Madison Marsh, 22, became the first active-duty Air Force officer to be crowned Miss America when she flew into first place in the annual competition on Sunday. U.S. Air Force/William R. Lewis / MEGA
A lot of attention has been paid to the invasion of women’s sports by so-called “trans women.” In case you’re up on all the latest terminology, a “trans woman” is a man pretending to be a woman. A “trans woman” athlete is a man attempting to gain a competitive advantage by posing as a woman in a woman’s athletic competition.
This has been going on for some years now. A quick web search revealed a story just posted yesterday about a transgender golfer who won a woman’s golf tournament and is looking to level up and qualify for the LPGA tour.[1]
Many such stories have been published over the past several years to the point where it’s become almost commonplace. In some cases, organized resistance to men competing in women’s sports has. Several states have passed laws prohibiting men posing as women from competing in women’s sporting events as transgender athletes.[2]
Riley Gaines, a former University of Kentucky swimmer, has become well-known for her opposition to men competing in women’s sports. Her website reads, “Riley Gaines is a leader defending women’s single-sex spaces….”
To be clear, I have no disagreement with her in her fight against the transgender lie and wish her the best of success. In a sane society, there would be no need for her or anyone else to even argue this point. But in the Year of Our Lord 2024, we do not live in a sane society, at least not those of us who live in America. Perhaps some places in the world are not so confused, but America is a greatly confused nation indeed.
Representation of the Netherlands destroyed by water and fire, while allegories of Truth and Virtue uncover a group of sodomites, 1730.
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abomination of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
1 Kings 14:24
If you pressed me asking which parts of Scripture I find most interesting, I would include in that list the books of 1 and 2 Kings. That may seem like an odd choice to some. But as someone who’s always had a fascination with history and political philosophy, I can’t help but be drawn to these books, for they provide a wealth of insight on these subjects. They are God’s official commentary on these matters.
These books also are remarkably applicable to our own time, for in many ways America of the 21st century is wrestling with many of the same sins that plagued Judah and Israel.
One such sin that we share with ancient Israel is sodomy.
Under the leadership of David and his son Solomon, Israel hit its peak of wealth, power, and influence. David the warrior king conquered all Israel’s foes and Solomon consolidated these gains. It was under Solomon’s reign that the first temple was dedicated, which one could argue marked the high point of the Israelite kingdom.
But while Solomon’s reign began impressively, over time Solomon’s heart was turned away from God to idolatry by his many foreign wives. “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father (1 Kings 11:4).
Although the writer of 1 Kings does not make explicit the connection between Solomon’s turning to idolatry with the presence of sodomites in the land, that seems to be his intent. 1 Kings 11:5 tells us that Solomon, “went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.” And while the presence of sodomites in Judah is not reported until the reign of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, the close connection between pagan worship of the sort brought in by Solomon and sexual perversion raises the possibility that the origin of such persons in Israel can be traced to Solomon’s reign.
I mentioned above that 1 and 2 Kings provide a wealth of information about history and the mind of God applicable to our time. One of the takeaways from this portion of 1 Kings is that God hates sodomy and will punish those nations that practice it. In the books of the Law, sodomy, or what is more commonly today called homosexuality, is referred to as an “abomination.”
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:13).
Not only is sodomy referred to as an “abomination,” but strikingly it is also considered a capital crime in the Law of Moses. This is likely the origin of sodomy laws in the United States. According to one article from a pro-sodomy website, there are still 16 US states that have sodomy laws on the books, although it seems that they are no longer enforced.
But it wasn’t just homosexual acts that were prohibited in the law. Cross dressing, although there were no civil penalties attached to it, likewise also was banned. We read, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God” (Deuteronomy 22:5).
John Gill comments on this prohibition of cross-dressing:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man…It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any “instrument of a man” (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family….
Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them….
Gill’s commentary on this passage is a strong condemnation of both feminism and transgenderism. His remarks on the prohibition of women wearing men’s apparel extends to their wearing items that would be associated with male professions. By implication, women were not to do the work of men, an idea completely foreign and offensive to our time which holds, contrary to God’s design for the human race, that one’s sex ought to have no bearing on what one does. The feminists’ denial of sex roles implies, whether the feminists want to accept it or not, homosexuality as well as transgenderism. Suppose one’s sex has no bearing on one’s behavior. In that case, there is no reason why this concept should not be extended from one’s professional behavior- why shouldn’t a woman have a right to a career as much as a man – to one’s sexuality – gay or straight – and even to one’s sexual identification – of course, a man can identify as a woman.
