Freedom Of Speech, thought and action?

IT’S A ‘NO’ TO LIBERTY: WELCOME TO THE NEW SECTARIANISM

STEVE CHAVURA

So much for liberalism if the same-sex marriage law demands uniformity of opinion
Today’s debate on religious freedom has not arisen in a vacuum. Amendments to Dean Smith’s same-sex marriage bill that would guarantee freedom of speech, association, and conscience would be redundant were there no appetite to restrict such freedoms. But there is such an appetite, and its ferocity is revealed more and more by the day.

Despite 38.4 per cent of Australians voting No to same-sex marriage and about 62 per cent of Australians wanting protections for religious freedom, large majorities in the federal parliament, and a substantial number of Liberal MPs, rejected the amendments to the Smith bill that guaranteed religious freedom to individuals, businesses and religious institutions.

The same-sex marriage debate in Australia has exposed a sectarian politics reminiscent of the skirmishes between Protestants and Catholics over freedom of conscience that plagued Australia up to World War II.

People may disagree on the justice or injustice of fining bakers for not baking same-sex wedding cakes, forcing adoption agencies to shut down for catering only to mother-father clients, or forcing people to answer to anti-discrimination and human rights tribunals for non-abusive, non-incendiary speech, but no one can deny that this is happening, as experience in the US, Canada, Britain and Australia shows.

And it is this climate of soft persecution that makes Smith’s bill an incredibly irresponsible piece of legislation. The bill’s and many MPs’ Pollyanna-ish attitude to real-world challenges against freedom of speech and conscience is both a betrayal of the principles of classical liberalism and a betrayal of Australian religious institutions and individuals.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson warned that conservatives demanding religious freedom clauses were in danger of establishing a bill of rights, the very thing they had been fighting against for years. But the bills of rights that conservatives from Edmund Burke onwards have always opposed were bills enshrining abstract rights to “equality” and “fairness” that could easily be manipulated by social engineers to eradicate reasonable liberties.

The comprehensive list of amendments proposed by Liberals James Paterson, Andrew Hastie, Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke, Andrew Broad and Michael Sukkar were very narrow in scope, protecting the integrity of institutions such as churches, schools, businesses and charities, and freedom of speech and conscience for individuals and parents. Rejection of the religious liberty amendments as a mere licence to discriminate reveals a worrying misunderstanding of some necessary conditions of a free society.

For example, how long will a political party exist without the right to discriminate in favour of potential candidates and staffers who adhere to the principles of that party? The same goes for a trade union, Get Up!, a church, a charity, and a school.

Lobby groups, the media, political parties, businesses, educational institutions, and charities make up civil society — that free, voluntary sphere that seeks to have a positive influence on government and other people’s lives. Without the right to discriminate in employment this sphere disappears and the social needs that it meets are taken up by the state. Liberals should be especially concerned with this.

The point should be clear: some rights to discriminate are valid because they are anchored to the preservation of social goods and ideals that constitute a free society. When business owners exercise conscientious objections to participating in same-sex marriages either through catering or photographing the event, they are not restricting the liberties of anyone else, and no one is being forced to use their services.

Some might say that by so refusing to offer services, the vendor is inflicting a status or dignity harm against the customer because the validity of their very identity has been questioned. This is seriously problematical: Who is to say that the customer’s identity as same-sex attracted is any more important to him than the vendor’s identity as a religionist is to her? And therefore on what grounds can we say that forcing the vendor to facilitate an event deeply at odds with her beliefs is any less an affront to her dignity than allowing her to refuse is an affront to the customer’s?

Also, photographers and bakers are not refusing to serve customers because of their sexual identity. If the same customers simply wanted to buy flowers or cakes for other occasions then the vendors would comply. If straight customers went in and requested a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, they too would be denied. It is about participating in an activity against which the vendor is conscientiously opposed, not the identity of the customer.

The proposed amendments to the Smith bill were not religious privilege. All Australians, religious or secular, should be free to decline participation in morally contentious events so long as it is no threat to others’ liberties, safety, or property.

Indigenous Australians should be free not to sell Australia Day flags in their shops or cater for Australia Day events. A gay photographer should be free to decline creating promotional material for an Australian Christian Lobby Conference. A Muslim printer should be free not to print a magazine depicting images of Mohammad.

This isn’t so much liberal identity politics as it is just classical liberalism. It merely requests the negative liberty to abstain from violating one’s own conscience, rather than demanding that everyone else celebrate and honour it with punitive measures against those who resist.

The uncomfortable fact is that society is deeply divided on questions of sexuality, marriage, gender, and now even traditional liberal rights. The same-sex marriage debate revealed a fierce sectarianism in Australia that has emerged out of the moral revolution of the 1960s and has been radicalised by a Marxist obsession with militant victimhood.

In the absence of protections for freedom of speech, conscience, and association, the place of social conservatives and vocal advocates of classical liberal rights in the public service, education, health, and civil society in general is precarious.

An analogy is the marginalisation of Catholics from state institutions up until the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act.

If freedom leads to plurality of opinions, then freedom is the greatest enemy of any movement that demands uniformity of opinion on questions of sexuality and gender.

The same-sex marriage debate and its aftermath around the English-speaking world showed that such a movement is afoot, even in Australia. A good first step to imposing this uniformity is to have passed Smith’s bill unamended. The next step is to start attacking institutions and individuals who represent traditional views or who defend those who do.

Welcome, then, to the new sectarianism.

Stephen Chavura lectures in
politics and history at Macquarie University, Campion College, and the Lachlan Macquarie Institute
A gay photographer should be free to decline creating material for an Australian Christian Lobby conference

The truth about spades.

NOVEMBER 10, 2017

Calling a Spade, a Spade

ANGELO STAGNARO

I can forgive Protestants and Protestantism for most things.

I can forgive Protestants for the Know-Nothing Party and their murderous Philadelphia Nativist Riot, the Intolerable Acts, Bloody Monday and the Orange Riots in New York City in 1871 and 1872. I forgive them for the “Blaine Amendments” which forbade tax money be used to fund Catholic parochial schools.

I can also forgive them for the KKK and for funding the Mexican atheist genocidal maniac Plutarco Ares Calles in his efforts to kill Catholics during the Cristero Wars. I can forgive them for calling any, and all, popes, the “Anti-Christ(s)” and “Whores(s) of Babylon.”

I also forgive them for supporting Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy by which the Church gained many of her modern martyrs. In addition, I forgive them for the Recusancy Acts and the fictitious, so-called “Popish Plot.” I forgive them also for the fact that as a Catholic, I shall never sit upon the British Throne though literally everyone else is allowed to do so.

