Reasons to Vote "No" on The Recreational Marijuana Amendment

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 3, in Florida, is asking us to directly enshrine in our constitution the legalization of marijuana use for any purpose. 

Reasons to Vote "No" on Florida's Recreational Marijuana Amendment

Reason 1: Using recreational marijuana (RM) is a vice in that its purpose is to intoxicate and cause people to lack sober-mindedness.

1. Using RM makes a person high. The goal of a person smoking marijuana is to become intoxicated. What causes marijuana's "high" effect on the person is the psychoactive compound THC. This is notably different than alcohol, which can be enjoyed in moderation without becoming intoxicated. 

2. When a person is intoxicated, they are not able to think clearly or make thoughtful/reasonable decisions. Thus, Christians must avoid encouraging others to use RM (for we are commanded to be sober-minded).1 

3.  So, legalizing RM brings a vice (of not being clear-minded) into the category of "this is good or neutral." Thus, legalizing RM removes the stigma of using a drug that which will negatively affect those using RM and society at large.

Reason 2: It will lead to an increase in crimes and traffic accidents (which will affect not just those using RM but all our communities). 

1. We can see this in the data coming out of states that have legalized RM in the past. For example, see this fact sheet on how RM legalization affected Colorado. 

Reason 3: It will lead more young people to use marijuana, which is linked to higher rates of mental illness.2

1. The connection between marijuana use and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia in younger people (15-25 year olds) is becoming clear.4 

2. Legalizing RM leads to an increase in use among children (even if it is only "allowed" for adults).3 Colorado, which legalized RM several years ago has seen a large increase in the number of minors being hospitalized for marijuana related issues.5 

Reason 4: Amendment 3 was written by and is being funded by a large marijuana distributor to promote their own interests.6 

1. It was written by Trulieve, and they have funded the initiative to the tune of close to 100 million dollars. It is obvious they think they will gain a lot from this.

2. It is written in a way that shields them from ALL possible lawsuits. So, if someone dies from wrongly processed cannabis, no criminal or civil charges can be filed against the company. (see section a.5 in the amendment text).

4. It will not provide more money to our State because the State will have to spend more money dealing with the fallout of increased drug use and all the attending problems (crime, accidents, youth mental health, domestic violence, etc.).

Reason 5: The amendment wording makes it so that no law can be written to keep people from using RM where they want when they want. 

1. See the amendment wording section a.4. 

2. So, the next time we go to the beach, we might have some people set up next to our family smoking weed. 

Reason 6: This is not needed for people with medical needs.

1. The benefits that can be gained from THC (the active ingredient in maijuana) for people needing an increase in appetite or struggling with extreme nausea from chemotherapy are found in prescription medicines (in pill forms prescribed by a doctor and dispensed by a pharmicist).7 

2. There is no evidence that smoking or ingesting marijuana treats other medical ailments. In fact here is a list of medical associations that have written papers on why they do not support the use of medical marijuana: American Medical Association, The American Academy of Psychiatry, The American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.8 

Additional Resources on the Topic

A Short Book by Todd Miles called Cannabis and the Christian: What the Bible Says about Marijuana.

A Talk by Governor Ron DeSantis on the impacts of Amendment 3:  https://x.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1849457158590767451 (from about the 1:30 - 18:45 minute mark).

A Podcast Episode from America in View (with our very own Matt Doster as Co-host): https://americainview.com/episode-10-18-24.html

A website opposing Amendment 3: https://no-on3.com/

-----

Footnotes:

1. For a thoughtful and well-researched approach to how we should think about medical marijuana, see Todd Miles's book Cannabis and the Christian, chapters 6-7. 

2. Regarding increased use of marijuana among kids (and its dangers) in states with legal RM see this: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-Youth-Use-one-pager.pdf

3. Regarding dangers to children, see this story: https://www.wptv.com/news/state/marijuana/would-recreational-marijuana-in-florida-lead-to-increased-exposure-among-children

4. https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/cannabis-and-teens.html and https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/is-cannabis-safe-use-facts-young-adults.html

5. To see some of the outcomes of Colorado's RM laws, see this: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Colorado-One-Pager-39pdf.pdf

6. Listen to Governor Ron DeSantis explain this here: https://x.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1849457158590767451  (from about the 1:30 - 18:45 minute mark).

7. Miles, Cannabis and the Christian, 120-21

8. See Miles, Cannabis and the Christian, pg. 120-25 for more discussion on why marijuana does not treat other medical ailments, as well as the list of medical associations that have produced papers outlining why they do not support the use of medical marijuana.

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? 

Why My Default is to Vote "No" on Constitutional Amendments

My default position on any constitutional amendment is "no." I am not saying this is an issue of biblical faithfulness (so feel free to do otherwise). However, I think many of us don't give much thought to a philosophy of ministry in this area of our lives. So, below are my thoughts. Maybe they will help you as you consider how you will exercise your responsibilities as a citizen during an election cycle.

