Reasons to Vote "No" on Pro-Abortion Amendments

In Florida and other states, citizens are being given the opportunity to exercise a more direct form of our authority by voting on constitutional amendments. Amendment 4, in Florida, is asking us to directly require that the murder of unborn children be considered a legal right. Thus, we, as Christians, must vote "no" and should try to persuade those in our circles to do the same. 

Three Reasons to Vote "No" on Pro-abortion Amendments

Reason 1: It grants a legal right to kill one's own child as long as it happens before he or she makes it out of the womb. 

1. From the moment of conception, there is a new human person, made in the image of God. The only difference between that person and you is that he or she is smaller and in the womb. The words "embryo" and "fetus" should not be used to dehumanize this small, vulnerable person. Those are simply levels of development. You are an adult; you were once a teenager, a child, a toddler, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. 

2. We all know that the baby in the womb is a human person. That is why we celebrate when a friend tells us she is pregnant. It is unreasonable to believe that if she did not want to be pregnant that this same entity in the womb has now magically changed into something and is no longer someone. Such a change is not based on science or reason. It is double-speak aimed at redefining reality. 

3. Thus, abortion is the intentional taking of another person's life without justification (i.e., murder).

Reason 2: We are directly approving or disapproving of the murder of unborn children. God will hold us accountable.

1. If we approve such an amendment, we have set ourselves against God. 

Psalm 94:20-21 
Can wicked rulers be allied with you,
    those who frame injustice by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous
    and condemn the innocent to death.

2. We have an obligation to use our God-given position to protect those being oppressed by violence

Proverbs 24:10-12
 If you faint in the day of adversity,
    your strength is small.
Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
    hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,
    and will he not repay man according to his work?

Reason 3: Florida's Amendment 4 is intentionally ambiguous in order to not sound as radical as it is (this is likely true of proposed amendments in other states too).

1. See below from

2. This amendment will invalidate virtually all pro-life laws that we currently have and it will be impossible to have any restrictions on abortion. 

Reason 4: It is a lie to claim we need this amendment to keep women from dying from medical emergencies during pregnancy.

1. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, the baby will die no matter what. If untreated, she will die too. The procedure to save her life is not an abortion, and it is legal. An abortion is one in which the medical procedure is aimed at the destruction of the unborn person; it is considered a successful procedure when the baby is dead. In cases like an ectopic pregnancy, the surgery is successful and aimed at saving the life of the women. A sad outcome is that the baby will not survive. Surgeries for ectopic pregnancies are legal in every state in the US.

2. In the case of a miscarriage, the baby has already died. The procedure to remove his or her body from the womb is not an abortion, and it is legal in every state in the US.

3. To argue that many women will die from getting back-alley abortions is false and morally foolish. It is false because many will not resort to back-alley abortions. It is morally foolish because, as we have established, the baby is a human person. So, this argument is saying, "We must not outlaw murder lest someone trying to commit murder might die in the process of breaking our law against murder." 

A Thought Experiment

To close this out, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you could travel back in time to when you were in your mother's womb. And let's say that she is in a difficult circumstance and is considering an abortion. Would you want her to have the right to dispose of you to ease her own burden? If not, then why would you want to pass an amendment requiring that there should be no restriction on abortions for others? 

Celebrating Dobbs. Pressing the Case for Life.

Dobbs, June 24, 2022.

We will remember that name and date for a long time. In the Dobbs case, the Supreme Court corrected the grave and unconstitutional injustice of legislating abortion from the bench. On June 24, 2022, the Court returned the issue to the people and our elected representatives. 

This means that Dobbs is something we must celebrate. 

As those who believe God is the source of all morality, we must celebrate what he says is good and right. God has made every person (regardless of his or her size, location, level of development, or degree of dependency) in his image. Thus, we must celebrate laws that protect innocent life and rulings like Dobbs. The Dobbs case now allows us to argue for such laws without them being immediately overruled.  

This means that Dobbs is not the end. It is the beginning. 

It is like D-day in WWII. It opened up the battlefront and allied advance. But, it was not VE-day that marked the end of the war. Victory required much more fighting. So, we must now engage even more than ever in persuading our neighbors, ministering to those contemplating abortion, and calling on our legislators to pass laws to protect the most vulnerable class of people. We have been doing that, and now we engage in it with greater urgency because there is greater opportunity. 

Here are a few resources that I encourage you to take advantage of (they are free).

• Scott Klusendorf's book The Case for Life (note there are many other articles and resources available at that link too). 
• Scott Klusendor's Article "How to Defend Your Prolife Views in 5 Minutes" 
• RC Sproul's book Abortion: A rational look at an emotional issue

If you have any questions that your friends are asking that you'd like answers to, email me at ben@gcot.org. 