I can forgive Protestants for The Troubles in Ireland and Oliver Cromwell and his engineered Potato Famine and the slaughter and military occupation of that country. I forgive them for the enslavement of 50,000 men, women and children who were forcibly removed from Ireland and sent to Bermuda and Barbados as indentured servants―America’s first slaves.

I forgive them for the Canadian Gavazzi Riots and the Orange Order and Ontario Regulation 17 that doomed Catholic schools in Quebec. I won’t even mention the American Protective Association and their Canadian counterparts, the Protestant Protective Association as I’ve chosen to forgive. I also forgive Protestants for forcibly converting Catholic convicts and political prisoners to Anglicanism in Australia; forced conversions is something that Muslim terrorists have been doing for 1400 years.

I forgive Protestants for 500 years of venom and vitriol spouted by every street preacher and door-knocker―the seething anti-Catholic hatred that is at the core of primitive Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism and Jehovah’s Witnesses―but not them exclusively. Indeed, it makes up a great deal of traditional Anglicanism, Methodism and many other forms of “mainstream” Protestantism.

I forgive Protestants who refuse to refer to Catholics as “Christians.”

I also forgive them for intentionally ignoring the 1500 years that occurred prior to Martin Luther when everyone in Western Europe who was a Christian was, by necessity, a Catholic.

I forgive them for Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, the inspiration for the current assault upon religious liberty in America and Europe. Don’t worry, Jack Chick and your ignorant and poisonous “Chick Tracts” and for calling Catholics, “Mackerel Snappers”―all is forgiven.

I forgive Martin Luther for foisting a desecrated and greatly redacted Bible upon the world pretending that God “would have wanted it that way.” Luther removed seven books and parts of three others from the Old Testament―the fullness of which is called the Septuagint and was used by Christ himself when he walked among us.

And I also forgive Martin Luther for accepting funding from Suleiman the Magnificent, the Sultan of the Muslim Ottoman Empire as he “struggled” to secede from the Catholic Church. Luther schemed to throw Christendom under the bus for fun and profit as he urged his fellow Protestants to side with the Muslim Turks in defeating the Catholic Church and, with it, Europe. Suleiman even extended his munificent kinship to any and all Protestants in Hungary and Romania now that they were no longer “Christian” (i.e., loyal to the pope). The sultan urged Luther and Protestants to unite under the Muslim banner to defeat both the emperor and the pope. Please recall that Suleiman the Terrorist wanted nothing less than to wipe Christianity from the planet―talk about politics and their strange bedfellows!

But all is forgiven … I swear it.

I forgive Protestants for the ridiculous 700 Club television show and their tiresome attacks on the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I also forgive Protestants for taking 500 years to realize that Sola Scriptura is a great deal of nonsense and that even Luther had a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary―the first Christian, the Mother of God and, indeed, the second most often quoted individual in the Gospels.

I also forgive Protestants for their cognitive dissonance in simultaneously insisting that: 1) everyone is allowed to interpret the Bible as they wish and they are all equally correct and 2) Catholics are wrong in the way they interpret the Bible no matter how they do it.

I forgive Protestants for their anti-Catholicism, which is what historian John Highham called “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history,” and what historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. has called, “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.”

I also forgive Protestants for their support of the violence towards Catholics during the so-called “Enlightenment” and for the development of Freemasonry and the Brazilian “Religious Question” and the Columbian La Violencia and the Michelade Massacre of 1567. By the way, Freemasonry’s exotic magicalism greatly contributed to the development of Mormonism, Unitarianism, Seventh-Day Adventism, Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witness’ Arianistic perspectives.

For all of this, I have nothing but forgiveness for them.

I forgive Protestants for making Fr. Nicholas Copernicus put the brakes on his heliocentric theory and data until after his death even though his friend, Pope Paul III, urged him to publish while the scientist was still alive. Apparently, Fr. Copernicus hoped to avoid upsetting Luther and Melanchthon who were both contemptuous of the priest’s heliocentric paradigm and feared that his theories would further alienate Protestants against the Church from which they originally sprang.

This isn’t an empty Christian platitude―I truly forgive them for the Great Tragedy, that is, their sixteenth century split with Rome.

I also forgive them for John Calvin’s, Ian Paisley’s and the Westboro Baptist Church’s reductive, tiresome and poisonous bluster and posturing. I further forgive Protestants for their support and schadenfreude as they stood back and did nothing during Spain’s Red Terror and during Hitler’s repression of the Catholic Church especially for The Night of Long Knives. But my forgiveness isn’t limited to only this opprobrium. Indeed, I also forgive Dutch Protestants’ explicit support of the Tokugawa Shogunate when they slaughtered tens of thousands of Japanese Catholics in the sixteenth century.

I forgive them one and all for the 500 years of anti-Catholic stereotypes typical in their literature as in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Pit and the Pendulum, Paul Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and Ann Radcliffe’s The Italian.

I forgive them for their support/coddling of the rabidly fundamentalist atheist “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” which was originally an explicitly anti-Catholic organization called “Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

I forgive all Protestants for crucifying European history with their insidious and indecorous “Black Legend” which poisoned the minds of hundreds of millions of people who would rather believe lies about the Inquisition rather than risk reading a book on the subject.

I even forgive Protestants for the countless false prophecies concerning the end of the world that have proved time and time again to be absolutely false. As an aside, I also forgive them for ignoring Scriptures that specifically explain how to distinguish between one of God’s real prophets and a false one:

You may wonder how you can tell when a prophet’s message does not come from the Lord. If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and what he says does not come true, then it is not the Lord’s message. That prophet has spoken on his own authority, and you are not to fear him. (Deut. 18:21-22)

In addition, I forgive Protestants for ignoring Christ’s own words (the red-letter words) when he commissions St. Peter as the Church’s leader:

And so I tell you, Peter: you are rock, and on this rock foundation I will build My church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. (Matt. 16:18)

And like the previous passage, Protestants will ignore the salient fact that Christ’s One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church will never fail. Not even the Gates of Hell will prevail against it. If follows that if an organization that claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit actually fails miserably, that means the Holy Spirit wasn’t truly with them such as the Anabaptists, the Shakers and the Puritans. 11 Protestant churches close every day in America. It’s impossible to determine how many close every day around the world. There are 41,000 Protestant churches around the world currently and that means at least 40,999 are completely wrong. This doesn’t include the many tens of thousands of Protestant churches that have failed in the past 500 years. God clearlyisn’t dictating different messages to intentionally sow discord, confusion and lies … however, this does remind me of another lesser spirit who enjoys doing exactly this (John 8:44).

But what I can’t forgive them for, not yet at least, is their insipid restorationism―the idea that God somehow made a mistake 2000 years ago when he gave control of the his, One, True Church to the Catholic Church and the papacy, whose progenitor was St. Peter as testified by Christ not once but twice in the New Testament (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17).

