Um, No: Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn Jenner, & the Pregnant Man

Caitlyn Jenner-Vanity Fair

‘Not in Kansas anymore…

The timing of the Rachel Dolezal controversy is unbelievable. It broke just days after Bruce Jenner instructed the world to call him Caitlyn, and announced that he is the new normal.

See? There is a God.

Both Rachel and Bruce claim a mental identity that does not conform to their physical bodies. From the trans perspective, one’s mental identity apparently trumps everything else. But then why isn’t anyone calling Rachel brave and courageous? Why isn’t everyone congratulating Rachel for living out her true self? Why is everyone disrespecting Rachel by continuing to refer to her as white? Why isn’t Rachel the new new normal?

Why does the person who has enjoyed the benefits of being a white male for his entire life now get to enjoy renewed celebrity status as a “woman,” while the white woman who has lived her life and served as a black woman gets publicly shamed and put in her place? After all, Rachel’s claim is far less extreme than Bruce’s.

Just to be clear, I remain unconvinced that Bruce is a woman, or that Rachel is black. I’m just trying to follow the “progressive” logic.

As it turns out, this is not possible.

Yahoo News quoted Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., on “transracialism” :

Applying this concept to race makes little sense to me. ‘Trans’ refers to a lack of fit between biology and identity, but there is no biology involved in race.”

Wait…What? I wonder how white slave owners avoided accidentally enslaving other white people?

On CNN Tonight, Montel Williams repeatedly called Dolezal a liar: “It’s a costume…She’s a liar.”

Uh…Apparently Montel didn’t get the trans memo. He’s calling her a liar just because she has a white body. But the way the trans thing works is, if she mentally identifies as black, then she’s black. She gets to say who she is. It’s called self-determination. This is why Jenner can say he’s a woman even though he has XY chromosomes and can pee while standing up.

Here is an indignant Zeba Blay, writing for the Huff Post:

“Transracial identity is a concept that allows white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity, without having to actually engage with every facet of what being black entails — discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and so on. It plays into racial stereotypes, and perpetuates the false idea that it is possible to “feel” a race.”

Ummm…but…You can make each of those same arguments about Bruce Jenner, who up until now has spent his entire life being treated as a privileged white male. Also, look at 65-year-old Bruce on the cover of Vanity Fair and explain how he is not “playing into [sexual] stereotypes.” And why is “feeling” race a false idea, but “feeling” gender is not?

I don’t necessarily disagree with Zeba’s conclusions, but if she wants to support the LBGTQ agenda, she’s going to have to trash Dolezal with arguments that don’t also trash transgender people. If Dolezal claims to “identify as black,” Zeba can’t say she’s pretending, or lying, or mentally ill, at least not if Zeba wants to be a good liberal.

The issue here is that some people internally identify in ways that do not correspond with their physical bodies. I can tolerate that. The question is, “Should everyone else have to celebrate, normalize, and go along with this when it occurs?”

In the case of transgenderism, the practical question is “should we turn the culture upside down, overhaul language, and obliterate the nuclear family in order to accommodate trans people?” I think that’s asking an awful lot.

Transplaining
I’m sure by now you’ve heard of mansplaining. That’s the derogatory feminist term for men explaining to women how they should think.

Well, I’d like to coin a new term: transplaining. That’s my derogatory term for transgenders (usually biological men) explaining to women how they should think.

You might object, “but LGBTQ people are a misunderstood and persecuted minority. They deserve a voice, and it’s trans people who should explain their experience to the rest of the population.”

I’m fine with that. But we must also reserve the right for people to respectfully disagree with LGBTQ people about their opinions. Nobody gets to control what other people think.

On one level, this is not even a mysterious issue.

Here’s the deal. Within the human experience there is a fundamental reality called sexual reproduction. It depends upon the complementary male and female halves of humanity coming together. This is undeniable. It is undeniable because it is undeniably the reason we are still here. This must be a starting place for understanding normal human sexual experience over millennia. It is ground zero for a healthy grasp of the basic shape of reality if we’re going to continue to have a field called biology.

It’s true that this does not describe the personal experience of the less than 5 percent of the population who identify as gay, or for the even smaller percentage who identify as gender-variant. However, “not fitting” does not place them outside of the scope of humanity. According to my biblical worldview, they are intrinsically valuable individuals, with a right to express themselves. They deserve the same freedoms and protections as everyone else. But they do not have a right to redefine reality, sexuality, and marriage for the general population, and certainly not for our children. No one does.

They have a right to say, “The gender binary is a completely outdated social construct.”

I have a right to say that statement is ridiculous.

I do not deny that trans people are experiencing gender dysphoria. I certainly don’t think they choose it. I understand that choosing to live as the gender with which they mentally identify is an attempt to bring coherence to their experience. But the general culture stands to lose too much if we deconstruct the gender binary model. Too much depends on it.

This is especially so when the gender binary mainstream isn’t broken. It’s working just fine for the vast majority of people. In a pluralistic culture, the mainstream’s response to transgenderism should not be hate or division, but compassion and human acceptance of the persons involved. At the same time, we are not obligated to buy into the transplaining. This idea that we must either participate in the prevailing LGBTQ political perspective, or else we must hate LGBTQ people, is a false dichotomy. It’s an idea that needs to die a thousand very public deaths.

Un-muddying the water
There is more than one way to look at this stuff. Let’s consider another new and amazing groundbreaking hero who is arguably not all that new or amazing – the world’s first pregnant man.

Thomas Beatie, (born Tracy, a biological female,) while “transitioning to a man,” decided to keep her uterus because she wanted to have children someday. In 2008 “He” appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show while pregnant with “his” first child, and was introduced as the world’s first pregnant man. Beatie has since birthed 2 more babies…

Whoa, mama. Let’s stop the train right there.

I realize it’s politically incorrect to put the word he and him in quotes, because Thomas wants to be referred to as a man. But this is exactly the point. We’re expected to agree that Beatie is a man when it’s at least just as reasonable to say that Beatie is a surgically and chemically altered woman. The fact that she didn’t want to let go of her working uterus kind of gives away the game. (Not that it’s a game.) If there is anything that is distinctly and uniquely female, it is the conceiving, gestating, bearing, and nursing of children. That’s a uniquely female thing! Beatie is not a man with a uterus. She is a woman who “feels like a man,” whatever that means. There is no need to be mean to these people, but neither do we need to go along with this. Underneath it all, there’s nothing new here.