Are You Ready to Make the Case for Life?

With the intentional and subversive leak of the draft opinion of the Supreme Court on Dobb's case, abortion is being talked about a lot in the public sphere. I want to encourage you to be ready to "Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy" (Prov. 31:8-9). 

Here are three articles that will only take you five minutes to read and help you speak the truth for this class of vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves.

We Know They Are Killing Children — All of Us Know by John Piper

How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less by Scott Klusendorg

9 Myths about Abortion Rights and Roe v. Wade by Kevin DeYoung

"We Live in Confusing Times" - Illustrating the World's Confusion on Sex and Gender

 Kevin DeYoung illustrates how confused our culture is in a helpful article at the World Opinions. It is entitled "We Live in Confusing Times: Progressives can’t keep their story straight on sex and gender." It is worth the few minutes it takes to read. 

The Beauty of The Gender Binary

In the first post in this series, I noted that philosophers have long noted the three categories of truth, goodness, and beauty. Every person longs for what is true, good, and beautiful because God has implanted it in us. Furthermore, those three are wed in an indissoluble union. If something is not true, then it is not good. If it is not good, then it is not objectively beautiful. 

The question we have examined is whether the gender binary or transgender view of humanity accords with the truth and goodness. We have found that understanding humans as immutably male or female (and the corresponding gender) is true and therefore good. Today, I will briefly discuss the beauty of God's design.. 

Objective Beauty

“Beauty . . . awakens a longing within us for a world where everything is as it should be, where everything fits together in the right way.”[1]  Ultimately, beauty is objective because God designed the world and gives it the template for beauty. Thus, “beauty emerges when the material and spiritual creation is shaped according to the divine design.”[2] 

This argument is obviously based on the previous two issues of truth and goodness. If one disagrees with the above assessment (i.e., that the gender binary accords with what is true and good), it is unlikely that the binary will appear beautiful. For those that have eyes to see, however, it is lovely. 

The Gender Binary is Beautiful

The binary is beautiful because it cultivates a budding and flowering process in humanity. As Anthony Esolen observes, “The boyishness of the boy is to come to flowering in manhood and fatherhood. The girlishness of the girl is to come to flowering in womanhood and motherhood. That is what the sexes are for. We want no longer to deny reality. We want to work in harmony with it.”[3] The binary is the rich soil that produces wonderful flowers in life.

On the other hand, transgenderism is like an orchestra in which there is no composer or music to ensure everyone is on the same page. The musicians show up with instruments they have never played before, and some even show up with instruments that they made with no expertise. These musicians then play what they want when they want. Such self-determination and lack of design can only result in a cacophony. It leaves nothing to enjoy or dance to. 

The gender binary, however, is beautiful in the same way that an orchestra makes a wonderful tune. There are certain musical realities and defined roles that provide structure to what is going on. The composer expresses creativity in a way that highlights harmony. The musicians each fill their roles and play in ways that fit the musical design of the composer. The music produced prompts joy within those who experience it. The gender binary is written into reality by God and performed in the lives of people. It gives people a beautiful song to dance to.

---

[1] Gould, Cultural Apologetics, 104.

[2] Wainwright, 24.

[3] Anthony Esolen, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2017), 96.

The Gender Binary is Good Because It is God's Design

We have been looking at the goodness of the fact that God has made two genders. By "goodness," we are indicating that it lines up with what is right and, therefore, leads to human flourishing. Today, we will finish talking about the goodness of gender by looking at how it fits God's design for humanity. 

Relating to God's Design for Humanity

God created the binary of male and female and said that his design was “very good” (Gen 1:31). God’s design also indicates that one of the main purposes for this binary is to provide complementary roles in which men and women work together to accomplish what God has given humanity to do. The binary is good because it enables men and women to marry, produce offspring, and employ complementary giftings as they exercise dominion over the creation (whether they are married or not). 

God created humanity to embody and image his benevolent rule of the created order (see Genesis 1). Yet, his design was for a man and a woman to represent him together. Thus, the design that the wise creator implanted in the world was two complementary sexes and corresponding genders which, together, display his character and rule over creation. God could have designed many different forms of gender. He could have designed just one. Instead, he created two that are equally human and complementary to one another (that is their roles are distinct and work together to accomplish God's purposes).  

We will look more at the flourishing that the binary produces in the next posts when we look at the beauty of God designing two genders. 

Affirming the Gender Binary is a Good Gift for Kids

Many proponents of transgender ideology continue to argue that children should not be raised as the gender that corresponds to their sex. In the transgender view, gender is not something decided for a person, but something a person decides for himself. In this view, then, we are forcing something on children by treating them as a boy or girl. But is that the case? Or is training a child to live as a boy or girl a recognition of reality (truth) that proves to be a gracious gift that God has given us (good)?

