Confusion about Creation and the Rise of Political Violence


When Rebellion Against Nature Turns Deadly: The Troubling Pattern of Political Violence and Gender Ideology

In a culture that increasingly confuses affirmation with compassion, we risk ignoring some very disturbing truths.

Last week, court documents revealed that Nicholas Roske, the man who plotted the assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, now identifies as a transgender woman named “Sophie.” Roske was arrested in 2022 outside Kavanaugh’s home, armed with a gun and burglary tools. He admitted to targeting not only Kavanaugh, but other justices, in response to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

This isn’t just an isolated incident. According to the Justice Department’s sentencing memo, Roske had spent months researching, planning, and preparing for the attack. He looked up how to break into homes, strangle someone, and escape prosecution. He studied the anatomy of the head and neck. He searched mass shooting footage and sniper techniques. All to eliminate jurists whose legal opinions conflicted with his ideology.

This was a politically motivated assassination attempt—by someone immersed in pro-abortion and transgender-affirming circles.

Unfortunately, Roske’s story is not unique.

A Disturbing Trend

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a growing number of violent incidents involving individuals either identifying as transgender or deeply embedded in trans-activist ideology:

  • In 2023, Audrey Hale, a woman who identified as a man, opened fire at Covenant School, a Christian elementary school in Nashville, killing six people—including three children.
  • Just months later, Robin Westman, another trans-identified shooter, murdered two children and wounded others in a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School. Authorities later confirmed Westman harbored anti-Christian sentiments and fantasized about “killing as many children as possible.”
  • In a different case, Tyler Robinson, the man charged with murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, reportedly told his trans-identified partner that he couldn’t “negotiate out” the “hate” Kirk represented. According to family members, Robinson had recently become more radicalized around LGBTQ political issues.

These are not mere outliers. Each case represents a violent collision of grievance-based identity politics with moral nihilism. Each involves individuals who had become deeply politicized in the context of gender identity or allied ideologies. And in each case, the targets were Christians, conservatives, or children.

When violence is repeatedly justified or rationalized on the basis of perceived “oppression,” it becomes clear that we are dealing with more than mental illness. We’re dealing with an ideological deformation of conscience.

The Fruits of a Fractured Worldview

These violent acts raise urgent questions about the psychological and spiritual consequences of building one’s identity around inner feelings detached from truth, nature, or moral law.

When people are told that their subjective sense of gender is sacred—and that opposing it is tantamount to violence—we should not be surprised when violence becomes their chosen response to disagreement.

When political movements elevate personal identity over public morality, and self-definition over objective truth, they create the conditions for extremism. They reward victimhood with moral license. They justify hatred of anyone seen as standing in the way of “liberation.”

This isn’t compassion. It’s chaos.

And it’s being fueled—unwittingly or not—by cultural elites, academic theorists, corporate sponsors, and even church leaders who confuse mercy with moral surrender.

Political Violence is Still Violence

There was a time not long ago when political violence was uniformly condemned—regardless of the source. But we now live in a moment where leftist rage is often indulged, and even celebrated, as “understandable” or “justified.”

When pro-life groups are firebombed, or Christian schools are targeted by shooters, or conservative justices are hunted in the night—too many remain silent. The media covers it reluctantly. Activists deflect. Politicians equivocate.

But violence is violence.

The attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice is not a form of protest. It’s terrorism. And when it comes from someone driven by a radicalized view of gender and justice, we should stop pretending this is a coincidence.

A Better Way

As Christians, we must be both compassionate and clear. Those who struggle with gender confusion deserve our prayers, our care, and our truth-speaking—not our silence.

But compassion does not mean complicity.

The gospel calls us to affirm that we are not self-created. We are made in the image of God—male and female. To reject that creational truth is to invite disorder into the soul and body, and eventually into the world.

Christians must be prepared to name this disorder—not with hatred, but with courage. Because love without truth is just sentiment. And truth without love is just noise. But love with truth? That is the medicine our world desperately needs.