I think the fact that Beatie wanted to keep her uterus is telling. She wanted to live as a man, except that she still wanted to be able to get pregnant. Buuut…that’s…not living as a man. Beatie was quoted as saying, “I see pregnancy as a process, and it doesn’t define who I am. It’s not a male or female desire to want to have a child – it’s a human desire.”

Well…It’s pretty freaking female to desire to give birth to a child. Just sayin’.

By contrast, my understanding is that men “transitioning to women” are generally uninterested in gestating and bearing children. I think we can guess why. And yet this is virtually the only intrinsically female role that is not a cultural construct.

No, instead Bruce tells Dianne Sawyer that he’s looking forward to being able to have nail polish on long enough that it actually chips off. This seems to me a shallow, even insulting, understanding of femaleness.

[Update: In March of 2012 Beatie and “his” wife Nancy began divorce proceedings, which, due to the unprecedented nature of their situation, lasted until August 2014. In November of 2014, Thomas was jailed briefly, pleading “not guilty” to stalking Nancy, after a GPS tracking device was discovered on Nancy’s car by police. Thomas admitted that the device was his and that he had been tracking his wife for over two years, out of concern for his children.]

Why should anyone care about what these people do?
We should care because this is a very big deal, and it will affect everyone on the planet. This is as basic as it gets.

Consciously or not, the “marriage equality” and transgender full court press that we are now seeing is part of a utopian movement called Postgenderism. Apparently, the Left believes it sees an opportunity to impose the next stage of its egalitarian vision onto the world. Accordingly, it now seeks to redefine not only marriage, but gender itself. This is an unimaginably reckless and unprecedented step, not to mention astonishingly arrogant.

What is Postgenderism? Following is an excerpt that requires no comment. Bear in mind that you are not reading a Netflix sci-fi movie summary. (Emphasis mine):

Abstract: Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice… (Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary)

This is simply a logical conclusion of evolutionary humanism. We are seeing in our culture a collision of worldviews. Ultimately this boils down to a question of authority. The secularist LGBTQ agenda sees no authority other than mans’: We’ve arrived by accident in a purposeless universe, and we are free to alter our destinies by whatever means we see fit. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

As the secular world slowly loses its grip on reality, the things that matter most get ignored and then lost. The most vulnerable and least politically powerful people – children – stand to suffer the most.

Transgender Restroom Sign

Sign-up HERE to receive notification of my new storybook releases! Each beautifully illustrated book is designed to help you instill a biblical worldview in the children you love.   – Scott Freeman

 

Putting It All Together: Evangelicals, Gays, Blacks, & GMOs

Boromir meme-one does not simply We need each other in order to reach an understanding of viewpoints that differ from our own. Why should we bother to do this? Because no one person or group is right all of the time, and it is a natural human tendency to tend toward arrogance, self-righteousness, prejudice, and the demonizing of those with whom we disagree.

As a guy who traverses the (mostly) conservative world of Evangelical subculture, and the (mostly) liberal world of the secular arts culture, I often feel like a fish out of water.

I’m pretty sure everyone gets the case for “marriage equality”: fairness, equal treatment, non-discrimination. But based on news and commentary that I see, it strikes me that supporters of “marriage equality” almost universally misunderstand the motives of Evangelicals in the debate. The word schadenfreude has entered the mainstream, as the Left gloats over how fun it is to watch “anti-gay” people “lose” the battle. (Schadenfreude means to feel pleasure at another’s misfortune.) I’m curious as to what “marriage equality” supporters think that Evangelicals have to lose in this debate.

There seems to be an assumption that Evangelicals somehow need to hate, in order for their “religion” to work. Or that Evangelicals hope to forcibly impose their “religious beliefs” on everyone else (as if that has ever worked for anyone.) Or that Evangelicals don’t know any gay people that they personally love.

I certainly can’t speak for all Evangelicals, but I’ve had one foot in theologically conservative Evangelical subculture all of my life, and none of the above points are true for most of us. Of course you can find jerks and buttheads on the Left, Right, and Middle of every group. Finding one, giving him press, and making him the poster boy doesn’t promote understanding.

So what do Evangelicals stand to lose in the gay marriage debate?

Nothing. We’re not in this for ourselves.

We believe we’re standing for a public policy that will be the most beneficial for future generations; one that will guarantee the most freedom for the most people, and that will be safest and healthiest for the most vulnerable members of society, namely dependent children, who have zero political power.

There is nothing in our worldview that somehow needs to keep gays, (or anyone else,) down in order to thrive.

It is mainstream Evangelical belief that, in the new covenant of Jesus, we do not have human enemies. The apostle Paul clearly states that our enemies, our weapons, and the battle itself are spiritual in nature (Eph 6:11-17.)

There are many gay Evangelicals who struggle with same sex attraction, but choose to live according to their biblical beliefs. This is their choice. They are not second-class citizens.

Evangelical marriages will be just fine if gay marriage is recognized by the state. This is true because we have an ethic that doesn’t depend upon public policy. But public policy does affect the culture in general. As the institution of marriage is redefined into oblivion, as the incest taboo falls, as monogamy in marriage ceases to be the ideal, as gender in marriage and parenting comes to be seen as irrelevant, the consequences for society at large will be grim. If traditional marriage goes down, it’s going to cost everybody. Government will increasingly need to step in to preserve order and safety, and there will necessarily be a loss of freedom for everyone.

You may be thinking, “Slow down there, cowboy – we don’t really know what will happen if the government redefines marriage to include gay couples.”

Well, technically you would be correct, since, until recently, this has never been done before in the history of the world. But that’s kind of like saying we don’t really know what will happen if we redefine food. We do know. ‘Take GMOs. Genetically modified organisms look like food. They smell like food. But they don’t do what food was designed to do.

SImilarly, we do know what will happen if marriage is arbitrarily redefined.

Changing marriage isn’t like adding another color of socks to the sock drawer. Marriage and the nuclear family is the universal and fundamental organizing societal unit in virtually every culture in the world. The reason it is universal and fundamental is that heterosexual sex universally results in offspring. Gay sex fundamentally doesn’t. When offspring results, it is in every society’s and every government’s interest that the two parents who produced that offspring take care of it. If they don’t, it often costs everybody else in some way.

We happen to have an example of what happens when heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage ceases to be the ideal standard in contemporary culture. We need only look at black subculture in America. I have some personal familiarity with this example as I raised my family in the racially mixed inner city of Kansas City for a couple of decades. I chose to send my two oldest boys to a charter junior high school that was 3% white. The family problem in black America is a widespread failure to form marriages in the first place, and a high divorce rate when marriages do form. The out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks is now over 70%. Think about that. And that’s with black babies being aborted at five times the rate of white babies.

