Speak of sharing Jesus in every dynamic. Ladies and gentlemen, we come now to the most famous portrait in our gallery, the most famous in the world. The smile has bewitched and baffled art critics for centuries, but now, ever since the art restoration in 2016, we've realized the truth about that smile. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Magalisa. Since 1503, people have wondered what on earth is she smiling about, and now we know she's smiling at minorities. I mean, what else can we conclude? What other explanation is this? She is a symbol of the smirking, sneering, elite, losing Italian privilege. She is the epitome of Renaissance superiority. She uh she reminds me of my ex-girlfriend in her mother good looks that you turn your back for one minute and she's off with awingower. Owen Gala. Stuck up pig, honestly. I mean I mean you can see it. Can I when you just look at the smile for long enough? It's obvious when it's pointed out. I mean, I say smile, really, it's a smug. It's a snare. She is frozen in a rectus grin of pure hatred. I mean, just standing there. Staring you down, menacing, aggressive.
SPEAKER_02There's something aggressive about standing there.
SPEAKER_08Standing there with a no-demp racist grin of race-based racism. You know, if when my back is turned, you want to walk up to the painting and punch her in the face, honestly, no one could blame you. And by the way, I've got Da Vinci's details. If you want to dox him later, just ask me. Enough of next on the tour, it is the laughing cavalier. Or as we call him him, that smoking bigot.
SPEAKER_09Hello, welcome to the live cast. Good to see you all again. Well, can't see you at all, but we can see you in comments.
SPEAKER_08So uh Biddy has already said hello, Dan Rackham has joined. Hello, Dan Rackham.
SPEAKER_09Um mine says that Glenn Scrivener is watching with me. So that's good to know.
SPEAKER_08I'm always watching or in the background. And uh if you have any comments about today, please do uh tap them into your little uh Facebook uh comment stream and we will ignore them for the next hour. No, we won't ignore them. We if we if we see them in time, we'd love to interact uh with what you have to say. So Glenn the Magalisa. The Magalisa is bad, right? My real question is who's Owen Gower? Owen Gower, Owen Gower really was. Um he was at my school and uh an uh uh an an ex-girlfriend of mine dumped me for Owen Gower. And uh in my in my school, Owen, if you're listening, I forgive you. All is all is forgiven.
SPEAKER_09And um but you know, as we speak, members of the Speak Life Facebook page are finding his details, doxing him in his family It's such a Commonwealth name, I'm I'm I'm sure. Don't get the wrong one, okay? Just make sure uh so Magan Lisa, what's that really about? What's going on there?
SPEAKER_08Yeah, it's good to get me off the Owen Gower thing, because I think Owen I actually I was I was a prefect at my school and I had the uh the ability to give out detentions, and usually it was for like first formers who were being snot nice. I gave Owen Gower a detention.
SPEAKER_09Wow. What was you did you cite the reason?
SPEAKER_08Abstreperous behavior. Abstreperous behavior anyway. Um so yeah, the MAGA Lisa. So uh if you didn't catch the reference, it's uh in reference to the Covington Catholic High School, uh the MAGA kid who um you know I as I said uh last week, I'm not the biggest fan of making countries great again and all that kind of stuff. And if you are, that's you know, but I've got nothing against yourself out. But you know, I don't I don't mind that kind of uh thing. And I hope that that was clear last week that that I was actually standing up for the kid who happened to be in a MAGA hat. Um but I did think that because he had the MAGA hat on, people were viewing uh his smile in a particular way. In a very particular way. Um and people were imagining all sorts of things about his internal world, about his life, about his history, about his politics, about everything about this this kid.
SPEAKER_09I can almost hear though someone saying Yeah, it's almost like seeing someone in Nazi uniform that suggests they're bad. Right?
SPEAKER_08Yeah What would we say to that? Like like can you honestly establish an equivalency between honestly I'm thinking no?
SPEAKER_09I did see someone put on a comment, not on our thing, it was on you know other YouTube videos. They were like looking at the Hitler youth that said that. They said that, yeah.
SPEAKER_08And isn't it interesting how you know such a person might walk around in a Shea Guevara t-shirt? Yeah, yeah. Right? Such a person might be a woman. And you know, yeah, he seems cool, you know. A motorbike, right? Is he a motorbike? And uh so yeah, so can we can we interpret other people and where they're coming from uh charitably? Um and so yeah, what I was I think we know the answer, Glenn. Come on. From experience, we know that we can't, unfortunately. So I was just imagining to myself, is the is there a fame a famous smile which we might look at in a different way if we saw them through a different frame. And uh there you go. That is the processor.
SPEAKER_09The most famous smile you could think of.
