Ottawa has now entrenched controversial transgender theory in its books. And just as the sun still rose in Alberta on December 12, 2015 — the day after the Legislature in Edmonton did something similar — one can assure all Canadians that the sun will do likewise despite this latest decision in Canada’s capital.
Yet, ironically, one reason conservatives can say this with confidence is because we tend to be among the few these days who still seem to care about natural law; in things like planetary motion, or in laws like “objects in motion tend to remain in motion.”
The same, however, cannot be said for those purveyors of political whimsy, such as we increasingly see on the socially experimental Left. Yet, it gets worse, if only because the same Senatorial sentiments that passed C-16 this week have seemingly succumbed to heresy. Heresy is back, and a calculated response is more apropos than ever.
Since there are those who consistently ally themselves with the politically correct, “theo-cons” (theological conservatives) may need to counter, as if from the historical crypt, with the theologically correct.
Does anyone remember history’s heretics, such as the Manichaeans, or the Docetists? Likely very few, but (in effect) their troubles are once again our troubles.
For, among other things, they had a tendency to divide body from spirit: the former being rather earthly (they thought), and the latter quite divine. The predictable result of this unintegrated duality was that people became free to morally “detach” from their own bodies, all while their souls could remain pure and inviolate.
In modern “evangelical” terms, their “hearts” could belong to Jesus while their bodies might belong to the local cult prostitute.
Today’s detached dualism, however, is slightly different. One prevalent form of the new heresy comes via psychology, which now suggests that in instances where one’s feelings of gender do not coincide with one’s bodily form, one’s mind can merely override one’s DNA. As the new legal bulwark of such unintegrated dualism, Canada’s Bill C-16 is, therefore, heretical.
Curiously, I used to observe a closely related heresy from within the ranks of mainline Protestantism in Canada. Sounding vaguely reminiscent of MacKenzie-King, some radical feminists would say things like, “I believe Jesus is the Christ, but not necessarily that the Christ is Jesus”.
By this, they generally meant that the cosmic spiritual essence of Christ was far greater than the mere male particularity of Jesus. For reasons of gender politics and female empowerment, then, these radicals wilfully divided historical flesh from cosmic spirituality. The historical Jesus could remain male, but “Christ-ness” would be inclusive and even female.
Hence, some 25 years ago, these radicals were celebrating communion dedicated to the “Christa”, were renaming theology “thealogy”, and were generally denying reality all while making a gnostic nuisance of themselves. Knowingly or not, they had joined the ranks of the heretics.
Truthfully, though, such unintegrated and deliberately detached thought almost constantly nags at all of our society. Is driving a philosophical wedge between Jesus and the Christ particularly different from driving a philosophical wedge between procreation and sexuality— in order to politically justify abortion or pansexuality?
This, too, is a form of deliberate disintegration— as though one could endorse fire while denying heat. Collectively, though, we’ve been denaturing nature for quite some time now in politics— and usually in order to justify somebody’s idea of sexual license, or some latest and greatest gender-agenda.
But C-16 is also heretical for another reason. Not only is it a modern reflection of the Manichaean heresy, but it quite arguably reflects heretical anthropology. The bathroom legislation that invariably seems to accompany the transgendered “revolution”— whether in the United States or Canada— has one unique feature that keeps being reiterated.
The Left not only advocates for radical inclusion, it rejects the bathroom “safety” theme of the political Right— arguing that any perceived threat from transgendered people is vastly overblown. On this, the Left is likely correct. Yet, the heresy remains. Bad anthropology gives rise to bad law. Marxists tend to be utopians. Progressives seldom, if ever, believe in social decay, but rather that historical change almost inevitably produces the betterment of society.
Consequently, the Left seldom seems to acknowledge that strong computer networks— like good laws— are deliberately conceived with hackers in mind. Once again, the net result is obvious. A naive anthropology, which believes that all people are basically “good,” will produce laws with weak and ineffective protections because those laws won’t take evil seriously enough.
One can say what one wants about the First and Second amendments of the American Constitution, but one thing should be obvious: such amendments took the corruption of power seriously, because they took sinful human nature seriously. Various American Founders may not have been Christian, but neither were they anthropological heretics.
Still, can the same be said for the post-modern devotees of Canadian “sunny ways”? Sunny ways may welcome radical inclusion, but when combined with assumptions of the validity of fluidity, C-16 may well become a clarion-call for the heterosexual predator, a curtain-call for free speech, and a soothing siren-call for those who perceive fame’s opportunity in the death of women’s sport. Bad laws, after all, favour the opportunist.
True, C-16 will not cause the sun’s failure to rise above the horizon. But while it will seem to benefit a few, its implications will deceive and penalize many more in the years ahead.
In this sense, C-16 is very typical of heresy.