Don’t Say ‘They’: Why Pronouns Matter

From Breakpoint.org (June 6, 2022):

A couple weeks ago, a Title IX investigation was opened for three middle school boys from Wisconsin who used the pronoun she for a biologically female student who wished to go by they. Under the Biden administration, refusing to use misaligned pronouns is considered sex discrimination. Even style guides today encourage the use of they if it is the chosen pronoun of an individual.

One rationale given is that someone really is whatever gender he or she claims, and to not recognize that with pronouns is to contribute to that person’s psychological distress. This is the case even if, as Abigail Shrier describes as being increasingly common, a person’s gender dysphoria is socially conditioned. So, according to our own government, we are now in a zero-sum game: Either use individuals’ chosen pronouns or be blamed for their suicides.

Thankfully, many are beginning to recognize that even using the pronoun they for an individual is deeply problematic, much less fully imbibing all that the new transgender orthodoxy commands. Recently, the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir wrote an editorial entitled “Don’t Say ‘They.’” In it, Sapir argues that using they and them to refer to an individual is far from harmless and amounts to buying into an ideology that “gender is an oppressive social system.” In other words, using nonbinary plural pronouns and also opposite-sex pronouns says something that is not true about God’s design, the created reality of men and women.

So, what are we to do? Shall we use words that align with reality or shall we refuse to risk the psychological distress of a transgender person?

Two guiding principles can help us here. First, as Aleksander Solzhenitsyn advised, we must “live not by lies.” Second, as Paul advised, “so far as it depends on (us), live peaceably with all.” Living like Christians today requires both, together.

Words matter. Not only do our words reflect reality, and thus misusing words can distort reality, but Scripture is plain that God’s words make up reality. To use words incorrectly is to not only embrace something not true, it is to mislead others away from God. This is not true, nor is it loving. Thus, God says that He hates a “lying tongue.” 

Honoring the second principle, to do our best to “live peaceably with all,” is particularly difficult when the choice is to tell a lie or to be responsible for psychological distress. Philosophy professor Nick Meriwether had a creative response when he found himself between this rock and hard place. When a male student requested that Dr. Meriweather refer to him as a female, using feminine titles and pronouns, he offered to only “refer to this student by a first or last name.”

In response, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, charged Dr. Meriweather with creating “a hostile environment,” placed a warning in his employee file, and threatened future punitive action if he refused to comply. So, Dr. Meriwether filed suit, claiming his free speech had been violated. He won. Shawnee State was forced to award him $400,000 and remove the disciplinary statement.

Dr. Meriweather’s story demonstrates that people of conscience ought to not prematurely surrender their convictions, or believe that cultural defeat is inevitable. Even more, it offers a way forward when it comes to pronouns, telling the truth and living at peace.

In English, names do not indicate gender. Pronouns do. Offering to call individuals by their chosen names is a way of respecting them as people without saying something that is not true about them. In a conversation with an individual, the pronoun you is acceptable, since in English it refers to both plural and singular, and to both male and female. In no way, does you deny that biological sex is binary.

On the other hand, speaking in the third person—he, she, or they—when speaking about others is trickier. Some people point out that we use the word they all the time to refer to individuals. However, whenever we say something like, “Somebody left their book,” we don’t know who it is. It’s different if we do know who it is. For example, it would be inaccurate (and strange) to say, “Abigail left their book.”

In other words, there are ways to not say something that is not true. We can avoid using nonbinary or opposite-sex pronouns, and instead use names. And, we can use plural pronouns to talk about a group rather than an individual. Still, as Dr. Meriweather’s situation illustrates, these alternatives will not satisfy everyone. And, when there is no choice but to use third person pronouns, the only way to tell the truth is to use the pronouns that align with biology, not ideology.

To be clear, there is one situation where using someone’s chosen name violates the first principle of telling the truth: If you’ve known a person all of his or her life, and if that name was given for specific purposes. So, for example, to ask moms to use a chosen name over a given name for the child they’ve raised and loved is just cruel.

Some argue that because language changes over time, accepting pronoun changes is just changing with language. This argument assumes that language doesn’t actually refer to reality, but only to other words. But there is a real world, and sexual distinction is part of that real world. To change the language of pronouns severs a link to reality, denies that reality, and disconnects people from what is actually true about their created bodies.