SPEAKER_08Yeah, I I don't know, Julia Roberts, she's got a pretty famous smile, but um yeah. The Joker. Not one of pure joy, but uh there's something malevolent in his sinister grin. Chaotic evil, that's him. But uh yes, so that was my that was my frame. Well that that that was rather my my uh motivation for doing this, that actually the frame that we look through um really determines what we see. And I thought that that story from I guess it's ten days old now, but that story is still doing around. Um because it it is such an interesting example of looking at something through one little frame and coming to one snap judgment and then a whole bunch of people doubling down on it, trickling down again. Um Yeah. Can we reframe things um and see them in a different light? That's what we're talking about uh today. So the art of persuasion. Um and one of the things that you want to do with the art of persuasion is is reframe things. So um often I I I talk about uh the four R's when you're in a conversation with somebody and uh let's let's say that they've asked you a tricky question about Christian faith or they've objected to some aspect of of the Bible. Um I I often talk about four R's that you can think through. One of them is reframe, but uh all four of them are you should relate um to the question and to the questioner. You could you should kind of say, look, if if they've raised a question like suffering, how can a good God allow a suffering world? Um you can relate to it and just say, hey, you know, I I live in that same suffering world too, and you know, I don't know if you know what a hard time we had last year, and it really made me wrestle with God and my faith and all sorts of things. So you relate to the question, because it's it's not like you've you're just entrenched in your position. And you say, Look, I too have that question. So you you relate, but you also reflect the question because they too have they too need an answer to their own question. Um so you reflect it back and and you start asking, you know, so what do you do about suffering? Um how do you how do you deal in this suffering world? Because every question that you are asked, the questioner needs to answer some version of that. So you relate, you reflect, but also you reframe the question and you start to ask, you know, people, is there another way of seeing this? Um and you know, the the example with Covington High is, yeah, there were there were loads of angles that you could actually, you know, see things from. And if you took the time, you could wade through two-hour long videos about you know what was happening. And and I think we need to do that in all kinds of walks of life. Um, ask ourselves, is there another way of seeing this? Am I being is is a particular perspective being forced on me that is not necessary? Um and could I perhaps reframe or redefine the terms of the question? So when somebody says, How could a good God allow a suffering world? one of the key terms you need to reframe is God. Like which God are we talking about? Um Is it a God who could have nothing to do with suffering, or is it the God who is revealed at the cross uh as a God who gives himself in flesh and blood for the world? Um if we're talking about that kind of God, then that reframes the whole question. Um and then the final R is retell. You know, um you present the gospel again with this issue at its core, and and you can you can do that with whether whatever is asked, but with suffering it's you know, it's obvious. We begin without suffering. Suffering is on us because we've turned from God. God enters into that suffering in Jesus and rises up again to to offer us his future. So you retell the gospel again with that issue at its core. And um but really the the R that I was wanting to focus on is the reframe one. Um I think we need to be doing that a lot more so that when people ask us a question, we don't assume that the terms they use are the same terms that we use and that their assumptions will be our assumptions. And and we just need to be much better at kind of going to 30,000 feet and looking down on the subject a little bit more, detaching from our own entrenched positions and asking ourselves and asking others, is there another way of saying this? Um because I I do think that people can be persuaded. Um so uh this last week I I came across uh a vlogger called Matt Christensen um who's very popular on YouTube and um and it seems like he's on a journey. Uh and I probably listened to uh about ten of his videos now, just just in this last week, sort of uh fell down the YouTube hole, as you tend to do. And uh one of his latest videos is about the New York State uh abortion law or reproductive health law, I think they called it. Yep. Reproductive health. Now there's there's there's a term that needs reframing, right? Is this about reproductive health? Um or is this about the the status of the unborn? So I I just thought it was really interesting, and and we're we're gonna see a clip now about how he, who is just kind of grown up with a kind of a default pro-choice position, has been thinking about things and what it is that has persuaded him on his journey. I think we can learn a lot from it. So let's have a look at Matt Christensen.
SPEAKER_00On Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed broad legislation expanding access to abortion in his state, and he did it on the 46th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision with the actual lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court at his side, Sarah Weddington. She was 27 years old at the time. As far as the content of the new law, it takes abortion out of the state's criminal code entirely, now regulating the issue as a matter of public health, which means that previous law that criminally banned acts that harm a fetus in utero and banned abortions after 24 weeks, except if the mother's life is at stake, is now out the window. It expands the pool of people who can legally perform abortions, to include non-physicians. It allows abortions up to point of birth if the fetus is non-viable or the mother's health is at risk. And that's not just the mother's life at risk, mind you, that's the mother's health. It's a much looser term that assuredly will be interpreted much more loosely. The law also removes existing protections for babies that survive an abortion procedure, meaning medical professionals no longer have an obligation to care for a child that survives the process, at least as far as New York State is concerned. And predictably, this new law is given a nice wholesome title. It's the Reproductive Health Act, as though we're talking about taking your vitamins and drinking plenty of water during your pregnancy. And this new law has been heavily discussed this week, with critics seeing it as yet another sign of our decaying moral integrity. There's even a push to get Governor Cuomo excommunicated from the Catholic Church over his betrayal of their values. As far as my take, if you've been watching me for a while, you know that I'm a recovering former, firmly pro-choice, filthy lefty, nudged an inch or two over with each episode of some shout your abortion lady telling me that an abortion is nothing more than ordering fast food or visiting the dentist.
SPEAKER_05But an abortion shouldn't be a luxury. It should be on the Dollar menu at McDonald's. Hey, I'd like a large diet coke, and can you get this egg out of my McMuffin?
SPEAKER_02And then they just suck the pregnancy out. And it was like a crappy dentist appointment or something. Then it was over, and I felt really just grateful that I wasn't pregnant anymore.
SPEAKER_00And even though we're supposed to treat this as routine and mundane, we're also supposed to celebrate it as some kind of achievement, too. There's nothing like philosophical alignment with that type of degeneracy to get the gears of introspection spinning in your head. And over the last couple years, I've done exactly that. Truth be told, it wasn't just running far, far away from the Michelle Wolffs of the world that's behind my intellectual shift. There was a simple, solid case made by former libertarian presidential and senate candidate Austin Peterson on Dave Rubin's show two summers ago. And it really sticks in my head.
SPEAKER_01The question in my mind is, is it a life? Is it a human life? I think the answer to that question is yes. Um, and then it gets down to the question of, well, when does life begin? Well, can I be intellectually honest and say I don't know because I'm not a scientist and that I don't know everything? Uh, but if I'm to make a mistake, uh, I would probably think it would be the moral question is should you err on the side of life? So I think that yes, we should err on the side of life.
SPEAKER_00When I considered what he said, I really didn't have a great refutation. If there's a human life at stake at some point in this process, even if we can't say exactly when that life begins, it's probably prudent to protect that life amid any doubt. That's if you grant that there is, in fact, a life at stake at some point in this process. But if I don't grant that, then I'm firmly with old kazoo voice Michelle, and I can't hang out with her, I'll lose my mind. So that deals with the moral question to me. That tells me what a moral person would and should do in such a circumstance. The legal question still eludes me a bit, but if we grant that there is, in fact, a life at stake in this process, I have no qualms with people who view it as the state's role to protect it. Protecting life is a fundamental, foundational role for government as we've conceived it. And I don't think it makes you some big government hypocrite to think that protection ought to extend to the unborn. So I'm sympathetic to that broad legal concept. I'm still undecided on some specific exceptions and who ought to be punished, those sorts of questions. But there's a secondary conclusion to which Austin's case leads me.
