The cover of the September issue of Christianity Today says “they them their” staggered across three lines, with the question below, “Does it matter if Christians declare their pronouns?” That question is not really the main thrust of Kara Bettis Carvalho’s article, though. The article’s lead page says, “Gender pronouns are increasingly controversial in public life. Christians are grappling with how to engage.” That is a more accurate lead-in.

To be fair, Carvalho does cover the use of preferred pronouns by Christians, beginning her story with the account of two residence life employees at Houghton University who included their pronouns in their e-mail signature despite it being a violation of school policy for them to do so. The two in question, however, claimed that they did it in order to help students identify their genders because of their unusual names—Shua and Raegan. It is true that their names are unusual, and it is true that one might inaccurately guess their genders if inclined to do so. Shua, for the record, is male and Raegan is female. But Shua’s explanation in a video released after their firing is a bit flimsy. He said that he included it because “It’s an unusual name. And it ends with a vowel, ‘a,’ that is traditionally feminine in many languages. If you get an email from me and you don’t know who I am, you might not know how to gender me.”

Fair enough, but guess what? We don’t necessarily need to gender anyone. Long before the issue of gender identity and preferred pronouns was a thing there were people whose names did not reveal whether they were male or female. Believe it or not it is possible to reply to an e-mail, politely and respectfully, without knowing someone’s gender or using any pronoun at all to refer to the person being addressed. So while I may understand his reasons for including the pronouns, I do not believe their explanation justifies them refusing to remove the pronouns when being told to do so by their employer. Raegan’s explanation holds no water, in my opinion. (I’m not even going to address the fact that Shua told ABC News that his views on gender and identity do not fully align with those of the Wesleyan Church, which is the denomination with which Houghton is affiliated other than to simply say this: Then why work there? If you cannot support what they believe and stand for, find another job).

The most important part of Carvalho’s article, in my opinion, is the second half—the half that deals with how churches should deal with what Carvalho calls “evolving linguistic norms” and the question of whether or not using preferred pronouns can ever be a sin. The article mentions Travis Rymer, a pastor in Rhode Island who has studied pronouns and taught on gender ideology and who sees it as “a sort of secular religious system that aims to dismantle the binary of male and female. To use preferred pronouns without further honest conversation is not only to acquiesce to a belief system that is biblically unfaithful, but also to promote it.” And on that he is absolutely correct.

I would actually a step further, however, and posit that to use preferred pronouns even after further honest conversation is to acquiesce to a belief system that is biblically unfaithful—assuming, of course, that those preferred pronouns are not consistent with the individual’s sex—and Rymer evidently agrees, since the article says that he encourages his congregation not to use “others’ self-identified pronouns” and that refusing to do so is actually an act of love.

Carvalho provides all sides of the argument; she cites Rosaria Butterfield and Robert Gagnon as examples of those who hold that using a preferred pronoun that does not match biological sex is sin—“bearing false witness and an affront to the Creation mandate.” A bit further over on the spectrum are those like Robert Smith, who prefers to avoid using pronouns altogether. Moving further yet are those like Mark Yarhouse, who will offer his pronouns if asked and believes that there is value in “acknowledging people whose experiences do not fit into social norms about gender identity” and adds that people can teach, talk and preach in such a way that shows awareness that there are people who have “these experiences.” And then not quite to the other end of the spectrum, but getting close, are those like Preston Sprinkle, who promotes the use of preferred pronouns as a way of “showing grace and building relationships.” And Sprinkle is also the one to whip out what may be the most overused and erroneously used expression in Christianity today: “All throughout Scripture, we see God meeting people where they are in order to walk with them toward where he wants them to be.” While Sprinkle believes that pronouns should match biological sex, he doesn’t “think it should be a short-term prerequisite.” The far end of the spectrum is Meg Baatz and others who say that not even so-called pronoun hospitality is enough; in fact it is condescending. “We believe in mutuality. We use language to build trust,” Baatz said. Use preferred pronouns, in other words.