Courage to Speak

If you’re wondering whether this trend of violence will continue, ask yourself: are the cultural forces driving it slowing down?

Until the church finds the courage to speak plainly about the dangers of identity idolatry, and until society recovers a moral center rooted in something higher than self-expression, we will continue to reap what we have sown.

And the fruit will not be peace.

+++

Grace and Truth Came Through Jesus
(John 1:17)

The Gospel of Love: For Family and Friends

Dear Family and Friends,

This post has been on my heart for a while now. It comes with some weight—and I don’t post it lightly. But I also don’t post it in anger or bitterness. I write out of love—for my family and friends, for the Church, for the truth. I hope it will be received that way.

Over the past few years, you’ve probably noticed how much I’ve written about human sexuality—issues like gender identity, same-sex parenting, and transgenderism.

These are hard topics. They touch real people. They touch us. And because they do, I haven’t wanted to treat them casually or toss out slogans from a distance. But I’ve felt more and more compelled to speak clearly—especially because these ideas have not only infiltrated our cultural institutions, but have taken root in the Church itself.

The final turning point for me was personal. For several years, I had been attending a congregation that was a blend of Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and Episcopal USA traditions. I loved the people. I still do. It was a generous, open-hearted community. But over time, I began to sense that the gospel being proclaimed there was subtly—sometimes not so subtly—drifting from the one I knew. The Bible’s authority and Church Tradition was increasingly treated as optional. Christian sexual ethics were reimagined to align with the culture. And then came the moment I could no longer ignore.

One Sunday morning, a woman ordained by one of those denominations—an openly practicing lesbian, whose “wife” was present in the congregation—stood before us and preached as a representative of Christ’s Church. That was the moment for me. I sat there grieving—not out of personal offense, but because something precious was being lost.

This wasn’t merely a difference of opinion. It pointed to a deeper divergence—a fundamentally different understanding of what the Church is, what the gospel proclaims (ie. that Jesus is Lord of creation), and who Jesus calls us to be.

The gospel is not merely a message of inclusion or affirmation. It is the announcement that Jesus Christ is Lord of all—that through Him all things were made, and in Him all things hold together. As Paul writes in Colossians:

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16–17). 

This is the gospel: not a validation of our desires, but a call to live in joyful submission to the One through whom the cosmos was made.


After that Sunday, I knew I couldn’t do it anymore—not in good conscience. I couldn’t keep contributing my time and treasure to a church whose leadership had embraced a theological trajectory that I believe is deeply harmful. So I stepped away. And that decision still breaks my heart. I loved those people. I still do.

Love and truth cannot be separated. In the years since, I’ve come to believe that many parts of the Church have failed to speak the truth—especially about the body, about male and female, about marriage and children—and that failure has had devastating consequences. The cultural winds are strong. But the Church was never called to drift with the wind. We are called to be rooted.

I’ve written several blog posts recently, and I want you to know why.

The first was about gay parenting and the Regnerus Study—a work that dared to ask what’s best for children and found answers that challenge the prevailing narrative. It’s not enough to say children are “loved.” They also need a father and a mother. Our policies—and our churches—ought to reflect that truth.

The second addressed the ELCA’s 2025 Reconsideration of Human Sexuality—a document that appears to codify the denomination’s full embrace of sexual revisionism. The very truths that once shaped Christian witness on marriage, the body, and the created order are now treated as “harmful” or “exclusionary.” I couldn’t remain silent.

The third examined the ELCA’s doctrine of “Bound Conscience”—a concept I once thought might preserve theological diversity, but which has become a theological escape hatch. It allows the Church to affirm contradictory truths in the name of unity, while quietly discarding the authority of Scripture. That’s not unity—it’s institutionalized confusion.

I don’t write these things to score points or “win” debates. I write them because someone needs to say what so many faithful Christians—especially in more progressive circles—are afraid to say out loud. I write them because I fear that silence now will only mean deeper compromise later.