SPEAKER_09Where there's ambiguity and it's good stuff in there. Very well, just kind of to me, well thought out. Yeah. Kind of just acknowledging the different aspects of it that he's seen and being prepared to think about it.
SPEAKER_08Yeah, and being prepared to cross uh cross an aisle that is very, very broad, very, very wide. It's it's a foul wide ditch, really, uh especially in American culture. Um and yet, you know, he he's been on a journey. I think people can be persuaded. And I just thought it was interesting as he traced out what what it was that was persuading him. Um and you know, he so he he was first persuaded on the moral question, and he still has questions about legality and what the role of the state and all that kind of stuff. And I'm sure he's got all sorts of other moral issues um that he's wrestling through as well. But the way in was just that question, is it a life? Is it a human life? And even if you don't know, can you be sure?
SPEAKER_10Yeah.
SPEAKER_09It's like the example you use, you talked about the building being demolished, right? You know, and the person saying, Is there anyone still in there? Yeah, you go, I'm not sure. You know. I think I think I think everyone's out. I think I think there's no one in there. You go, well, you know, wouldn't you want to be sure before you press the detonator. Yeah, and if you're not sure, you don't want to press that detonator.
SPEAKER_08So Yeah. Yeah. Or you know, you're out hunting and the there's a rustle in the bushes and you're not you're not a hundred percent sure it's not a human being. Yeah. Do you do you shoot if you're not a hundred percent sure? So yeah, erring on the side of life. Um and then everything else kind of falls out of that. And I I do think as a principle of persuasion, like you can't you can't answer everybody's objections all at once. Um there's a there's a debating tactic called hurling elephants, where you just there's this thing and there's this thing and there's this thing and there's this thing, and and like they're not it's not joined up thinking, it's not an argument, it's just hurling elephants.
SPEAKER_09Not really interested in the response to those either. It's just let me throw another one at you. Yeah.
SPEAKER_08And so like what what do you do when elephants are being hurled at you? You know, I I just think it's you know, is there a way of just saying, okay, okay, okay, okay. You know, let's let's let's imagine that all of what you've just said is true. Can I just get your your thought on this one question? Like what is in the womb? Like what is it? I and are you sure of what's in the womb? And would it change your mind? Would it change your mind if it could be conclusively shown that what is in the womb is a human life. Would that would that change your mind? You know. And I think you might you might get into a into a better kind of conversation on that. Um Yeah, I I I think people can be persuaded and people can even be persuaded from very entrenched positions. And uh just this week I I shared uh Stephanie Gray's Google Talk. Yep. Um which you came across this week as well. Yeah. Well, because you shared it. Because I shared it. And then I watched it. We're friends. We we do speak outside of work as well.
SPEAKER_09Yeah, what did you what did you make of Stephanie Gray's uh Google talk? Uh yeah, really, really good. Um really surprised to uh see it on a Google thing. Um I assume they'd be more censorious. Um so uh but yeah, I thought she was great. She was very kind of um she just seemed to be very well thought out. Um it wasn't aggressive or hostile in any way. Um she simply brought different ideas. I mean, she talked a lot about you know, I met somebody and we were having a conversation and they said this, and so I asked a question back, and that was often the repeated idea. And she said, well, what about from this angle? So I guess that's kind of what you're getting at in the sense of of of this reframing.
SPEAKER_08Yes.
SPEAKER_09You know, I think the example she used or someone had used to her about the, you know, you've got the baby on your your right and you've got the embryo on your left, and there's the fire, and who do you save and whatnot. And they're and they and they feel like the obvious answer is, well, of course you save a baby and you know, because life is more valuable or something like that, you know. And she just reframes it with the the idea of the you know, the woman on the c the car in the river. You know, woman's crashed a car in the river, she's on the roof holding her baby, you know, the person swims out to save them, who do they save first? Well you go for the weaker one, you know. And people everyone would say, Well save the baby, you know. Um don't you think it's don't you think it's great that we you know we want us to help those who are weaker? Isn't that our natural thing? It's not about saving the strong. Um and that resonates with people, you know, I think that does, and she just does it she seems to have done it in a very natural way. I mean, obviously, I think she said in the video she's got maybe two years old or so. She was 37 and she'd been doing it since she's 18. So I mean she's she's had a good 20 years of practice as well in these kind of conversations. So yeah, very much.
SPEAKER_08She's very, very good. So all sorts of reframing is going on in that video. I've just put a link down in uh in the Facebook comments. But do check it out because she's reframing the whole time. That's that's that's essentially what what she does. So she starts um she she has a story about Captain Sullenberger, Sully. Sully. Um if you've seen that the plenty of film telling about him, and you might have remembered he's the he's the guy who landed the plane on the Hudson.
SPEAKER_10Yeah.
SPEAKER_08Um and at the end, as the plane is sort of slowly sinking into the Hudson, you know, he's going up and down, up and down, he's the last person off the plane. Um, because we all know that self-sacrifice for the sake of life is noble, honourable, alien. The captain should be last one off. Right. You know, that kind of thing. And let's let's try to be heroes. Let's try to be heroes so that you know the script that we run is not the script of what is my choice and right to an autonomy, but but how do I be a hero? How do I how do I live that that self-giving life?
SPEAKER_09She said, and we she said, you know, we look to those people, don't we? And we see those things and we say, Yes, that is inspiring, that is honourable, that is right. Um because you contrasted that very well with the Costa Concordia um cruise liner disaster where the captain left the ship before you know everyone else, or a lot of other people and people died, and he said he just fell out. I mean he literally she she said he said he fell into a lifeboat. And I mean it's like it's like Aaron, but you know, I just put the gold in the fire and this calf came out and this cowardice just came out. I don't know. So and and she was able to contrast those just well and say, you know, the big scandal in that story was yes, there was a big disaster, and yes, people died, but the other big thing was this thing about the captain left the ship and everyone was like, This is terrible you don't do that and look at the example of Sully and actually This idea of you when you put aside your own rights for the sake of others, that that is something that we think is good and honourable. So how how come in the abortion situation we're saying actually I want to have my rights curtail the rights of someone else? And it's not just curtailing the rights of someone else, I mean it it's killing someone else. You know, there's a you know, there are definitely situations where sometimes you would want to fight your own rights. Yeah.
