This week, Pastor J.D. answers a question about whether or not we should give out our own pronouns when asked.

Show Notes:

* We have actually talked about this topic a couple of years ago from another angle, and this may be a good time to revisit that.
* The podcast from several years ago got a lot of attention and a lot of people asked questions about it. I think it's good to bring that back up, both to continue the conversation and also to clarify some things I said.
* I'd actually like to start by discussing that previous question ("Should we use someone's preferred pronouns when asked?"). The conversation in our culture has shifted even since then. Also, I'll be candid: as I've wrestled with this, some of my own thinking on this has crystalized and, I'd even say, matured.
* There are several dynamics at play when we think about a question like this. One of those is is truth. Our job as witnesses is to stand uncompromisingly on the truth, to rebuke our society, to stand against untruth and darkness.
* Another dynamic are the relational aspects of knowing someone and maintaining a relationship with them. We're not just called to defend truth but to win people.
* So, if someone has transitioned and wants to be called different pronouns, should you consent to that? Let me first use a phrase I first heard from Andrew T. Walker: "The answer to that question begins and ends with no." The reason I say that is because I think, as believers, we have to be crystal clear on the truth. I did make this point on our previous episode, talking about the necessity of being crystal clear on truth, but I think I should have been more clear and I want to do that now: there can be no ambiguity in our testimony to the world. This is not ambiguous in Scripture, it's not unclear, and part of our calling is to speak to culture when culture does not align with what God has said.
* I understand there's a lot of brokenness, dysphoria, and complexity to this for a lot of people, but we have to be honest about what the Bible says.
* After that has been made clear, some of these other relational dynamics kick in. In that previous episode, I was hypothesizing about a situation where I'm sitting in my office with a dad and his transgender child, coming to me for clarity and so I make clear to them what the Bible says. But, if in the course of conversation I used the child's self-referential pronoun as I talk with and about them, just to keep them in the conversation, I don't think that would represent a capitulation or compromise of truth if someone chose to do that, assuming they'd been clear about the truth on the front end and the back end. That should never be done in a way that implies acceptance or affirmation, even for a second.
* The easiest thing, honestly, is to use their name, even if that forces you to word things awkwardly.
* Again, we're trying to balance two things: clearly testify to the truth, and doing our best to keep our relationship with the other person in order to engage with them at the heart level.
* Let me add a third thing we're balancing: to fight the battle at the right location. Being clear and truthful about gender is a battle we have to fight, no matter how unpopular. But that doesn't mean that I fire shots or draw battle lines in every other sentence when I'm trying to get the conversation focused on what we need to get it focused on.
* Our goal is to engage the issue in a way that engages the heart, and to speak truthful about God's design without apology. So that's why I say the answer to the question begins and ends with no.

Now, back to whether or not you list your own pronouns when asked (like on a name-tag at work, for example).