I was struck by the irony that, while the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments about “marriage equality” in DC, blacks were rioting in Baltimore. What’s the connection? I wonder how many of the young men rioting and looting grew up with a loving father raising them and teaching them how to actually be men? I wonder how many of the looters were married men with children at home? I don’t know the answer, but we do know that generally speaking, it’s not gangs of happily married family-men hanging out on the streets at night and raising hell. It’s generally not women committing most crimes and engaging in destructive behavior. It’s mostly single men.

Single men are every society’s concern because of the way men are wired. Marriage is one, pitifully insufficient tool in society’s toolbox to induce single men to commit to one woman, and to any children they may produce together. This is why the government has an interest in monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual marriage. It makes perfect sense for the state to create strong incentives to increase the likelihood that kids will grow up with their biological mother and father if at all possible. Yet “marriage equality” says biology is irrelevant and biological parents are dispensable.

The problem of racism pales in importance compared to the problem of the disintegration of marriage and the nuclear family within black culture. You can’t have a 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate without deep consequences. Through no fault of their own, these kids will grow up disadvantaged compared to kids raised by a mom and dad who love them and who love each other. Thus the cycle will tend to repeat. Single moms, extended families, and black churches are struggling heroically to hold it together, but it’s an overwhelming problem now. Some have argued that black culture is where it is largely because of well-meaning (usually white) people trying to help. Consequently the state has replaced fathers in many black single-parent families. This is the reason journalist Jason Riley has written a book called, “Please Stop Helping Us – How Liberal Policies Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.”

So what does the plight of black America have to do with gay marriage?

It highlights the importance of heterosexual, lifelong, monogamous marriage for society. It shows that good intentions don’t necessarily produce good results. Crime and poverty are not racial problems, they’re fatherlessness problems.

Critics counter that “marriage equality” will result in more marriage, not less. Isn’t that what we want? How will allowing other groups to join the legal institution of marriage hurt anyone?

During recent oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts nailed it with his statement, “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change what the institution is…”

The disintegration of marriage has been devastating for black America, and thus for the rest of the nation. Similarly, the redefining of marriage at the federal level will change marriage not just for gays, but for the general population as well. If one aspect of traditional marriage can be changed, then so can the other aspects. For example, gay spokesdude, Dan Savage openly argues that gay marriage will help hetero marriage by normalizing the idea of consensual sexual infidelity. He calls this “monogamish” marriage. He feels this will help heterosexual marriage because “monogamy is impossible.” Savage wants to change what marriage is.

There are prominent leftist authors, such as Masha Gessen and Shulamith Firestone, who have openly advocated for the elimination of marriage and the nuclear family for the sake of equality. Whether or not this is the intention of the “marriage equality” movement doesn’t matter. It will certainly be the result. The term “marriage” will eventually be rendered meaningless for society in general, as there is no logic that will limit “equal treatment” to gay couples only.

If this were a religious issue only, I would keep my opinion inside the walls of the church. But the dynamics of marriage and family touch every person on the planet. It’s not the fault of Evangelicals that the welfare of children is inseparably linked to hetero sex and marriage. It remains compassionate, just, and rational to support sexual complementarity in monogamous, lifelong marriage. The legitimate concerns of the “marriage equality” movement can be addressed without redefining an already weak, but indispensable, institution.

A Tale of Two Neighbors. (And Many Dandelions.)

garden gnome-scott freemanThis morning as I was out digging dandelions in the sun, I noticed myself unconsciously making choices. It set me to thinking about human action and freedom.

I’m quite fond of the quirky little piece of downtown property where my wife and I live and raised our family. I love my wife’s garden. I love our art studio. I like our fruit trees. I like that our yard is not fenced in. And I really like that there is no Homeowners Association (HOA.) This allows me to do things like dig a pit and cook a turkey in the ground at Thanksgiving. Or to add outdoor art to my property. Our “inner city” neighborhood has a lot of cool, creatively embellished properties, and a lot of urban farming going on. Several neighbors keep chickens and bees in their backyards. These are usually among the best kept properties. I love this.

Of course there is the occasional trashy property as well, and the occasional display of poor taste. This is part of the cost of freedom. I think it is a small price to pay.

This post is a brief tale of two neighbors. It’s a story about the dynamics of living in community. (I’m pretty sure neither of my neighbors reads my blog.)

I will call my neighbor on one side, Harvey. Harvey is a middle-aged, single guy. We’re buds. We’ve talked a lot about life, God, politics, and stuff, in a dude sort of way. I like a lot of Harvey’s views, though he can be a little pugnacious. But underneath his crusty, cigar-smoking exterior, as human beings go, he’s a good man. He volunteers his time and resources to help under-privileged kids. For years he has worked with the deaf community in one capacity or another. He has purchased my art and books on several occasions. He has given us pecans from his farm in another state. I like Harvey.

A few years ago, Harvey adopted an enormous dog. A black lab, or something. I’ll call him Dogzilla. Dogzilla is clueless and friendly. I’d say he’s a little too friendly. He often escapes his pen and comes immediately into our yard, snuffling around and peeing in our garden, where we grow food that we intend to eat. Dogzilla produces enormous poop that doesn’t decompose because Harvey feeds him cheap dog food. Sometimes at night, I’ve noticed Harvey letting Dogzilla out for a potty break, while he enjoys a cigar in our shared alley. Recently, I shoveled all of Dogzilla’s petrified poop back into Harvey’s yard. I haven’t told Harvey about this yet, but if he doesn’t like it, I’m looking forward to the conversation where he explains why he has a problem with me putting his dog’s poop back into his yard.

Harvey pieced together a make-shift pen for Dogzilla. The makeshift pen is quite large and consists of five-foot sections of chain-link fencing, held up with bungee cords and stacks of cinder blocks, with a tarp thrown over part of the fence for shade. With dandelions and goat heads growing all around. It looks like crap. It’s very reminiscent of a third world slum, or a refugee camp. Of course, I have nothing against third world slum dwellers or refugees, but I don’t believe that Harvey and Dogzilla are in a crisis situation. Unless you count the dandelion crisis. But even so, that’s really a first world problem.

So that’s on one side of my house.

Then there is my neighbor on the other side. I’ll call her Betsy. She is an interior designer. Her house and yard look like a greeting card scene. She’s like Martha Stewart without the prison record. Her property has been on the annual Loveland Garden Tour. It’s like a Disney movie over there, with rabbits and birds and butterflies hopping and flitting about. When I step out of my house to go to work in my studio, if I happen to glance over to the right at Betsy’s property, I often break into song.