SPEAKER_08Yeah, absolutely.
SPEAKER_09But having something trumps something that kills someone else is probably not the one.
SPEAKER_08But the right to life is the right from which other rights flow, because without it uh you don't have any other rights. Um she does another brilliant reframing thing about um you know, what do you do in the in the question where um you know that a baby won't survive outside the womb? And and of course there are loads of stories about people being told that you know the child won't survive outside the womb and and here they are today. Um I you know, my mother was offered an abortion with me. Um she had I had a twin, she'd miscarried the twin, um, and I'd survived, but because she miscarried the twin, the doctor said, uh, well, something's probably not right, probably best to terminate the pregnancy. Right. Um and of course she didn't, and um you know, I'm perfectly okay.
SPEAKER_09Sort of. You know. I'm alright. You know, I don't know. And I mean I I mean I've read numerous I know I know people as well, new but I've read numerous cases of people who've been told, you know, this child has Down syndrome and you should abort, and they don't, and the child's not a perfect perfectly healthy. Not that they should, even if there was, but no, exactly. I know, but that that was the the line from the hospital. People the doctors.
SPEAKER_08Yeah, yeah. There there is uh there is a claim to know more than we actually do know in those in those circumstances.
SPEAKER_09And I I mean I think the story as well from John Wyatt, I don't think it was on the interview, but he spoke when he mentioned it at the conference. He used the example of a a baby at All Souls Langham Place who I think uh he had s something called Edward syndrome. Yes. And they were told the parents were told that he wouldn't live, you know, past about a week or so if if that long. Um and they should terminate that they had the baby, and he said like and everybody loved this baby, you know, ever he became like a minor celebrity at All Souls Lang and Place. Um and everybody wanted to pass him round and you know, and he l he lived for seven months. And he said like four hundred people came to the funeral, and he said like when he was born, I think he said he he weighed about five pounds or something, and he said when he died at seven months he was still five pounds. Um and he said that someone said to the dad something like I'll get this right now, he said you know, I can't remember the baby's name, but he said, He never he never grew but he taught others how to. Yeah. Or he helped us to. Right. And actually, you know, in the I mean, how can you put a price on on that, you know, and say, like, well I mean they were told he wouldn't survive, and he means seven months is a long is a good long period and he touched so many people's lives. Right.
SPEAKER_08Like, right. So she she does this reframing thing, um, Stephanie Gray, where she says, you know, what about a baby who won't survive outside the womb? As though we know that. But but then she she reframed it and said, Well, imagine you have a loved one who's on the other side of the country and they've got four weeks to live. Um Do you wait until three weeks and six days before you go and visit them and and just have the shortest amount of time with that loved one that you can? Or do you not move heaven and earth to be with that other person and spend as long as you can with that other loved one? And you're like, ah, you know, just re-reframing. Yeah, it's it's very persuasive. Absolutely. She was asked about her approach. Um so the the video's um gone viral at um hundred and sixty thousand views. Um and it's a really it's a really good one. Um I've I've been on a couple of different comment streams, even just this week, where people um seem at least open to being persuaded or or hearing the best case for a pro-life position. And and this is definitely the video that I've given uh for people to have a look at. And uh when she was asked about her approach in this video, she said, everyone is pro-life, but they just don't know it yet. And I thought I thought that was very that was very interesting because she's like, Well, come on, I think we're all actually on the side of life. We might be mistaken about the status of the unboard, and we you know, but it's it's it's it's the rare person who says, Yes, I know that's a human child, I don't care how hard.
SPEAKER_09Absolutely. Right.
SPEAKER_08Um everyone is pro-life, they just don't know it yet. And I think that that gives you a kind of a a cheerful confidence um to be able to reason your case and to hope for the best for the other person that actually Yeah, they've been they they've thought in twisted ways about this subject. And perhaps if I bring clarity in this way, in this way, um they can be released into what they deep down believe.
SPEAKER_09And I think having that kind of that optimism about people coming over to the the the the same side helps you f helps you in when you talk about it with people. So I mean you can if you think people can be persuaded So I'm in the middle of a conversation, which I won't go into the details of with someone about this topic But I very much kind of laid my cards on the table and I said, Look, I'm not being judgmental about people who've had abortions or perform abortions, my hope is that people who perform abortions will step away from it and sort of come to repentance, and people who've had abortions will um be able to come and be forgiven and receive the healing and forgiveness they need. And I think if you talk when you talk about it, you may make the same arguments but as as other people. But if in if other people might make the same arguments and spend their whole time describing people who've had abortions or give abortions as murderers which, you know, people might want to have a discussion about that. But it certainly doesn't put people on the foot to change their mind, does it? Yeah. If you're saying you believe in murder, you know, you're you you endorse murder, already you're setting up a barrier to do that. But if you're saying, look, come and come over here with me.
SPEAKER_08Come over here. Yeah, if that's your goal, because otherwise it's like I just want to flame you and just grind you into the dust and leave. Like, isn't isn't that you know what what so much of these interactions are about? But if you actually have hope that the other person can be persuaded, that should totally change the tone, the tenor, the the content of what you say. That you actually you actually want to be friends at the end of this conversation and you actually, you know. Um and and it shows a confidence in the truth of your position.
SPEAKER_09Well, and exactly someone put on I think on the that Stephanie Gray video they said someone else had written a comment and said she that they'd seen her in an inter uh debate with someone else and the other person had just resorted to kind of snarky comment comments and ad hominem attacks and she just kept it cool and just carried on as she was. And I mean that that just shows something completely d different, isn't it? I don't need to come back at these things, I don't need to attack the person, I can just bring this up and let it be. Let it speak for itself, really.