Restorationism is the belief that Christianity should be restored to how it was during the Apostolic Era using nothing but Scriptures―a project doomed to failure. Their goal to re-establish Christianity in its original form has been a part of Christianity for 2000 years and, indeed, St. Francis of Assisi hoped to “get back to the basics” also but he didn’t make the mistake of believing that God had made a mistake in putting St. Peter and his successors in charge. Rather, he hoped to refocus the Church―not to change dogma and authority.

This is not something that can be generously glossed over as their previous genocide of Catholics on multiple continents or even the desecration of our holiest places over the past 500 years. The trillions of Protestant lies about Catholics are as naught in comparison to this blasphemy.

To suggest that God was somehow mistaken in anything he does is scurrilous impiety and profane heresy.

Luther’s “Ecce ego sto!” sounds more and more like Lucifer’s “Non serviam!”

Restorationism is anathema. God makes no mistakes (Ps. 19:7-10). He doesn’t mumble or backpeddle like Allah (Ps. 12:6-7). He’s not confused or addlebrained (Neh. 9:6). He needs no assistance from anyone or anything (Col. 1:6). His decisions are final and perfect in their love and justice (Prov. 16:10). He doesn’t need to explain himself (Rom. 1:20). He accepts no counsel (Ps. 33:11).

When God bestowed stewardship upon Peter and his successors, God didn’t mean “well … you can be in charge until people in the sixteenth century come to know better.”

Restorationism is beyond comprehension. God isn’t imperfect and thus, anyone who worships an imperfect God isn’t worshiping the Trinity (Ps. 18:30).

Muslims also celebrate a restorationism of sorts in that they believe Islam is what Allah always had in mind but was simply not sure how to implement it successfully until the advent of Mohammad. They believe that both Jews and Christians have become corrupted along with their sacred scriptures, which are “untrustworthy” due to Allah’s machinations. And that only they have a perfect and complete understanding of God’s “true plan.”

Sound familiar?

But if this is true, as in the case of Protestantism, then how did God’s message get garbled in the first place? Wouldn’t God have known his message was going to get hinky? If he’s omniscient and omnicompetent he would. A lesser god would easily fall into this error.

How was he so foolish in trusting the wrong people initially? How could mere mortals come to realize something that he couldn’t (Job 38:1-41:34)?

But, more importantly, how can we ever trust this imperfect deity now that new messengers, none of whom are divine, have come along? Perhaps this deity is confused once again. It’s a slippery slope and one that is easily proven wrong.

I don’t see a difference in what these Christian restorationists believe and that which Islamic restorationists proffer. It’s not odd that Protestants had received Muslim financial, political and ideological support 500 years ago―birds of a feather, as it were.

But the main reason I condemn restorationism is that it’s a non-starter. If someone believes in evil grand conspiracy theories, they make themselves out to be the hero/champion that God has been looking for. It’s up to them and no one else! They are the thin holy line that separates Order and Chaos―between Heaven and Hell. And as they are assured of their sanctified state, anything and everything they think, say and do is acceptable. After all, this is what “God wanted” all along…

The Reformation

MERV BENDLE

The Reformation: 500 Years On

To Luther, God always remained a stern and majestic judge and he a snivelling sinner. The mystic was not for him, and so, ultimately, his path led to the 95 Theses being nailed to the door of Wittenberg church on this day five centuries ago

A spiritual lobotomy that plunged people into ignorance and cut them off from the warm and comforting embrace of the Church, is that what the Reformation was? Or was it an overdue rebellion that liberated people from superstition, exploitation and corruption, gave birth to modern individualism, and laid the foundations of modern Western civilization?

The Reformation has always attracted extreme interpretations. Indeed, historians have struggled for 500 years to make sense of this cataclysmic epoch. Much of their work was dominated by ‘confessional histories’ that celebrated or defended the roles played by particular churches, e.g., Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, etc. Eventually the very concept of ‘The Reformation’ was criticised as being a value-laden Protestant pre-judgement of history and it is now common to speak also of the ‘Catholic’ and ‘Radical’ Reformations that accompanied or responded to the religious revolution sparked by Martin Luther.

Luther had no idea what he was starting as he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church on All Hallows Eve, October 31, 1517. Provoked by deep spiritual concerns, he was inviting debate over some esoteric theological issues, but soon he was fighting for his life against charges of heresy, while all around him society seethed with religious and revolutionary fervour as the millennia-old foundations of Christendom were undermined and began to give way.

With hindsight it is possible to see how massive religious, intellectual, political, economic, and social forces had been building up for decades or even centuries, but nobody at the time had any idea how violent the convulsion would be once these forces were unleashed – least of all Luther, as he contemplated his Theses and wondered at the response he would get to this theological challenge.

Before he knew it, his critique was translated from scholarly Latin into the vernacular, printed up as a pamphlet and widely distributed throughout Germany, where it inflamed passions already raw with resentment at clerical abuses. Initially dismissed by the Church hierarchy as yet another irascible monk who would be soon brought to heel or sent to the stake, he proved a reluctant but also resourceful opponent who enjoyed crucial support in just the right places.

Moreover, Luther proved to be vital inspiration for religious revolutionaries driven by their own fierce enthusiasms, many of whom went far beyond anything Luther could have envisaged. Within a few short decades a fissure opened  in European society as war and persecution tore the continent apart. Indeed, it was not until the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648 that Europe was able to re-establish some equilibrium, while the tensions and hatreds festered for centuries to come.

To understand the Reformation we need to understand Luther, and to understand both we need to enter another world alien to our secular age – a world saturated with religion and superstition, where God and his angels battle Satan’s hordes for the souls of the faithful.  We begin with Luther’s background and his decision to become a monk. We note the crisis of scholastic theology and the collapse of the medieval synthesis that bound society together, and the burden this collapse placed upon Luther, especially given his dread fear of a wrathful God, death, hell, and the devil. We also explore the key concept of Anfechtungen, the spiritual crises faced by Luther, what they reveal about him, and how their resolution opened the path to the Reformation.

THE EARLY LUTHER

Luther was born in 1483 in Eisleben in central Germany. His father, Hans, was a well-off copper miner — a no-nonsense self-made man who had risen from a peasant background — while his mother, Margaret, came from the professional middle class. He went to school in Mansfeld and Eisenach (where he was treated with the usual brutality) and was later admitted to the University of Erfurt, graduating with a Masters of Arts in January 1505. The intention was to become a lawyer, an ambition close to his father’s heart. At Erfurt he trained philosophically as a nominalist and was influenced by Humanism, especially its study of ancient texts in the original language. However, he never shared the Humanist optimism about the innate goodness and capabilities of man – far from it.

A pivotal event in Luther’s life occurred in July, 1505. He was caught outside in a ferocious thunderstorm and was thrown to the ground by a bolt of lightning, leaving him mortally afraid. Death was already a vivid reality for Luther, as he had recently lost a close friend and had himself nearly died from an accidental knife-wound to his groin.