Pronouns may not seem like a fight worth having, but as Chesterton said, “The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.” [source]

Amen. Good principles to live by.

The Press

Turning again to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel and their book, The Elements of Journalism, they make the point this way: "A stronger, more unified, and more transparent method of verifying the news would . . . be the single most important step that those who practice journalism could take to address and, if necessary, correct the rising perception that the work of journalists is marred by bias. . . . What would this journalism of objective method—rather than aim—look like? What should citizens expect from the press as a reasonable discipline of reporting?"

Kovach and Rosenstiel provide five "intellectual principles of a science of reporting":

1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.

However, it is quite clear that this interpretation of objectivity, while seemingly alluring, has proved impossible for most newsrooms and journalists. The reason is that most partisans are unable or unwilling to put aside their personal ideological and political perspectives or, even worse, they consider them essential to moving and improving society through activism. This is the fundamental nature of the modern media. For the most part, the objectivity of methods has become the partisanship of ideological and political results.

…….

As recently as February 20, 2019, current Times publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger (Ochs's great-great grandson), responding to President Trump referring to the newspaper as "the enemy of the people"-as the president was frustrated with yet another "news" story, this time an "investigative report" filled with allegations and innuendos about him and his administration from anonymous sources-publicly lectured the president and the nation about the importance of a free press. He wrote:

America's founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, "The only security of all is in a free press." John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to "free society without a very, very active press." Ronald Reagan said, "There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success."

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It's a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase "enemy of the people" is not just false, it's dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation's enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.

Source: Unfreedom of the Press (2019) by Mark R. Levin.

It’s sad the drive-by-media can’t just report the news instead of spinning a narrative.

Let’s Stop Saying That Progressives are ‘Out of Touch’

From Jeff Charles on Red State.com (June 9, 2022):

One of the most oft-repeated talking points on the right is that over the past couple of years, with their lurch further to the left, Democrats have shown they are out of touch with the American public. It’s a popular maxim, one that I have also repeated. But I have come to realize this isn’t as true as we think. In fact, the reality is even more disturbing.

We’re old enough to remember all the fuss over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, right? Democrats and their close friends and allies in the activist media made an enormous stink in response to the notion that teachers would not be allowed to instruct children seven-years-old and younger on gender identity and sexuality. They even deceptively called it the “Don’t Say Gay bill.”

But polling showed that the American public wasn’t buying it. Indeed, at least one survey revealed that 52 percent of Florida Democratic primary voters supported the measure. Other studies showed people overwhelmingly favor the law. Nevertheless, the progressive left persisted, with the help of Disney, who received a black eye in the messaging battle over the matter.

Leftists exploited the murder of George Floyd to push for silly initiatives like “Defund the Police” under the guise that it would help to safeguard black lives. They bullied major cities across the country into slashing police budgets in a way that resulted in fewer police officers patrolling the streets. Even further, woke district attorneys like San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin were hard at work protecting criminals engaging in violent acts. Needless to say, these approaches made people far less safe and were at least partly responsible for the skyrocketing crime rates that followed. San Francisco’s voters were so fed up they voted to give Boudin the boot in California’s primary elections earlier this week.

What’s even more egregious about this is that rising crime rates, combined with fewer police officers, disproportionately harmed black communities. African Americans represented the lion’s share of victims of violent crimes, including homicide. But progressives still insisted on attacking police even when polling showed the majority (81 percent) of black Americans wished to see the same level of police activity in their neighborhoods or more.

Last but certainly not least, President Joe Biden and progressives are still pushing for a shift to green energy amid sky-high gas prices instead of drilling for oil in the U.S. Former President Donald Trump sought to make America as energy independent as possible, but Biden reversed course immediately after taking office. Now, everyday Americans are paying almost double at the pump and taxing their wallets just to get groceries because of massive inflation. Nevertheless, Biden and his merry band of Democrats in Congress refuse to allow more drilling and oil production in the United States.