SPEAKER_08Yes. Yeah. So let's uh let's have that sort of cheerful ebullience and and that spiritual buoyancy and that confidence in the truth of God's word, um, and the love for the other person and and that hope that uh you know, 2 Corinthians chapter 5, verse 10, knowing the fear of God, we persuade people. Um yeah, persuasion is possible. Um speaking of which, uh, there is another contentious issue that's uh circulating in the culture, uh, the issue of gender dysphoria. And uh we did a video last night, I uh I interviewed uh Reverend Dr. Ian Paul, who's on the Archbishop's Council of the Church of England. Um, and he, together with some others, have put together a letter that's responding to the House of Bishops uh on the issue of gender transition services. So the House of Bishops um uh basically came out with some guidance on how you could retail uh a kind of a baptismal service um for the purpose of uh a person um being renamed and being called according to their new name, their new gender. Um and it was it was set out as guidance on gender transition services. That happened back in December, and uh quite a lot of people uh have been very uncomfortable about that, because it just seems to assume a whole bunch of theology and anthropology um all in one big sweep. But how do you address the issue? Uh well if you go to response to Hob.co.uk, actually, is is there any chance of you getting that up, Paul? Or is that too difficult? Don't worry, don't worry, it's too difficult. But response to Hob.co.uk uh is where a letter was put together by uh Ian Paul and others. And again, I I think um uh it it's a really good model for for how to try to persuade people, not just to double down and saying, this is our position and you're all evil, um, but uh to say this. So if you just uh scroll down underneath the the photo, it says gender dysphoria is an emotionally painful experience that requires understanding, support, and compassion. That's the front, you know, that's the front foot. That's the that's the introduction. Yep. Um because it has affected a very small proportion of people, evidence from the medical and social sciences is often conflicting and of poor quality. Although gender dysphoria has been recognized for many decades, in recent years, controversial new theories about the relationship between biological sex and the social meaning of gender have been linked to gender dysphoria. These ideas continue to be widely contested with well-intentioned and thoughtful people on all sides of the debate. A good way to to lead into uh a a persuasive argument. Um and so I I was I was very impressed by this letter. I th I thought it showed uh a lot of pastoral care, uh as lot of uh as well as theological wisdom, and so I thought I would uh interview uh Ian Paul, one of the authors of the letter, and uh we released uh that video last night on YouTube. We'll release uh it in full on Facebook tonight. But should we have a look at at a clip from my interview with Ian Paul? Guidance that came out uh at the beginning of December. Uh it says the Church of England welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people equally with all people within the body of Christ, and rejoices in the diversity of that body into which all Christians have been baptized by one spirit. What could we possibly object to in that?
SPEAKER_03Um, I don't think the idea of unconditional affirmation, uh, although it's really important in our culture and it seemed to be a sort of the touchstone of acceptance, um, it's an incoherent idea. I mean, I can't find anywhere in the Gospels where there's this idea of unconditional affirmation from the very beginning. You know, uh right at the beginning of Mark's gospel, Jesus comes out preaching, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news. This isn't unconditional. I mean, none of us are unconditionally affirmed. We are without condition welcomed into uh the offer the possibility of hearing good news and repentance of faith, but but that's not without conditions. I mean, you know, Paul goes to great pains in his letters to say, look, if once you've heard the good news and you've repented and believed, if these things aren't evident in your life, then there's a question here. Are you uh have you heard the news? It's it's not uh I think the a really helpful way of putting it is in John Barkley in his really, really big uh uh recent book on grace in Paul, he says that that the invitation to grace is unconditioned. In other words, you don't need to take a certain box before you hear it, but it's not unconditional because that is just not faithful to what anything that Paul says or that Jesus says. And every time, I mean, even you know, people cite Jesus' table fellowship, uh, and he look he he eats with sinners. Yeah, he eats with sinners in their homes where they've invited him, knowing that he's come to preach repentance to sinners. It's not the well who need a doctor, it's those who are sick. And in that Jesus is saying, you know, I'm coming to sinners like you and me. There is a sickness, and the sickness needs to be dealt with by the great physician, uh, and he needs to do some you know, serious surgery in our lives. And that's that's true for everybody. Now I can I can see why people want to use the language which doesn't differentiate and say that you know people who are suffering from gender dysphoria are somehow in a special category that needs to I I agree that they're like all of us, but all of us come to not to be unconditionally affirm, but to be received into the love of God and transformed by the good news.
SPEAKER_08It's interesting. About 10 years ago, I I unearthed a quote by Rowan Williams, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that uh the language of inclusion is not really the language of the gospel, the language of welcome is. Um and I thought that's a that's a very interesting distinction, I think a very a very healthy one between inclusion and welcome. Because welcome, if I welcome you into my house, um then there are still house rules, and there are there is still a shape to the table fellowship that I'm inviting you into. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03And of course, you know, other theologians like Mirazlav Wolf have explored this. Um there's a really good great booklet by Edward Dowler, who is one of the signatories for the letter. He's the Archdeacon of Hastings, and coming from uh a more Catholic point of view, he used to be on the star for St. Stephen's house. And and his argument is that even before you get to theology, the language of inclusion is self-contradictory because you know, inclusion includes only those who believe in your definition of inclusion. And actually, it it draws a boundary around those who agree with you on this. And and actually we see that manifest in social media all over the place. People be very inclusive until you say, actually, I don't agree with your definition of inclusion, and then suddenly you're out. Which is a bit ironic. Right. So I think the introductory language here is just it's it it should have no place at all in Christian liturgy. It's inclusion.
