morality Archives - Page 17 of 23

Tag Archive for: morality

Live Your Truth and Other Lies | with Alisa Childers

We’ve all seen the memes that populate the internet: “live your truth”, “follow your heart”, and “authenticity is everything”. Sounds great, right?! Many come from mainstream authors and influencers with millions of followers. But what if these slogans are really just deceptions that unhinge us from reality and lead to our spiritual decline?

In this episode, the one and only Alisa Childers joins Frank to discuss her brand new book, Live Your Truth and Other Lies: Exposing Popular Deceptions That Make Us Anxious, Exhausted, and Self-Obsessed. In it, Alisa delivers an apologetic response to mainstream Progressive Christianity and the self-help industry, explaining that being the captain of our own destiny is a huge burden that we were never meant to bear because real freedom can only be found by choosing to live GOD’S TRUTH, not our own! You’ll also hear about Alisa’s life-changing experience visiting a women’s prison in Ecuador and a special offer just for our listeners if you order the book!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Alisa’s book: https://a.co/d/3Ll1qoz

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

Download Transcript

October 21, 2022/by Frank Turek

Where is the Real Mt. Sinai? | with Tim Mahoney

Podcast

Is there any evidence for the Exodus? Where is the real Mount Sinai? Our Bible maps and traditional Bible scholars think that the issue is settled, but does what they say match up with what we see?

Investigative filmmaker Timothy Mahoney has been searching for the true location of Mount Sinai for over 20 years. The Bible records that at Sinai, God made a covenant with Moses and the Israelites and gave them the Ten Commandments. While the majority of scholars continue to favor the traditional site of Jebel Musa (the mountain of Moses) in the southern Sinai Peninsula as the true location of Mount Sinai, many believe that the lack of evidence at that location gives us good reason to think again. In fact, some scholars question whether these events happened at all!

In this episode, Frank talks with Tim about his new film, ‘Patterns of Evidence: Journey to Mount Sinai: Part 1′ where Tim investigates three of the six most popular locations proposed for Mount Sinai in an effort to pinpoint the mountain’s true location. The film debuts in theaters this Monday and Tuesday (10/17-18) and is a truly interactive experience! Viewers are encouraged to put on their thinking caps and fill out their own scorecards to examine the “patterns of evidence” and come to their own conclusions on which mountain best fits the biblical criteria. You can find theater and ticket information on Tim’s website, PatternsOfEvidence.com.

Tim and Frank also discuss how the traditional location of Mt. Sinai was established, why finding the location of Midian is an important clue to finding the location of Mount Sinai, and why modern scholarship might be wary of finding the true location. Fascinating stuff!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, and catch the BONUS INTERVIEW with Tim Mahoney, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Tim’s website: https://patternsofevidence.com/
Movie + ticket information: https://bit.ly/3MEz7yI
Download scorecard: https://bit.ly/3g9yeSz

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

October 14, 2022/by Frank Turek

15 Mistakes We Make Judging God’s Morality – Part 1

Podcast

Is God nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a temperamental father? A quick scan of the Bible might alert us to some passages that on the surface seem a little unsettling. As a result, atheists and skeptics say that God is immoral because of some of the odd and disturbing things the Bible says. Some of these criticisms have even made their way into the church! So how do we respond to such accusations?

Join Frank as he begins to outline some of the false moral and theological assumptions we bring to the Bible as well as several mistakes we make when interpreting the Bible to help us see that the problem isn’t God, the problem is US!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

October 7, 2022/by Frank Turek

Why Am I A “Sinner” And Why Do I Need To Be Forgiven?

Apologetics for Parents, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Here’s a question I got recently: “It has always bothered me that I am a sinful human. None of my good efforts, leading a good life can deter sin. I was born with sin and I have to be forgiven? I don’t get that. Why am I a ‘sinner’ and why do I need to be forgiven?” This is a difficult question to answer, especially when it comes from a genuine, good-hearted person. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a “sinner.” For the most part, all of us try to be kind, nice, and loving. We’re not serial killers, or bank robbers, or child molesters, or even shady politicians. It seems unfair to call someone a sinner — especially when you also seem to be saying that they were born to be that way.

There is a unique Christian solution to this dilemma. I’d like to offer three things to keep in mind when you think about it:

Exchange the Word “Sinner” with “Rebel”

I think part of the problem is that “sin” is a religiously loaded word. Yes, we are sinners, but the word conjures images of angry preachers demeaning our character and yelling from the pulpit that we need to “repent!” It all just sounds so judgmental and archaic. But the simple fact is that every one of us has done wrong things, no matter how small we think they are. We have all lied, cheated, stolen things, or mistreated other people. We have all been angry, jealous, or unfair to someone in our lives. It’s part of being human. So, if we have all done these things, it’s not unfair to acknowledge it. It’s just an observation about our common human nature.

The problem is that every time we do one of these things, we are violating an objective standard of moral goodness that we all recognize and should be trying to live our lives by. All of us realize this But, we do these kinds of things anyway. Every single human being who has ever lived is therefore a rebel in the same way. So, exchange the word “sinner” with “rebel.” Both are accurate, but rebel sounds less judgmental.