The progressive approach to solving the energy crisis is in direct opposition to what most Americans want. A Heartland/Rasmussen poll conducted last month revealed that 82 percent of likely voters are “very” or “somewhat concerned” about rising energy and gas prices under this administration. Additionally, 60 percent of respondents said they would favor legislation that would “dramatically increase American energy production.”

As it turns out, most Americans can’t just go out and buy a Tesla as Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and other leftists have suggested.

These, and a mile-long list of examples, would lead any reasonable person to conclude that progressives just don’t understand average, everyday citizens. They don’t bother having conversations with regular folks to understand what they believe about the problems they are facing.

But I’ve come to realize that this assumption is both naive, inaccurate, and even dangerous.

These people are not out of touch with the American public. They are not unaware of what the people want. They are not oblivious to the viewpoints of us normal folks.

They know what we think. They just don’t care.

They don’t give a rodent’s derriere how we feel about the direction of the country.

They know better, which means we should just shut up and go along with their program. Progressives will continue pushing their insane ideas on race, gender, and sexuality in public K-12 schools. Even further, they will keep trying to limit educational alternatives by opposing school choice. Your kids and grandkids belong to the state, not to their parents, so to them, it is totally justified to encourage youths to transition to other genders without informing their parents.

Democrats have backed off of the ridiculous “defund the police” movement. But this does not mean they have given up. Woke district attorneys are still making sure criminals are given lenient treatment. They are still enacting soft-on-crime policies, even against gun violence, while trying to limit gun ownership for responsible Americans.

When it comes to gas prices, it’s the same story. If you want some relief at the pump, you better figure out how to get a Tesla, or you will be S.O.L. The elites don’t have to worry either way because these inflated prices are not harming the elites as they are for plebes like you and I.

Progressives are not out of touch. They are not ignorant. They are elitist would-be tyrants seeking to obtain more power. These people believe they know what is best for the unwashed masses. Leftists think they know what we need more than we do. This is what we are facing.

I’ll note that this does not apply to moderate liberals or even many average people with progressive views. But it is certainly applicable to the Marxist intelligentsia and their minions in the activist media. So, let’s stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They deserve neither our understanding nor our good-faith conversations. We cannot reason with them. Our objective should be to defeat them. [source]

The author completely understands the Left.

A ‘brain organoid’ biochip displayed serious voice recognition and math skills

From PopSci.com (Dec. 12, 2023):

Your biological center for thought, comprehension, and learning bears some striking similarities to a data center housing rows upon rows of highly advanced processing units. But unlike those neural network data centers, the human brain runs an electrical energy budget. On average, the organ functions on roughly 12 watts of power, compared with a desktop computer’s 175 watts. For today’s advanced artificial intelligence systems, that wattage figure can easily increase into the millions.

Knowing this, researchers believe the development of cyborg “biocomputers” could eventually usher in a new era of high-powered intelligent systems for a comparative fraction of the energy costs. And they’re already making some huge strides towards engineering such a future.

As detailed in a new study published in Nature Electronics, a team at Indiana University has successfully grown their own nanoscale “brain organoid” in a Petri dish using human stem cells. After connecting the organoid to a silicon chip, the new biocomputer (dubbed “Brainoware”) was quickly trained to accurately recognize speech patterns, as well as perform certain complex math predictions.

As New Atlas explains, researchers treated their Brainoware as what’s known as an “adaptive living reservoir” capable of responding to electrical inputs in a “nonlinear fashion,” while also ensuring it possessed at least some memory. Simply put, the lab-grown brain cells within the silicon-organic chip function as an information transmitter capable of both receiving and transmitting electrical signals. While these feats in no way imply any kind of awareness or consciousness on Brainoware’s part, they do provide enough computational power for some interesting results.

To test out Brainoware’s capabilities, the team converted 240 audio clips of adult male Japanese speakers into electrical signals, and then sent them to the organoid chip. Within two days, the neural network system partially powered by Brainoware could accurately differentiate between the 8 speakers 78 percent of the time using just a single vowel sound.

Next, researchers experimented with their creation’s mathematical knowledge. After a relatively short training time, Brainoware could predict a Hénon map. While one of the most studied examples of dynamical systems exhibiting chaotic behavior, Hénon maps are a lot more complicated than simple arithmetic, to say the least.