SPEAKER_08So yeah, the the difference between inclusion and welcome um I thought was interesting. And uh obviously the the language of inclusion is very popular today. Um everyone wants to be inclusive. Um is there something different about being welcoming? Um and I I I do think that the the Rowan Williams quote um is really interesting on that. I I I dredged up the full quote. Uh, where is it? Uh Rowan Williams said, I don't believe in I I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say come in and we ask no questions. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviors, ideas, emotions. The boundaries are determined by what it means to be loyal to Jesus Christ. So I just thought that was really that was really interesting. That the welcome is come over to my house. But in my house we do things this way, and there's a there's a shape to our table fellowship, and anybody, absolutely anybody is welcome at the table. But it's it's a table, and there's table manners, and there's there's I'm I'm welcoming you into something that's going in a certain direction. Um inclusion just seems to be just free-for all, you know, free-for-all. Just hey, the house is yours, do with it what you want, and and that kind of thing. Um but there's no direction, there's there's no um there's no shape to the life that you're including people in. Whereas very definitely uh what the gospel does is welcome everybody, no matter who you are, but welcome you into a pre-existing structure in which one of the things is um there is male and female. And that might seem really binding and um constrictive, but but but maybe it's actually the context in which you'll truly flourish, truly thrive, truly be free. Um it's worth it's worth thinking about. So I thought that language was was was helpful to to get into. Um but uh on on that topic of um being included um and and simply being unconditionally affirmed in however you present to people. I thought I thought Jordan Peterson did it, did a really interesting Ding. Ding Jordan Peterson bell. We rang the Jordan Peterson bell. We'll get a sticker later. And uh he uh just in in two and a half minutes uh he really interestingly um spoke about um how what we what we really don't even from a psychological point of view, we really don't want people to just affirm us. We really we really need for people to contradict us and to give feedback to us and for us to fit awkwardly into a community and have to adjust and they have to adjust, and that's actually going on in psychologically healthy communities all the time. And so to speak a language of pure inclusion without uh the need for any adjustment on anyone's part um just doesn't work even psychologically. So let's have a look at Jordan Peterson's clip.
SPEAKER_06Not the case. If if the world is required to validate your identity, you're done for. And the reason for that is that every single one of you have a pathological direction in which you are likely to go. And that's because every temperamental virtue comes with the temperamental vice. And so the only, you know, you think you're sane, it's like you're not. You're not even close. If I put you alone in a cave for two weeks, you'd be done. You can't you can't be sane on your own. And so what happens is that your parents, if they have any sense, train you, roughly speaking, to be vaguely acceptable to other people, and they keep nudging and winking at you every time you're a moron so that you get nudged into something approximately acceptable. And you're clued in enough to pay attention so when someone raises an eyebrow or doesn't find your joke funny or something rather subtle like that, you immediately revise your identity. And we're always nudging and tapping each other nonstop, exchanging information about how to stay sane. And if I'm forced into a position where I have to validate your identity, it's like, what if your identity is wrong? What if it's pathological? What if it doesn't serve you well? And I start validating, you think I'm your friend? I'm not your friend at all. I'm a mirror for your narcissism, and you will disappear and drum. And I see this happening all the time with people. Like, if you're fortunate, you're surrounded by people who like you know and wish you'd be a little better, and they'll let you know when you're failing them. And then you think you don't even have to think that much. All you have to do is watch. It's like, is this person like rolling your eyes at the moment? It's divorced, by the way. When you get to my rolling stage, it's not good. But basically, you know, you're you're fortunate that people don't validate your damn identities. Like, what makes you think you've got your identity figured out? You're really complicated and you're clueless as hell about it because you can't represent yourself entirely. You're the most complicated thing that exists. How are you gonna come up with an accurate definition of your identity? You got a hundred people out there helping you out if you've got any sense, if you're vaguely tolerable, and you know, they're kind of hinting at you what not only what you are, but what you might become. And you should welcome invalidation of your identity. Now, malicious, well, that's a different story, but it's it's not that easy to separate out accurate criticism, especially if it hits you right where it hurts, which is where you're wrong. You can't separate that out from maliciousness or hate speech. It's like good luck. Good luck. You never learn anything without pain. And often when you receive a piece of corrective information from someone, it's like if you could throw that person in jail, you would. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
SPEAKER_08So that was peak Peterson. That was absolutely quality. All the way down to finishing his answer to a question with so the way he just picks up his drink at the end, like that's it, I'm done now. Mic drop. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ian McCarthy's just said 39 minutes before Jordan Peterson quote, is this a record? It's holding out. Just don't do it yet. But yeah, the the idea that we are to unconditionally affirm somebody's identity is right at the heart of what we think is is like liberated, healthy modern society. And actually he's saying that no, this this is pathological. Yeah. Have you ever have you ever done one of these um there are there are questionnaires you can do to figure out what gender you are. And really like it and the furthest I've forgotten that is this when it just says male or female.
SPEAKER_09Yes. That's the only questionnaire I've really touched on in that area. I don't know.