Use a Different Standard for Comparison

Instead of comparing ourselves to the bad actors in the world and seeing ourselves as pretty decent folks, we need to measure our rebellious actions against the standard we are actually violating. That standard is the perfect moral character of God. Nobody likes being told they’re a “sinner,” but when we change our mindset to realize our rebellion is against a perfect God, it puts things in a different perspective.

Imagine an artist’s masterpiece with a tiny flaw. Someone erases an eyeball on the Mona Lisa or vandalizes it with a single drop of bright yellow paint. Yes, the flaw is tiny. But no matter how small it is, you can’t help but see it. A tiny corruption in a masterpiece ruins the whole thing.

The Unique Christian Solution

If the standard is perfection, then any violation of that standard, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, creates an infinite separation between us and that perfection. Think of it as an infinitely wide canyon where we are on one side and God is on the other. Every religion offers a solution to crossing the divide, but Christianity’s solution is unique.

There are three possible responses to bridging the canyon we create when we rebel against God’s perfect moral standard.

Pretend the bridge isn’t there. This is basically the solution of the eastern and new age religions. People, and pain, and suffering, and rebellion are all just illusions. There is no need to build a bridge across a divide that doesn’t even exist. But it does make one wonder why we all seem to recognize our rebellious behavior if it’s just an illusion.
We can build the bridge ourselves. This is the idea that we can fix the mend by doing nice things to make up for the bad stuff we’ve done. Some call this a “works-based” theology, where we “work” our way back into God’s good graces. This is the solution offered by every other theistic religion (Judaism, Islam, Mormonism etc.). The problem with that is that the gap we’re tying to mend is infinite. We can work all we want but no human being is going to be able to build a bridge across an infinitely wide chasm.
God can build the bridge for us. What makes Christianity unique is that we don’t have to build the bridge. God builds it for us. It was the reason he came to Earth. He is the bridge between God and man. His suffering and death on the cross was the infinite payment required to make up for our rebellion. His resurrection sealed the deal.

All we have to do is acknowledge the fairly obvious fact that we are all rebels when we compare ourselves to the proper standard — then let God build us a bridge.

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 2)

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Josh Klein

Previously, we looked at the dichotomy between what it means to declare homosexual activity a sin and how those who believe in Christian orthodoxy deal with it. We addressed the current cultural movement’s roots and introduced the idea of identity into the argument.

It was necessary to do this so that we can have a strong foundation from which to build the following arguments. We must first know why the liberal theologians seek to glorify homosexuality as an identity to understand why the interpretation of scripture has shifted from condemning obvious sinful behavior to condoning that very same behavior.

If you have not read part one you can do so by clicking here.

The goal of the believer should not be to convince the unbeliever of individual sins, such as homosexuality, but to seek to persuade, with the power of the Holy Spirit, that individual that they themselves are a sinner and in need of God’s saving grace.

But once this person becomes a believer, how does the conversation about homosexuality continue? If they are encouraged to keep this identity in addition to their new identity in Christ we find we have created schizophrenic believers seeking to serve the master of being defined as a homosexual as well as a child of God. This can be and is a miserable existence.

In parts two and three of this series, we will be looking at what liberal theology has sought to do to ease the pain of this transition, and in part four, I will look at offering a better way of dealing with this particular issue to those in line with Christian orthodoxy.

The liberal church has sought to assuage this tension by redefining, reinterpreting, and reengaging with scripture on the topic.

New theology is rarely good theology, and, in my opinion, such is the case in this instance.

The following are but a sampling of the arguments that are making the rounds on TikTok, Instagram, and in the liberal church concerning the LGBTQ+ movement (for the sake of length we will focus only on homosexual activity here). These interpretations are based on a worldview of new tolerance, love, and empathy and are not only damaging to the culture but, and more importantly, are damaging to the Church and to the individuals being snowed under by such sleight of hand theological teaching.

I believe this is the kind of teaching Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 18:6 when he said, “⁶but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

As we go through these arguments it is important to remember that, for the purposes of this article, we are having a discussion with supposed members of the same faith. A different standard is to be used with those outside of the faith (1 Corinthians 5:12).

The exceptions to the historical view of homosexuality in the church come under the moniker of love and acceptance and the scholarship starts with this baseline.

I will be the first to admit that many more educated than myself will come to the studious understanding of homosexuality in scripture that disagrees with my own. That said, I believe that their starting place is to find an exception where there is none. And as the saying goes: If you look hard enough for something you will probably find it. They seem to start with the presupposition that if God is love then certainly, he would not allow those he loves to have such a miserable existence as to live with an identity that is hostile to their creator.

They could be partly right. Our identity as sinners is most assuredly offensive and deeply saddening to God. He did do something about this though, he offered us a new identity in Christ rather than in Adam through Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf.

Perhaps now we understand why it is so paramount to understand our identity apart from sexuality to truly embrace the gospel. Jesus does not promise to fix us completely during this life and even guarantees that we will have trouble (1 Cor. 13:10-12; John 16:33). Simply put, this means that whatever identity we have apart from Christ must be sacrificed to be identified with and in Christ.