Betsy is also a great neighbor and a giving person. She is from an old Loveland family, and it’s fun to talk local history with her. My wife and Betsy exchange gardening plants. I have painted several paintings in her sanctuary-like backyard during plein air art competitions. (I have never asked Harvey’s permission to paint in his “yard.”) During winter, she always has her snow removal guys do part of my sidewalk. At Christmastime we exchange Christmas cookies, and hers are amazing, and ridiculously Martha Stewart-like. (Harvey does not give us cookies, but that is probably a good thing.)

That’s the other side of my house.

So, when I went out for my first springtime dandelion digging, guess where I started digging first? I headed directly to Betsy’s side of my yard. I wanted to be sure she didn’t have to wonder if I was going to get rid of the dandelions next to her property. (Her yard is dandelions-free.) She has never complained to me about my sometimes lax grounds keeping. She doesn’t have to. Because she treats her property with care, it makes me want to do the same. Not out of guilt, or shame, or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses, but out of respect and appreciation for the effort and creative care she puts in. I’ve noticed that she likes to entertain guests in her garden, and I would like to not be the jerk who ruins the sanctuary vibe that that she has going on over there. All of this is unspoken. I could completely neglect my property, and the world would keep turning, but the fact that she cares helps me to care.

Isn’t so much of life like this?

All of us struggle every day against entropy and degeneration, in every aspect of life. The physical universe is winding down. Left to itself, our environment gravitates toward disorder and decay. Civil society naturally tends toward confusion and degeneration. Even the genes in our cells are continually mutating, causing our bodies to degenerate and eventually lose function. But we fight against this. By intelligence, creativity, and work, we rebuild, restore, support, and hope. Ultimately, our only hope for salvation is an intelligent, loving, regenerative Life-Source existing outside of creation, commonly referred to as “God.” But whether or not we believe in such a God, most of us still hold onto hope. I find this bittersweet.

For me, every creative act is worth something. While even our hoping and dreaming is imperfect, every hope and dream in the face of futility testifies that we were created for life, love, and goodness. Creative acts affirm life. Caring acts make the universe make sense to our neighbor. Loving acts transcend the futility of our hopeless trajectory, in some small way. To me these things signal that there is something better to come.

I’ll close with some gardening tips from the apostle Paul:
“…whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal 6:7-10.)

dandelion

Sign up at MY WEBSITE to receive notification of my life-affirming, new kids’ storybook releases! Next release coming soon!

The Proof That Religious Freedom Laws Are Not About Discriminating Against Gays

GLBTQ wedding cake topperYay! It’s time for another lesson in freedom and pluralism! Everybody get out your COEXISTENCE bumper stickers and let’s all celebrate diversity!

Remember?… Celebrating diversity?… Remember when that was the cool thing?

I know. “Nice try dude, but HATE is not an acceptable example of diversity. No one should be denied their full civil rights.”

I absolutely agree.

But if you followed the recent religious freedom story in Indiana, you know that opponents strenuously argued that Indiana’s bill would give businesses “a license to discriminate against gays.” The law did no such thing.

One would think that with the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell decision so recently in the news, people, especially the press, would remember what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 actually does. It’s not a license to unlawfully discriminate. The Indiana bill was a state version of the federal RFRA, agreeing with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

As a reminder, the RFRA simply requires the government to exercise restraint. Government may substantially burden the free exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that its action 1) furthers a compelling governmental interest, and 2) that it finds the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

The RFRA does not guarantee a result. It’s an attempt to balance First Amendment freedoms and governmental power. It’s not a license for religious people to pick and choose which laws they feel like obeying.

Since, for the most part, the news and entertainment media don’t understand the motives of people of faith, they are left with guessing at motives. So they assume bigotry and hatred, despite the evidence. They create a cartoonish portrayal of an idiotic, religious class of people, standing in the way of progress and equality. They “expose” religious freedom protections as the latest ploy to allow anti-gay hatred, as if Evangelicals favor hatred. This is a political strategy.

What motivates Evangelicals?
Religions address life’s fundamental questions about God, man, purpose, morality, marriage, family, life, and death. Beliefs dictate behavior. Evangelicals ultimately believe in truth and love, reflective of an objective, ultimate authority – God – who embodies and is the source of truth and love. Whether or not you agree with Evangelicals on this, try viewing the current debate through that lens. I contend that it makes much more sense, and is much less creepy, than believing that half the U.S. population consists of raving homophobes, driven by hatred toward a particular class of people. Do you really believe that Christians are clamoring for the right to refuse service to gay people simply because they are gay? If you do, I suggest you expand your circle of friends.

I grew up in Evangelical subculture. It’s impossible for followers of Jesus to hate gays, because Jesus commanded His followers to love people. At the same time, it’s just as impossible for followers of Jesus to redefine marriage so that it’s not a heterosexual institution, because Jesus affirmed the Torah’s definition of marriage in Genesis (Gen 2:24; Mk 10:5-9.) This is the crux of the issue today – the definition of marriage. It is not about discriminating against gay people, as gays, per se.

Two proofs:
First of all, the supposedly anti-gay business owners who have received national attention all knowingly and willingly served gay customers previous to the hoopla. No one is asking for a freaking “license to discriminate against gay people” as persons. Christians are not clamoring for the right to post a signs on their businesses that say, “THIS ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT SERVE FAGS.” Once a news reporter knows this, and yet continues to refer to these business owners as “anti-gay,” or “denying service to gay customers,” then it’s fair to say that news reporter is misrepresenting the issue. Which is to say he or she is lying.

It wasn’t until these business owners were asked to provide services for gay wedding events that they declined. Across the board. The current issue is about the freedom for people of faith to refuse to participate in the redefining of a biblically defined concept of marriage.

Here’s the second proof: I will bet you a rainbow-colored gay wedding cake that these same business owners would decline to participate in a wedding event for a brother and sister wanting to unite in marriage. I’m pretty sure they would decline to participate in a marriage of two dudes and a woman. This would not make them or “anti-sibling” or “anti-hetero.” It’s not about the sexual orientation of the customer. These scenarios are not far-fetched, and there are sound, compassionate, and socially responsible reasons to protect the concept of marriage as the uniting of an unrelated man and woman, in a monogamous, lifelong commitment.

If you are a supporter of “marriage equality,” I have a question for you:
Do you support full marriage equality, or do you only support marriage equality for gays? Because if you don’t support full marriage equality, then you can’t say you support marriage equality.

