Stand to Reason Blog

Update Your Bookmark and RSS Feed for the Stand to Reason Blog

You may have noticed we didn’t have the usual new post here this morning. That's because it's at str.org! We have now fully integrated our blog into our website. You'll be able to see the six most recent blog posts there on the home page, or you can go straight to our blog.

To keep reading our posts, make sure you update your RSS feed or subscribe to our blog highlights email.

New Report Examines Scientific Studies on Sexuality and Gender

The journal The New Atlantis has published “a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research—from the biological, psychological, and social sciences—related to sexual orientation and gender identity.”

From Ryan Anderson:

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Read Anderson’s summary of four major conclusions of the study, or read the report’s executive summary (or the full report) here. We will surely see pushback against this study. Watch to see if those arguing against it refute its analysis of the available evidence or merely attack its writers. Anything that falls into the first category should be carefully considered.

We’re Seeing a Clash of Worldviews, Not an Inevitable Force of Progress

In his analysis of David Gushee’s recent article exhorting Christians to not be “left behind” by all of the other American people and institutions on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Jake Meador calls attention to (and argues against) the idea that this revolutionary change in our society is the result of some kind of inevitable force:

To read Gushee is to be told that we aren’t seeing a fight between two fundamentally different visions of reality with competing claims about the nature of human beings, sexuality, and family life. We’re simply seeing a fight between the inevitable forces of progress objectively understood and those backwards people who would oppose it.

The trouble here is that this completely misrepresents what is actually happening. What we are witnessing is the triumph of one understanding of reality over another. As I noted last week, market-enabled, government-backed individualism is ascendant; Christianity is in decline….

And here’s the thing: If we’re honest about the fact of the conflict playing out in front of us, we can be honest about the stakes of the debate, which are enormous: Either we are completely autonomous, self-defining human individuals and the government has an obligation to protect our right to self-definition or we enter into a world given to us in a certain condition, shaped by certain factors outside our control, and filled with norms, rules, and laws we are powerless to change and can only submit to. Gushee’s attempts to obscure this fact do nothing to change it….

The fact that a huge number of people, including Gushee and his friends, absolutely refuse to see this point doesn’t change the facts of the debate. We either have a right to define our own concept of existence—in which case we should just be done with Christianity altogether—or we do not. There can be no attempt to pretend that our current social revolution is simply the natural progression of history happily moving toward climax as those awful, backwards bigots die off in its wake. Such claims are not only dishonest; they are cowardly.

Meador explains how distorting the conflict in this way damages our society:

Here’s the truly awful thing about all this: This sort of framing makes both real debate and real pluralism impossible. If we recognize the radical nature of our dispute, we might also be able to recognize ways of living together peaceably in the midst of those differences. Consider the many examples of close friends who are fierce ideological opposites. But as long as we insist on this absurd idea that one side is simply going along with history and the other is bitterly clinging to their bigoted religious beliefs, there can be no understanding of the other. And where there is no understanding, there can be no functioning polis.

Meador’s whole piece is worth reading. I’ve been pointing for a while to the fact that this societal conflict comes down to our opposing views on what it means to be human (see here, here, and here). This is yet another reminder that, as Christians, we need to be rock solid on basic worldview issues. The existence of the Christian God, the Creator of reality, affects our understanding of every aspect of that reality, so think deeply and carefully about the implications of being created by and for our good God. Otherwise, our secular culture will be happy to do your thinking for you.

Sexuality, Identity, Sin, and Denying Ourselves to Follow Christ

I highly recommend you watch “You Are Not Your Sexuality,” a talk by Sam Allberry (a Christian who has same-sex attractions) on sexuality and identity. He has much to say that is relevant to everyone (not just those with same-sex attractions) and relevant to all temptations and sin (not just those related to sexuality). I hope you’ll watch the whole thing (see below), but I want to emphasize three of his key points here.

First, I imagine that many of you were as surprised as I was at how many people were unable to understand how Christians could speak against homosexuality and think the Orlando massacre was an atrocity. Part of the misunderstanding comes from this: Our culture sees sexuality as being fundamental to our identity; Christians do not. Allberry explains:

The first thing we need to know is that our identity is in Christ…. One of the big things our culture around us is saying at the moment is that you are your sexuality. Your sexual feelings define you. They are who you are at the core of your being. They are you at your most you. And because that is the common belief, as you all know, that means everyone’s sexuality has to be affirmed. If you don’t affirm someone’s sexuality, you’re effectively rejecting who they are at their deepest level…. That is the unforgivable sin in our culture, and it is why non-affirming Christians are not just seen as wrong, not just seen as quaint, but increasingly, we’re seen as dangerous….