Liberal theology seeks to solve this problem by moving particular acts of sin to the realm of sacred and thus, to ratify the former identity as God-ordained.

The new theology of acceptance of sin does the trick of turning a thing defined as sin into something else entirely. As we will see, it narrows the scope of sexual sin so that an interpretation of scripture that includes the sexually sinful act of homosexuality or promiscuity is considered too broad.

There are also many simply naïve arguments against the idea of homosexuality as a sin that are easily debunked and explained away with some simple study of the scriptures. We will tackle the most technical objection first, and in next week’s treatment, we will move on to the rest as we close out this four-part series.

Note: When I am referring to homosexuality, I am speaking of the ACT, not the disposition or attraction. I believe that attraction is not a sin in and of itself, but lustful thoughts and sexual activities associated with homosexuality and with heterosexuality (outside of marriage) are biblically defined as sinful activities.

The Greek word translated Homosexual should be translated Pedophile therefore the Bible does not speak against same-sex relationships in the original languages.

Let’s get technical.

This statement makes an argument on translative decisions without regard to the doctrine of sin historically.

There are a few words translated as homosexual in the NASB that could be translated to mean different things. A new book that was set to be released in the summer of 2021 called Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] makes the argument that a mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (along, presumably with the other passages in scripture that translate to homosexual) is what spurred an entire generation to puritanical homophobia. There is even a documentary set to be released about the topic in late 2021.

These are likely the arguments that my friend has seen on TikTok. The question then, should be asked, is homosexuality a sin and why would the word be translated differently in 1946 than it was before?

First, we will tackle the main scripture at hand in this new book. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says this:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”

Incidentally, this same word ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) is used in 1 Timothy 1:10 as well and seems to be a word coined by Paul himself to indicate a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender.

It is a compound Greek word that combines ἄρρην (arrēn), which means “male” or “man” and κοίτη (koy’-tay) which means bed and is often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. So, the word literally means two “men” that are “in bed.”

Commonly, prior to 1946, this term had been translated as Sodomite. Those that wish to glorify homosexual intercourse as an acceptable activity for Christian believers to partake in read deeper into the word and believe that Paul is speaking of the significant and disgusting use of boy-love in the ancient Greek world. It is no secret that many of the Greeks practiced pedophilia (child-love) with young boys as grooming processes for older men.

But this argument fails in multiple respects. First, the argument indicates that the language around the word is transactional, and thus, the sexual act is clearly transactional as well (pointing to the temple prostitution of young men) but that is not the case. The tenses are clearly behavioral, it is towards people engaging in voluntary acts of sex and/or worship. The second problem is that the assumption made that arrēn means boy is simply incorrect. παῖς (pais) is the word for boy, and the word from which we get pedophilia (literally: boy-love). Yes, in Revelation many translations insert the word “child” to clarify the meaning, but this is not inherit in the word. For instance, Revelation 12:13 could (and possibly should) just as well be translated “he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male” without the word child inserted at the end.

The word that Paul coined in these two passages is correctly understood and has been understood throughout history, as a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex regardless of age.

Therefore, I am in favor of the translation reflecting the wide breadth of the word, rather than the narrow scope. Is this passage condemning homosexual sex? Yes. Is it also condemning pedophilia? Yes.

Since Paul is coining the term, it seems he is seeking to create an umbrella for a sexual act that is deemed sinful by God. Many proponents of the pederasty theory indicate that Paul could have used a different term, the problem with this suggestion is twofold. Both common Greek words for man are too generic to indicate what Paul was trying to get across. Anthropos and Anēr can both be used as generic terms for all people. Arrēn, however, cannot be.

The other problem with this theory lies within the context of the Old Testament. There is a “lost in translation” problem for many as they study the Old Testament and the New. They think Paul would have been reading the Hebrew Old Testament. And, he would have, but in his writings, Paul quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). This provides another hurdle for the pederasty theory. In the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22, we find that the term used for male is arrēn and the term used for “lie with” is koitē. It is reasonable to deduce then, that Paul is putting these two words together as a direct result of their being used in the LXX (Greek OT) translation of Leviticus 18. Which would indicate that Paul would believe his readers would be directed back to that passage. And this makes sense seeing as Paul does not explain the newly coined word but believed that his readers would simply understand what he was referencing.

The problem remains though, how to best translate this word in English.

I believe a better translation to use in the situation is Sodomite or go completely concrete with “men have sex with males.” The etymology of which stems from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis. You likely know the story, but here is a summary: God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their pride and arrogance and debased and evil culture. He sends angels to investigate and Lot (Abraham’s nephew) saves them from being ravaged by the locals sexually, he even offered his own daughters to the men of the city (which, by the way, was NOT okay with God either, but I digress) in Genesis 19.

It is at this point that many take sodomy to mean anal rape, but it is not that simple. While the original sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, the consequence of their original sin bore itself out in homosexuality and sexual depravity in general. Sodomy, then, has commonly been seen throughout history as the sexual act done between two people of the same gender.

Sodomy is a much broader and harsher term than Homosexual, and I believe it gets better at the heart of what Paul is speaking to in his letters.