“In a culture where transgender identities are not only affirmed but celebrated, everyone will be compelled to construct their own gender identity, unaided by a common understanding of sex differences and why they matter.”[1] This “self-making” principle of transgenderism will prove oppressive to children. It will not help them find their place in the world. To illustrate this, imagine a person born into a world where transgenderism and the requirement to self-identify were taken at full face value. The ultrasound technician and the doctor could not tell the parents anything about their child’s gender (though, ironically, the child could only come into existence because a man and woman were involved at some point). The parents could not “impose” any gender on their child either. When identity is only a self-determined psychological category, the only way forward is to let the child decide. This “places a huge responsibility on the shoulders of the child (‘Only you can decide who you are . . . not even your own body can give any help here’).”[2] In practice, however, it might be that others are quite willing to shape the child’s view of themselves by pushing a transgender identity on them. Is it good to decide for a child, or even to let the child decide, to go on a sex-reassignment quest? [3]

Despite our culture's messaging, we cannot be anything we want to be. Such a notion is not true. It is not freeing to believe something that is contrary to reality. Rather, embracing reality and living in accord with it provides true freedom. It's like a train. A train is not freer by jumping off the tracks. It is free when it operates according to its design. The same is true of children (and all of us). Recognizing that the gender binary is true is a good gift for parents to give to their son or daughter. To muddy the waters of what is obvious is not good. It is confusing at best and damaging at worst. Children gain stability and freedom when we affirm the goodness of their boyness or girlness.


------------------------------------

[1] Ryan T. Anderson “Neither Androgyny nor Stereotypes: Sex Differences and the Difference They Make.” Texas Review of Law & Politics 24, no. 1 (Fall 2019): 262.

[2] Carl R. Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 377-378.

[3] A major hospital in Sweden has announced it will stop giving puberty-blocking drugs to minors (see https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/05/major-swedish-hospital-stops-prescribing-puberty-blockers-hormone-treatments-for-children/). In addition, a UK court ruled that children under 16 likely cannot give informed consent to such treatments (see https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148). That is an understatement, but at least it was the right decision.

The Gender Binary is Good for Relating to Others

In this series, I am looking at the truth, goodness, and beauty of God's design of men and women (the gender binary). I began looking at the goodness of the binary. In the last post, we saw that it is good for a person to seek to bring feelings in line with who they are made to be (biologically). In other words, recognizing that one cannot change his or her God-given gender or sex is a good way to relate to one's self. Today, I will look at how it is also good for how one relates to others in society. 

Relating to Others 

Transgenderism is based on a worldview of radical individualism. The individual determines personal reality when it comes to his or her sex and gender. Such thinking represents a hyper-individualism that is anti-social to the extreme. It is anti-social because gender is a core reality that affects human interactions. It is one of the main things that allow people to know how to properly relate to one another. 

According to the logic of transgenderism, “you can choose to change your gender identity as often as you change your clothes.”1  Not every person who identifies as transgender changes their identity frequently, but the logic requires that it is possible. If that is the case, then how can anyone know how to relate to others? There is no social stability. Furthermore, one would always have to be afraid of “getting it wrong” and offending the transgender person because the outward appearance offers no evidence of the person's sex or gender. 

What makes this so anti-social is that it is all based on a person’s feelings and ignores the reality that is visible to others. If physical gender markers mean nothing and self-identification means everything, then the terrain of personal interaction is always subject to capriciousness. Capriciousness does not make for thriving human relationships. 

Contrast this with the stability of the gender binary. A person’s physical appearance matches his or her sex and gender. Relationships are not based on one person forcing an invisible narrative on all those around him or her.2 Instead, relationships are defined by what is evident to all and unchanging. The gender binary recognizes individual uniqueness (not every man or woman has the exact same way of expressing themselves), but it does not give way to radical individualism. This provides clarity and stability, which leads to relational harmony. That is good for relationships. 

1. Allan Metcalf, "What's your pgp?" Lingua Franca (A blog of the Chronicle of Higher Education, September 2, 2014 http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/09/02/whats-your-pgp/.

2. This is not to deny that the person might be experience very complicated feelings. It is not my intent to minimize this experience by stating the facts. I do believe that compassion requires truth-telling though. 

Is "Sex-Reassignment" Surgery Good?

 In the last post, I established that everyone (except for a nihilist) believes that there is such a thing as "good" and "right." Now, we will look at whether the gender binary is the good and right way to relate to self, others, and one’s telos (i.e., the purpose for which God made us). In this post, we'll look at whether "sex-reassignment" is good and right. 