SPEAKER_08I mean, I I don't think any of us find our gender. I I do as a serious point, I don't think anyone finds their gender identity straightforward. You know, and you know, and I I often hesitate to describe myself as a man. You know, it's just like am I on it? What does it mean? I d I don't know. But um but as soon as you start to then okay, move away from gender dimorphism, and you start to well, maybe maybe there's a place in between, and then there's a place in between those two things, and then there's another axis over here, and you and the number of genders kind of multiply and multiply and multiply, and they can maybe there's fifty-three, maybe there's seventy-two, maybe you know, how many genders are there? But you can do surveys and and little questionnaires about what gender you are. And what's interesting to me is the the the experience of filling one out was exactly the same experience as when I filled out like a Star Wars personality quiz or something, you know, where you're just like you're trying to think, and you know, you're desperately trying to be Han Solo. Like whatever, however, what would Han say to this? And then you are wicked the ewok. Like, yay. Princess Leia. Literally. Emma and I amazed. Emma and I did the same Star Wars personality quiz. I was Princess Leia, she was the Emperor. It's so perfect, it's so perfect. Yeah, and it really does itself. It does it does really fit, actually. But um But yeah, my my experience of filling out like these gender questionnaires was very similar. Like let's let's imagine you know let's let's take a dive into the deep waters of Lake Me and let's swim around for a little bit. Um and then you come out and and of course you're not gonna come out with you know bog standard male. Like how boring. Right? But what Jordan Peterson in the in that clip was is saying is is like just because you've come up by yourself with your own sense of identity doesn't mean that's gonna serve you well. It certainly doesn't mean it's gonna serve the community well. And maybe the community is gonna have some thoughts about Glenn pulling his head in and just like not not always insisting that people address me in the in precisely the terms that I want to be addressed by. You know? Um and and so I think there is a give and take and a back and forth that is required in all sorts of community living, and and therefore we surrender the right to simply self-identify. Actually, I find my identity, I would say, in other people and in Jesus, right? Um and probably the last place I find my identity is looking deep within to the desires of my human heart, which are so deceitful and will change, and that's why that's why you get gender fluid, because you know, one day I'm like this and the next day I'm like that, and that's all of us, actually. But if our identity is not anchored in Christ or determined by a a broader community, then my goodness, we are we are just like corks on the tide, and we're gonna bob this way and that way. And therefore, what is what is the most loving thing to do to someone who is a bit like a a cork bobbing on a tide? Um maybe it's not to unconditionally affirm um that that identity. Uh and so uh one of the things that Mark uh one one of the things that uh Ian Paul mentioned in our interview was uh this book by Mark Yarhouse. Get close in on that one. Uh Understanding Gender Dysphoria uh by Mark Yarhouse. Um yeah, it is it is a very good uh a very good introduction. Obviously, when he gets into the medical stuff uh and and talks about the you know, there are just like 14 different experiences just of the intersex condition before you get into like gender dysphoria more sure more broadly. So it's it's the there's a lot of literature, and uh Mark Yarhouse does a very good job, I think, uh I'm trusting him, of uh of summarizing all that kind of stuff. And and where he comes to uh in his book is uh he he identifies three models of thinking about gender dysphoria, this this sense that um I am not at home in the gender of my birth, and I feel uh a certain level of discomfort uh with that particular gender identity. And so he says that there are three models of dealing with that. There's the integrity model, the disability model, and the diversity model. And uh the integrity model is sort of uh traditional religious view or traditional sort of just conservative family values kind of view that there's man and man and woman, and there you go, done. Uh that's the integrity kind of view of things. And then there's the disability model, um, which foregrounds the kind of stuff I was just saying about I don't find my gender identity straightforward, I don't think anybody does, there's been a fall, we're all you know. Um and and therefore the lens to look through when you're thinking about gender dysphoria is a disability lens. Um and again, you you might think of something like an an eating disorder in which um perhaps perhaps there is uh a sufferer with anorexia who um thinks they're fat, but their body says otherwise. And there is dysphoria. There is um a disjunct between their mind and their body, and that's that's a disability. Um of course, you know, how you deal with that person, almost always if you're dealing with the anorexic and they they think they're thin, they think they're fat, they're actually thin, um, you you want to change their mind. Change the thing physicality. You absolutely you could you could kill the anorexic if you actually want to change their body in accordance with their mind. You actually want to change the mind in accordance with the body. Um but yeah, there is that that second model of disability. And then a third model to think about uh gender dysphoria is diversity model, and that tends to be the more progressive view that there are 70 plus genders and that's great, and there's a rainbow spectrum, and um, and that is a thoroughly good thing. And what Mark Yahoo's uh does, which I really appreciate, is um he doesn't just hunker down in one camp or the other. And he actually says, look, there's there's something from all three of these camps um that is useful and and is useful even for the Christian. So he's an intro he has an integrative approach where he says the integrity people who camp out with who camp out in Genesis chapter one, that it's there's male and female, um uh they honor the creation, and that's great. Um but then he talks about the disability people. Well, they camp out in Genesis three, where there's been a fall, and that too is obviously biblical and really helpful. So there's a creation and a fall. And actually he goes to the the the diversity people, the more progressive guys, and and he says, you know, they are doing um they are doing an enviable job of building community, an enviable job of of having uh coalition of of people who are united around common values and finding their identity in thick communities of of mutual belonging. Um and actually as Christians we need to we need to be like that uh as well. So we need to have the best of creation, the best of fall, and the best of community. Um and so I yeah, I heartily recommend uh Mark Yarhouse's book, Understanding Gender Dysphoria. And uh that can that can be very helpful. Um so yes, Bill Lavelle says very highly recommended. Um, is he uh is he responding? Anyway. I I I'll just take that as as uh unconditional affirmation of me. I don't know what you're referring to, Bill, but I'm gonna I'm gonna imagine that you're just unconditionally affirming it. I'm sure he'll chime in as he said to let you know whether in the complicated splendor that is Glenn. Um so yes, Mark Garhouse, understanding gender dysphoria. Um and it and it's got me thinking, and and let's just do this this quickly. Um in trying to reframe things, and Mark Garhouse does again a good job at that. Um he says, I know you looked through the integrity framework. Have you thought about disability and diversity? And he and he does that for all the different frameworks, and he tries to get us to reframe things. Um and so uh a while back, um maybe a couple of weeks ago on Twitter, I just uh came out with uh a whole bunch of questions that you can ask people who have asked you difficult questions. And so under the hashtag questioning questions, um, if somebody asks you about transgender issues, for instance, um what is a good response to that? And again, like we might want to hunker down in you you've just read one tiny little bit of social science that was like cited on the you know the Facebook page that you happen to like. Um but why don't you ask a question back? Why don't you reflect and reframe the issue? And so if somebody asks you about transgender issues, why don't you say, it's so tricky. Do you know how best to help those with gender dysphoria? Do you do you do you know how best to help people with identity disorders more generally? It's such a difficult issue. And it and it is, it is absolutely a difficult issue. When mind and body don't align, what is the best way forward, do you think? And just start a conversation. So it's not it's not about just giving the answer straight back, but it's it's about reposing the question back to the person. I had a great experience of this at Christmas. So a a guy came up afterwards and and um he said I really enjoy the talk, but then he just kind of rattled off a series of hot button issues to to gauge whether I was on the right side of history or not. Yeah. And and um front and center. Front and center is um like what do you think about the transgender issue? Um and and literally I was like, it is so tricky, gender dysphoria, like what what do you think is the right thing to do? And he'd never been asked that question. I don't think he'd really considered the question in terms of just pastorally how do you walk someone through it. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure your answer is wrong. There was there was if I can just put it in layman's terms there for the listeners at home. Thanks for translating. There was something of that to it. Um so just ask a question back, questioning questions. Um and I think this works in all sorts of areas. So uh another tweet uh that I put out there, um if someone asks you about sexual ethics, just like um is is your first response I don't know what what your first response is, but why not why not have a question as your first response? What do you think sex is for? Like, what do you think it's for? Um Are you open to considering that sex is more powerful and more meaningful than you thought? Um what do you think that Me Too has revealed about the powers uh about the power and dangers of sex? I think that's a that's a good conversation. I think conversations around Me Too are really, really helpful because everyone knows that when sex goes wrong, it's it's a car crash, it's more than a car crash. There's been an a violation, there's been a desecration, holy space has been violated. Therefore you know that sex is kind of holy, right? Um So let's get let's get into questioning the questions and say, you know, what do you what do you think sex is for? Why do you think it's so powerful? Um when someone asks about abortion, for instance, I think a good question back is do you believe in human rights? Um what do you have to do to deserve them? Um if you could be convinced that the unborn are human persons, would you change your mind? So again, focusing in on the status of the unborn and yeah, and genuinely being interested in their question, in in in their answer. Um and helping them think through do you believe in human rights? And and I don't think people have thought that through very much. And you know, do you think you have to deserve your human rights? People, I hope, would would reflexively sort of say, no, no. Okay. So you don't have to be a certain level of intelligence or strength. Oh, okay.
SPEAKER_09Because actually on Stephanie Gray's thing, doesn't it, or size? Right. You know, like once you're past an embryo or a fetus, which is really just a smaller stage of human development. It's not like you know, we apply that on any other any other stage, is it so?
SPEAKER_08Yeah, yeah, exactly. Um So then uh if you're asked about does science contradict faith? Um again, before before giving your side, why why don't you just ask, do you think s science and faith are enemies? Do you think they are necessarily enemies? Oh, that's interesting. Why do you think that? Um get into that that that kind of thing. Um on the question of suffering, um so important to figure out where people are coming from if they ask you a question about suffering, not just to download on them your theodicy, but like, uh what what examples of suffering are you thinking about? Is it is it something close to home? That's really important to figure out because if if you just download a philosophical argument on them um and their dads just died, uh you're gonna you're gonna more than just miss them. Uh that's that's that's gonna be really catastrophic. Um when people ask questions about judgment, um here here's here's one to think about. Ask the question back, like what do you make of Martin Luther King when when he said that the arc of history bends towards justice? Do you believe that? Do you believe that the arc of what did he say, the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice? Um do you think do you think we are heading towards justice, perfect justice? You know, he he seemed to have that hope. Um Okay, what do you think that means for us at a personal level? Um people ask about Old Testament wars. Um I'm doing this now more and more. Um is it's just asking, like uh tell me, do you have a place for just war in in your thinking? Like, do you I don't know what you thought about Syria. I didn't think we should have bombed Syria. Are you a thoroughgoing pacifist? What do you think about just war? Is there a place for for actually um uh using violence? And if they say no, there's no no place ever for that. Um I I would then say, well, yeah, I I I I take it you've got that view from Jesus. Actually, I take it you've got that view from the Sermon on the Mount. Um even if they say they've got it from Gandhi. Well, you know, uh Gandhi um got it from Tolstoy, Tolstoy got it from Jesus, so um uh yeah that's that's a question you can ask back. Do you do you believe in such a thing as just war? Um even even if like we might not have time to get into the details of the book of Joshua, but but do you ever think that there is a case? You know, what if what if there's a a nation that's killing its children um indiscriminately? Yeah, right. On an industrial level. Yeah, right. Yeah. And and what if the arc of history is bending towards justice for those nations? Yeah, are they not under judgment? But anyway. And then finally we're gonna be all over the media now. It's it. And then finally, what about uh hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of Christians and and again it's really important when people say Christians are hypocrites to ask what examples do you have in mind because it might be a really personal example. Um But just to ask the question, do you think hypocrisy is a is a Christian problem or a human problem? Like what do you think? Um and let's answer questions with questions, reflect them back, reframe the the the uh the discussion, um relate personally uh to how you've been thinking about that issue, and then retell the gospel with this issue at its core. And maybe you'll be involved in persuasive evangelism. Yeah. You never know. Brilliant. Well that ought to do us, I reckon. Uh yeah, so uh it's been great to have you guys with us. Um if you would like to support the show, uh we would really, uh, really value a uh a review on on Facebook. Perhaps you've liked the page uh speak life on Facebook. Please do give us a five-star review, that really helps us. If you like the podcast, please again give us a five-star review. Uh if you're on YouTube, please uh uh click like and subscribe. And uh share us on social media. It really it really helps us uh to get seen by more people if you just uh give a little word of commendation and uh and share the link. And if you want to support us financially, uh you can go to speaklife.org.uk slash give. Uh we exist because of your generosity. So speaklife.org.uk slash give. Excellent. Well, next week we're going to do what we promised this week, which is to have Andrew Wilson uh on the show. Uh we put him off because of the House of uh the House of Bishops thing. Um so he is in the can and we will release him from the can Monday night on YouTube and then we'll discuss it on Tuesday. So really looking forward to getting to that topic of uh spirit and sacrament. Ew charismatic. Ew charismatic, yeah. Charismatic worship. Yeah, no, it was it was a great conversation. Can't wait to share it with you. Well, that ought to do it. Guys, have a great week.
SPEAKER_09Yep, take care. We'll see you next time. See you next time. Bye bye. Bye.