If you are your sexuality, then sexual fulfillment is key…. Being sexually fulfilled is intrinsic to being complete as a human being, if you are your sexuality. And so it makes the stakes incredibly high. And actually, the real tragedy of that is that it means the world ends up saying, in effect, that a life without sexual satisfaction is not a life worth living. The church doesn’t say that (I hope), the Scriptures don’t say that, but our culture does…. Jesus teaches us, and in His life He shows us, that sex and romantic fulfillment is not the key to making ourselves complete. Jesus was, after all, the most fully human and complete person who ever lived, and yet was celibate.

Second, when we’re tempted to grab something we haven’t been given by God (particularly in the case of sexual sin), it’s easy to tell ourselves the lie that we need to do so in order to be “who we really are.” Allberry points out that when we do this, we’re being the opposite of “who we really are”:

I am not defined by my sin. I’m not defined by my temptations. I’m defined by who I am before God the Father in Jesus Christ…. As I’m battling against those temptations, there are times I can hear a voice saying, “Sam, stop trying to be somebody else. This is who you are. Just accept it and run with it. This trying to be celibate and chaste, that’s just not you.” But actually, as I open the Bible, I realize that, actually, who I most truly, ultimately and fundamentally am is someone who is in Christ. And therefore, when I’m striving to be holy, when I’m striving to be Christlike, I’m not going against the grain of who I really am, I’m going with it. As someone who is in Christ, I am most being me when I am pursuing godliness, not when I'm pursuing sin.

Third, the Bible doesn’t teach that people who have same-sex attractions are in a separate category from everyone else. Jesus’ command, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me,” applies to everybody.

When Jesus says…“Repent” to everyone, Jesus is saying all of us are lined up the wrong way. All of us are oriented, spiritually, in the wrong direction…. Jesus says all of us need to reorient our lives at the most deepest level, and therefore, for any of us, discipleship is going to be costly…. There are things we’re going to have to turn around on that feel fundamental to who we are….

Denying yourself...is saying no to who you have thought you were all your life and saying yes to Jesus instead. That identity you have finessed and crafted over years has to be given over to Jesus. And friends, that is the case for all of us…. If you think the gospel is just kind of slotted in neatly to your life, not really required any particular deep changes, I don’t think it’s the gospel of Jesus you’ve been receiving. And so if we’re tempted to think the gospel is unfair to same-sex attracted people, it may well be that we haven’t really counted the cost of discipleship in our own lives.

Watch the rest of the video below.

 

(HT: Justin Taylor)

True Compassion Is Determined by the Mind, Not by Feelings

In an article titled “Regret Isn’t Rare: The Dangerous Lie of Sex Change Surgery’s Success,” Walt Heyer (who regrets his own sex change surgery) argues that our society needs to stop pushing surgery as the solution for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria.

Shortly after undergoing sex change surgery, most people report feeling better. Over time, however, the initial euphoria wears off. The distress returns, but this time it is exacerbated by having a body that is irrevocably molded to look like the opposite gender. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what the people with regret who write to me say happened to them.

Heyer goes on to tell the story of one man’s regret and to explain why our rush to treat gender dysphoria with sex change surgery is neither wise nor compassionate.

This reminds me of something I wrote several years ago:

Over the past couple of years I’ve had to learn the hard way that my strong feelings of compassion and empathy coupled with my desire to help people and make them happy can sometimes obscure the path of true compassion. I watched with horror as the actions of my emotion-driven “compassion” led only to greater harm to the friends I was trying to help. What was wrong? I was giving them what they said they needed. I couldn’t stand to see them suffer! I was confused and conflicted—I loved these people and wanted to help, but my short-term help was causing them long-term harm. When I finally accepted the fact that the truly compassionate thing to do was to withhold what these people were asking for, I had to do the most difficult thing I’ve ever done—I stopped giving it to them. I fought my feelings and forced myself to stand firm. I endured accusations of cruelty and lack of Christian charity. I withstood slander and gossip. I was rejected and berated. Believe me, it would have been much easier to give them what they wanted, and I certainly would have been happier about myself, but I desired to be truly compassionate to these people I loved—and that meant doing what was best for them, regardless of my feelings.

True compassion is not directed by a feeling. In fact, it may entail actions that cause our feelings of compassion to scream with protest. But, as I’ve said before, our emotions must submit to our minds. The impulse to be compassionate is good, but if we let our emotions determine the way we carry out that compassion, we will often be deceived. A careful examination of the long-term results of our actions is necessary to determine whether or not those actions are truly compassionate….

No doubt we’ll be called selfish and uncaring, and our own feelings may even condemn us. I know how difficult this is. All we can do is continue to remind ourselves that helping people in a real and lasting way is more important than satisfying and protecting our own feelings

I wrote those words in a completely different context, but the principle applies everywhere—personal relationships, public policy, child-rearing, medicine, education, and on, and on. Sometimes the easy response of giving a person what he immediately desires, in the way he immediately wishes to receive it, is not the compassionate response.