Is "Sex-Reassignment" Surgery (or altering the body) Good?

People experiencing gender dysphoria have trouble aligning their psychological gender with their biological sex. In a fallen world, it is not surprising to find suffering in which some people experience feelings of alienation from their own bodies. 

The question is, What is the good and right thing to do in the face of such suffering? It seems as though seeking to align the person’s psychological and physical aspects is correct, but which one should be reoriented? The transgender viewpoint would say so-called sex-reassignment surgery is one way to handle it (thus bringing the body in line with inner feelings). The binary viewpoint argues that the internal feelings should be addressed to bring them closer to physical reality.

When confusion exists in the mind and body is it good to alter the body? Perhaps a parallel question would help. “Would it be kind to tell someone suffering from anorexia that their self-perception of being overweight is correct simply because that is how they perceive themselves?”[1] Would the course of treatment be to have them starve themselves to shave off the psychological perception of being overweight?

In a recent study on “Gaining ‘The Quarantine 15’: Perceived Versus Observed Weight Changes in College Students in the Wake of COVID-19,” psychologist Pamala Keel noted that while many perceived they added pounds due to the quarantine, the objective measurements showed that most did not. What was her counsel? “Keel recommended people use objective measures instead of subjective feelings to evaluate the effects of the pandemic on their weight.”[2] If seeking to align a person’s perception with reality is good in terms of treating eating disorders, surely the same is true with the issue of gender dysphoria. 

The gender binary is good because it helps people rightly relate to themselves by affirming what is objectively true about them. Though feelings of dysphoria might not disappear this side of heaven, affirming objective reality is the only way to direct a person towards what is ultimately good for them and right according to God’s design. In other words, it is the only path to true flourishing. The same cannot be said of affirming transgenderism, which produces “pain, uncertainty, and [an] endless search for holistic personhood.”[3]  

---

[1] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 72.

[2] “FSU Researchers Find the ‘Quarantine 15’ Weight Gain Might Just be in Your Head,” https://news.fsu.edu/news/2020/12/16/fsu-researchers-find-the-quarantine-15-weight-gain-might-just-be-in-your-head/

[3] Andrew T. Walker, “HBO’s Transhood Makes the Argument Against Transgenderism,” https://cbmw.org/2020/11/25/hbos-transhood-makes-the-argument-against-transgenderism/

The Gender Binary is Good: Is There Such a Thing as "Goodness"?

We have looked at "truth" of the gender binary (Scientific Data and Reason). Now it is time to ask whether it is good. In this post, I will give some introductory thoughts on the notion of goodness. Then, in the next posts, I will begin to demonstrate why the binary of the two sexes is good.

Is There Such a Thing as "Goodness"?

Goodness corresponds to what is right. “The good life is a flourishing life, a life rightly ordered with respect to self, others, and our end.”[1]  In a world created by the triune God, “goodness is achieved when personal creatures live and act according to their Creator’s character and purpose for them.”[2] 

Before looking at whether the gender binary is right and leads to a flourishing life, it is important to address whether there is such a thing as objective morality. The postmodern view that undergirds transgenderism claims that there is no such thing as objective righteousness. However, those who hold that view are quick to claim that transgenderism is right and leads to flourishing and that the gender binary view does the opposite. This proves that they actually do believe in objective goodness. As C.S. Lewis put it,

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures the two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to the real Right than others.[3]

So, no one, except for a nihilist, truly doubts that goodness exists objectively.[4] People often disagree over what constitutes "the good," but they believe it does exist. 

Now the question is whether the gender binary is the good and right way to relate to self, others, and one’s telos (i.e., the purpose for which God made us). We will take up that question in the next several posts. 

---

[1] Gould, Cultural Apologetics, 148.

[2] Wainwright, 24.

[3] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 25.

[4] A nihilist is someone who believes there is truly no such thing as right and wrong. Thus, a true nihilist (of which there are almost none) would believe that helping an old lady across the street is the same as shooting her. Neither act is better or worse. All acts are ultimately meaningless for the nihilist.

What is True about Gender? Applying Reason

Having laid out the empirical data that proves a sexual binary in the last post, it is important to now consider if it is rational to conclude that there is a gender binary. Before answering that, it will prove helpful to distinguish between sex, gender, and gender identity. “Sex is biological, recognized in the observable world; gender is sociological, recognized in the perceptions of masculinity and femininity in human society; and gender identity is psychological, recognized as an individual’s personal interaction with the observable world within human society.”[1] 

Is it rational for a person who is a biological man (sex) to think that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body (gender identity) because different cultures have different views of what is masculine or feminine (gender)? Ultimately, the issue is whether it is rational for people to make their “inner psychological convictions absolutely decisive for who they are.”[2]

This subjective notion of truth and reality is only possible in a postmodern worldview. Postmodernism claims that “reality is not an objective fact or a comprehensive truth, but a set of socially constructed ideas and social systems.”[3]  In such a system, gender is merely a social construct that can be reconstructed according to whether a person feels connected to his or her biological sex or not. Is that view rational? The answer is “No” for at least two reasons.  