The main reason I default to "no" is that most issues should be able to be addressed by the legislature. These amendments generally stand no chance of getting through the normal legislative process because, upon scrutiny, they are not good for society. Thus, special interest groups use the amendment process to try to get voters, who will spend no time thinking about what the text of the law means or its implications, to vote based on how they feel about things in the moment. Thus, issues that are bad for our state get enshrined in our constitution. Or, issues that might be fine laws end up as silly parts of our constitution (eg, I think we have something about the treatment of baby pigs in our constitution).

Second, many amendments are written and promoted by special interest groups that stand to make A LOT of money from passing their amendments. For example, amendments 3 and 4, on recreational marijuana and on the right to abortion, are HEAVILY funded by industries that stand to make HUGE sums of money if they pass.

I would only vote yes on an amendment if: 

1. It is required to fix a constitutional issue (e.g., undo a previously approved and bad amendment or free the legislature to do its job). This seems to be the case with Amendment 6 on this year's ballot in Florida (to undo a campaign finance amendment that set up taxpayer-funded campaign money for candidates).  

2. My second reason for a yes vote is if it is a fundamental, bedrock issue that should be seen as basic to law-making itself. So, I would vote for an amendment that clarified the right to life for babies in the womb (even though I think that is already covered in our constitution and laws) because people seem to believe there is no God-given right to life for a baby. This willful misunderstanding is having a huge effect on our ability to apply laws related to murder to protect children or avoid evil laws that legalize abortion.

In my next post, I'll address reasons to vote no on Amendment 4 in Florida.  

Do Marginalized Communities Have Month Long Celebrations?

Carl Truman has an opinion piece at World called "America's LGBTQ Establishment: Pride Month Shows Who Really Has Power in America." In it, he discusses the month-long cultural celebration of pride, specifically in the form of sexual expression. Truman writes, "June, once the harbinger of summer sun and fun family vacations, is now a grim annual marathon for anyone who has hesitations about the orgy of identities and the exaltation of sexual expression that have laid claim to the mainstream of cultural life in America."

His main point is that pride month is not about civil rights or equality before the law. Instead, it is a flexing of power. The fact that there is a whole month in which businesses, politicians, and celebrities bow to pay homage to the sexual expressions of the LGBTQ community shows that the LGBTQ movement is not marginalized. As Truman points out, "If you are truly marginalized, you tend not to have months celebrating your existence." It's hard to see how a group can claim to be marginalized 11 months out of the year while having a month celebrating their viewpoint and denouncing any opposition to it (and the rabid support of the government, corporate America, and Hollywood for the entire year). 

How Should We Respond?

This isn't to say that we should respond with hatred. Christians love those who treat them as enemies. We do that by speaking the truth of the gospel in love. Romans one tells us that this celebration of sexual rebellion is, in fact, an expression of pride. It is an exchange of the Creator to worship creation (ourselves and others). All of us are born in this truth-suppressing condition, and the wages of this is the righteous judgment of God. The good news is that Jesus came to free us from the darkness and rebellion so that we can be forgiven and transformed from enemies of God into children of God. 

Besides sharing the gospel, we must also live as redeemed people. We must fight against our own pride, knowing that "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6). We must eschew hypocrisy (i.e., don't denounce LGBT deviances while excusing our own).1 We must deal with our own indwelling sins and tell others to repent and believe in Jesus. 

So, this June, let's celebrate the Lord as the Sovereign Creator by focusing on humility. We can highlight this to ourselves and others by making an extra effort to meditate on what the Scripture says about humility and faithfulness (Phil. 2, James 4). We can choose, by God's grace, to not live by our feelings or what the culture demands but by God's Word (Ps. 1, 119). We can faithfully fulfill our roles in our families, church, and civic life. 

-----

1. To be clear, hypocrisy is speaking against sin while coddling it in my own life. It is not hypocritical to call sin for what is while also struggling against it in my own life. 

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

Resources to Help You Speak for the Unborn

The abortion debate is back in the national spotlight with a recent Texas law as well as a case that will be heard this Fall by the Supreme Court which directly challenges Roe v. Wade. We must pray for the injustice of Roe v. Wade to be overturned. 

But, we must do more than that. We must be ready to speak on behalf of the oppressed. The weaker and more defenseless they are, and the more irreversible the threat they face, the more responsible we are to use our voice. 

Proverbs calls us to this work. 

Prov. 24:10-12 says,

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?

Proverbs 31:8-9 says, 

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.

Here are some resources to equip you to speak for the unborn:

Why Can't Christians Just "Get Over" the Abortion Issue? (Blog)

This is a brief blog post outlining the logic of why abortion is a major issue that we must never stop fighting. 

Scott Klusendorf - Defending Your Pro-life Views  (Video)

A short 3 minute video on how to make the pro-life argument. 