Death, usually unspeakably grim and painful, was ever-present in the Middle Ages. Moreover, it had assumed an even more dreadful visage in the shadow of the Black Death that killed nearly half the population of Europe between 1347 and 1353, and had broken out several times since. A painful death was a near certainty and on the other side lay aeons of torment in Purgatory, even for the faithful, while unredeemed sinners were delivered into the Hellmouth and an eternity of suffering. Consequently, amongst the best-sellers of the new age of printing were handbooks on death, like Ars moriendi (‘On the Art of Dying’). Illustrated with graphic woodcuts, this focussed on how the mortally ill must, in their final agonized moments, retain their faith in a God’s mercy. Above all, they must resist the demonic fiends who came to torment them, ridicule their hope of deliverance, and drive them to despair and eternal damnation. Another book offered a history of the world, emphasizing the brevity of human life and ending with the Day of Judgement, with Christ seated upon a rainbow. From one ear extends a lily, symbolizing the saved who are shown below rising from their graves and being ushered by angels into paradise. From the other ear extends a sword, symbolizing the fate of the damned who are shown being dragged by demons to their infernal fate

Petrified at such visions, and with the thunder and lightning closing in on him, Luther called upon St Anne (the mother of Mary and patron saint of miners) to protect him, promising that he would become a monk if she delivered him from death. He survived, and a fortnight later he sought entry to the Observant Augustinians, the strictest religious order available to him. In a matter of days, Luther sold the very expensive law books his father had just bought for him and threw a farewell party for his friends. He then went to live in the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt, setting out on the monastic path of spiritual purgation, cleansing, and illumination towards true holiness and unity with the divine mystery of God. This decision perplexed and appalled his father, who was above all a practical man and had counted on Luther becoming a lawyer and supporting his parents in their old age (as was customary).

THE MONK

Luther was ordained in 1507 in Erfurt Cathedral, and a second pivotal event in his life occurred when he conducted his first Mass. This was a very special event that his father attended, bringing with him a large retinue and a handsome donation for the monastery. Martin however was terror-struck as he took his place before the altar, overwhelmed that he was addressing Almighty God:

“With what tongue shall I address such Majesty, seeing that all men tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? … Shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say ‘I want this, I ask for that’? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and am speaking to the living, eternal and true God.”

Moreover, he was about to perform the miracle of the Mass – transubstantiation – whereby the bread and wine became literally the body and blood of Christ. As Luther’s leading biographer observes:

“The terror of the Holy, the horrors of Infinitude, smote him like a new lightning bolt, and only through a fearful restraint could he hold himself at the altar to the end.” (Roland Bainton,Here I Stand, 1955, p.30)

Nor did the agony and self-doubt stop there. After the Mass he approached his father, who remained wounded and disappointed that Luther had not pursued a legal career and been able to provide for his parents in their old age:

“But father, I could do you more good by prayers than if I had stayed in the world”, he argued, reminding Hans that he had felt a call to become a monk.

“God grant,” replied Hans, “it was not an apparition of the Devil”, that had led Martin onto this path.

His father’s words haunted Luther, as the devil was very real to him, as it was to all people of the time. This was especially true in the monasteries, where Satan appeared as the Great Fiend, the Evil One, and above all as the Tempter and the Father of Lies, committed to disrupting and derailing the monks as they pursued their quest for spiritual perfection. Luther recalled how Satan himself told him bluntly: “God doesn’t want to forgive you”, while lesser demons ridiculed his efforts: “Behold, you’re weak. How do you know that God is gracious to you?” When Luther replied that by baptism he had been incorporated into Christ, the demons quoted the Bible: “That’s nothing, for many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mt.22:14)

Dealing always with intense introspection and doubt, and swinging always between exaltation and despair, Luther nevertheless persisted in the Augustinians while studying at Erfurt, where he excelled at biblical studies and theology. In 1508 he was invited by his mentor, Johann von Staupitz, to teach theology at the recently founded University of Wittenberg. In 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and succeeded Staupitz in the chair of theology, from which he lectured on the Psalms and the New Testament. He was also made provincial vicar of the Augustinians for Saxony and Thuringia in 1515, overseeing the complex affairs of 11 monasteries. He remained in the monk’s habit for 19 years and despite his spiritual turmoil he was efficient and immensely productive.

LUTHER’S AGONY

As events like the thunderstorm and the first mass reveal, Luther had a profound sense of living under the judgement of an almighty and wrathful God. He had become a monk above all else to attain a level of holiness that would deliver him into God’s good graces. From the outset, seeking purgation of his sins, he devoted himself to a strict regime of fasting, long hours in prayer, pilgrimage, and frequent periods of lengthy confession (stretching out to 6 hours!). This bordered on the obsessional, and drove Staupitz, who served as his confessor, to complain that if he wanted to bother God so often, he should come along with some really serious sins, like murder or adultery, instead of just petty misdemeanours. God is not angry with you, Luther was told, you are angry with God!

Here we arrive at the psychological key to Luther’s theology. At times Luther was utterly terror-stricken with anxiety about his own perceived sinfulness and inability to live up to God’s demands. The word he used to describe these attacks, Anfechtungen, has no exact English equivalent. It refers to devastating onslaughts of spiritual crisis, isolation, terror, despair, desolation, and desperation. These were, he said, literally mortifying, as is recorded in his Collected Works:

“So great and so much like hell that no tongue could adequately express them, no pen could describe them, and one who had not himself experienced them could believe them. And so great were they that, if they had been sustained or had lasted for half an hour, even for one tenth of an hour, he would have perished completely and all of his bones would have been reduced to ashes.”

The central experience was of utter forsakenness:

“At such a time, God seems so terribly angry, and with him the whole creation. At such a time, there is no flight, no comfort, within or without, but all things accuse … In this moment … the soul cannot believe that it can ever be redeemed.”

These attacks were so psychologically and physically debilitating that Luther at times wished for annihilation to escape them.

Even the impeccable life of a devout monk failed to quieten his anguished soul and deliver him from this terror. As Luther later observed: if anyone could have gotten into Heaven on the basis of their devout ‘monkishness’ it was him, and yet he always felt he had failed. What then was the path to salvation?

THE MEDIEVAL SYNTHESIS

The answer had been provided for over a millennium by the Catholic Church with a very carefully worked out scheme of salvation based on various components: recognition of the fallen state of humanity, but faith in the saving mission of Christ; observance of the seven sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Confession, Ordination, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, understood as spiritual signs and channels through which the grace of God manifests itself in the world; belief in God’s providential role in history; and conscientious Christian living and good works. All this is augmented in various observances, including pilgrimages, devotion to the saints and holy relics, donations, etc.