To his credit, Sprinkle does at least acknowledge that Jesus met people “where they are” in order to move them to where they should be—that is the part that so many people leave out—but he fails to recognize, or at least to acknowledge, that while Jesus met people where they were he never affirmed where they were. He met adulterers and prostitutes and tax collectors and more “where they were” but he never told them that being there was okay. He never did or said anything that communicated to them in any way that their behavior was acceptable, even for the short-term. He made it clear that they were sinners and that they needed to repent of their sins. He loved them even while they were sinners but He always condemned their sin.

Baatz and Elizabeth Delgado Black are the co-founders of Kaleidoscope, an organization with the mission of “Providing LGBTQ+ people opportunities to engage with tangible expressions of Christ,” and a vision: “We long to see every LGBTQ+ person empowered to encounter Jesus and mature within supportive Christian communities authentically.” Black says that “Christians should show generosity to those with a different framework.” No small part of the problem is that Kaleidoscope does not acknowledge transgenderism or any of the LGBTQ+ choices as sin. In fact, one of Kaleidoscope’s four values is diversity, accompanied by this statement: “Knowing God’s creative glory shines through our ethnicity, culture, faith expression, age, ability, gender identity, and sexuality, we commit to upholding diversity.” God’s glory does not shine through someone’s gender identity unless that identity is consistent with the gender with which God created them. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that God’s glory can be honored through sin and believe me, God can never be honored through sin. This post is not about Kaleidoscope, so I won’t address that organization further, but if you check out their website you will see exactly the kind of thing that Rymer warns against: acquiescence to a belief system that is biblically unfaithful—despite their assertions of the opposite.

The author J. K. Rowling made news in recent days for declaring that she would gladly spend two years in jail if the alternative was “compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex. Bring on the court case, I say. It’ll be more fun than I’ve ever had on a red carpet.” This was in response to the possibility that the government in the UK might make refusing to use someone’s preferred pronouns a hate crime. Rowling’s position is based largely on common sense—certainly more than on any religious convictions, at least to my knowledge. But she has garnered much hatred for saying unequivocally that so-called trans-women are not women. “It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” Rowling tweeted earlier this year (when tweeting was still a thing).

It is unfortunate that Rowling is willing to acknowledge and say what so many professing Christians will not. To say “it isn’t hate to speak the truth” is to succinctly summarize the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and the call of those who are believers to share the truth of the Bible with a lost and dying world. If Jesus were on our planet today in physical form, would He sit with, eat with and even hang out with people who have preferred pronouns that do not match their sex? I am sure He would. But I am equally sure that He would not use their preferred pronouns and that He would not in any way affirm their confusion and rejection of their God-given identity.

Sam Allberry said that he believes the use of pronouns is a “wisdom matter, not a righteousness matter,” and that Christians should have enough grace to disagree and to accept others’ motives as honorable. “We don’t want to see trans people demeaned or bullied,” he added.

No, of course we don’t. But there seems to be a lack of understanding among those who advocate for some kind of middle way that it is not possible to lead someone to a saving knowledge of Christ while embracing their sin. Salvation requires coming face to face with the reality that I am a sinner and that because of my sin I need a Savior or I will spend eternity in hell. You cannot tell someone both that their sin is okay and that their sin will send them to hell unless you are suggesting that hell is a viable option.

Voddie Baucham has often expressed his frustration that so many Christians will treat homosexuality differently than other sins, soft-pedaling any condemnation or judgment and insisting that they know and love gay or lesbian people. That’s the issue here, as well. Yes, love them, but do not affirm their sin. In keeping with Baucham’s position, no one would affirm someone’s drunkenness or adultery or abuse of another in order to make them feel comfortable and in the hopes of then helping them to realize the error of their ways, so why would we do that with gender identity? Love them, yes, but do not affirm their sin—and using preferred pronouns does affirm their sin.

Carvalho closed her article with this comment from Yarhouse: “I wouldn’t want to reduce my ambassadorship to a pronoun.” Neither would I, sir. But ambassadors do not affirm that which their country opposes in an effort to make the other country comfortable and then try to change their mind later. They don’t do it because it wouldn’t work. It would be foolish at best and dangerous at worst. The issue of pronoun usage is no different.

Image by Ted Eytan/Creative Commons