First, while gender is a sociological and cultural category, it is not unrelated to the biological reality of sex. The two are integrally intertwined. Every culture may view expressions of masculinity and femininity slightly differently (such as the masculinity of wearing a kilt in Scotland versus the femininity of wearing a skirt in America). However, every culture has a concept of gender that is fundamentally tied to the notion that there is a binary—men dress like men and women dress like women. “Gender properly understood is a social manifestation of human nature, springing forth from biological realities. . . . Gender is socially shaped, but it is not a mere social construct. It originates in biology.”[4]

Second, applying the postmodern logic of transgenderism to other areas of life demonstrates a serious lack of coherence. Reality cannot be determined based on a person’s psychological experience or desires. An extended quote from Carl Trueman illustrates the point:

I might truly desire to be Marie Antoinette, queen of France—indeed, I might happily decide to self-identify as such—but my body is male, has a genetic code provided by my English parents, is physically located in Pennsylvania, and exists chronologically in the twenty-first century. Being Marie Antoinette is therefore not a viable option for me. My body, not my psychology, has the last word on whether I am the last queen of France in the eighteenth century.[5]

The incoherence of transgenderism’s logic is further illuminated by a legal case in which a Dutch man asked a court to change his birth certificate to make him 49 years old rather than 69 years old (his biological age). “He claimed he did not feel 69 and said his request was consistent with other forms of personal transformation gaining acceptance around the world, such as the right to change name or gender.”[6] The court rejected his argument for pragmatic reasons. However, it is obvious that the unreasonable view of reality is the issue.

The foundation that transgenderism is built upon is shaky ground. Where does one draw the line? What if a 50-year-old man wanted to identify as a high school student and enroll in elementary school? What if a six-foot-tall white man wanted to identify as a five-foot-tall black woman?  

Summary: The Gender Binary Accords with Truth

In summary, the gender binary is established by empirical data and reason. In other words, it accords with truth. It is the reality set by God who created humanity as male and female (Genesis 1:27). The transgender position can only find support by locating truth decisively in psychological experience. Such a view is not in line with reality or tenable. Now it is time to turn to examine the issue of gender in light of goodness.

---

[1] Jonathan Parnell, “Being a Man and Acting Like One” in Designed for Joy: How the Gospel Impacts Men and Women, Identity and Practice, ed. By Jonathan Parnell and Owen Strachan, 27.

[2] Trueman, 23.

[3] Mohler, We Cannot be Silent, 71.

[4] Neither Androgyny nor Stereotypes, 215. Emphasis added.

[5] Trueman 165. 

[6] “Dutch court rejects man’s request to be 20 years younger” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/dutch-court-rejects-emile-ratelband-request-20-years-younger

What is True about Gender? The Scientific Data

 In the last post, I began a series on the truth, goodness, and beauty of the gender binary. Today, I continue the series by starting to look at the issue of truth. Today's post will examine facts. The next post will look at rationality. 

Truth and the Question of Gender

Truth is that which accords with reality. In scientific inquiry, truth is what accords with physical reality. In rational inquiry, truth is what accords with logical reality. Ultimately, in a universe created by the triune God, “truth is found when created reality appears in the light of its Creator and his disposition of it.”[1] Does the gender binary accord with truth?

Those who hold to the view that the gender binary is reality are now labeled as “transphobic.” This ad hominem attack aims to make the binary position seem irrational at best and bigoted at worst. But is that the case? Or is there truth to the binary so that the issue is one of what is true and rational rather than an irrational phobia? This post seeks to use empirical data to demonstrate that the gender binary is the true understanding of reality. The next post will build on this and use reason to prove it. 

Scientific Data

It is becoming common for transgender idealogues to speak of “sex assigned at birth.” The statement implies that sex is merely something foisted upon an individual by a doctor who declares, “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl.” Embryologists, however, tell a different story based on empirical data. These doctors are not confused about how many sexes exist or the fact that sex is present at conception via a biological process. Christians add that this biological process is designed by God so that he assigns a person the identity of male or female.

At the moment of conception, the newly formed person is a male or female.  The chromosomes carried by the sperm determine the sex. An “X” carrying sperm from the male unites with an ovum from the female and generates a female, while a “Y” carrying sperm generates a male.[2] Thus, a person’s chromosomes determine his or her sex.