What is the reasoning that expands the definition of marriage to include gays, but excludes siblings from marrying? How can you deny equal treatment to two siblings of any sex who simply want to get married like anyone else? Are you suggesting that gay marriage is somehow better than sibling marriage, or, let’s say, a marriage of a father and his adult daughter? Why? How is imposing a “marriage ban” on such couples not bigotry and discrimination? You can’t favor gays and deny equal treatment to other groups. It takes all the colors to make a rainbow, right?

I would especially like to know how you feel that legalizing incestuous marriages would harm you personally, since no one is forcing you to marry your mom, or dad, or sibling.

This is not a rhetorical question. The world really needs to hear a rational answer. Your reasoning can no longer rely on current law, the “ick factor,” or tradition.

Even now, some closeted incestuous couples are brave enough to speak out, emboldened by gay marriage gains. Here are some actual testimonies from a Full Marriage Equality blog site:

> By (sic) brother and I have been together for 3 years now. we’ve had many problems because of course it is a difficult situation. we want to get married and have a family. we’ve told some people and all of them have been very supportive. Here’s the thing, i always compare ourselves with the gay community, 20 years ago they couldn’t be seen in public, they were discriminated until finaly society stared to accept them (sic) and i think the same thing is going to happen for us. I dont understand why people is against this (sic)… I mean, we’re not hurting anyone, we are in love and love is a good thing. we are happy together and once again WE ARE NOT HURTING ANYONE. i think it’s nasty the way society behaves, most people will not support a couple that loves each other, but they will support war? way to go!! If you’re not dating your brother, you dont have to be nasty and bitchy about it, it’s not your problem and we’re not hurting you… (Anonymous)

> Of course I would marry my brother if I could. We want to spend our lives together, raise children together. And I know it’s not just us that wishes society would accept this kind of relationship. I’ve talked to many other people, and I know there are many incest couples that wish they didn’t have to hide either. True love should never have to be hidden, it should be celebrated. (Liz, living as “married” to her older brother, Ryan.)

 > If it weren’t for the possibilities of persecution for ourselves as well as those that support us, we would challenge anyone to observe our relationship and find one negative thing that is not present in any relationship. In fact, we have a loving home and rarely, very rarely, disagree. We take care of each other and trust each other. (Tony, age 54, secretly living as “married” with his 37 year old genetic daughter.)

 > Q: Would you get legally married if you could?
A: Of course we would. That’d be a dream. We’ve experienced physical and mental abuse due to our relationship, even in the workplace. Also the fact that we cannot have the marital benefits that many couples do have, even unrelated gay couples here in Canada. It’s very difficult. But so far we’d just like the ability to be together and feel safe doing so. (Corneilius, a bi-sexual male living as “married” to his homosexual, full blood brother.)

(All quotes are from Full Marriage Equality. Please be aware that these interviews are sexually explicit.)

In the same way that followers of Jesus don’t hate gays, we don’t hate these people either. However, we do disagree with them. We’re not going to agree to subvert what we see as God’s authority on the matter of what marriage is.

Conclusion
I would love to be wrong about this, but it looks like Full Marriage Equality is now inevitable, thanks to the redefining of marriage through the gay rights movement. As any meaningful definition of marriage goes swirling down the toilet of history, the world will become an ever less safe place for children, especially for girls. If the societal taboo of incestuous sex falls, it will change the relational dynamic for all families, for the worse, by introducing and normalizing possibilities that should not exist in familial relationships.

During the short span of my lifetime, I have watched the political agenda of the Left move from advocating coexistence and tolerance to forced participation of the general population into compliance with its political beliefs. It is accurate to use the term “forced,” since the political Left now favors using the courts of government to impose even things like cake baking, picture taking, and buying contraceptives. The RFRA at least gives people of faith the possibility of legal grounds for opting out of participating in the Left’s political agenda. But even this is too much to ask for “marriage equality” supporters. Apparently we must all be made to actively participate. The orchestrated hysteria around the Indiana religious freedom bill manipulated public opinion through dishonest talking points, and intimidation. Such irrational hysteria demonstrates exactly why America needs the First Amendment and the RFRA protecting religious liberty.

May political, business, and religious leaders find the backbone to support freedom, diversity, and pluralism in America.

Keep Watching – The New is Coming: One New Man.

One New Man

Ends at 2pm on Saturday…

The Hebrew author of the old testament book of Ecclesiastes stated that there is nothing new under the sun. At the time he was writing, I suppose this was true. However, the Torah and the prophets gave clear proclamation that something new and better would one day come with Israel’s Messiah.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures present a linear, unfolding revelation of our Creator’s spectacularly generous plan for humanity. When Jesus began to publicly speak, He spoke in terms of fulfillment: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of god is at hand…“ (Mk 1:15; Lk 4:17-21.) He spoke of new things – a new commandment, a new covenant, spiritual rebirth, a new life in His Spirit, the arrival of the long-awaited kingdom of God, resurrection and a new age to come.

Someone might object, “This is all old new stuff. Jesus said all of this 2000 years ago.”

Well, yes and no.

Our natural human condition hasn’t changed. All human beings continue to be born into a broken state, relationally separated from our Creator who is the source of life. It’s true that Jesus claimed to be the means to restore us to relational unity 2000 years ago, but the spiritual rebirth that He spoke of is new today for every modern person who chooses to believe and embrace Jesus and His gift of new life.

But there is another sense in which the works of Jesus are not ancient history, and this is what I want to focus on as we approach the Easter/Passover season.

Something new is happening, as we speak
Jesus and His apostles taught about something called “one new man;” something that could not have existed before the incarnation of Jesus (Eph 2:11-16; Jn 10:14-16.) One new man does not refer to individual regeneration and salvation. The one new man refers to both Jews and “the nations” (non-Jews) being fully united as equals, fully sharing in all of the blessings of the Jewish Messiah. Available recorded history indicates that this new and remarkable unity occurred only during a very brief time on a relatively small scale during the first century, during the time of the apostles. We can see the initial breakthrough described in Acts chapter 15, and elaborated in the writings of the apostles.

This is one of the great ironies of history: Contrary to first century Jewish tradition and expectation, the early Jewish followers of Jesus welcomed in non-Jewish believers as full brothers and sisters, without requiring them to become Jewish. They believed God had instructed them to do so. The Jewish apostolic leadership reached an agreement that “spiritually reborn” gentiles need not become circumcised and Torah-observant in order to be in right relationship to God, as this was now accomplished by faith in the salvific work of Jesus (Acts 15:7-11.) This full inclusion of non-Jews into the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12, Ro 11:13-36) changed the world, though not in ways anyone could have predicted. Certainly no one would have guessed that this would bring misfortune upon the Jewish people for centuries to come.