Currently, there is a great deal of controversy among feminists as to whether trans-women – by “trans-woman” is meant a person who is biologically male but identifies as a woman – are, in fact, women. So-called TERFs – Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists – reject the concept of trans-women while feminist transgender activists support the concept. In the opinion of this author, the transgender activists are the more consistent of the two groups. As feminism is a philosophical attempt to erase the distinctions between men and women, the feminist transgender activists have simply taken the concept to its absurd and logical conclusion by declaring that anatomical men can in fact be women. TERFs, on the other hand, inconsistently cling to the notion that, although men and women are essentially interchangeable and that sex ought to have no impact on one’s behavior, while at the same time they deny biological males who identify as women are truly women. If one’s sex doesn’t matter, as the TERFs claim, then it doesn’t matter. Therefore, there is no reason why trans-women should not be considered real women.
There has been a great deal of howling from feminists about the increasing participation of trans-women in women’s sports, but the feminists have only themselves to blame as they are the ones who set this process in motion by denying the distinctions God made between male and female. One could argue that Lia Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania trans-woman swimmer who dominated the world of college woman’s swimming this past year, is a feminist “own goal.” Rather than seeking to pass legislation banning trans-women from participating in women’s sports, Christians ought to focus on rooting out the feminist philosophical poison that is killing our civilization and that led to absurd outcomes such as Lia Thomas dominating college women’s swimming.
Gill shows himself prescient when he remarked on the results of men wearing woman’s attire, one of which was that it would, “lead to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them.” The many news stories of women being sexually assaulted in restrooms and locker rooms by cross-dressing, so-called trans-women attest to Gill’s insightfulness.
Sodomy Invites God’s Judgment
Given the Lord’s strong condemnation of sodomy, it should come as no surprise that this sin invites God’s judgment. The account of God’s overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 stands as a dramatic illustration of how offensive this sin is in his sight.
Another example of God’s pouring out his wrath on civilizations that practice this sin is found in a passage already mentioned, 1 Kings chapter 14. Verse 24 of this chapter notes that, “there were also sodomites in the land” during the rule of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. Immediately following this observation, verses 25 and 26 note that, “And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.”
Although the author of 1 Kings does not explicitly make a connection between there being Sodomites in the land and the military defeat of Judah and the plundering of Jerusalem, the fact that the plundering of Jerusalem by Shishak followed immediately upon the note that there were sodomites in the land implied a connection between them.
This should be a concern to all Americans and citizens of other Western nations. If God did not spare Israel from humiliating and destructive military defeat, why would he spare us from similar treatment?
Worth noting in this regard is a tweet sent out by Richard Moore, Chief of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service in which he wrote, “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights.” Not exactly Churchillian level rhetoric, is it? The British, and the West generally, have devolved from, “We shall fight them on the beaches,” to “we’re better than the Russians because we think LGBTQ+ rights are awesome but that bad man Vladimir Putin denies same-sex marriage.” Inspired yet?
Whatever one may think of Putin, he is objectively closer to Biblical teaching on the issue of sodomy than is the apostate and degenerate West. Could it be that the West’s support of sexual perversion is a reason why the war in Ukraine is going badly for Western forces? There are reports of the Biden Regime seeking an “off-ramp in Ukraine.” If the war were going so well, why is Biden looking for a way out?
Turning Back the Clock
It is sometimes assumed that once homosexuals have gained control of an institution, there is no going back. But another lesson we can take from Israel’s experience with sodomites is that their gains can be reversed.
Although Solomon brought in pagan worship that likely led to the flourishing of sodomites during Rehoboam’s reign, they were eventually removed from Israel by the godly kings Asa and Jehoshaphat.
In 1 Kings 15:11-12, we read, “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” Here we see Asa moving decisively against both sodomy and the false religious system that supported sodomy in Judah. Worth noting is that Asa was, unlike his predecessor Rehoboam, successful in defending Judah from foreign enemies.
Likewise, Asa’s son Jehoshaphat is commended by the writer of 1 Kings, who said of Jehoshaphat that he did, “that which was right in the eyes of the LORD.” Among Jehoshaphat’s righteous acts was his removal of, “the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father, Asa.”
The reformations effected by Asa and Jehoshaphat in Judah show that it is possible for righteous magistrates to reverse prior gains by sodomites and, so to speak, put them back in the closet.
