Category: Christian Anthropology

Posted on

When National Security Turns Against the Created Order

One of the most striking features of our cultural moment is how thoroughly gender ideology has seeped into institutions charged with safeguarding the public good. Universities, medical associations, school districts, and corporations have all been reshaped by DEI frameworks that treat gender identity as a sacred category beyond scrutiny. But the recent whistleblower report from inside the National Security Agency (NSA), published by City Journal, reveals something even more troubling: this same ideology has taken root within our intelligence community—an arena where ideological capture is not merely misguided, but dangerous.

According to the whistleblower, a “very small number” of transgender-identified employees and activists inside the NSA wield outsized power, effectively steering workplace culture, intimidating dissenters, and introducing radical ideological commitments into the agency’s operational environment. This is not simply about workplace inclusion. It is about an activist minority leveraging institutional mechanisms to impose a worldview on the nation’s top intelligence analysts.

As the whistleblower puts it:

“There is a very small number of them, but they wield an enormous amount of power. And outside of the sick stuff, you also see a prevalent Marxist philosophy going on with these people in their chat rooms. They hate capitalism. They hate Christians. They’re always espousing socialist and Marxist beliefs.”

This hatred of Christians is not a vague dislike of religion in general. It is a targeted hostility toward those who still hold to Christianity’s historic teaching that human beings are created male and female, and that Jesus Himself affirmed the creational design of marriage as one man and one woman (Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:4). In other words, their contempt is aimed precisely at those who uphold the biblical anthropology that gender ideology seeks to overthrow.

The whistleblower recounts that when ordinary analysts raised concerns—reminding coworkers that the agency’s mission is to protect the United States and identify adversaries—they were met with instant denunciation:

“They just got hammered. They would just start coming out with ‘transphobe’ and ‘homophobe’ right away or calling you a ‘racist.’ And that’s why a lot of folks are still hesitant to say anything, because you still have people at these agencies in those key spots. It infected everything.”

This is precisely how ideological capture works: not by persuading the majority, but by ensuring that dissent is costly. When the enforcement mechanism is social punishment, accusations of bigotry, or professional marginalization, most people keep their heads down. And in a place like the NSA—where people can lose clearances or career prospects for being viewed as “hostile” to DEI priorities—silence becomes the only safe strategy.

The theological undertone here cannot be ignored. When an ideology that denies the givenness of the body also breeds contempt for those who affirm the God-given meaning of the body, the conflict is not merely cultural—it is spiritual. What the whistleblower describes is a workplace atmosphere where those who hold to Christian teaching on creation, marriage, and sexual morality are treated not as colleagues, but as enemies.

The implications are sobering. Intelligence agencies depend on clarity, objectivity, and moral seriousness. An environment where analysts fear speaking honestly, or where ideological activists dominate key positions, is an environment where national security itself becomes compromised.

What this whistleblower describes is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a larger pattern: elite institutions across the country now treat gender ideology as a non-negotiable orthodoxy, and they enforce it with missionary zeal. When even intelligence agencies are reshaped by activists who “hate capitalism” and openly disdain Christians, we are no longer dealing with neutral bureaucracies. We are witnessing the politicization of institutions that were never meant to be political.

Defend God’s Good Creation

Posted on

Europe’s New Anti-Sex, Anti-Family Revolutionaries: From Foucault to O’Flaherty

When  almost 70 left-wing French MPs recently proposed removing biological sex from national identity cards, they claimed to be advancing equality. In reality, they were advancing an anti-human ideology—the same ideology that has spread across the EU and now infects its highest institutions.

As Faika El-Nagashi and Anna Zobnina explain in The Critic (Europe Must Not Erase Sex), this latest move is not an isolated gesture but part of a coordinated push rooted in the European Commission’s newly published LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy. Ostensibly, this effort aims to protect LGBTIQ+ individuals from discrimination and social exclusion, but in practice it extends far beyond that limited goal. That strategy, as they observe, promotes self-identification of sex without age restrictions across member states—an intermediate step toward the total abolition of sex envisioned in the Yogyakarta manifesto drafted by Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

This direct institutional alignment shows how activist philosophy has been absorbed into the machinery of governance. O’Flaherty, as the author of the Yogyakarta Principles, embodies this bureaucratic radicalism: he is the face of a movement that trades truth for theory and biology for ideology, converting the abstract ideals of postmodern “liberation” into binding European policy.

 O’Flaherty’s position stems from his long-standing advocacy to eliminate sex from law and practice, which culminated in his drafting of the Yogyakarta Principles in 2007, later updated in 2017 with a clear demand: that states must cease registering sex on all legal documents, including birth certificates.

It is this demand, alongside other Council of Europe and EU references, that the French politicians cited in their proposal, concluding that “the inscription of sex on national identity cards is a form of discrimination.” A similar conclusion was reached by Finland’s Social Democratic government, which in its 2020–2023 Gender Equality Plan proposed removing the sex-based digits from national identity numbers. While this may sound absurd to most Europeans, few are aware of either its repercussions or its history.

Faika El-Nagashi and Anna Zobnina
Europe Must Not Erase Sex

This kind of thinking is not uniquely Irish or European—it is quintessentially French. The same intellectual impulse that gave us Michel Foucault’s “liberation of desire” has now metastasized into EU policy. What began as abstract deconstruction of “power and knowledge” has become a practical project to dismantle every category by which human beings understand themselves—male and female, husband and wife, father and mother. In the name of equality and freedom, it seeks to dissolve the very foundation of society.