Great misunderstandings are caused when people assume their policy preference is identical with compassion itself, and that a rejection of that policy equals a rejection of compassion. This assumption is false, and Heyer’s article is a perfect example of why. Many doctors refuse to do transgender surgeries not because they hate, but because they care about their patients’ long-term well-being and want to practice responsible medicine. They are as compassionate as anyone on the other side, but their minds have led them to express that compassion differently. If people on the other side of this could give everyone the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping to a conclusion of “hate,” public discourse would be much better off.

Romans Prescribes the Gospel, Not Execution

The New York Times claims that Romans 1 calls for the execution of gays. A Republican congressman read the passage at a committee hearing. I don’t know the congressman’s purpose, but it couldn’t be to call for the execution of gays because the passage doesn’t say that. And 2,000 years of Christian teaching has never taught that it does.

It tells us we’re all sinners deserving punishment, but the only execution referred to in Romans is that of Jesus, who took the punishment Romans 1 is speaking of on behalf of sinners so that sinners can be reconciled to Him.

The relevant passage, Romans 1:18-32, begins: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” All ungodliness. Romans isn’t singling out gays, though homosexuality is mentioned. So are many other sins:

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

No one can read that passage and walk away scot-free because we’ve all committed at least some of those sins, and maybe all. Some of these sins are universally common – disobedient to parents – because Paul means to count every single one of us as sinners so that we will look to the Savior who won a pardon for us.

Matthew Henry’s commentary, a very mainstream study of Romans, explains that the wrath spoken of here is God’s focused on all sin. Christians identify themselves as the subjects of this passage because we are sinners. Paul’s point in writing this is to point to Jesus. Romans 3:21-25:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

There is no distinction. All of us have fallen short. And whose actual death has offered redemption to make the spiritual death spoken of in Romans 1 unnecessary? Jesus.

Christians make no claims about sinners that we aren’t making of ourselves – and we aren’t calling for our own execution. Rather, we make the same appeal Paul makes here – to accept Jesus’ sacrifice and be reconciled with God and receive spiritual life.

Sure, it’s understandable to get angry about an article like this. But that’s not constructive. It’s also grievous that the Gospel can be so misunderstood. A constructive response to this is to recommit ourselves to communicating the Gospel as clearly as we can and living in a way that commends the message and glorifies the Savior.

I was praying about it this morning, asking God that instead of turning ugly, this could actually be a new opening to the Gospel, as it comes under attack, that people will see what Christians have to say and we would be faithful and clear to tell them.

First They Change the Definition, and Then They Claim the Right

The other day, I retweeted Brian Seagraves’ tweet: “The transgender community wants a right no one has had: the right to use a bathroom that doesn’t match your sex.” Someone replied that transgender people are just looking for the same right that everyone has already had – to use a bathroom that matches their gender identity.

This sleight of hand has been used before. Redefine marriage as a union of two people who love each other rather than as a lifelong union of one man and one woman. The sleight of hand is to change the terms of a right and then claim it or reapply it in a way that has never been thought of before. Like any trick, sometimes it’s easy to miss what happened. Christians sometimes don’t know how to respond because they missed the substitution.

The definition of marriage was usually not specified as a man and a woman, but that’s because it was taken for granted. It also took for granted one of each sex. But things began to change decades ago when people began to vow “as long as we both shall love.” The initial sleight of hand meant marriage wasn’t for life any longer. That was the first change of definition—to be able to end a marriage easily (at least legally; divorce is never easy). A few decades down the road, the change of definition allows the further substitution of definition for male and female and the number of people. Now we have rights no one has ever had even though they claim it’s equal rights. No one of the same sex and no group of more than two fit the definition of marriage. Change the definition, and then claim the right.

That’s what’s going on with transgender access to bathrooms. Bathroom use was never ever divvied up according to gender identity. Gender identity is a new category as distinct from sex. Bathrooms have been assigned to sex, not gender identity. Thus, literally and figuratively, the plumbing matters. But change the definition, and then claim the right.

Look, we can and should continue to point out the erroneous thinking and resist changes in the law that have no rational or ethical foundation. But since that isn’t currently having much affect in these policy changes, the main point of this post is to encourage you to not be duped to change your mind, even when you don’t quite notice the sleight of hand. Watch for it. But don’t be dissuaded in your convictions.

The Back of the Book

One of the tactics in Greg’s book is “the back of the book.” Some people like to jump to the end of the book to find out how it ends before reading the whole thing. Sometimes you know the end of the story so you notice things about the narrative that you wouldn’t otherwise. Knowing the ending gives you some insight. Since God has created every one of us and He’s given us His manual for what we need to know, Christians have some insight that others may not have because they’re still running from God.