However, one of the things the author of the aforementioned book does is to redefine the word sodomy to mean “sex that is not used for procreative purposes.” However, that has not been the general understanding of sodomy for generations. In fact, currently, Britannica defines Sodomy in four ways – homosexuality, anal intercourse, bestiality, and pedophilia[2].

So, if the better translation of the word in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would be Sodomite, would that indicate that homosexual behavior is deemed good in God’s eyes? An objective observer would be forced to admit, in my opinion, that it would not, but that it would simply be one of a multitude of sexual behaviors that are deemed sinful according to the nature of God’s word.

The other issue that I have with this argument is that it completely leaves out Leviticus and Romans in consideration. In fact, Romans 1:26-27 is possibly one of the clearest condemnations of homosexual sex in the New Testament.

This gets to the heart of Genesis 19 as well. Many believe that the issue with Genesis 19 was not the homosexual sex, but the implied rape that would take place. However, we find in Romans 1 that this is not entirely the case.

When a culture rejects God and refuses to worship him and him alone, he responds by giving them what they want – their depravity. Romans 1:26-27 indicates that the culmination of the original sin of rejecting God and worshipping the created rather than the creator (I was born this way so it is holy and good could be seen as worshipping the created rather than the creator) comes with both men and women exchanging the created order of sexual relationship with the internal passion and desire for each other. The word used for men in this passage is the same word Paul used to combine with a bed that is translated homosexual in current translations.

In one of his many great literary works C.S. Lewis says this, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”[3] I am not using this quote to posit that those that are homosexuals are going to Hell, but to bolster the viewpoint that Romans 1 clearly indicates that self-gratification is the line that leads to rebellion and destruction and homosexual behavior is part of this giving over of God.

This leads us next, to the more popular objections. We will tackle those next week. The reason we are spending two weeks on objections is this: It is important to establish what the truth really is in order to move forward with true compassion, grace, and mercy. The same can be said for understanding any other sinful behavior in our lives. While I will treat these objections academically, I want to take a moment at the end of this week’s article to acknowledge that academic arguments are one thing, and they are important, but dealing with people is something entirely different and of utmost importance. That is why I seek to provide a better way at the end of this four-part series. My goal is to treat the topic with tenderness, respect, and love, but to base all of this on the firm foundation of truth. Stay tuned next week for the final response to what seem to be the most popular objections to calling Homosexual activity a sin.

References

[1] http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-how-the-bible-became-anti-gay/

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16309-there-are-only-two-kinds-of-people-in-the-end

Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.

Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.

In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.

Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.

In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)

The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.

The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.

When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?

While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.

More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.

First, we’re extreme in our source of authority

The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.

In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.

This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.

When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.

And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.

Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.

It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.

For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!

When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.

But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?

Absolutely.

But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.

If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”

Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”

Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.

But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.

Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.

In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.

But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.

From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.

Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.

When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.

What Does the Common Practice Of Withholding Sex Reveal About Women?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Wintery Knight

Dennis Prager features a lot of discussions about male-female relationships on his show, particularly during the male-female hour. I think this is one of the parts of his show that I really like best because he knows what he is talking about.

He did a two-part series a while back on 1) male sexuality and 2) what women should do about it within a marriage.

Part 1 is here.

Excerpt:

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife’s refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men’s natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman’s nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways…

He then explains the 5 ways that women respond to this.

Here’s one:

You have to be kidding. That certainly isn’t my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.

And this is the common mistake that some feminist women make because they think that men are just hairy women with no feelings and desires of their own that are distincly theirs. In the past, all women understood how men are different than women, but today almost no younger feminist women do. In fact, many younger women today struggle with the idea that there is anything different about men that they need to learn. The only thing that they need to know is what makes women happy, and that it is everyone else’s job to make women happy so that women can then behave nicely (whatever that means). Younger feminist women today often think that they only need to be in touch with their own feelings – and that men and children simply have to get used to the idea that they have no right to make any demands on a woman – she has no moral obligations in a marriage.

Here’s another from the list:

You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn’t expect sex when I’m not in the mood.

I think this whole problem of feminist women not understanding men, and of demeaning male feelings and values, is very serious. In my opinion, there is a whole lot of work that needs to be done by feminism-influenced women in order to fix this problem. The best place to learn about this is in Dr. Laura’s book “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. It’s like an application form for a serious relationship. Sex is one thing, but a serious man should insist that a woman take him seriously – and take marriage and children seriously. Pre-marital sex, having fun, getting drunk, and going out, etc. are not the right foundation for a relationship that is defined by the need for mutual self-sacrifice. There is no such thing as a “feminist” marriage – marriage is not about selfishness and playing the victim.

I actually had a conversation with a Christian woman once who said that women should not be obligated to do things that they didn’t feel like doing. I asked her if men were obligated to go to work when they didn’t feel like going. She said yes, and acted as though I were crazy for asking. I just laughed, because she didn’t even see the inconsistency. Many young feminist women today just don’t understand men, and they don’t want to understand them. They just want what they want and in the quickest way possible. Understand the needs of men and children, or how feminist-inspired laws discourage men from committing to marriage and parenting, are of no interest at all.