In the end, Brainoware’s designers believe such human brain organoid chips can underpin neural network technology, and possibly do so faster, cheaper, and less energy intensive than existing options. There are still a number of hurdles—both logistical and ethical—to clear, but although general biocomputing systems may be years down the line, researchers think such advances are “likely to generate foundational insights into the mechanisms of learning, neural development and the cognitive implications of neurodegenerative diseases.”

But for now, let’s see how Brainoware can do in a game of Pong. [source]

Interesting and weird. If the biochip can be developed further it could possibly be used for voice authentication for security.

More biochip articles:

• Dystopia: World's first 'biological computer' uses human brain cells that are 'raised in a simulation'
• Lab-grown human brain tissue used to control robot
• Brace yourself: Making computers from human brains is the new environmentalism
• Scientists grow mini human brains to power computers
• Computer run on human brain cells learned to play ‘Doom’
• Scientists seek to create 'biocomputers' using lab-grown, human pseudo brains

Thousands of Dead People Got Student Aid, Trump Admin Finds

From Newsweek.com (June 2, 2025):

The U.S. Department of Education revealed that over $30 million in federal student aid had been distributed to thousands of deceased individuals during the past three years.

The disclosure followed an internal cross-check of student aid records against federal grant logs and the Social Security Death Index.

Why It Matters

The discovery of erroneous payments totaling over $30 million to deceased individuals raises significant concerns about the integrity of federal financial aid programs, which are funded by U.S. taxpayers.

President Donald Trump's administration has been emphasizing the amount of money the government is wasting and has been trying to eliminate unnecessary expenses.

What To Know

The Department of Education's review found that, over the previous three years, more than $30 million in federal student aid was paid out to thousands of recipients who were already deceased. These payments included both loan disbursements and grant funds.

Officials identified the problem by cross-referencing student aid records with the Social Security Death Index. They stated that the lack of real-time data sharing contributed to erroneous payments, as outdated records failed to flag recipients who had died, allowing automatic disbursements to proceed.

To address the issue, the Education Department reported it is strengthening its real-time data-sharing agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and enhancing administrative processes to detect eligibility changes more quickly.

These steps aim to close loopholes that permitted deceased individuals to remain listed as eligible for aid.

The department also announced the resumption of automated post-screening for student aid records, a process that was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated that these checks are crucial for ensuring that all recipients meet the eligibility criteria before additional aid is released.

The $30 million misallocated to deceased recipients was part of a larger total: nearly $90 million was distributed to ineligible recipients during the same period, according to the Department of Education.

Despite the large number, experts say the level of fraud is still relatively low.

"As we know, in any system, public or private, mistakes and fraud can occur," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "This $90 million figure represents less than 0.10 percent of the total average government outlay of $87 billion for student loans."

He added: "The attention this is getting is purely a result of the scale, and it actually highlights how well the system has performed." [read more]

Terrible. This is why gov't agencies have to get rid of their fraud, waste, and abuse.

Trump Must Avoid These 3 ‘Civilization Killers’ When Tackling the National Debt

From Daily Signal.com (May 26, 2025):

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk about debt, debt, debt.

All during the last few days, we’ve heard some startling news. Moody’s, the bond evaluator, for the first time in its history, since 1917, has lowered the credit rating of the United States government from Aaa to Aa1.

It didn’t do that during the 2008 meltdown. It didn’t do that during the Great Depression. It didn’t do that during 9/11. It didn’t do that during the Biden years when we borrowed $7 trillion. But it did it now.

At the same time, Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed, will not lower interest rates even though there’s been a good jobs report, a good inflation report, a good corporate profits report. Gross domestic product is gonna be evaluated, apparently, upward and there’s been low energy cost. That mortgage is still 4.25% Fed rate to 4.5%. And that means mortgages are still 6.5%, 7%. And that housing market is slowing as a result.

And this has got President Donald Trump very angry, that they’re doing this, given the prior administration borrowed $7 trillion and helped run up from $29 trillion in national debt to $37 trillion, and left Trump with a $3 billion-a-day interest payment. So, he’s jawboning all this and trying to get down. So, what is Trump trying to do? And is it working?