I believe the Triune God made us male and female—not as an accident of biology, but as a reflection of something sacred. I believe our bodies matter. I believe Christian love includes a call to repentance. And I believe that our first obligation of love is not to ourselves or one another, but to our Creator.

To affirm someone’s identity apart from the Lordship of Christ is not compassion—it is a tragic abandonment to a path that cannot yield life. And I believe the Church must have the courage to say so, even when it costs something.

With love always,
d

What is “Bound Conscience”?

A Slippery but Sacred Term

In recent years, no phrase has carried more weight—or more ambiguity—within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) than “bound conscience.” First introduced in the 2009 social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, it has become both a theological shield and a procedural tool for managing moral disagreement. But what does “bound conscience” actually mean? And more importantly, is its use in the ELCA consistent with Scripture and the historic Christian tradition?


The ELCA’s Definition: A Plurality of Convictions

In the 2009 statement, the ELCA proposed that faithful Christians may, in good conscience, come to mutually contradictory conclusions about same-sex sexual relationships. That is:

  • Some believe such relationships are contrary to God’s will.
  • Others believe they can be faithful expressions of love and discipleship.

According to the ELCA, both groups may be said to have consciences “bound to the Word of God,” and therefore both should be honored within the Church. This framework was presented as a means to preserve unity amid disagreement.

But is this a faithful application of the concept?


Reformation Roots: Luther at Worms

The idea of “bound conscience” is not new. It draws most famously from Martin Luther’s defense at the Diet of Worms:

“My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

But for Luther, this was not about subjective conviction. It was about submission—conscience rightly bound by the authority of God’s Word, not by personal sentiment, political pressure, or communal consensus.

To reinterpret “bound conscience” as permission for contradictory moral positions is to sever it from its Reformation foundation.


Why the Bound Conscience Model Fails

1. It Redefines Truth as Preference
If one person believes a behavior is sinful and another believes it is holy, both cannot be correct. The Church may be patient in discerning, but it cannot bless contradiction. As Paul reminds the Corinthians:

“God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33).

2. It Undermines the Church’s Moral Witness
When the Church upholds opposing teachings as equally valid, it erodes its ability to proclaim any moral truth. Instead of a prophetic voice, it becomes an echo of the culture.

3. It Was Always a Temporary Measure
The ELCA’s use of bound conscience in 2009 was framed as a way to hold diverse views together. But the current reconsideration process—especially Reconsideration #2 scheduled for 2028—makes it clear that the provision will likely be removed. Those who were promised space for their convictions may soon find that space eliminated. That possibility is underscored by the church’s stated rationale for changes already enacted: “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender non-conforming couples.”

The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.” The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-sex relationships. But the new language being recommended goes beyond that. Page 19 of the Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits refers to “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples.” On the same page, it broadens further: “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.” A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”

This trajectory makes clear that the original logic of bound conscience is rapidly being replaced by a new moral consensus.

4. It Confuses Unity with Uniformity
True Christian unity is grounded in shared confession, not in the suppression of moral clarity. The New Testament calls for unity in truth (Eph. 4:11–15) 1 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love., not unity despite its absence.


What True Conscience Requires

The Christian understanding of conscience is not private or self-referential. Biblically, the conscience is formed:

  • By the Word of God (Psalm 119:105)2Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
  • Through the community of faith (Acts 15:28)3For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
  • In submission to the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1)4I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

A truly bound conscience is not simply sincere. It is correctly tethered—anchored to God’s revealed truth. That truth, on matters of human sexuality, is consistent through Scripture and affirmed across centuries of Christian witness.


Conclusion: Truth Cannot Be Voted On

The ELCA’s deployment of “bound conscience” may have been well-intentioned, but it has become a theological smokescreen for unresolved contradiction. Conscience must indeed be honored—but only when it is bound to the truth.

The Church is not free to pronounce both light and darkness as equally valid. As Jesus said:

“If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt. 6:23)

Let us call conscience back to its proper source—not to sentiment, not to social trends, but to Scripture. For only there can it be truly bound, and only there can it be truly free.

Sources: ELCA – Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust Study Process

+++