The definition of freedom running rampant in our culture is to follow our desires, satisfy our appetites. If freedom is to be protected, that means having the pursuit of those desires protected. Freedom used to be lack of interference by government; now it means intense government intervention in very private parts of life (e.g., who uses the bathrooms) because of this shift in definition.

As Christians, we already know that this isn’t freedom, it’s bondage. Bondage to sin. We’re not free if we’re driven by unrestrained desires and feelings. We’re not free if we are controlled by our sinful natures. But that is exactly what our culture is pursuing right now.

Since we know something about the Creator and what He’s told us about how He’s made us, we know that this pursuit will not satisfy. Sex outside of marriage will not ultimately satisfy because we’re created to be in lifelong union with one person. Adultery will not satisfy because it’s a violation of that union. Homosexuality and transgender affirmation will not satisfy because these are not how we are created. People in our culture are looking for fulfillment and satisfaction in ways that they cannot be found. With every legal victory affirming their desires and feelings, people in our culture expect to find what they’re looking for, but we know they won’t. They cannot because they’re looking for it in ways that are bound to fail. We know this as Christians because we found that out for ourselves. Even as Christians, we have to learn some hard lessons when we pursue what we should not.

So what we can expect is hurting and lost people even more hurting and lost. We need to graciously and compassionately speak the truth in love even while they don’t want to hear it. Along the way, some who were angry at us for saying what is true and good will come looking for answers to what they’re looking for when they realize they’re in bondage, not free.

Remember that we know something about them that they don’t even know. Instead of letting yourself think of them as enemies now because of the acrimony, see people who may come back to you at some point because they’ve finally realized what they’re pursuing can’t deliver what they’d hoped. They need freedom, but true freedom from sin. And that can only be found in forgiveness from and reconciliation with God.

How We Should Treat Political Opponents

Mark Galli has a good editorial in the current Christianity Today issue. I disagree with a couple of points. But I appreciate his primary message – reminding Christians that we’re to love and care for those who oppose and persecute us.

He makes an important point very succinctly that I took a long blog post to make. Religious conservatives and LGBT activists are arguing from two very different metaphysics and are therefore talking past each other. He writes:

The first group believes that sexual mores are rooted in God-given teaching and the natural order. The second group believes every individual has the right to determine how to live sexually….

This is a seemingly irreconcilable situation. While the legal issues are significant and worth fighting for, Christians also need to remember we cannot hold hatred and animosity toward others no matter how they revile us for Jesus’ sake. And we are called to a higher ethic than only protecting our rights.

But I disagree with a couple of other points.

Mark writes, “Yet we also believe that the Lord calls us to look out for the interests of our political opponents. So, we must not seek legislation that protects our freedom if that same legislation denies the rights of people with whom we disagree.”

He’s making a good point here, reminding us of the call to look beyond our own interests. But I’m not sure of the “rights of people with whom we disagree” that he’s referring to. Since it’s the discussion in our culture right now, I think he’s referring to the rights of gay people to marry others of the same sex, and transgender people to use bathrooms of the sex they identify with, and generally the demand not to have others disagree with their behavior. If so, I don’t think these are rights they can claim at all. A right is a just claim to something. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states the grounding and source of rights quite succinctly: they are God-given. And we can also find sufficient grounds for rights in natural law. In neither of these can rights be found to force others by law to support what is immoral and unnatural. If there is no right, then I don’t see a responsibility to protect those rights. If Galli is referring to the rights to be safe, not be harassed and harmed, then I certainly agree. But I’m not familiar with any legislation that would take away that right or any other just rights claims made by those we disagree with.

A few paragraphs later Galli expands on his good point about going above and beyond. He equates Jesus instructing His followers to help a Roman soldier carrying his load with a Christian baker baking not just one, but two cakes for a same-sex wedding. I get his general point about the higher ethic Christians are called to, but I don’t think his example is a good parallel. A Roman soldier enlisting a Jew to carry his load may be unjust but it’s not an immoral activity in any way. A modern vendor being involved in a same-sex wedding is, arguably, being involved in an immoral activity, which is why Christians are objecting to being forced by law to do so.

Galli’s overall points are good ones. And his conclusion is wise counsel:

In the meantime, what would happen to us if our liberties were trashed and we were forced to suffer penalties and indignities for our faith? Jesus says that we’ll enjoy a reward, and that our reward will be great. Sounds like a win win to us. Maybe that’s why he also said, “Fear not.”

Are Clergy Held to Higher Moral Standards Than Laypersons?

Greg discusses what the Bible says about moral standards for leaders in the church compared to those of laypersons.