Well, he’s the first president since Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, the speaker of the House at that time, who’s talking about reducing a $2 trillion budget deficit, a $1.2 trillion trade deficit, and addressing a $37 trillion national debt. But is he actually doing it?

On the plus side of the ledger, you’ve got the Department of Government Efficiency. And DOGE in the first 100 days has identified about $160 billion in cuts. That’s encouraging if two things are following: if they can keep up that rate of identifying cuts and get up to the $500 billion or even $700 billion and maybe make 25% or 30% reduction in the $2 trillion deficit. And if the Trump administration exercises fiscal discipline.

The problem is twofold: that while he’s addressing verbally, rhetorically the debt and the deficit, you look at the big, beautiful bill under consideration and it’s going to have to pass or the Trump administration will be completely humiliated.

They need to get it through reconciliation but there are sizable increases in the defense budget from everything that’s justifiable, from salaries, from an Iron Dome-like missile defense—you name it. More drones—good. But it’s more money. And there’s more subsidies to farmers. And there’s not a lot of cuts—at least when balanced with the increases.

So, the budget deficit, for all the talk of DOGE and for all the talk of fiscal sobriety, might not actually go down. And if it doesn’t go down, the Fed may not lower rates. And if it doesn’t lower rates, then you still are stuck with a trillion dollars a year in interest payments. That’s killing us.

So, you’ve got to get that down. And the way Trump has to do it is just two ways: Either cut the budget or raise taxes—which will strangle the economy—or continue the tax cuts. And hope two things: that the tax cuts—the extension—will prime the economy, along with cheap interest rates.

And the question that we all have now: Is cutting taxes on tips, is cutting taxes on Social Security, is cutting taxes on first responder, etc.—all of which Trump has mentioned—is that really stimulus as opposed to, say, accelerated depreciation investment for businesses?

I don’t know the answer. But I do know, as a historian, that if you do not cut the deficit and the national debt and you have bond raters like Moody’s or the Fed that will not lower interest rates, you’re going to be in a crisis.

And in the antiquity—from Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, to the Renaissance—there were three ways of dealing with unsustainable debt and are not good. They’re all civilizational killers.

No. 1: As the Weimar Republic did in Germany, you pay back what you owe in cheap dollars. They inflated the marks. And bankrupt really helped cause the depression. You can do that, pay back the $37 trillion in inflated dollars. It’s not a good option.

No. 2: You can confiscate private wealth. People do that all the time throughout history. That destroys the legitimacy of the government. And it makes private investors hide their money.

When I say confiscate wealth, you can already see articles in financial left-wing journals that say, well, maybe the trillionaire, billionaire, whatever term they use, oligarchical class will get credit, some Social Security or get some kind of credit for us taking some of their 401(k) money. Something like that. That never works. It never worked in Athens. It never worked in Rome. It never worked in Renaissance Italy.

The third is the most drastic and it’s a killer too and we’ve seen countries in South America try it. And that’s to renounce the debt. Just say: You know what? All you bondholders, you guys have U.S. savings bonds—40% of them abroad, you know, here in America—you have so much money anyway. We’re just not gonna pay you back—the government. We’re gonna renounce it and start from zero.

Who would ever buy a bond again if we were to do that?

So, bottom line is incumbent upon the Trump administration to make real cuts and show progress that you’re reducing the annual budget deficit and more importantly, you have mechanisms to grow the economy.

Final note. We have a lot of confidence—this administration—that tariffs will give revenue and maybe also help reduce the budget deficit. I’m not sure that’s happening. Only 1% or 2%, maybe 3% of the $5 trillion in federal revenue today is made up by tariff income. Even with these huge new tariffs, if they’re actually reified, you might get a trillion dollars. You might get a trillion dollars over 10 years. That’s $100 billion out of $5 trillion in revenue. So, I’m not sure we can count on tariff income at all.

What we should count on is cut, cut, cut. Seek a balanced budget and grow the economy with tax cuts that encourage investment and economic expansion. [source]

Yea, those three tactics are very bad. America doesn't want to be Weimar Republic or even Zimbabwe for that matter. Hyperinflation will economically kill a nation. Another good analysis by VDH.