Part 2 is here.

Excerpt:

Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.

He then explains the eight reasons.

Here’s one of them:

Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks — and she has every reason to seek it — it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.

This makes the point that many young feminist women today do not really understand that they are, in a sense, capable of changing their husband’s conduct by the way they act themselves. I think that younger feminist women seem to think that their role in the relationship is to sort of do nothing and wait for the man to serve them. But relationships take work, and they take work from both participants.

At the end of the article, Prager makes a general point about women that I think needs to be emphasized over and over and over:

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband — if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem — to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.

I think that is an excellent question to ask a woman. What does it mean to love a man? I was forwarded one amazing response from a Calvinist woman recently in which she explained several things that she wanted to do to meet a particular man’s needs and make his life easier, and what she was prepared to do now in order to show him that she really could do handle the role. I think that she said these things out of sympathy and understanding of that man, and that was very encouraging.

But I think that kind of seriousness about taking of someone else as they really are, self-sacrificially, is rare. And it makes me wonder what people think that marriage is when they get into the church and make vows that, ostensibly, will require self-sacrifice. What do women think that marriage is? What is the goal of it? What makes a marriage successful? Why do women think that men marry? What do men get out of marriage? What are the woman’s responsibilities to the man in a marriage? I think these are questions that men should ask women. And the should not be satisfied with glib answers. Men should demand that books be read, that essays be written, that skills be developed, and that the woman’s life experiences show that she has understood what will be expected from her and why.

I think that it’s a good idea for men to try to get married, but they should be careful to make sure that the woman they choose is sensitive to their needs, just as men ought to be sensitive to the needs of women.

An Evaluation of “Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking”

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Elliott Crozat

Introduction

Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking is an engaging article on an issue often confined to academic journals.[1] I am grateful for the report, mainly because of Nobis’ and Dudley’s emphasis on personhood and because I agree with them on two significant points. First, our society needs a careful and respectful examination of challenging topics rather than sloganeering and ad hominem. As Schopenhauer put it, “one wants reasons and not empty phrases or abuse.”[2] Second, at the popular level, folks on both sides of the debate have largely ignored the relevance of moral reasoning.

Four-Fold Evaluation

Notwithstanding my gratitude, the article has weaknesses. What follows is a brief evaluation of the authors’ argument, not an attempt to defend the pro-life position.

Firstly, the tone strikes me as too quick and sure. I will return to this point, but for now, I note that generally, philosophers are less sure about solutions to philosophical problems than the authors seem to be about their position on abortion. However, I grant that a tone of crisp certainty is more acceptable in popular contexts than in academia.

Secondly, the article begins in a questionable manner: “Abortion rights are under attack… The Supreme Court now has a majority of justices who identify as “pro-life,” and will surely be more receptive to these attacks on abortion rights than previous courts have been.” Note that the authors are not clear about whether they are referring to moral or legal rights. Either way, a problem arises. If the former, they are begging the question at the start since it is debatable whether persons have the moral right to perform an abortion. If the latter, then “attack” is a question-begging epithet. After all, if a legal right is morally unacceptable, it is arguably permissible to repeal that right. Labeling such efforts with the emotionally-laden “attack” presupposes that the legal right in question is ethically acceptable.

Thirdly, the authors provide two analogies to argue that abortion is morally permissible. In each, they presuppose the like-cases principle: like cases should be treated alike unless there is a morally relevant reason to treat them differently. Good start: this is a venerable moral principle going back at least to Aristotle. Nevertheless, each analogy fails because of at least one morally significant difference.

The first comparison is between abortion and organ donation. This comparison fails in two crucial respects: (i) in typical cases of organ donation, the donor consents to undergo the process, and (ii) the process occurs after the donor is brain-dead. It hardly needs to be stated that in typical cases of abortion, the fetus does not consent and is not brain-dead.

The second analogy concerns abortion and the treatment of anencephalic infants. Here, the authors miss the difference between (a) actively killing and (b) passively allowing to die. This distinction is pivotal in the euthanasia debate and proves similarly important here. Abortion is the active killing of a fetus that would otherwise naturally continue to live and develop. However, in cases of anencephalic infants such as those noted by the authors, the infant is allowed to die, supported by palliative care.

Given these analogies, the authors construct something like the following argument:

Abortion is relevantly similar to organ donation and anencephalic death.
Cases of organ donation and anencephalic death are morally permissible.
Like cases should be treated alike.
Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

The argument is an interesting application of the like-cases principle. However, since the analogies fail, the authors’ analogical reasoning is unconvincing.

Fourthly, the authors claim that fetuses during the first 12 weeks are not conscious. Perhaps they are correct, but they cannot be objectively certain. As many philosophers of mind have indicated, consciousness is a hard problem. A good way to discover if a being is conscious is to determine if it has qualia (i.e., subjective states of experience). One cannot accomplish this task with a brain scan. Hence, a reasonable concern arises that we cannot achieve certainty concerning whether a fetus has qualia. And since we lack such certainty, we should act with the utmost caution, given the moral seriousness of taking human life. The authors do not address this point.[3] Instead, they present what might strike the reader as an unjustified sense of certainty about the moral permissibility of killing fetuses during the first 12 weeks.