This is not to say that the inclusiveness of the early church leadership was wrong. Rather, it was the generations that followed who failed to abide by the teaching of the Rabbi Jesus and His Jewish apostles.

Many authors have documented the rift that grew between traditional Jews and the new church of Jesus, as it became increasingly gentile in composition. Eventually, as Roman rulers began to adopt “Christian” belief and identity, the situation became worse for Jews. Both civil law and church doctrine became increasingly hostile to Judaism, so that unity between Jews and gentiles was openly discouraged. In many times and places throughout Europe it became a punishable offense for a Christian to fellowship with or marry a professing Jew, or to participate in Jewish rituals. Both state and church leadership, (often one and the same,) sought to reinforce the establishment of two, separate religions – a triumphant Christianity and a subjugated Judaism. Religious times and seasons were changed accordingly as “Christian holidays” were established. For their part, traditional Jewish people were happy to comply with having nothing to do with the Jesus of the gentiles.

Today, the world accepts this status quo. Books and media dogmatically assume “three great Abrahamic religions” – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Christians have their holidays, and Jews have theirs. As far as Jewish people are concerned, if a Jewish person comes to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, that person ceases to become Jewish. Generations of intentional, religiously motivated segregation have reinforced this. The situation is now precisely upside-down: At the time of the Apostles, the question was, “Can a gentile become a follower of Jesus without becoming Jewish?” Today the question is, “Can a Jew become a follower of Jesus without becoming a gentile?!”

The answer to both questions is a joyful “YES!” The proof is that all of the first followers of Jesus were Jewish, and they rooted their recognition and belief in Jesus as God’s Messiah inseparably to the Hebrew Torah and prophets. The answer has always been yes, but anti-Jewish “Christian” theology made it almost impossible to see for the past 1900 years.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus came to establish a new religion called “Christianity,” distinct from “Judaism.” Jesus clearly stated that He came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets (Matt 5:17.) What is described in the New Testament is Jesus establishing a new covenant, and the kingdom of God – both Jewish concepts! In fact, the Jewish apostle Paul states that the gospel of Jesus is “to the Jew first, and also to the gentile.”

What has changed?
We live in a unique time in history. The Bible is now widely available to a widely literate international population. New generations of Jews, who have been taught that the New Testament is a Christian book having nothing to do with Judaism, can now open it up and see for themselves if this is true. New generations of gentile followers of Jesus have generally not grown up with anti-Semitic ideas such as Replacement Theology. More so than ever before, Jews and Christians can now openly dialogue with each other about these things without fear of persecution. Most importantly, more and more Jewish people are embracing Jesus as their Messiah, and as part of their heritage. And more and more gentile Christians are becoming aware of the essential historic Hebrew roots of their faith.

Is this the same as saying “more and more Jews are becoming Christians”? No.
Is this the same as saying “more and more gentile Christians are becoming Jewish? No.

The whole point of the one new man idea is Jews and gentiles being united in the Jewish Messiah. It’s true unity in diversity. It transcends religion and religious tradition in favor of relationship. It’s restored relational unity with our Creator, resulting in restored community within the creation. It must include truth, forgiveness, grace, and love. It’s already beginning to happen. I am so in.

Imagine the impact on our jaded and fractured world when this begins to happen on an undeniable, global scale. After nearly 2000 years of sometimes-violent, religious persecution, the walls are coming down. And this is not due to a more liberal reading of the Bible, but a more careful one.

What you can do
I’m not Jewish, and I don’t attend a Messianic congregation. I don’t own a shofar, or a kippah, or a tallit. However, I think it is clear that the God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures has chosen Israel to bring salvation to the world through Jesus. It grieves me that most Jews have been hindered from recognizing their own Messiah because of centuries of unbiblical religious practice on the part of the gentile church. It is time for the gentile church to educate itself as to the Hebrew foundation of our theology. It is time for the gentile church to put down any barriers that may hinder Jewish seekers from feeling welcome in our midst. It is time for us to go out of our way to love Jewish people.

If you’re not sure where to start, you can begin by clicking on the links in this post. If you live in Northern Colorado, I’d like to invite you to an event that my church puts on every Holy Week. It’s called the Holy Week Journey of Worship. The Journey of Worship is a self-guided, meditative event that takes place from 8am to 8pm (depending) in our darkened sanctuary from Wednesday through Saturday. Nine stations will walk you through the climactic events in the life of Jesus, explaining how the Hebrew feasts in the Torah of Moses foreshadowed each remarkable event. There is no speaker or program, but there is a fair amount of reading. I would suggest getting off the treadmill of normal life for an hour to go through it.

Following are comments:

“This was very beautiful. We were looking for a new way, a special way to celebrate this day. We were all moved, my husband, my teenage son, and myself. Thank you for opening this up to the public.”

“This was my first time coming to Journey of Worship and I LOVED IT. So great, cried my eyes out with the Lord. I love being that close to Him.”

“I just wanted to say that this has become such an important part of the Easter season in my life…It is a reminder of the intricate history tied to the awesome and supernatural events…Thanks.”

“This was a profoundly meaningful opportunity to worship and reflect. Thank you so much.”

 Watch this VIDEO to learn specific times for the Journey of Worship.

Harmonizing the Resurrection Accounts in the Bible

Mary Magdalene-Scott FreemanI could wallpaper my house with skeptics’ claims of how impossible it is to harmonize the resurrection accounts in the Bible. Muslim apologists also use the “inconsistencies” in the four gospel accounts to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is a fabricated story. A few years ago, after hearing an overconfident atheist repeatedly proclaim the impossibility of harmonizing the resurrection accounts in the gospels, I accepted his challenge. He was so confident that the biblical accounts were hopelessly contradictory that he offered to personally help anyone who could harmonize them to claim a $10,000 reward offered by the Skeptics Society.

I sat down over breakfast, and saw how they fit together after about 15 minutes of reading. Just sayin’.

I’ll concede that these critics are all more intelligent and educated than I am. But this doesn’t seem to be about intelligence. There’s gotta be something else going on here. I’ll show you what I found, and you, be you skeptic or believer, can see what you think for yourself.

Courtesy to you prevents me from addressing all thirty-something supposed contradictions. But once I explain the key, you’ll be able to resolve them all for yourself.