This scheme of salvation was underpinned institutionally by the Medieval Synthesis that held society together in a virtual theocracy for centuries. This was based on the all-pervasive presence of the Church, and the conviction that the essential areas of life of Christendom should be united together in a mutually reinforcing structure, binding together Church & State, Reason & Revelation, Church Membership & State Citizenship, and Theology & Culture. Theologically this was sustained by the various grand scholastic systems, exemplified by the work of Thomas Aquinas. These purported to unite faith with reason and tie God and all of creation together in one enormous, all-encompassing

Luther’s predicament was that this grand synthesis was falling apart. Institutionally, he was witnessing its disintegration all around him. Powerful nations and empires were vying for dominance (e.g., France vs the Holy Roman Empire); the mighty Ottoman Empire was approaching the gates of Vienna; the Church had slipped into corruption and a general malaise (as Luther witnessed on his trip to Rome in 1510); and various heretical movements were emerging (e.g., the Albigensians, Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites).

Theologically, Luther faced an unprecedented catastrophe. Scholastic theology — fine-tuned over centuries – simply didn’t work for him or for many others. Indeed, its heroic attempt to use reason to grasp the nature and purposes of God had failed. For example, the rationalism of Aquinas, despite its powerful proofs of God as the pinnacle of Reason holding the universe together, had found its way into a theological cul-de-sac and apparently heretical conclusions that attracted official condemnation. Meanwhile, the voluntarism of his great rival, John Duns Scotus, had produced a vision of God as Pure Will – arbitrary and almighty – and of the universe as entirely contingent upon that Will with reason itself reigning only while God willed it! And then, cutting across all this was the nominalism of William of Ockham, which obliterated the philosophical foundations of scholasticism and rendered futile any attempt philosophically to grasp the nature or purposes of God, and leaving only faith and revelation.

In his decade of intense study and contemplation Luther had witnessed the deconstruction of the vast edifice of medieval theology. Desperately he had explored it, searching for answers, but it had fallen apart around him. Theologically he had found himself at a dead-end and in profound despair.

There was one alternative left. His mentor, Staupitz, was a mystic and he revealed the mystical path to Luther: instead of striving heroically to win God’s approval, or trying to reach Him through reason, Luther should just surrender. Negate the ego, shed all pride, arrogance, assertiveness, self-seeking, and everything that gave expression to the I, the me, the self. He should throw oneself onto the mercy of God, submerging the self in the Absolute like a drop of water in the ocean. Find final peace in the abyss of Being, Luther was advised. And he did explore this path and even edited and published the mystic masterpiece, The German Theology.

Luther, however, could never understand God as any sort of abyss; rather God always remained a stern and majestic judge confronting Luther as a snivelling sinner. The mystic path was not for him. And so, ultimately, Luther had nowhere to go.

THE REFORMATION BREAKTHROUGH

At the heart of Luther’s dilemma was the collision between the infinite and unapproachable majesty of God and the total sinfulness of humanity – that ‘mass of damnation’, as St Augustine, the father of his order, called it. Luther was convinced that there was literally nothing that human beings could do to contribute to their own salvation. He reasoned that a just and righteous God could only condemn him and everyone else to damnation. He believed he saw the horror of his sinful nature as God saw it and even felt his own conscience damning him. As a recent historian observes:

“It was an unbearable, unending dark night of the soul in which every attempt to please and love God led away from Him.” – Carlos Eire, Reformations, 2016, p.141

Faced with damnation, Luther often gave up hope of salvation and longed for annihilation. His studies reinforced this despair. Between 1510 and 1517, he lectured on the Psalms, Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians, and he was acutely aware of the scriptural passages concerning the absolute righteousness of God. At one point he was studying Romans 1:17:

“For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’”

And he lamented:

“I greatly longed to understand Paul’s epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression ‘the righteousness of God’, because I took it to mean that righteousness whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust.”

He was filled with dread at the implications of this for his own fate:

“My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage Him. Therefore I did not love a just angry God, but rather hated and murmured against Him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.”

And then, around 1517, the answer came to him, revealed to him through his close reading of the scriptures. Firstly, he found himself meditating on the agonized words of Jesus on the Cross, quoting Psalm 22:

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

And he realized that Jesus was expressing here the same sense of utter spiritual forsakenness – the same agonizing Anfechtungen – that had assailed Luther throughout his life. So totally had Christ become human, Luther concluded, that he even shared the same dread-filled alienation from God that afflicted all humanity. Luther felt himself united with Christ at the most fundamental existential level. Secondly, in what became known as the ‘Tower Experience’, Luther achieved the theological breakthrough that laid the foundation for the Reformation consciousness that was to sweep the continent:

“Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the righteousness of God and the statement that ‘the just shall live by faith’. Then I grasped that the righteousness of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise.

“The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before ‘the righteousness of God’ had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven.”

In this one flash of insight, Luther was released from his torment. This was a defining experience of metanoia: a transformative change of heart and a spiritual conversion, after which everything looks different and nothing can ever be the same. It is an event found in many religious traditions.

Immediately, Luther was convinced that the Church had lost sight of the central truth of Christianity. This was the doctrine of justification by faith alone, by which God declared a sinner righteous through the latter’s faith in Jesus Christ. As Luther later insisted in the first of the Smalcald Articlesof 1537:

“The first and chief article [of Protestantism] is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24–25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace (Eph 2:8-9), through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23–28). This is necessary to believe.”

Luther was adamant that salvation (justification) cannot be achieved actively by the sinner who strives towards God, nor can it be delivered by the Church, e.g., through the sacraments; rather, it is a free gift of a gracious God, received passively by the humble believer.

“This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law, or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us… Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).”

“This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification”, he declared elsewhere, “is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness.” It is the core of the Christian faith around which all other Christian doctrines revolve, he insisted. And it is upon this doctrine alone that the Church would stand or fall.

In this fashion, by late 1517 Luther had developed a radical new theological perspective out of an extended period of intense spiritual malaise and its resolution. And it was all based on the principle of ‘justification by faith alone’.

CONCLUSION

In one stroke Luther’s twin realizations liberated him from the massive spiritual and psychological burden that had afflicted him throughout his life. He felt himself at one with Christ at the most fundamental – existential – level, and reconciled with God through an unconquerable faith. This underpinned a certainty about his theology that rendered it impregnable, and that gave his supporters great hope and confidence as they followed Luther into an epoch-shaping battle with the Church. However, it also fuelled an arrogance and impatience that Luther’s enemies found insufferable and took as evidence that he spoke not of the true faith but of something diabolical. But above all, Luther could never retreat, because that way would separate him from Christ, alienate him from God, and deliver him back into the dread clutches of Anfechtungen. From here on, throughout his life, he never wavered from his convictions.

The doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’ had profound implications for virtually every aspect of Church theology and practice. As quickly became obvious, it was to be the theological solvent that dissolved the structure of Christian orthodoxy as it had reigned for over a 1000 years, attacking it on virtually every front, especially the sacramental system.

But it also laid the foundations of a new theology based on the principles of Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, and the ‘priesthood of all believers’. This revolutionary power would be realized, explored, and applied not only by Luther, but also by militants far more radical than he. Breathlessly, these fanatics declared war on the teachings, institutions and traditions of the Church. Although Luther hadn’t realized it yet, his insight would become the driving force of the Reformation as it tore Europe apart.

And this began with his 95 Theses on Indulgences, posted 500 years ago today.

The big question

The God question: listen to your inner voice

The Australian

12:00AM OCTOBER 28, 2017

GREG SHERIDAN

Foreign Editor

Melbourne

And what remains when disbelief is gone?

It is more rational to believe in God than to believe there is no God.
In fact, belief in God is much more rational than atheism.
The resting place of the mind, its natural equilibrium, as it were, is belief.

This is, in truth, a statement of the obvious. But it seems radical, shocking. This is because in Australia, and in Europe, many of our leading figures, certainly the loudest of them, and a substantial and growing minority of the population believe, or at least pretend to believe, in the religious faith of atheism, the faith that holds there is no God.

In subscribing to atheism they are in radical opposition to the vast majority of people on the planet today, and the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived in history. There’s our first clue.

Last week the Institute of Public Affairs published important research that showed most Aus­tralian university courses make no coherent effort to teach the main elements of Western civilisation. This is partly because Western civilisation, like most civilisation and human nature itself, rests on the knowledge of God.

Knowing and believing in God has always been entirely rational. It is not only rational, of course. To know much more about God than merely that he exists requires faith.

But faith is not, as it is frequently represented, the enemy of reason. Rather, faith is the basis of reason. Almost all of rational life is based on faith. Most often faith is not a question of what you believe but who you believe.

I have faith that I am the son of my parents. I have no real empirical evidence for it. It makes the most sense as an explanation of my life, it is the proposition that best fits with everything I know. But the main reason I believe it is faith, my regular, normal faith in my parents. So this is a faith-based belief, entirely rational, confirmed by experience, but certainly not rationally proven.

Most of our lives are lived in this way. I have faith that my car will work when I turn the key in the ignition, but I have absolutely no idea why or how. Nonetheless I am convinced that my faith is consistent with rationality, that my faith itself is rational.

Part of the crisis of belief in our society is a crisis of knowledge. Because the high points in our elite and popular culture have been colonised by a militant and intolerant atheism, our young people have been denied the fruits of thousands of years of intellectual effort on matters of faith and belief by the best minds humanity has produced. This is wickedly unfair to children.

To have a rounded sense, even intellectually, of the idea of God it is necessary to use all the human faculties — reason, spirit, intuition, emotion, conscience, memory, imagination — to name a few.

Nonetheless, you can get to a knowledge of the reality of God through reason alone. It is important to understand that atheism is also consistent with rationality. Atheism does require its own radical leap of faith, but its biggest problem on rational grounds is that it is inconsistent with the world and life as we know it. It is a hypothesis with feeble powers of prediction. But it is not altogether irrational.

Modern science has not made atheism any more or less rational. Science tells us a great deal about how, but nothing about why. It is a misuse and a misrepresentation of science to pretend that it answers the why questions. There were atheists in the ancient world. The Psalms of the Old Testament refer to people who deny the existence of God. It was always open to a person to say: the world is complex, I don’t understand how it works, but I don’t believe that God created it.

And some people did think that. It is the most insufferable condescension and unjustified vanity on our part to think of all of the rest of humanity, in the past, and beyond our little slice of the West today, as trapped in superstition, while we alone are wise, enlightened and free.

For while more than just reason is involved in faith, reason always played its part. The philosophers of ancient Greece, long before the birth of Christ, reasoned their way to God. This is most often associated with Aristotle, but it was a movement among many philosophers and poets of ancient Greece.

Their insights were integrated into Christianity in the 13th century by the greatest of the Christian philosophers and theologians, Thomas Aquinas.

Famously, Thomas provided his five ways to God through reason. Some Christians mistakenly took to referring to them as the five proofs of God. In truth, by reason alone you cannot absolutely prove God or disprove him.

Thomas was trying to understand, not to prove, though understanding often leads to belief.

First, Thomas suggested that motion had to start somewhere, that there had to be an unmoved mover.

Second, the chain of cause and effect is so long, but it too had to start somewhere; there had to be an uncaused cause.

Third, contingent beings — that is, beings who rely on some antecedent for their existence — must inevitably proceed from a being who relies on nothing for their existence, a necessary being.

Fourth, there is so much goodness in the world, it must correspond to or proceed from a self-sufficient goodness.

And fifth, the non-conscious agents in the world behave so purposefully that they imply an intelligent universal principle.

That is a crude summary of what is called Thomas’s argument from design (which bears no relation to the modern fringe theory of evolution called Intelligent Design). And it all seems pretty dry. People don’t generally come to any serious belief in God purely through this or any other rational process.

But it is important to understand that there is nothing in reason that contradicts God. That our public culture so routinely suppresses this knowledge, mocks it and teaches the reverse, demonstrates just what a strange and dangerous cultural dead end we have wandered into. Yet even in our moment, in our society, there is already a nostalgia for God.

Reasoning from first principles, of course, is not even the primary rational way you can come to a rational knowledge of God.

For it is one of the central realities of humanity, one of the deep mysteries of the human condition, that all truth involves a balance of truths. Rationality needs a context in order to be rational. In isolation from all the other human faculties, it becomes a cult of hyper-rationality. And this is not more and better rationality but distorted rationality, and often leads to irrational conclusions. For example, you may describe in exquisite, painstaking rational detail a finger pulling the trigger of a gun, which fires a bullet, which kills a child. The description can become extraordinarily detailed and rational, following an unassailable logic. You can claim as a consequence that you have rationally and exhaustively explained the death of the child.

Yet you have not explained murder. You have said nothing about the morality, or even in a larger sense the cause, of the child’s death. Rationality alone is not sufficient — necessary, yes, but not sufficient.

Consider something entirely different. In one of the most important decisions we make in life, rationality is a part, but only a part, and not always the most important part. When you choose, say, your life’s partner, the decision is partly rational but not purely or wholly rational. There is a spark of romance, an intuition of commitment, an excitement, a sense beyond the rational of adventure and deep homecoming.

These types of considerations are not irrelevant to a rational belief in God.

Let’s look at that a bit more. The subject that humanity understands best, and has the most experience of, is humanity. The proper subject for the study of man is man.

