IFI was blessed to be able to interview Grove City College professor of biblical and religious studies and author of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution Dr. Carl Trueman last fall when he was the keynote speaker at the annual Touchstone Conference held at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. His landmark book has been lauded by cultural critics from Rod Dreher to Ben Shapiro to Al Mohler.

IFI was blessed too by Derek Buikema, lead pastor at Orland Park Christian Reformed Church in Orland Park, Illinois who conducted the interview for us.

In this first four-minute segment, Pastor Buikema asks Prof. Trueman how America got to this place of cultural confusion and disorder. Trueman begins by examining the statement, “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body,” which Prof. Trueman argues reveals how “feelings have been granted authority. … even over the evidence of our own bodies.” Prof. Trueman argues that both philosophical trends from 18th Century as well as contemporary sitcoms reinforce and propagate the belief that feelings define who we are.

In addition to intellectual trends, Prof. Trueman discusses “material” trends that have contributed to the ascendancy of instability, confusion, and chaos, over stability and order. Those trends include mobility and the manipulation of the human body.

IFI strongly recommends watching the interview with Prof. Trueman and forming small groups to study either The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self or its more concise and companion book Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution.

Between the increasingly bitter political divisions, intensifying anti-Christian hostility, and coronaviral pandemic, it is becoming challenging to feel hopeful. But there are many reasons for Christians to feel hopeful.

For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)

But there remain many temporal reasons for hope as well. Allan C. Carlson, senior editor of Touchstone Magazine, founder of the World Congress of Families, and author of Conjugal America: On the Public Purpose of Marriage, offers hope for a Republican Party led by true conservatives who understand the value of each and every human life and the critical importance of true marriage and properly ordered sexuality. Watch this short video and be encouraged!

“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” (Romans 12:12).

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

IFI has a special treat for our readers. Recently, Derek Buikema, senior pastor of Orland Park Christian Reformed Church, interviewed Rod Dreher, senior editor at the American Conservative and author of The Benedict Option, when Rod spoke at the Touchstone Magazine Conference held annually at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.

Starting today, we will release the first in a series of short video excerpts from this informative, inspiring, and delightful interview and then will release the full uninterrupted video. In this first excerpt, Pastor Derek and Rod discuss the nature, importance, and cultural implications of a Christian worldview, and whether the church writ large has one. Enjoy!

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

In light of being accused of “intolerance” and “bigotry” on IFI’s Facebook page by purportedly tolerant and unbigoted “progressives,” I think some clarification of the meaning of tolerance and bigotry is in order. And while I’m at it, I’ll say a little sumpin’ sumpin’ about anger—again.

Save this. You may need it.

The first definition of “tolerance” in the Oxford English Dictionary is “the action or practice of enduring pain or hardship; the power or capacity of enduring.” Another definition is “the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “tolerate” as “to put up with.”

Note, that none of the definitions mentions approval, affirmation, or celebration. Nor do they  mention an obligation to refrain from expressing moral propositions with which someone else may disagree. If intolerance meant expressing moral views someone else doesn’t like, then wouldn’t “progressives” be equally guilty of intolerance?

Note too the qualifier “undue.” Someone who judges conduct to be immoral is not guilty of intolerance even if the judgment is severe. Only if it’s unduly severe is one guilty of intolerance. Leftists aren’t faulting conservatives for “undue severity” of judgment. They’re faulting conservatives for making any negative judgments about homosexual acts, cross-dressing, and other efforts to conceal one’s sex.

A “bigot” according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary refers to a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral.

In addition, the word “obstinacy” in the definition of “bigot” warrants some discussion. First, “obstinate,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary, connotes “unreasonable rigidity.” I would argue that conservative views on homosexuality are completely reasonable, and that conversely, liberal views are woefully unreasonable.

In order to determine whether a tenaciously held conviction reflects obstinacy requires an evaluation of the content of the belief and the justifications for that belief. For example, very few would characterize the act of consistently, tenaciously, unrelentingly, and enduringly, holding the belief that infantilism, pedophilia, polyamory, genocide, racism, or female genital mutilation is wrong to be a manifestation of obstinacy or bigotry. Rather, holding unwaveringly to the moral conclusions that these behaviors are wrong represents legitimate and essential moral judgment.

Moreover, “obstinate” cannot be severed from the other parts of the definition. Bigotry is the obstinate devotion to uninformed or unintentional inclinations, especially ones that result in hatred of members of a particular group.

As such, moral views, even negative views, informed by reading diverse resources and thoughtful deliberation do not constitute bigotry.

Further, a bigot not only holds uninformed opinions but “regards or treats the members of a group… with hatred and intolerance.” Certainly, there are those in society who demonstrate this kind of behavior—including homosexual and “trans” activists—but any who have truly submitted their lives to Christ, do not treat anyone with hatred.

I, like countless other theologically orthodox Christians, not only do not treat people who self-identify as homosexual or “trans” with hatred or intolerance, but I also do not feel any hatred for them. My beliefs about homosexual conduct in no way diminish the love I feel for those who self-identify as homosexual or “trans,” the respect I have for their admirable qualities, the pleasure I take in their company, or the recognition I have of their infinite worth.

I do, however, often feel anger that adults are promoting body- and soul-destroying lies as truth to children. And I thank God for this proper feeling toward such iniquity.

In an article in Touchstone Magazine on “the Integration of Anger into the Virtuous Life,”  Dr. Leon Podles argues that “Christians have a false understanding of the nature and role of anger. It is seen as something negative, something that a Christian should not feel.”

This false understanding infects the church and prevents it from being salt and light in a fallen, suffering world, and that renders the church complicit in the destruction of countless lives.

He expresses what should be obvious: we should “feel deep anger at evil, at the violation of the innocent, at the oppression of the weak.”

Podles describes the suppression of hatred and anger as “emotional deformation” and exhorts the church to remember that “growth in virtue,” which must include the integration of “all emotions, including anger and hate,” is the “goal of the Christian’s moral life.”

Dr. Podles quotes Catholic psychiatrist Conrad Baars who had been a prisoner under the Nazi regime:

‘[T]here is a difference between a person who knows solely that something is evil and ought to be opposed and the one who in addition also feels hate for the evil, is angry that it is corrupting or harming fellow-men, and feels aroused to combat it courageously and vigorously.’

How often do we hear in our churches anything akin to the idea expressed by early church father John Chrysostom:

‘He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.’

Wouldn’t the church and society look very different if they embodied Dr. Podles’ conviction that “sorrow at evil without anger at evil is a fault.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/eftists-Have-Intolerance-and-Bigotry-All-Wrong.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.