Moreover, the authors write that fetuses “lack consciousness-enabling brains.” But they are not lucid about what “consciousness-enabling brain” means, leaving the reader to ponder the matter. Now, there is evidence that the senses of taste and touch begin to develop around Week 8. According to Ventura and Worobey, the olfactory and gustatory systems also start to form during this period. These systems and their connections to the brain enable the fetus to develop tastes and preferences for specific flavors.[4] Touch, taste, and smell are sensations, which are states of consciousness. Preferences and other desires are also conscious states. Thus, the physical resources which support consciousness begin to develop before Week 12. Do these mechanisms enable any degree of consciousness during this period? I suggest that we do not know the answer to this question and that our ignorance indicates that we should tread carefully.

Furthermore, one is within one’s epistemic rights to doubt the authors’ claim that the present bearing of consciousness is necessary to possess the moral right to life. For example, the adult who temporarily loses consciousness because of, say, dehydration does not thereby lose this right. Instead, one might agree with Marquis that the primary concern at hand is that the fetus has a future like ours.[5] In other words, the human fetus, child, and adult share a comparable future, namely, one in which a conscious agent naturally possesses intrinsically valuable experiences. It is morally wrong to deprive a child or an adult of future experiences. Given the like-cases principle, abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of such experiences.

Conclusion

There are other concerns with the article, such as an apparent mishandling of important points about interests. But I want to end amicably. Nobis and Dudley close by stating that one should not wait to engage in moral philosophy until forced to because of a rescinded legal privilege. I wholly agree.

[1] Salon published the article on April 11, 2021. See https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/

[2] “On Suicide,” in Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R. J. Hollingdale, (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 78.

[3] They need not agree with it. But they should recognize it.

[4] “Early Influences on the Development of Food Preferences,” in Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 9, May 2013. Moreover, Andreas Keller argues that olfaction is the paradigm sensation. See Philosophy of Olfactory Perception, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

[5] See “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy 86, 4 (April 1989): 183–202.

The Christian Left: The New Referee of Morality?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

Only in the twisted ethos of today’s Christian Left is a maskless man considered a cold-hearted murderer, while an abortionist is celebrated as a heroic social justice warrior. With seemingly no regard for the scales of justice, the spiritually ‘woke’ Democratic Party is willfully bending the rules of right and wrong to favor their own ethically bankrupt agenda and to ensure it triumphs in the state — no matter the cost. Although they claim to be religiously devout, the Left ignores natural law and has abandoned the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our nation is built.

Arguments from Silence

Responding on TikTok to the question of “Isn’t the Bible against abortion,” a self-identifying “queer lady pastor” answers, “No, not really. The Bible doesn’t say much. Jesus definitely doesn’t say anything [about abortion].” Using what is referred to in philosophical and historical analysis as an argument from silence, this female TikTok pastor attempts to reject the notion that Christianity necessitates a pro-life position due to her claims that the Bible fails to mention abortion. Arguments from silence offer notoriously poor reasoning and little logical proof for her cause.

Although they claim to be religiously devout, the Left ignores natural law and has abandoned the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our nation is built.

For instance, suppose in the next Super Bowl a receiver gets behind the coverage and Tom Brady hits him in stride. As the receiver sprints toward the end zone, the beaten defender pulls out a gun and shoots him in the back five yards short of the goal line. Imagine the uproar if after the referees confer among themselves regarding a flag on the play for pass interference, the final call were presented as, “Upon further review, since nowhere in the rule book does it explicitly say that you can’t shoot a player at the five-yard line, we’re going to assume the commissioner approves of the defender’s freedom to choose. The play stands as called.”

While the rulebook might not explicitly mention that the murder of another player is against the rules, everyone in the stands possesses an innate knowledge that such behavior is not only against the rules — it’s a crime against humanity!

Obvious Sophistry

The Christian Left might claim to be very “devout,” but such reasoning demonstrates, much like the referees in the example on the field above, that they aren’t fit to determine right from wrong. It is as if they pretend not to know what the rule book says about the most important matter of the law — the protection of life — and then assume, contrary to the evidence, that God supports their egregious behavior.

This kind of reasoning is obvious sophistry.

While it’s true that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, this doesn’t at all mean that it’s permitted. Even a brief glance at the scriptures reveals that it was unthinkable to the God-fearing Hebrews to kill a child (children were a blessing from the Lord) and abortion was already prohibited by the 10 Commandments (i.e. “You shall not murder.”) Likewise, the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention felony home invasion either, but it is already prohibited by “You shall not steal.” You have to be willfully blind to think otherwise.

Self-appointed Referees

Religious conservatives understand that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens from evil. Government is not commanded to insert itself in every aspect of life or provide services that individuals normally do (the government may do those things, but that’s not its primary charge). Paul writes, government “rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Ironically, the Left, as the self-appointed referee of morality, eagerly embraces this role to punish the wrongdoer by assuming they themselves — and not scripture, natural law, or the Constitution — are able to define what is wrong and what is right. Take for instance calls from the Left recently to pressure cable providers to “punish” conservative media outlets by removing them from their platforms. Rather than protecting the unborn or defending First Amendment rights, the Left is busy silencing and fighting free speech!