The Problem in a Nutshell
For those unaware of the “glaring,” “mutually exclusive” contradictions, here are the biggest ones, supposedly making it “impossible” and “ludicrous” to attempt to harmonize the Bible’s own account of its most pivotal event:

  • How many women went to the tomb on resurrection morning? Was it one (John)? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
  •  Did the woman/women arrive at the tomb while it was still dark (John)? Or as the sun was coming up (Matt and Mark)?
  • Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark,) or two (Luke and John)?
  • Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb (John)? Or were the women filled with joy (Matthew)?
  • Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus (Matthew)? Or not (John)?
  • Did the women tell the disciples immediately (Matthew, Luke, John)? Or did they say nothing to anyone (Mark)?

The key in a nutshell
The key to harmonizing the four gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus lies in recognizing that the Gospel of John describes a separate, earlier event from that which the Synoptic Gospels recount. The 3 Synoptic Gospels generally agree in what they report, with only minor variations. It is clear from an open-minded reading of the four accounts that Mary Magdalene, by herself, had already been to the tomb twice before the events described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke occur. By contrast, every skeptic I’ve read assumes that all four gospels are describing the same trip to the tomb. As we shall see, the answers to their criticisms have been there all along.

Is there textual evidence is to suggest that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb earlier than the other women? Yes, this is plainly stated. Two explicit references point to this scenario. First, John’s account begins, “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark (Jn 20:1.) The three other gospels describe a group of women, and mention dawn, or sunrise. Also, John’s text indicates that Mary was alone, and does not say that the purpose of her visit was to anoint the body.

A second clear reference to Mary’s visit is found in the gospel of Mark. He begins his abbreviated account with the group of women going to anoint the body at dawn, and ends with them fleeing the tomb in astonishment (v8.) But then, in verses 9-11 he states, “Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene…She went and told those who had been with them…But when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it” (16:9-11.) This is a reference to Mary’s earlier trip described by John, and summarizes his account perfectly. To attempt to read verses 9-11 as a continuation of the first 8 verses of Mark’s account makes little sense.

Bearing this scenario in mind, following is a chronology of the resurrection story wherein we will see all supposed contradictions resolved.

Mary Magdalene’s first two visits to the tomb
We begin with John’s account, “while it is still dark.” The stone has already been rolled back, the guards have already been dealt with, and the resurrection of Jesus has already occurred. Mary arrives to find the stone rolled back. This is her first visit to the tomb that morning. She goes no further, but turns and runs to get Peter and John, telling them that the body has been taken (v 1-2.) The men race to the tomb, look inside and see the empty grave clothes. John records that he believes, but that “as yet they did not know the scripture, that He must rise from the dead” (v 3-9.)

The perplexed men return to their homes, but Mary remains, alone and weeping, outside the tomb (v 11.) This is now her second visit. She looks inside the tomb and two angels appear and speak to her (v 12.) She turns to see Jesus, but does not recognize Him (v 14.) This is understandable as it is dark, she is weeping, and she believes Him to be dead. He reveals Himself to her and sends her to the disciples with a message. Mary finds the disciples, says, “I have seen the Lord!” and delivers the message (v 17-18.) This corresponds exactly with Mark’s summary in Mk 16:9-11. Note that Mark adds the detail that the disciples would not believe Mary. We will see why this is important shortly.

The Synoptic Gospel accounts: Mary Magdalene joins the other women
Now the Synoptic Gospels pick up the story. Mary M has now seen the empty tomb, angelic messengers, and the resurrected Jesus, but no one believes her. Does she simply go back to bed? Of course not! She had made a prior arrangement with the other women to anoint the body, after the Sabbath.

We know this from Luke’s account of the burial of Jesus:
“The women who had come with Him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. They returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment” (Lk 23:55-56.) Since the entombment, these women had been waiting to return to the tomb to prepare the body for proper burial.

Verse 10 of the next chapter tells us who these women were: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and some unidentified women. This is the most comprehensive description of the women. There were at least five. This accords with the remaining two accounts. Mark mentions the two Marys plus Salome, and Matthew only mentions the two Marys. The fact that they only name the two and three most prominent women is not a contradiction; it is simply the omission of detail. (Matthew does fill in these details earlier in his burial account, mentioning “many women” and naming “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:55,56.) It is reasonable to assume that this group accompanied the two Marys on resurrection morning.

So we have Mary M now joining the company of women who plan to go and anoint the body of Jesus. Note however that no one believes her story. Mary M, though frustrated, goes along with them because she knows they will soon see the truth for themselves. The three accounts agree that it is now dawn. This will be Mary M’s third visit to the tomb.

Mark 16:3 says that on the way the women were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” Is there a contradiction here? After all, Mary had already seen the stone rolled back, and Jesus Himself. There is no contradiction. Assuming Mary M has told them what she has seen, we’ve already been told that no one believes her crazy story. The picture that emerges is this: as the women rush to the tomb, most, if not all of the women are blowing off an exasperated Mary M; planning to anoint a body that Mary knows isn’t there, and asking who will roll away a stone that she knows has been rolled away.

Upon arrival, all accounts, (with the possible exception of Matthew,) say that they found the stone rolled away. We can reconcile the supposedly conflicting reports as follows:

The Stone and the Soldiers
Matthew describes an angel descended from heaven who rolled the stone back and sat upon it. The purpose of this first angelic appearance seems to have been to deal with the problem of the guard of Roman soldiers. They are not mentioned at the tomb again in any account, and it is reasonable to assume they remain unconscious (“like dead men” v4,) or have left to report to the chief priests (v11.) Obviously the earthquake and this angelic event had to have occurred before Mary M’s first visit.

There is nothing stated in Matthew’s account to contradict this scenario. Matthew states that the soldiers saw the angel roll back the stone (Matt 28:2-4.) He does not say that the women did. The angelic messenger was there, making himself visible to the women when they arrived.

We already know there were two angelic spirits present because Mary had already seen them inside the tomb earlier that morning. Notice, also, that Peter and John had been inside the tomb perhaps minutes before Mary looked in, and saw only empty burial clothes. A skeptic may think this business of angels appearing and disappearing at will is a very convenient device for someone attempting to harmonize resurrection accounts. However, if disappearing and reappearing is in the nature of what incorporeal beings do, a skeptic may not like it, but he cannot say it is inconsistent when they do it. It is therefore consistent to assume that one of the angels Mary saw earlier was the one who rolled back the stone, mentioned by Matthew.

Matthew does not tell us that the women entered the tomb, but it is reasonable to assume they did for two reasons: 1) a very shiny and fearsome angel had just commanded them to enter, and 2) the other 2 accounts say that they entered. Matthew simply omits this implied detail.

Critics see a contradiction in that Matthew has the angel giving his message outside of the tomb, while Mark has the angel giving the same message, thought for thought, inside the tomb. But at this point such criticisms are wearing thin. Given the emotional state of the women – fear, astonishment, lack of sleep – it seems completely reasonable to me that the angel would’ve repeated the message. Had I been an angelic messenger I probably would’ve written it down for them.