The Assault on the Family

The logic of sexual “liberation,” as articulated by its most candid theorists, leaves no room for the family as a stable or normative institution. Its advocates have been forthright about this. The philosophical roots lie not in grassroots activism but in a deeper intellectual rebellion—one that sees moral order and family structure as mechanisms of control. French philosopher Michel Foucault, whose ideas remain foundational for today’s gender theorists, framed the matter bluntly:

“Rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized. They are impersonal and can be bent to any purpose. The successes of history belong to those who are capable of seizing these rules, to replace those who have used them, to disguise themselves so as to pervert them, invert their meaning, and redirect them against those who had initially imposed them. Controlling this complex mechanism, they will make it function so as to overcome the rulers through their own rules.”

—M. Foucault, Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, p. 151, quoted sympathetically in R. Goss, Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto, p. 62.

Foucault’s project, spelled out further in The History of Sexuality, was nothing less than the subversion of the moral universe that Western civilization inherited:

“If repression has indeed been the fundamental link between power, knowledge, and sexuality since the classical age, it stands to reason that we will not be able to free ourselves from it except at considerable cost: nothing less than a transgression of laws, a lifting of prohibitions, an irruption of speech, a reinstating of pleasure within reality, and a whole new economy in the mechanisms of power will be required.” (The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, p. 5)

In other words, liberation requires not reform but revolt—an overthrow of what Foucault called “the rules.” And what institution embodies those rules more clearly than the natural family, with its inherent moral and generative order? To challenge the family, then, is to challenge the very structure of reality as given.

Foucault’s disciples have carried that revolt from the lecture hall to the culture at large. As one of the more extreme voices put it, the family must be eradicated altogether. Michael Swift declared without apology that “the family unit—spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence—will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated.” (After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, p. 361.)

These are not isolated voices on the fringe. They articulate the philosophical engine behind the broader sexual revolution—an assault on the givenness of the human person and the stability of human relations. What was once academic radicalism now guides public policy, from the French Parliament to Brussels. The rhetoric may have softened into the bureaucratic language of “rights” and “equality,” but the underlying goal remains: to dismantle the traditional family, erase natural distinctions, and replace them with a new social order shaped by the will to power rather than the wisdom of creation.

The Biological Foundation of the Family

At the heart of this struggle lies a deeper truth that El-Nagashi and Zobnina rightly defend: the family cannot be understood apart from the biological reality of man and woman. Our complementary male and female existence is not a social construct to be reprogrammed—it is the very architecture of life, the biological building block upon which human society stands. From this complementarity comes new life, and with it, the moral and social bonds that form the family. To erase sex, as the French proposal and O’Flaherty’s activism would have it, is to erase the foundation of both human identity and civilization itself.

The authors of The Critic article warn that this ideological erasure masquerades as compassion but is in fact a profound act of cultural suicide. Europe’s lawmakers, seduced by Foucault’s logic of perpetual rebellion, now seek to “liberate” humanity from the very structure that makes it possible to exist. To defend the truth about sex, therefore, is not reactionary—it is an act of preservation, an affirmation of reality against the fantasies of power. The future of Europe depends on recovering that truth.

+++

Defend God’s World

Posted on

Pushing Back Against the Glamorization of Polyamory

Photo by cottonbro studio

A Cultural Moment of Confusion

Polyamory is having a cultural moment.  Television series, influencers, and even academic voices are urging us to view multi-partner relationships as enlightened, inclusive, and “authentic.”  What used to be seen as a symptom of instability is now promoted as an act of courage.  But beneath the marketing lies a pattern of harm—emotional, psychological, and spiritual—that no amount of rebranding can erase.

What the Research Reveals

As a recent  Institute for Family Studies article argues, the research on relationship stability and human flourishing overwhelmingly points in one direction: exclusive, monogamous commitment provides the strongest foundation for love, family, and social trust.  

Polyamorous arrangements, by contrast, tend to amplify jealousy, insecurity, and transience—each person always half-in and half-out, always guarding the heart against inevitable fracture.  These are not mere cultural preferences but reflections of what human beings are: creatures made for faithful, embodied union, not perpetual negotiation.

The Children Caught in the Crossfire

And what of the children who grow up in such environments?  When the boundaries of parental love are constantly shifting, and the circle of attachment expands and contracts with adult desire, children are left to navigate uncertainty they did not choose.  Stability, predictability, and fidelity—the soil in which trust and identity take root—are replaced by emotional flux.  

No ideology can change the fact that children need permanence, not a rotating cast of caregivers.  The data confirm what natural law and Scripture have long affirmed: that a child flourishes most fully within the secure love of his or her mother and father joined in faithful covenant.

Covenant, Not Contract

From a Christian perspective, this isn’t simply about sociology or statistics—it’s about theology.  Marriage, in Scripture, is not a contract of convenience but a covenant of total self-gift.  It mirrors God’s own unwavering love for His people: exclusive, faithful, and fruitful.  

The prophets describe Israel’s infidelity in marital terms because covenantal love cannot be divided without distortion.  Christ, the Bridegroom, does not share His Bride with others.  The Church is loved wholly, not fractionally.

Theological Clarity in an Age of Confusion

Polyamory, then, is not only emotionally unstable—it’s theologically incoherent.  It denies the very symbolism our bodies were created to express: that real love gives itself to another completely, not partially; that fidelity is not a limitation but the condition for joy.  

The Christian vision of love is not endless novelty but steadfast communion—the kind of love that binds itself to another “for better or for worse,” and in doing so, becomes an image of divine faithfulness.

Recovering the Truth About Love

We are called to recover this vision—not as mere nostalgia for an older moral code, but as a recovery of the truth about ourselves.  Our bodies and our souls both bear witness: we are not made for dispersion but for covenant, not for multiple lovers but for a love that mirrors the One who says, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

Read the full piece at the Institute for Family Studies:

👉 It’s Time to Push Back Against the Glamorization of Polyamory

+++