What clues does humanity itself offer us about belief in God?

All of our strongest instincts, all of our strongest desires, correspond to a strong reality. Hunger indicates food. Tiredness suggests sleep. Sexual desire implies sex.

This is true not only of physical desires. Loneliness implies friendship. The desire to behave decently implies the existence of decency.

And as long as we have known human beings, they have yearned for and believed in God. It makes you ponder, this long, consistent, human intuition, or it should do. The long hunger for God implies God.

These are just clues, they are not proofs, but they are clues that are powerfully consistent with God.

In his magnificent book, From Big Bang to Big Mystery, Brendan Purcell, among countless scintillating insights, assesses our professional or scholarly knowledge of several of the earliest human burial sites that we have found.

These date back many tens of thousands of years. Almost every one involves some ritual, and some symbolism. Many involved artefacts, or tokens, or tools buried with the dead, which paleoanthropologists believe indicate a belief in the afterlife. The tools buried with the dead are symbols of what the person would take with them to the afterlife.

There are clues and questions beyond humanity, which belief in God answers rationally but to which the faith of atheism offers no answers at all.

Why is there something rather than nothing? How come our world is so incredibly receptive to the evolution of life? It’s highly improbable statistically. What caused the big bang? Why is nature so regular from one minute to the next?

Most of these questions are not necessary or sufficient proofs of God. They are open to atheist conjecture. But cumulatively they make more sense with God.

There is a variety of sneering, intolerant and remarkably poorly informed atheism popular on TV talk shows and the like. It is faux clever but strangely old-fashioned, trotting out a venerable retinue of cliches and platitudes but demonstrating an almost complete lack of familiarity with theology or metaphysical philosophy.

This kind of atheism is associ­ated with figures such as Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, which sold three million copies. Dawkins is an eminent scientist in one field, with no particular expertise in any other field and an apparently wilful ignorance of the variety and subtlety and history of the claims and ideas of Christianity. He is a kind of atheist fundamentalist and he conjures an extreme, fundamentalist Christianity, a rhetorical straw man (unrelated to the main lines of Christianity) that he can beat down with science.

This kind of atheism is also associated with Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was in some ways a splendid journalist, brave and witty and engaged, but he was a poor philosopher, a tremendously tendentious historian and an astonishingly ill-informed theologian.

With a few other popular atheist celebrities, men such as these seek (or sought) to impose the new, and frighteningly narrow, religious orthodoxies of our day. They mount a million wild attacks on belief in God, most of them absurd. Let’s consider just two.

One is that evolutionary science has replaced God in explaining humanity.

This is nonsense. Evolutionary theory and science offer marvellous explanations of how, they offer no explanations of why. This is no challenge to belief in God. In fact, it is a fundamental point. If God brings the physical universe into being then of course he uses physical processes. Understanding the processes a bit better doesn’t bear on the questions of why, of purpose, of meaning, at all. Most scientists believe that evolutionary science is consistent with religious belief or atheism. I think they’re right.

Nonetheless, evolutionary theory poses a much bigger problem for atheism than it does for religious belief. Some atheists argue that human beings evolved a religious instinct because it enhanced their chances of survival.

There is some appeal in this proposition, and also a lot of logical problems with it. But let it pass.

Consider, however, its implication. If the rational power of the human mind is so feeble that for countless millennia it could believe in God, when this belief is a delusion for which allegedly there is no evidence at all, how can we now accept that this same mind has miraculously developed a new capability to get to the truth and to understand evolutionary theory? If the mind is shaped by evolutionary theory to irrational ends throughout history it might just as well be shaped to irrational ends when it embraces evolutionary theory. This is not what I believe but it is an inescapable implication of the Dawkins style of atheism.

If our minds and personalities and consciousness are no more than physical atoms and electric impulses, what basis do we have for believing that the mind can reliably apprehend reality at all?

The answer is that there is no basis for such belief within this atheist framework. You have to take it on faith. It is one of the many leaps of faith required in atheism.

The other frequent ground for a sneering assault on religious belief arises out of the science of the big bang itself.

That we now know so much more about the history of our planet, of our solar system, of our galaxy, leads some to the mistaken conclusion that God is superseded as an explanation.

I think rather that what all this knowledge really indicates is the majesty and generosity of God. That the physical universe we know is apparently 14 billion years old tells us nothing about who created it or why.

Dawkins and Hitchens and the others spend hundreds of pages claiming that God is impossible. Then when they admit that they cannot disprove God, they assert, with absolute dogmatic certainty, that God wouldn’t behave in a manner they deem inefficient or unsatisfactory or worse, profligate.

How would they know how God would behave?

It strikes me as absolutely characteristic of God that he would spend 14 billion years preparing a gift for human beings.

There are countless clues of God throughout our world and within humanity itself. There is the strange phenomenon of joy, the even stranger delight of humour, the inescapable intimation of meaning in beauty and music. There is the mystery of love, along with the equal mystery of our consciousness and our self-awareness. It’s a lot of clues to ignore.

There is one clue I like more than any other — the clue of the inner voice. Is there a single person alive who has not said, in some difficult moment: let it be this! don’t let it be that!

Who are we talking to at those moments?

Most of our life is spent with our inner voice, thinking things over, weighing things up, rehearsing our triumphs, dreading our failures, contemplating the people in our lives, anticipating the future, interpreting the past.

Isn’t there a sense in all this, that we are involved in a conversation?

Transgender&research

First cut is the deepest but reversal also traumatic for trans community

12:00AM October 28, 2017

The Australian

JANET ALBRECHTSEN

The transgender cause is pitched as the civil rights movement of the 21st century. It is no such thing. No legitimate civil rights movement would emasculate the rights of women or show scant regard for the welfare of children or disregard the wellbeing of the most vulnerable, people suffering con­fusion and underlying traumas.

Nor would it ignore the growing number of adults who regret ­undergoing gender-reassignment surgery. And there is nothing “civil” or “right” about a political movement that silences dissenters and punishes those who try to bring nuance to a complicated story about sex and gender.

Forget dystopian fiction. The real-world trajectory of trans­gender activism deserves scrutiny. That’s why James Caspian has had his name splashed across British newspapers. His story is a common one about the convergence of political correctness, the disproportionate power of a minority political movement and a faint-hearted university.

Caspian, a registered psychotherapist, has worked for a decade with hundreds of transgender and transsexual patients and sup­ported many through gender transition. In 2014 he enrolled at Bath Spa University to undertake research into what he was hearing from within his profession: more and more people seeking surgery to reverse their gender-reassignment surgery.

It’s true that this is not for the faint-hearted. When men undergo gender-reassignment surgery, their penis and testicles are ­removed and a vagina is medically constructed. Reversing this surgery is equally awful.

After a long application process that involved altering his ­research parameters and resubmitting his proposal, the university ethics committee rejected Caspian’s application in November last year. The committee’s report stated the research was “politically incorrect” and “the posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the university”. The ethics committee advised him to do a “less ethically complex piece of research”.

The university’s position shows how political correctness has become the coward’s way out. It stops us considering difficult ­issues, the ones that require the most deliberation. It makes us dumber. And in this case it will end up harming vulnerable people. After all, Caspian’s research idea wasn’t plucked from thin air.

In 2014 he spoke with Miroslav Djordjevic, a leading genital ­reconstructive surgeon working in Serbia and New York, who mentioned he had done seven ­reverse gender-reassignment sur­geries. All were transgender women wanting to restore their male genitalia. Djordjevic said someone needed to research this new phenomenon. Soon after, Caspian started doing preliminary work for his planned research and, over the phone from Hastings in East Sussex, he told Inquirer he was shocked by what he found.

“I found that, particularly in the US, there are increasing numbers of very young women who decided they were trans, had taken testosterone, some had breasts removed and then ­realised, typically in their early 20s if not before, that it was a mistake. This is a hugely under-researched field,” he says.

People who had reversed their gender-reassignment surgeries con­tacted Caspian but were too traumatised to speak publicly about it. Caspian recalls being contacted by a spokeswoman for a group of women who said “quite a lot of us have taken testosterone, had breasts removed and have gone back to living as women. But we don’t all reverse our surgery, which would mean breast ­implants. So we just live with the scars.”

Caspian’s determination to ­research this area also grew out of the changing profile of his own ­patients. “I certainly noticed that much younger people were coming in, and many more were natal females wanting to transition to men.” This matches Djordjevic’s experience. The surgeon told London’s The Telegraph newspaper this month that in the past 20 years the average age of his ­patients had more than halved, from 45 to 21. That means very young adults are having gender-reassignment surgery. With a push to lower the age limit for surgery to below 18, Djordjevic told The Telegraph: “I’m afraid of what will happen five to 10 years later with this person.”

Caspian is gravely concerned that transgender activism is altering the standard of care, removing the requirements for counselling to make access to treatment easier. “The World Professional ­Asso­ciation for Transgender Health, which drew up the guidelines, has become much more activist-oriented. Previously it had been more psychiatric-oriented.”

He points to the growth of gender clinics and how many operate on an affirmation basis. “So the idea is that if someone tells you they have a new gender identity, you accept that. You must not question it, and that’s being written into law and policy. If you can’t question this, if you can only ­affirm, then you don’t explore.” Caspian’s experience is that people seeking gender-transition treatment are varied and complex, and many have serious under­lying issues that are not ­explored. “My concern is for safe clinical practice and to do no harm.”

Once the legitimate pursuit of transgender rights became a broader political movement, everyone from Facebook with its 58 gender choices to political parties of all stripes have jumped on board. Caspian says Momentum, the grassroots group behind British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, is “very pro-trans and they won’t know the first thing about who walks into a gender clinic and why”.

Last week the British government proposed that the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty because “it may exclude transgender people who have given birth”. Needless to say, plenty of women have a problem with their biology being erased by transgender politics. And proposed changes to Britain’s Gender Recognition Act, again under the watch of conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, will make gender self-certifiable. That means if you say you’re a woman then legally you are. And you don’t need a doctor’s diagnosis.

Caspian told Inquirer “already some women are noticing men going into women’s change rooms, claiming they are women when there is nothing ­female about them. Women end up getting changed in a broom cupboard. The Gender Recognition Act cements this stuff.”

Last month, when some women organised to meet at a London community centre to discuss these changes, a small group of angry trans activists found out and told the venue they would disrupt the meeting. The community centre cancelled the event. Women then gathered at Hyde Park’s Speakers Corner to agree a new venue. Janice Turner, a journalist at The Times, was there. She wrote that the activists “rang every conceivable venue within a mile radius to promise mayhem”.

Turner saw Maria, a 60-year-old woman “in specs and sensible shoes” who was taking photographs, get smacked in the face by a trans activist after another activist smashed her camera. As police arrived, Turner asked a young activist if she was OK with men smacking women. “It’s not a guy, you’re a piece of shit, and I’m happy they hit her” was her reply.

Trans politics has become a textbook case of trying to silence dissent, with bogus claims that ­violence is justified. And the most innocent victims include children who are encouraged to go down a path of gender reassignment with puberty blockers, chemicals and, when they are older, gender-­reassignment surgery. Doctors who work in the field report a spike in the number of these children in the past three years.

Caspian says it’s a one-size-fits-all affirmation ideology, a case of: “Great, you’re trans, let’s get you on the pathway and if your parents object, then they are transphobic. And anyone who has any concerns is transphobic.”

In the US, research is being done into something called rapid-onset gender dysphoria. Caspian says rapid onset involves “somebody who has not displayed the more typical long pattern of feeling they are the other gender. Suddenly, and often after intensive internet exposure, they develop gender dysphoria; dysphoria meaning unhappiness. They are invariably young, minors, under 18s and young adults.”

Doctors tell us that patients of gender clinics are six times likelier to be on the autistic spectrum and vulnerable to being drawn into a social movement where trans is considered a place where they can belong. Increasingly it’s girls who hate themselves for being female, hating their bodies. Many of them have been raped and sexually ­abused and gender transition is a means to escape from the conflict they feel being female. This trauma is not the same as someone who, from a very young age, feels they are essentially male.

As Philadelphia-based clinical social worker Lisa Marchiano has written, we are told that “gender is between the ears, not the legs”. That’s true. It’s also true that there is much more going on between the ears than gender identity.

And today there is much confusion between gender identity and gender roles. There have ­always been children who don’t fit gender roles and who don’t want to conform to them.

Last year British actor Rupert Everett gave himself as a reason not to medicate children with hormone therapy. He spent his childhood wanting to be a girl, often decked out in dresses, but said: “Thank god the world of now wasn’t then because I’d be on hormones and I’d be a woman. After I was 15, I never wanted to be a woman again.”

We need to be able to discuss this serious business of gender transition by gathering research and listening to clinicians. But, as Caspian says, too many clinicians are afraid of speaking up. “One clinician told me she felt like a heretic, another said that ‘I didn’t think we were allowed to talk about this de-transitioning’. They are afraid for their careers.”

While Caspian waits for Bath Spa University to conclude its ­investigation, he is considering legal action, claiming a breach of his right to freedom of expression. It’s not easy fighting a Goliath, so he is raising funds through crowdjustice.com.

These are high stakes for the most vulnerable people, espec­ially those wrongly drawn into gender-reassignment surgery, which is why Caspian doesn’t mince his words. “I think we are going to look back on this in 20 or 30 years and say: what on earth were we doing?”