Forgiveness Is Not an Act of Weakness

From Breakpoint.org (June 15, 2022):

Earlier this year, a very secular publication came to an unexpected conclusion. Vox ran a series of articles under the title “America’s Struggle for Forgiveness,.” In it, they wrote, “Grace might be the holiest, most precious concept of all in this conversation about right and wrong, penance and reform—but it’s the one that almost never gets discussed.”

Even in the most morally exhausted cultural moments, like ours, there are signs of life. Made in God’s image, with eternity in our hearts, we’re desperate for answers to our deepest questions and for purpose to help us make sense of our lives. We search elsewhere but, ultimately, only the Gospel offers what we need.

At the same time, at least when it comes to forgiveness, Christians are struggling as well. In any context, because it always involves fallen human beings, forgiveness isn’t easy. In this cultural moment, so deeply divided at such fundamental levels and with so much at stake in the issues, it can seem impossible. How can we reconcile the idea of forgiveness in a world overrun by evil? How can we be examples of forgiveness, both forgiving and seeking forgiveness, to a world that so desperately needs to see it?

First, we need to be clear on what forgiveness is and isn’t. The way Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” is often used in order to silence Christians who hold unpopular views completely misses the point. Too often, we get the impression that we need to apologize not merely for failing to live out Christian ethics, but for holding Christian ethics in the first place, as if Christian witness is compromised by Christian morality.

Second, Christians must embrace the idea of forgiveness. There’s a fear in many corners of the Church, particularly those engaged in standing for righteousness in this cultural moment, that concepts like “forgiveness,” “gentleness,” or “compassion” are signs of weakness. Certainly, many Christians have been gutted of courage at the exact moment Christian courage is so badly needed. But asking for or offering forgiveness is not necessarily a sign of weakness. In fact, in a culture devoid of it, Christians have something essential to offer people, families, institutions, and cultures.

Plus, we don’t have a choice. For Christians, a gracious posture is not an option. In Romans 12, Paul instructs Christians to “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” He also commands us to “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” Holding to truth and righteousness and being gracious to others are not mutually exclusive options. Both are required for Christ followers.

We must not pretend people are somehow “doing good” when they are not, or that evil ideologies that hurt the innocent are somehow anything less than evil. In Jesus’ words, we will be “exclude[d]” and “revile[d],” and have our names “spurn[ed]” as “evil” for His sake, not because we’ve done anything wrong but because we’ve followed Him. As Jesus’ teaching about church discipline and instructions to the disciples to “shake the dust of unbelieving towns off their feet” suggests, the goal of Christian witness can only be faithfulness. Whether or not we are liked is of little importance.

Which means, as Steve Cornell with The Gospel Coalition recently wrote, forgiveness is different than “reconciliation.” We can and must extend forgiveness, and we ought to be agents of reconciliation. However, because reconciliation always involves someone else, it isn’t merely up to us. Not only does it take two to reconcile, but when people actively pursue evil, boundaries are necessary.

The real battlefield of forgiveness is not just in external behavior. It involves the heart, which God sees with piercing clarity. It may involve asking for forgiveness, even from ideological opponents who are on the wrong side of a given issue. It will mean forgoing vengeance, even while seeking justice and extending love to those extending hate.

In God’s economy, this is not weakness. It is the strength rooted in Christ whom Himself proclaimed, “Father, forgive them.”

A wonderful example is Barronelle Stutzman, a co-recipient of this year’s Wilberforce Award. For years, she’s been the target of the state of Washington, misrepresented in the press, slandered, and sued for refusing to custom design flowers for a same-sex wedding. Only last November, after nearly a decade, was her legal case finally settled.

Through the whole, exhausting process, Barronelle extended nothing but kindness, even to the person behind her legal nightmare, longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll. “I did not turn down Rob,” she wrote in 2016. “I turned down an event. And if Rob walked into my store today, I would hug him and I would serve him for another 10 years.”

That same gracious attitude only became more evident in the years since. Through it all, she steadfastly refused to betray her faith while still showing gentle kindness toward those who oppose her. Anyone who knows Barronelle Stutzman would never confuse that posture with weakness.

Rather, she’s a living, breathing example that Christians can have both unrelenting conviction and a tender heart of forgiveness. We need not choose between them. [source]

Amen.