Christians should take heart from this. Although things are going very badly for us and the sodomites seem to be going from strength to strength, they can be defeated.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has led the way in this by dealing a decisive blow to uber-woke Disney Corporation after it opposed a bill prohibiting the teaching of sexualized material to young children in Florida schools and later, after the bill passed, threatened to campaign for its overturn.
The decisive actions in punishing Disney seem to have had an effect on other “woke capital” as several large firms recently have backed off their woke initiatives in the wake of the smackdown given to Disney by the DeSantis administration.
The actions of Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature are commendable and indicative of the good that can come when magistrates follow the Lord by punishing those who practice evil and pass laws that uphold the good.
As Christians, let us take heart from this victory and the success of Asa and Jehoshaphat and pray and work that the Lord would strike more such blows against Satan’s kingdom of darkness and that those who are caught in the clutches of the sin of sodomy would repent of their evil and come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a non-tax-deductable donation to support the work of Lux Lucet
“The Squad” – Democratic Representatives Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – and Donald Trump. Getty Images.
“[The government of women] has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing.”
– John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Timothy
“I distance myself from this decidedly and stand in solidarity with the women who were attacked,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “The prime minister’s view is that the language used to refer to these women was completely unacceptable,” said a spokesman for British Prime Minister Theresa May. From New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden we heard, “I completely and utterly disagree with him.” “Wrong and completely unacceptable,” said Justin Trudeau of Canada.
If you haven’t already guessed, all the above quotes were directed at Donald Trump and his well known Twitter storm from last weekend where he invited four first-term, Democratic Congresswomen to, “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
Of all the controversial things Donald Trump has said and Tweeted, this one, perhaps, has maxed out the trigger meter the most.
But the rending of garments was not limited to foreign heads of state, as Trump’s tweets created a predictable stir domestically. “I know racism when I see it. I know racism when I feel it. And at the highest levels of government, there is no room for racism,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets.” On Tuesday, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution that, “strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments.”
Racist, racist, racist. That’s the language the Democrats used when condemning Trump’s tweets. But here’s the thing, nowhere in his tweets did Donald Trump say anything about race. What he did was criticize, at least in general terms, the political stances of four freshman Democrats: Alexandria Ocasio-Corez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar. The last time I checked, criticizing the ideas of individuals is not racism, so the charge by the Democrats is a strange one.
But this post is not about defending Trump’s tweets or grappling with the reactions of critics foreign and domestic. In the opinion of this author, the President, his supporters and his critics have all overlooked a more fundamental issue, one which I intend to address.
You see, the fundamental problem with the four first-term Democrats is not that they are ethnic minorities. It is not their socialist politics. Nor is it their, at least in some cases, questioning of the almost blind support the US gives to Israel, a state of affairs that very much needs to be questioned.
No. The fundamental problem is that as women they do not belong in elected office.
Yes, you read that right. As women, these four individuals have no business being in elected office.
Well, that didn’t take long. The last echoes of the inaugural balls had scarcely faded when the first protest march against Donald Trump hit the Washington Mall. I refer, of course, to the Women’s March on Washington which took place on January 22, 2017, the day after Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States.
Beloved by much of middle America, reviled by the elites, from the very beginning of his presidential campaign Donald Trump has been a figure almost impossible to ignore.
It was not my intention to write about Saturday’s protest march against Trump. But the sheer size and radical nature of the event held in Washington and mirrored at other sites throughout the nation cries out for commentary.
Title page from John Knox’s famous, shocking and politically incorrect essay, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.
In 1558, John Knox wrote was is still to this day perhaps the most politically incorrect tract in history, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. The proximate object of Knox’s blast was the reign of Mary Tudor in England, but in targeting Bloody Mary, the Scottish reformer also took aim, “against the very principle of female government itself” (Roger A. Mason, John Knox On Rebellion, xv)
Over the following centuries, the political theory and practice of Protestant nations generally was ikn agreement with Knox. But with the rise of secular feminism in the 19th century and its subsequent influence on the evangelical church, that consensus began to fracture.
Today, not only does Great Britain have its second female prime minister, but Germany in headed by Angela Merkel. France is likely to find itself under the sway of a woman as soon as next year. And here in the United States, the Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton for president.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s nomination. The mainstream press is fond of describing it as “historic” as indeed it is. The reaction of the New York Times was typical of mainstream reporting on Clinton’s nomination, with the paper featuring the headline “Democrats Make Hillary Clinton a Historic Nominee.”
As the story itself went on to report, “The Democratic convention formally nominated Hillary Clinton for president on Tuesday, making history by choosing a woman to be the first standard-bearer of a major political party, a breakthrough underscored by a deeply personal speech by Bill Clinton calling her ‘the best darn change-maker I have ever known.’ ”
Darth Vader entering the captured rebel blockade runner, the iconic character’s first appearance on screen, 1977.
It was the summer of 1977, and my family and I were in Philadelphia to attend my aunt’s wedding. While in town, it just so happened that we stayed at a large hotel complex featuring two movie theaters. One of them showed Herbie the Love Bug Goes to Monte Carlo. The other, well, it was playing that summer’s surprise blockbuster hit, Star Wars. My brother was eight at the time, and it was decided that he was probably too young to handle Darth Vader and all that. So both he and dad were bundled off to see the Love Bug. But mom and I, we got to see Star Wars. It’s family story we still laugh about to this day.
And what did I think about Star Wars? Simply put, I was blown away. It was absolutely captivating. It was, apart from watching my Cincinnati Reds win back-to-back World Series titles in 1975 and 1976, the greatest thing I’d ever seen. Have the movies ever featured more awesome portrait of evil personified than Darth Vader? And who couldn’t root for Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewie and Leia? When Luke dropped his photon torpedoes in the exhaust vent and blew up the Death Star, the whole theater exploded in spontaneous applause. It was electric. And like just about every other kid my age, I couldn’t get enough.
The Force Awakens
So as something of a confessed life-long Star Wars geek, it was with great anticipation that I awaited the release of this year’s latest addition to the Star Wars franchise, The Force Awakens. But as details of the plot slowly leaked out, my interest in seeing the film began to wane. As much as I hated to admit it to myself, Star Wars had gone over to the dark side. It had become another propaganda vehicle for the sort of ubiquitous girl-power feminism that, any time it rears its head in something I’m watching, prompts me to reach for the remote faster than the Millennium Falcon can make the Kessel Run.
Star Wars is not and never has been a Christian enterprise. The obvious pantheism – the Force that binds the galaxy together is most definitely not the triune, personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – displayed throught the series indicates the movie is not operating within a Christian intellectual framework. And yet, there were themes in the original movie and in subsequent episodes that were very attractive to one with a Christian worldview. Perhaps chief among them was the notion of the humble, underdog Good Guys versus all-powerful and arrogant Bad Guys. Star Wars, it seemed, had more than a little David and Goliath in it. And this is a theme that is profoundly attractive to men.
Star Wars: A New Hope, final scene.
God created men to care for their families, to be brave, to be strong. To teach and defend what is right. To oppose and defeat what is wrong. These are the actions of a patriarch. And the entirely of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation virtually screams patriarchy at us. It is God’s design for humanity. And it is very good. And watching Luke Skywalker play the man, even if it was in a sci-fi flick flashed upon a silver screen, was a great joy to me, reinforcing what I already knew to be true from God’s revealed word.
Those were the days.
Star Wars, the Force Awakens.
But now things are different, and not just a little bit. The lead character in The Force Awakens is young woman named Rey. When we first meet her, she’s eking out a scavenger’s existence on a forlorn desert planet. But not long into the movie, we find that there is much more to her. In quick order, she demonstrates the fighting skills of Bruce Lee, shows herself a techie the equal of Bill Gates, and pilots the Millennium Falcon with a brilliance on par with Han Solo himself. And not only that, but her whole persona radiates an independence such that 1977’s Princess Leia comes off like a southern belle by comparison. Sigh. I’m so tired of it all. Are we to be spared nothing?
Apparently not.
For the girl-power propaganda doesn’t stop with Rey. Captain Phasma, commander of the First Order stormtroopers on Starkiller Base, is another of the movie’s galactic valkyries. This backstory on this character is interesting. It turns out that the Phasma character has more than a litter Caitlyn Jenner in her. Originally conceived as a male character, writers J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan pulled a switcheroo in the face of internet criticism alleging a lack of female characters in the new Star Wars installment. That’s how it works today. The feminists have a hissy fit and suddenly the First Order commander is translated to the distaff side. Thanks guys. But for my part, I thought Boba Fett made a better imperial lackey.
But a Commander in Chief of the army a woman? I think it’s unspeakable.
– Ayn Rand
And the feminist agitprop isn’t over yet. Princess Leia is no longer a princess. She’s General Leia, thank you very much. In the original Star Wars, Leia was hardly a wilting daisy. She evidenced a strong and at times rather sarcastic personality. But one never got the sense that she was trying to be a man. Leia did not engage in light saber duels with Darth Vader or try to play Chuck Yeager behind the controls of an X-Wing fighter. But times have changed, and merely possessing a strong personality doesn’t cut it with today’s feminist keepers-of-the-flame. They demand action. The princess must now be a general. According to Carrie Fisher, “What was really fun about doing anything girl power-esque is bossing men around. I know a lot of you women out there haven’t done that yet and I encourage you to do so late this afternoon.”
This woman as commanding officer theme brought to mind a response Ayn Rand gave to the question why she would not vote for a woman president. When questioned on the Phil Donahue about her stance, Rand gave the memorable reply,
It is not to a woman’s personal interest to rule man. It puts her in a very unhappy position. I don’t believe that any good woman would want that position…But a Commander in Chief of the army a woman? I think it’s unspeakable.
In this one comment, atheist Ayn Rand demonstrates a far superior understanding of human nature than that of Abrams and Kasdan and a heart closer to God, at least in this matter, than the many Evangelicals who foolishly seek for their Deborah in the likes of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Carly Fiorina.
Conclusion
It has long been the opinion of this author that feminism is among the most destructive, inhumane and ungodly philosophies that has ever been foisted on any people. One may object to my discussion above by saying that it’s making much ado about nothing. After all, it’s just a movie. It’s only make-believe. True enough. But if the makers of the movie see it as a vehicle for promoting feminist agitprop, and they do, those who attend should do so with their eyes wide open and know they’re be propagandized.
For my part, I find the ubiquitous, physically aggressive, feminist Mary Sues of current day movies and television to be revolting, unrealistic and unwatchable. Femininity has all but disappeared. And if you doubt it, just ask yourself when was the last time you ever saw a woman in a mainstream movie or television show give the slightest hint of the gentle and quiet spirit that Peter tells us is precious in the sight of God? This is a woman’s greatest strength. But what God calls precious, the feminists call worthless. Ironically enough, by insisting that their strong, liberated female characters utterly reject femininity and walk, talk and fight like men, it just may be that the feminists who run and influence the entertainment industry are the worst misogynists of all.
Transgender Caitlyn Jenner accepts ESPY’s Arthur Ashe Award for Courage on July 15, 2015 in Los Angeles. (AP photo)
Ideas have consequences. Indeed, only ideas have consequences, for ideas alone are the basis for all our actions. Everything you and I do is done because of some prior idea we have in our minds.
Many times, a person’s ideas will have consequences he never foresaw. Eve had the idea, planted in her mind by the serpent, that she would not die from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She induced Adam to follow her in her sin. And the rest, as they say, is history. It is doubtful that either one of them had any idea about the disastrous chain of events that would result from their decision to disobey the clear revelation of God. Caiaphas held that it was better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. Of course, he was quite correct in what he said, but just not in the way he meant. His idea had consequences other than what he intended.
This tendency of ideas to go in directions unanticipated by their originators was brought to mind recently by a story I read about a dust up involving noted feminist Germaine Greer. Greer had been invited to deliver a talk at Cardiff University in Wales, but has since cancelled her appearance as a result of a petition circulated by Cardiff University women’s officer Rachael Melhuish. The petition accused Greer of heretical opinions on the subject of transgenderism, saying Greer, “has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women [N.B. a trans woman is a biological man who has had medical procedures done in order to take on the physical characteristics of a woman], including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.”
What prompted this outcry of anguish?, you may ask. Apparently, at least in part, it was Greer’s less than enthusiastic endorsement of Glamour Magazine’s decision to name Bruce Caitlyn Jenner as one of its 2015 Women of the Year. According to an article in the Guardian, Greer opined to the BBC that Jenner, “wanted limelight of female Kardashians.” Things continued to going downhill for Greer when in the same interview she let it be known that transgender women are “not women,” and that they do not, “look like, sound like or behave like women.” Greer even claimed to see misogyny at work in Glamour’s decision. Said Greer, ” I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this, that a man who goes to these lengths to become a woman will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman.”
Let’s see. A feminist icon acknowledges what has been the common opinion mankind since the time of Adam – that men and women are different and that those differences cannot be erased no matter how many surgeries one receives – and Cardiff University has a collective philosophical freak-out. It’s hard to fathom, but such is the world we live in. How did we get here?
Lux Lucet 