Promoting Evil

With their support for government-paid abortion, the Left is actually promoting evil. After all, what could be a greater evil than murder? Rulers who don’t want to prevent a murder — and actually want to pay for it — are failing in their primary mission. That’s why being pro-life is a necessary, but not the only, condition for our vote. Being pro-life doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a ruler, but being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies them.

Likewise, religious progressives who elevate debatable and less critical issues to supreme importance, while simultaneously offering support of abortion, stand as co-conspirators in the deaths of the unborn. To the Christian Left, climate change trumps abortion, as if allowing the possibility of the river next to the stadium rising two inches a hundred years from now is a graver sin than allowing 800,000 babies to be murdered this year. Jesus would charge them, like he did the politicians of his day, with “neglecting the more important matters of the law.”

The Christian Left is Unleashing Chaos

The job of a good referee is not to affect the outcome of the game one way or the other, but to ensure the game is played fairly by the established rules. The rules are in place to allow fair competition among the players while protecting the players from unnecessary harm. One could imagine what would happen to the game of football if out-of-bounds were overlooked so that fans could walk on and off the field as pleased; if there were quotas on players based on sex and race; and if the players were fined based upon the penalties of their predecessors. It would be chaos. Yet, this is exactly what the left is doing to this country.

All of this is being sold by the Christian Left as some kind of biblical social justice. There is nothing just or biblical about abortion (the same could be said about illegal immigration and the redistribution of wealth). While we cannot question their good intentions, there is no doubt about their inevitable bad results.

If our nation hopes to recapture even a semblance of true justice, as well as our founding freedoms, we must reject the empty ethics of the Left, and revisit the spiritual and ethical guidelines found within our Judeo-Christian roots and the Constitution.

Editor’s note: Watch Frank Turek discuss these issues with Randy Robison on LIFE Today Live.

How Should Christians Think About The Transgender Movement?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we’re asking the question: How should Christians think about the Transgender Movement? In many respects, this is a difficult question to answer because the movement is constantly in flux and definitions frequently change. Be that as it may, Christians must do their best to engage Transgenderism from a biblical worldview.

God’s Good Creation

From the outset, we must acknowledge that Transgenderism was not part of God’s pre-fallen creation. Not only did God create both male and female as a complementary pair, his assessment of his creation was that “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both male and female, image-bearers of God, in perfect fellowship with God and each other.

In addition to their harmony with God and each other, both man and woman had perfect harmony with their bodies. Genesis 2:25 tells us that “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” No disgust or confusion existed in humanity’s gender identity. They were comfortable in their own skin. So much so, that nudity was an afterthought.

Corruption Of Sin

Sadly, paradise was lost. Man and woman chose to usurp the lordship of God and declare themselves to be their own lords. Instead of submitting to God’s good direction, they carved out a new one for themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing the same thing ever since — defying God’s authority and calling our own shots.

Immediately after the first humans sinned, the way they interacted with the world shifted dramatically. Genesis 3:7 reports this shift: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Before the fall, naked and unashamed. After the fall, bodily shame.

They experienced this shame, not simply because their bodies began a long journey of decay, but because sin ransacked their minds. Jeremiah says it most succinctly, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). As a result, we can’t always trust our thoughts and feelings because sin has corrupted them.

At root, this is the underlying cause of the Transgender movement. We are a people who have been so radically affected by sin’s corruption, that we’ve become uncomfortable with our own bodies. This is especially the case for Transgender individuals who experience gender dysphoria.

Definitions

In order to think biblically about the Transgender Movement, we must have a basic understanding of the following definitions:1

Sex — Refers to one’s biological makeup and composition (XX or XY chromosome).

Gender Identity — A person’s self-perception of whether they are male or female (or something else entirely).

Gender Dysphoria — A mismatch between the gender that matched one’s biological sex and the gender one feels oneself to be.

Cisgender — A term used to refer to people who have a match between their biological sex and their personal gender identity.

Transgender — A term used to refer to individuals who identify or express a gender identity that does not match their biological sex.

The Perfect Storm

In order for Transgenderism to gain a footing in western culture, several factors had to coalesce to provide the proper soil for the movement to sprout.2 The first factor is the culture’s embrace of relativism. Relativism is the view that objective truth does not exist. Instead, everyone experiences their own individual truth. Hence, phrases such as “you can’t tell me what to do” or “you live your truth and I’ll live mine” pervade the cultural landscape.

Another factor is our post-Christian society. It’s no surprise that our culture is running away from its Christian roots at a rapid pace. While residual effects still linger, the dominating forces our our culture — the university, the media, and the entertainment industry — are increasingly leading us away from Christianity’s influence.

A third factor is our embrace of the sexual revolution. With the rise of no-fault divorce, the pill, and the separation of sex from procreation in general, western culture has embraced the mantra “if it feels good, do it.” That is to say, no sexual boundaries exist anymore except a consenting partner.