Abortion Is Immoral: An Animated Roadmap of the Argument (Videos)

A four-part animated video summary of an essay by Patrick Lee (ethicist) and Robert P. George (Princeton Law Professor): “What Is Wrong with Abortion." This one deals with more details of the legal and philosophical arguments against abortion. 

Abortion: From Controversy to Civility | Stephanie Gray | Talks at Google (long Video)

Another approach to making the pro-life case in a world that lacks a biblical worldview. Stephanie appeals to the idea of heroism and our obligation to protect the weakest among us even when it is costly (she gave this talk to google employees). 

Meet Baby Olivia | A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb (Video)

This is a short 3 minute, medically accurate video of a baby maturing in the womb. 

Lessons Learned about Ministering Outside an Abortion Clinic part 1 (Blog)

A short article I wrote that reminds us that as Christians we have a message for those considering abortion and those who have had them. 

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.

Why Can't Christians Just "Get Over" the Abortion Issue?

Why is abortion such a big deal? Why can't Christians just move on and deal with other important issues related to justice? 

Here is the brief version:

• It is a serious injustice (killing an innocent person)
• It is happening on a massive scale (862,327 a year. Over 60 million since 1973 in the US)
• It is done legally and therefore with the permission of the government which is supposed to protect its citizens.

The points below elaborate on this:

1. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human life. (all 46 human chromosomes are combined at the moment of fertilization so it is human life. The intention of abortion is the destruction of this human life).

2. There is no philosophical reason for distinguishing between a toddler and an unborn person when it comes to his or her dignity and right to life as a human being (i.e. size, level of development, degree of dependency, or location do not change a person’s value or inherent right to life).

3. Based on points 1 and 2, there is no philosophical or scientific reason to treat the unborn differently than a toddler when it comes to the right to life.

4. Abortion is widespread. There were 862,327 abortions in 2017 (per planned parenthood’s research wing).

5. The unborn are the most vulnerable in society because they cannot speak in defense of themselves. In addition, they are the most innocent people on the planet.

6. These people are being killed legally. As Ramesh Ponnuru and Robert George wrote, “For government to permit abortion . . . is for government itself to commit an injustice against its victims — denying a disfavored class, the unborn, protection it affords to all others. To be responsible, or partially responsible, for the injustice of the law in exposing unborn children to legally authorized lethal violence is to be complicit in grave injustice” (https://www.nationalreview.com/.../10/19/voting-for-life/)"

7. As Christians, we believe all these children are made in God’s image and that is the fundamental basis for their dignity and right to life.

Therefore, we must not give up on fighting to end abortion. 

We find a good exhortation from William Wilberforce, who fought to end the slave trade in England. He wrote, 

“Never, never will we desist till we . . . [extinguish] every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country.”[1] 

Let us have the same resolve. 

---

[1] William Wilberforce, speaking for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, on April 18, 1791, in the House of Parliament, The Parliamentary History of England from The Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T.C. Hansard, 1817), 24:278.

Why You Shouldn't Vote for Biden

Ramesh Pannuru and Robert P. George published a helpful article at National Review explaining why the issue of abortion is enough to scuttle any desire to vote for Biden (see this video to hear Biden's whole-hearted commitment to abortion being the "law of the land."). 

Below are some quotes from Pannuru and George's piece, but the whole thing is really worth reading (or listening to). 

What the Church teaches is that every member of the human family — irrespective of race, sex, or creed, but also, and equally, irrespective of age, size, stage of development, location, or condition of dependence — is the bearer of inherent and equal dignity and, as such, is entitled to legal protection against violent assault.

For government to permit abortion, the Church teaches, is for government itself to commit an injustice against its victims—denying a disfavored class, the unborn, protection it affords to all others. To be responsible, or partially responsible, for the injustice of the law in exposing unborn children to legally authorized lethal violence is to be complicit in grave injustice.

though abortion and slavery differ in many respects, they are alike in not admitting of the option of the “personally opposed, but . . .” position. The reason to be against slavery — its radical denial of the equal dignity of the victim and thus its grave injustice — is the reason for prohibiting it. It is precisely the same with abortion.

while citizens have other responsibilities, too, the injustice of abortion has a gravity that means it must be weighed more heavily than ordinary political issues, even important ones

Biden has expressly pledged to deny appointment to the Court for anyone who does not support what amounts to an unlimited right to abortion.

If one acknowledges the gravity, scale, and scope of the injustice of abortion, and of a legal regime that denies to an entire class of human beings the most basic of human rights, thus exposing them to lethal violence, then it is hard to imagine what proportionate reasons there could be for joining one’s will to the desire of a supporter of it

They do not argue that a Christian (or person concerned with ethics) must vote for Trump. That is more of a prudential issue.  

You might also find this article from John Piper on why we are all "one issue" voters helpful (written 25 years ago).