The genetic information normally determines the development of the body so that it manifests male or female sexual systems. “In biology, an organism is male or female if it is structured to perform one of the respective roles in reproduction.”[3] Thus, “the fundamental conceptual distinction between a male and a female is the organism’s organization for sexual reproduction” which provides “the only coherent way to classify the two sexes.”[4]

It is interesting to note that such a claim is universally accepted when it comes to other species. As Ryan Anderson notes, “No one finds it particularly difficult—let alone controversial—to identify male and female members of the bovine species or the canine species. Farmers and breeders rely on this easy distinction for their livelihoods. It’s only recently, and only in the human species, that the very concept of sex has become convoluted, and controversial.”^[5]  

What about the Rare Cases of Physical Abnormalities in Individuals? 

That being said, “disorders of sexual development,” which rarely occur, “can result in ambiguous external genitalia, a mismatch between internal and external reproductive organs, the incomplete development of reproductive organs, and the formation of two sets of sex organs.”[6] Transgender proponents seize on this and claim that it demonstrates the existence of multiple and fluid genders (rather than distinct and classifiable abnormalities). To them, it proves that sex is not a binary but a spectrum.

However, there is not a “third” sex. There are still only two types of gonads, even if genitalia and organs are abnormal or mismatched. Therefore, “intersex conditions do not disprove the sexual binary . . . because intersex conditions are a deviation from the binary norm, not the establishment of a new norm.”[7] A disorder does not prove an order does not exist.  

“In cases involving intersex persons, there are body, chromosomal, and/or anatomical abnormalities that are medically diagnosable and empirically verifiable. No such parallel exists in the case of transgenderism.”[8] In transgenderism, there is no empirically verifiable evidence. Instead, the argument for transgenderism relies on an inner, subjective experience in which one's physical reality does not fit one's feelings (we will discuss that issue in the next post). Thus, acknowledging disorders of sexual development does not open the door to an endless spectrum of gender identities based on scientific data. “Intersexuality and transgenderism are apples and oranges.”[9]

In summary, the scientific data does not indicate that a person's sex is fluid or malleable. Instead, the data gathered by the scientific method demonstrates that the gender binary is in line with truth. In the next post, we will deal with which view fits reason and logic. 

---

[1] Geoffrey Wainwright, “The True, the Good, and the Beautiful: The Other Story,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 107, (July 2000): 24.

[2] Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter Books, 2018), 47.

[3] S. Mayer Lawrence and Paul R. McHugh, “Sexuality and Gender Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” Special Report, The New Atlantis 50 (Fall 2016): 90.

[4] Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 48.

[5] Anderson, 49.

[6] Anderson, 52.

[7] Andrew T. Walker, God and the Transgender Debate: What Does the Bible Actually Say about Gender Identity? (United States: The Good Book Company, 2017), 158.

[8] Andrew T. Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 158.

[9] Andrew T. Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 158.

The Truth, Goodness, and Beauty of the Gender Binary: Introduction

Philosophers have long considered truth, goodness, and beauty to be “ultimate values.”[1] This is, in part, because these ideals transcend time, geography, and culture. Without truth, goodness, and beauty, human life could not continue to exist. If it did manage to carry-on for a while, it would be a terrible existence full of hopeless darkness and confusion. Thus, when evaluating two competing ways of viewing life’s most basic questions, it helps lay out a case for which one best accords with these ideals.

When it comes to the issue of gender, there are irreconcilable differences between the biblical view and the modern Western view. The Bible describes the creation of humanity in binary terms. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’. . . . And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:27-28, 31).  According to the Bible, the binary of two sexes and two corresponding genders is “very good.”

This claim, however, is being rejected by some in modern Western societies. Cultural elites, political leaders, and the media supply a different narrative rooted in a different worldview. To them, the binary is outdated. More than that, they argue that the binary is not true, good, or beautiful. 

My plan is to do a series of blog posts to demonstrate that the gender binary ("male" and "female") is true, good, and beautiful while transgenderism is a denial of truth, morally fraught, and ultimately uninspiring. 

In doing this, I am not denying that there are some individuals who struggle with their gender. They are confused and hurting. We recognize that living in a fallen world means physical and spiritual suffering abound for all of us. All people are simultaneously sinners and sufferers. The gospel deals with both issues in a way that no human wisdom can. The gospel gives the hope of forgiveness and joy of knowing God. It connects us to God and his design for us. Christians believe true and lasting joy comes by living in accord with the truth, goodness, and beauty of God's design. That is where God is honored and humans flourish. Thus, the church offers the healing balm of the gospel to all people. 

In the next posts, we will begin examing the truth, goodness, and beauty of the gender binary. The goal is to equip us to value God's good design even as the cultural winds begin to howl in the opposite direction.

---

[1] Crispin Sartwell, “Beauty,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017), ed. Edward N. Zalta, accessed December 31, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/beauty/.

This is the beginning of a series of posts on the issue of transgenderism and the gender binary. It is an edited form of a paper I wrote for a doctoral seminar on cultural apologetics. I will be posting small sections of it at a time to make it easier to read. It has been edited for the blog.

Materialism Can't Plausibly Explain The Existence Rational Thought

Materialism, the worldview that claims that only material things exist [i.e., atoms and the physical things they compose], is common in our Western culture. However, we should be ready to point out that it does not offer as plausible an explanation for human consciousness and rational thought as the Christian worldview. 

Below are two quotes from CS Lewis from a book entitled  C. S. Lewis and the Christian Worldview by Michael Petereson:

If minds are wholly dependent on brains and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. 

Thus, a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" (Possible Worlds, p. 209). . . . [Naturalism] discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself."

Genesis and Science

 We are living in a time when evolution is the great intellectual rival to the Christian faith in Western culture. It is important that we have given thought to these issues. I have been co-teaching the Sunday school class on Genesis 1-4. Several of the classes have dealt with preliminary issues about origins and science. Here is a link to the whole series on Genesis 1-4. I hope you find it helpful, and if you are not attending a Sunday school class, consider joining us for this study.

Get a Handle on the Canon: Is the Canon Closed?

My series, "Get a Handle on the Canon" is coming to a close. So it is fitting to think about whether the canon is closed. That is, should we expect more inspired writings to come to us from God? 

Should we Expect More Writings from God?

No. There are at least two reasons we can say this is the case. The first is practical and the second is theological. 

First, 

“[a]ccording to the church’s categories for canonicity (apostolic, catholic [wide use by the church], orthodox…), it would be impossible to have any additions to the canon. For example, even if a genuine and orthodox letter of the apostle Paul were discovered, that letter would not have had widespread usage in the early church (that is, it could never claim catholicity). The canon of Scripture is closed” (Plummer, 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible, pg 66).

Second, we expect no new revelation from God since Jesus has come as the final and fullest revelation of God. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, 

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...

The NT ends with a view of the complete fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. The Old Testament contained many promises, the New Testament contains the fulfillment. The NT gives us a picture of redemptive history that takes us all the way to the New Heaven's and New Earth (the eternal state). Thus, there is nothing more to add. We are waiting for the return of the King, Jesus, who will bring in the fullness of the Kingdom. The only revealing that awaits is the Son of Man returning in the clouds (Mark 13:26, Rev. 1:7). 

Get a Handle on the Canon - Why not the Apocrypha?

Continuing our look at the Canon, we will look at a related question. Why not include the Apocrypha in the canon? Remember, canon refers to the books that are recognized as coming from God (and excluding other books that might claim to be from him).  

Why Not The Apocrypha?

The Apocrypha are books written during the “inter-testamental period” (after Malachi but before Matthew) from 430 B.C. to 40 A.D. It includes books of Jewish history (1,2 Maccabees), wisdom (Sirach), and other writings. They were added to the Catholic Church canon during the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

So why not accept these as part of the canon? Here are a few reasons:

• First, the Jews did not put these books in the same authoritative category as the OT writings. Philo, (ca. 20 B.C. – 40 A.D.) quoted the OT prolifically but never quoted the Apocrypha as inspired. Josephus (ca. 30 A.D. – 100 A.D.) explicitly excludes the Apocrypha when he lists the OT books.

• Second, Jesus didn’t accept it. In  Luke 11:49-51 Jesus says,

"Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation."

What is significant about this is the two martyrs he mentions. Zechariah (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21), was not the last martyr chronologically in the OT times. But he is the last martyr mentioned canonically (that is, in the Hebrew canon, Chronicles is the last book and he is the last on mentioned in Chronicles). Abel is the first martyr in Genesis. So, Jesus summarizes all the martyrs in a way that does not extend the canon into the apocryphal books, but ends with the last book in the Hebrew OT. Therefore, he did not consider the apocrypha part of the canon.  

• Third, the New Testament authors never cite an Apocryphal book as Scripture (The book of Enoch is cited in Jude 14-15, but it is not said to be “the Word of God” or any other designation for Scripture. It should also be noted that Paul cites a pagan author in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12 as saying true things, but he did not recognize them as divinely inspired and authoritative).

Get a Handle on the Canon - The Old Testament

Canon

I want to begin a short series on what books make up the Bible and why? The canon of Scripture refers to the books that truly have come to us from God and are, therefore, included in the Bible. Let's start by looking at the Old Testament (OT).

The Old Testament (OT)

The Hebrew OT [that Jesus had] is made up of 24 books. These are the same as our 39 books in the English OT (several books that comprise one book in the Hebrew OT were divided in the English OT -  such as Samuel, Kings, etc.). 

The Hebrew OT was divided into three sections: Law, Prophets, and Writings. With this in mind, read Luke 24:44 and see what Jesus affirmed about the entire Hebrew OT.

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms [the largest of the "writings"] must be fulfilled."

So, Jesus said that each part of the Old Testament had things written in it about him! 

Next time we will look at why the canon does not include the Apocrypha. 

"Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?"

You've probably heard the claim that most wars have been caused by religion. I found this short article over at the Stand to Reason Blog to be helpful in responding to that claim.

One helpful thing to ask of the person who brings this or any other major claim is, "How did you come to that conclusion?" In otherwords, if they make a big claim, the burden of proof is on them. So let them bring evidence and don't immediately take the role of defending against an unsubstantiated claim. Of course, it is helpful to do your research and have a ready defense.

Creation and Science: Philosophical Arguments Against a Naturalistic Worldview

We have been discussing biblical theology, and specifically the beginning of the biblical storyline: Creation. We spent two weeks on thinking about creation and science, and I thought I'd post some of the information from the handouts I gave out. Here is the one on philosophical arguments against a naturalistic worldview (ie. one that sees everything as simply a product of natural processes as opposed to supernatural. Below are some of the arguments we looked at.

1.      Cosmological Argument- Every known thing in the universe has a cause.  Therefore, the universe itself must also have a cause, and the cause must be an infinite and non-contingent being (i.e. God). To watch a video presentation click here

a.       Basic syllogism (argument)

                                                              i.      Whatever begins to exist has a cause (cause and effect)

                                                            ii.      The universe began to exist

                                                          iii.      Therefore, the universe had a cause

b.      More complex version shows this cause had to be something outside the universe

                                                              i.      Every finite and contingent thing has a cause.

                                                            ii.      Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

                                                          iii.      A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

                                                          iv.      The universe is finite and contingent.

                                                            v.      Therefore, an infinite non-contingent First Cause must exist in order to explain why the universe exists.

2.      Teleological Argument- The fact that the universe has a design to it points to the fact that there is an intelligent designer.  Two illustrations:

a.       You find a watch on a mountain top.  Do I assume it is a product of chance + time or an intelligent designer made it?

b.       In our experience, language (communication) always comes from a source of intelligence. DNA is a form of communication, a language of sorts.  This implies intelligence is behind its design.

3.      Anthropic Principle- A sub-category of the teleological argument.  The universe seems to have been designed to make life possible on Earth.

a.       The number of things that must line up in perfect balance to make life on earth possible are staggering (think about all the other known planets- we could survive on none of them).

b.      Examples of things which must be within narrow margins to make life possible

                                                              i.      Distance between the earth and sun

                                                            ii.      The chemical makeup of water and its properties (ex. when it freezes it is more buoyant and stays at the top of the lake instead of the bottom).

                                                          iii.      Ratios of atmospheric gas

                                                          iv.      Axis of the earth

                                                            v.      Expansion rate of the universe

c.       The chances of all the details being in place to support our fragile life here is essentially nothing if it was not intelligently designed.

4.      Ethical Argument- The ethics that seem to be implied by naturalistic evolution are morally reprehensible and do not adequately explain virtues such as love, courage, and sacrifice.

a.       Some consistent evolutionists say rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.” (Why Men Rape, quoted in Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey, pg 211)

b.      If evolution and survival of the fittest is true, why care for the sick, crippled, or those with defects?

     “If we think we came into existence simply by accidental process, then we may feel accountable to no one. Yet such freedom is lonely. It is purposeless. And it is false. It is the freedom that ignores evidence of design in the world, that rejects the idea that people are special to God, and that clones human beings only to grow spare parts with them and then discard them. This is what we call naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophy that says, since God did not make us, we are only as special as we want to think of ourselves as being. So we kill babies in the womb and old people in nursing homes for our own convenience” (Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made, pg. 69).

c.       What are love, courage, and sacrifice?  In a naturalistic view it is simply a bunch of chemicals that make us feel good so we will ensure the survival of our species.  How do we explain a man risking his life to pull a wounded soldier from the line of fire or firefighters going into the world trade center to rescue others?

5.      Irreducible Complexity – Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down” (Origin of the Species, pg. 154).  Modern science has shown that:

a.       Genetic mutations do not result in the formation of new genes (Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, pg. 217).

b.      The cell, in order to function, must have all its complex parts from the start.  Otherwise it is just a piece of non-functional, organic rubbish.  So, the cell, which is foundational to life, could not have developed by numerous, successive, slight modifications (see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box).