And fourth, a gnostic view of reality undergirds the Transgender Movement. The ancient heresy of gnosticism taught that the physical world is evil, while only the spiritual is good. In the same way, Transgenderism has embraced the idea that one’s feelings ought to trump one’s biology.

The combination of these various factors has provided the perfect storm for the rise of the Transgender Movement.

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

I recently read an op-ed in the New York Times titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy.” The author, Andrea Long Chu begins with a shocking admission:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to.

Notice how Chu admits that the surgery won’t actually reassign sex. Chu’s body will regard the vagina as a mere wound which will require ongoing treatment. That is to say, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones can do is provide cosmetic changes. They cannot change one’s chromosomes. People who undergo sex reassignment surgery, therefore, do not become the opposite sex. They simply masculinize or feminize themselves.

While the activists want to paint a beautiful picture of the Transgender Movement, the reality is much, much darker. Chu goes on to state in the article, “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones. . . . Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began my transition.” Statements like these ought to grieve us. People like Chu deal with deep emotional pain and they deserve our most sincere compassion. Gender dysphoria is no joke, and we ought not treat it lightly. What this article makes clear, though, is that transitioning away from one’s biological gender is not the solution to one’s problems. In fact, it often makes one feel worse.

Chu writes, “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.” Sadly, this is a reality for many Transgender people. Studies show, that no matter how accepting one’s culture is, risk of suicide remains astronomically high for those who undergo sex reassignment surgery.

I don’t mention any of these points lightly. I’m grieved over the pain many experience. But if there’s anything that we can learn from stories like Chu’s, it’s that embracing Transgenderism is not the solution.

Ramifications

While the Transgender Movement touts its desire to make sure everyone gets fair treatment, the reality is that the movement mows down anyone in its path. Consider Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker, former director of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and its Gender Identity Clinic (GIC). While Zucker himself was not opposed to the Transgender Movement, activists pushed for his termination because he was insufficiently pro-trans. His sin? He believed that we should be cautious when transitioning children. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) pressured the Canadian government into shutting down his practice despite that fact that his patients gave him raving reviews.3

Of course, this raises this issue of children who experience gender dysphoria. Unfortunately, activists push for kids to transition despite the fact that 80-95% of all kids who experience gender dysphoria grow out it.4 As part of the treatment plan, they urge puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Once kids reach the age of eighteen, then they can get sex-reassignment surgery if they like. But in what world with any moral decency is it appropriate to manipulate children’s physiology like this, not to mention their emotional state?

Bathrooms and locker rooms have also been front and center of this conversation. While the issue is probably most significant for schools, the debate went national with the North Carolina bathroom bill which stated that Transgender individuals had to have their birth certificate changed to their new preferred gender before they were allowed to use the opposite bathroom. This led to a massive outcry by cultural elites. PayPal terminated their expansion plans in North Carolina over this human rights violation. Of course, they kept their international headquarters in Singapore where private, homosexual sex will get you a two-year prison sentence.

Sports is another area affected by the Transgender Movement. Recently, Laurel Hubbard, formerly known as Gavin, won two gold medals in weightlifting at the Pacific Games. In Texas, Mack Beggs won her second straight wrestling state championship. Mack is biologically female, but transitioned to a male a few years ago by receiving testosterone injections. Mack went 36-0 in her final season. Controversies also surround Transgender track and field athletes because of their unfair advantage over biological females. And then there’s a Transgender UFC fighter who cracked an opponent’s skull and sent her to the hospital to receive treatment for severe head injuries.

In the end, the Transgender Movement isn’t all about fair and equal treatment. It holds no prisoners for anyone who opposes it. Doctors, employers, and politicians must toe the line lest they encounter the wrath of the activists. But perhaps the biggest victims of the movement are girls and women. Not only has their privacy been violated by allowing biological males to share locker rooms with them, they are also put at unfair advantages athletically having to compete against bigger, faster, stronger men.

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Deuteronomy 22:5 states, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” At root, the problem is a rejection of God’s creative design. God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27), and the very small number of intersex cases doesn’t undermine that.5

The command in Deuteronomy 22:5 couldn’t be any clearer. Don’t reject God’s biological design for you by pretending to be something you are not. Just like Adam and Eve, Transgenderism is a rejection of God’s lordship over us. It shakes its fist back at God and says “don’t tell me what to do!”

This rejection only comes by a willful suppression of the truth. Even though God has revealed his plans for sex in nature, people have chosen to go in a different direction. We read in Romans 1:24-25, “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Concluding Thoughts

Gender dysphoria is a real issue that has caused untold thousands deep emotional distress. As Christians, we should be sympathetic towards these unique struggles and provide support and encouragement with a spirit of grace. In my next post, I will go a bit further into this by asking: How should Christians lovingly engage those with same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria?

Tag Archive for: morality

Exchange the Word “Sinner” with “Rebel”

Use a Different Standard for Comparison

The Unique Christian Solution

Recommended resources related to the topic:

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Four-Fold Evaluation

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Arguments from Silence

Obvious Sophistry

Self-appointed Referees

Promoting Evil

The Christian Left is Unleashing Chaos

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God’s Good Creation

Corruption Of Sin

Definitions

The Perfect Storm

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

Ramifications

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic: