High-jacking the narrative.
Here we have the perfect lesson into what happens when political and social ideologies are allowed to infect beloved franchises such as ghostbuster; James Bond and other movies. Now this does not mean you have to be a fan or even like every film that has been released. But still the principle applies: if a series of films is known for a particular ideal or a particular kind of character, then what reason other than to be one of virtue signallers who want to be seen to fit into the latest trend.
And there are only two options as far as I can see: either stand against such a perversity or be trampled underfoot and become a dominated slave to the course. In other words, either you stand apart and stand for the truth or get steamrolled over and become a part of the problem. There can be no originality.
Repudiating the Past
One of the clearest pieces of evidence of this "new narrative" happens to be that certain groups who falsely view themselves as being oppressed or some similar thing will do anything to change history in order to force feed another construction on the matter-- in other words, all the good things that have been done in past are jettisoned because a few bad people. Think about for a moment: people always think of Martin Luther King as being the man who spearheaded the moment of abolition of slavery; and yet, they fail to realise that another man some 60 year before Him. Have you ever heard of William Wilberforce? Do you know what he has done? No- probably not. And it is a shame. Well, let me tell you who he was.
He was a white man, a white Christian who went upon his Christian beliefs and values; he stood again the tyranny of the slave trade of the time and was a champion for the freedom of men and women who were being treated unjustly by other men (the brutal treatment of people who were slaves). He states:
So enormous, so dreadful, so irredeemable did the slave trade wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.
Does this sound like a man who hated people prejudicially? No. this is a man who because was sold out to God that He could not live a second without seeing the inherent value of every human-- and had no hate in him based on superficial reasons. The thought that would have motivated him would have been that because every one is created equally in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). And because Christ said that we are to love God and to love our neighbour (Matthew 22: 34-40). This would point to the fact that each person has an innate dignity and worth in God's sight because they are His image bearer; and any injustice toward anyone based on prejudicial reasons is sin against God. And all true Christian must be of the same position.
If it was not for this man then the colonial slave trade would still no doubt be a thing in the wider context that once was. Let us see something else which could have been said in with this in view or at least apply with much power behind it:
You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.” “If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large.”
The history of the British man does not deserve to have such a stigma attached to it as being pro- slavery because clearly not every one was; and yet, there are those in the radical regimes which would assert that they are right to assume that we all are. And on both ends of the scale there is clear sin being perpetrated without any remorse-- at least on the part of those who partake in such actions.
Revision of understanding
Now when God created man and woman he created them to be expressed in a united oneness (or a family structure); that being a Husband and Wife to one another; and Father and mother to their children (whether boy or girls; or boys and girls). This is the basic outworking of God's plan for His creation as we are told in His Word (Ephesian 5-6; Colossians 3-4) Marriage and relationships were designed to be heterosexual in nature and expression.
Let us take note of what William Einwechter has to say about Marriage:
Marriage is not a human invention, it is the creation of God; it did not originate in the mind of man, but in the mind of God. This being the case, man cannot change the definition or purpose of marriage to suit himself.
There it is: the one who defined what marriage is-- God Himself. And he said in the 2nd chapter of Genesis: "man shall leave His Father and mother; and cleave to his wife." (vs.21-25). This basic pattern that God established as His definition of what Marriage should be and must always be. Between one man and one woman, was reaffirmed by the sinless Son of God Jesus Christ in the gospels: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9). It is a blessed union between to people perfectly compliment one another; and complete each other in a compatible fashion. Therefore, marriage was given for the betterment of society.
But for man to think he has the right to fundamentally alter this shows such a lack of regard and lack of understanding. Let me make it clear: to redefine marriage is nothing more than to deconstruct and destroy what God put in place. To put it another way: "The redefinition of marriage is the negation of marriage." Now do you see the problem? I sincerely hope you do!
Now let me put an important thought by Sinclair Ferguson:
Marriage has all kinds of purposes: it provides the environment in which children may be born and properly reared. It provides the context in which the sexual instincts can be exercised in a God-intended way. But first and foremost, Genesis teaches us, it provides a very special friendship. In marriage a man and a woman can become the best of friends, knowing each other to such a depth that only God knows them better! This, too, is a gift from the Creator.
Those words are straight to the point: Marriage provides many great purposes; but notice the words at the end: "In marriage a man and a woman can become the best of friends, knowing each other to such a depth that only God knows them better." That gives the boundary to which marriage was given a united intimacy between two: a man and a women. Now this picture is best seen in the words of the 31st Proverb where we have description of what a godly wife must be: a provider for her family. Marriage is mutual place for this benefit.
You do not get this most blessed provision in the context of of perverse union under the ideal of redefinition. It is simply a blasphemous union which is nothing more than God judgement on society for falling into this trap. In a most undisputed manner this can be understood as what Paul tells us in Romans 1: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." (vs 28) And they fall into the list sins that follow:
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (vs.29-32)
The God given family must be honoured.
Recoiling of the fans
There has been in recent time a shift in people who were once fans of particular celebrities because they have decided not to jump on the toxic bandwagon of letting the new narrative control and dominate their lives and thinking. A clear example of this would be none other than the author of the novels "Harry Potter" J. K. Rowling who had every right to express her views on the subject which has become taboo in society to speak out against; and many of her fan decided it was time to jump ship and express their hostility towards her stance. But, nonetheless, Rowling's view is the truth no matter what any says. And nothing can change that.
Let us take a moment to consider what she said:
If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth.
Dress however you please, call yourself whatever you like, sleep with any consenting adult who will have you, live your best life and peace and security. Don't force women out of their jobs for saying that sex is real."
Such statements as those above speak volumes about what kind of person this woman is. Does she hate transgendered people? No. But her issue is on the fact that definition that one existed and had meaning are being deconstructed before our eyes; and this also means that we are being forced to adhere to an irrational position where words are being adopted which have agreed upon definition. Therefore, there can be no justifiable course to take when someone like myself disagrees with such a lose cannon process because it manipulation.
Now when she says that "the lived reality of women globally is erased." All I have to say on this front is thank you for some common sense: just as the prior issue I spoke on the erosion and even degradation of marriage for the sake allowing other concepts to be acceptable; here we have same thing being applied. And many in society are fighting but don't realise they are losing a battle because they are fighting for the wrong position. Only fighting from the creation order perspective can we see this as the error it truly is. And thank God for this.
I believe that will just say that we are fighting a battle which in and of itself is a friendly one: if you take up the position for redefinition in this matter you have sold your soul. Here is what Albert Mohler has to say:
Let's just point out, doesn't have the awesome power to make transgender women, women. No human being, by the way, has that power. Now you can have a human court declare it to be true. You can have an entire army of psychotherapists and others declare it to be true. You can have battalion after battalion of activists declare that it is true.
:
