for the Christian, the fear of God casts out all other fear. Yes, it’s reasonable to be concerned about personal and public safety, but we’re commanded throughout scripture to not be afraid. That’s because in the death and resurrection of Jesus, God has definitively dealt with evil.

Now it may not look that way after Friday. But as the author of Hebrews wrote, “At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him,” that is, Jesus Christ. Christianity acknowledges the fact of evil and suffering. A Christian worldview isn’t about sticking our heads in the sand and seeing the world in a Pollyannaish sort of way.

But other worldviews aren’t able to call evil, “evil.” In an article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, residents of the neighborhood that was attacked on Friday described the perpetrators as “victims.” One person said that the terrorists were “victims of a system that excluded them from society . . . who live here in alienation, and we are all to blame for this alienation.”

Another added that “These are people the government gave up on, and you have to ask why.” As Haaretz put it, “No one wanted to talk about Islamists or the Islamic State, even after it took responsibility for the attacks and French President Francois Hollande announced that the group was behind them.”

Secular liberalism simply can’t wrap its mind around the kind of unadulterated evil that ISIS represents, in large part because it can’t understand what motivates ISIS and its supporters.

That motivation, as the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic told readers is a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately bringing about the apocalypse.

Actually, a better word than “apocalypse” would be “eschaton,” the end of the present age and the ushering in of what they consider to be the reign of Allah.

Since it no longer believes in the Christian eschaton, the West cannot even begin to understand an Islamic one. So it treats ISIS like it does the rest of our broken world: something that we can master, provided we bring the correct tools, politically correct language, public policy, and techniques to bear.

Never mind that this kind of utopian approach has a lousy track record even when dealing with much smaller evils than ISIS. Never mind that it’s absurd to “declare war” on an evil when many of your people can’t bring themselves to call it “evil.”

That’s sticking your head in the sand.

But there’s more to that verse from Hebrews. The author goes on to write, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

Christ has triumphed! And while events might tempt us to fear and even doubt, like the original recipients of the letter to the Hebrews, we are called to look past events and see what is ultimately true and real.

So as Christians our work is to continue to participate in God’s work to restore all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And neither ISIS nor any event in Paris should change that.

This article was originally posted at BreakPoint.org.