All of the other typically cited “contradictions” – the number of angels, whether they were sitting, standing, inside, or outside of the tomb – are easily reconcilable. The mention of only one angel when two are present is not a contradiction, but the omission of a detail. The angels were not frozen in position. Luke has the angel giving a different, but not contradictory, message. It is possible to conceive of omissions or additions that would be irreconcilable, but those in the gospel accounts simply do not fall into this category. (One such example might be: “…upon entering the tomb, they saw seven little men dressed in green, dancing around a pot of gold and singing songs to Zeus.”)

What is noteworthy is that two of the accounts have the angels insisting that the disciples see for themselves the place where Jesus lay, and the other two accounts record everyone doing just that. This is because faith as described in the Bible is evidential. The angels did not send the disciples away, saying, “Trust us. We’re angels. He’s risen.” No, they wanted human belief in the resurrection of God’s promised Messiah to be rooted in reliable, corroborated, eyewitness accounts. And, I would add, Jesus brilliantly revealed Himself to the women first, at a time when a woman’s testimony was not considered to be as credible as a man’s. This would be an unlikely strategy if a group of liars wanted to invent a popular new religion in a strongly patriarchal culture.

The Response of the Women
Finally, there is an oft-repeated “contradiction” that critics cite, which deserves a response. Upon leaving the tomb, what did the women do? Again the three accounts differ, but not irreconcilably so:
Matthew has the two Marys departing from the tomb with “fear and great joy,” running to tell the disciples. But on the way they are intercepted by Jesus. They take hold of His feet and worship Him, He reiterates the last part of the angel’s instruction, and sends them off (v 8-10.) Matthew is the only writer to recount this incident.
Luke simply states that after remembering the words of Jesus concerning His crucifixion and resurrection, they returned from the tomb and “told all this to the eleven and to all the rest” (24:8-12.)
Mark contains the seeming contradiction. He says “they fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid (16:8.)

Skeptics argue that the two Marys’ interaction with Jesus is significant and, if true, unlikely to be omitted from the other gospels. And at any rate, if Jesus met the women leaving the tomb as Matthew describes, then Mark’s account makes no sense. Mark says they told no one because they were afraid. These women had obviously not met Jesus. I’m inclined to agree.

The scriptures provide a clue for a plausible explanation. In John’s account, after Peter and John leave the empty tomb, he says “the disciples returned to their homes.” This indicates that the disciples – and there were many besides the eleven – were not staying together on a communal farm, but in individual lodging places. It is perfectly reasonable to posit that the company of women leaving the tomb split up to spread the message of the angels to the disciples. Possibly the two Marys then encountered Jesus apart from the others. It is reasonable to assert that not all of the five or more women were in the same frame of mind. Some, especially the ones who had not yet encountered Jesus, were too afraid to speak to anyone, while others felt “fear and great joy” as Matthew states.

Finally, skeptics attempt to make much of Mark’s statement, “they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (16:8.) As if this must mean they never spoke of the resurrection to anyone for the rest of their lives. This is a goofy objection. Obviously, they were temporarily overcome with trembling and fear, and when they had collected themselves, they spoke of what they had seen, concurring with the other gospel accounts. Possibly, in stating this, Mark’s gospel is underlining the distinction between the fearful group of women, and the account of Mary M in the very next verse in which she immediately tells the disciples. The author wants to clarify that the Mary M event was an earlier incident.

In harmonizing the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, the most glaring inconsistencies come from attempting to read John’s account as the same incident as that described in the Synoptic Gospels. However, there are good and sufficient reasons, plainly stated in the text, which indicate that they are separate incidents. None of the accounts, recounted by four different authors, tells the entire story, yet taken together they complement each other beautifully.

Much of what Jesus did is now lost to us. One example would be His appearance to Simon which is referred to in Luke 24:34, but which is never detailed in the gospels. John plainly tells us, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” (20:30-31.) We have enough to get the picture.

As for me, I’m going to go and attempt to claim my $10,000 from the Skeptics Association, again. I’ll let you know how that goes. Until then, may our awesome Creator reveal Himself more clearly to you during this coming Passover season.

Please sign up at www.bigpicturepublishing.com to be notified of my new, beautifully illustrated kids’ storybooks, designed to instill a biblical worldview!

Why Bruce Jenner Is Not A Woman

Is transgenderism anti-woman

I’m not making fun of Bruce Jenner. But I’m not celebrating either. I have some questions first.

I admit I have no qualifications to write about this. (I haven’t even had my sex talk yet.) But what are we supposed to do? By the time “the experts” start asking the right questions, the revolution will be long over, and then there will be no putting the gender genie back in the bottle. Since the news media are too busy celebrating to do their jobs, I thought it might be helpful to state some facts, and ask some honest questions about the basic facts of life.

Recently I read this in Yahoo Celebrity News:
“Bruce Jenner has been changing his appearance for months, leading to speculation that the former Olympic athlete is becoming a woman. A source for People magazine claims that’s exactly what’s happening,..”Bruce is transitioning to a woman…” (Erin O’Sullivan)

Actually, no, Bruce is not becoming a woman. For people to say so is an insult to women, and demeaning to the female gender.

Since it’s a full time job to keep up on the constantly changing, politically correct terminology around transgenderism, I’m simply going to attempt to be fair, honest, and as sensitive as I can be, and that’s going to have to be good enough. I ask the reader not to read any hostility into my questions, since I actually am committed to valuing transgender people. I think gender dysphoria is a real thing that people don’t choose, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Why it is anti-woman to perpetuate the idea that a man can become a woman
There is something fundamental at stake here: A grip on the basic shape of reality. I would hope that my readers would be offended if I were to refer to a women as a “cunt.” I hope we would agree that this is demeaning to women because it attempts to reduce a woman down to nothing more than a vagina. But at the end of the day, the transgender community seems to be doing something similar. If a dude thinks that buying himself a vagina through “sex reassignment” surgery is going to complete his transition to womanhood, I think it just shows that he is thinking like a dude.

The male reproductive package is relatively simple compared to that of women. One cannot simply trade in a penis for a vagina and call it a sex-change. It’s not an even trade.

Compared to that of men, the female reproductive package is very complex and all encompassing. A girl’s reproductive system dramatically announces and asserts itself at puberty, and continues to do so cyclically throughout her entire adult life until she reaches menopause as an older woman. Her reproductive system pervades her entire body, inside and out. Whether or not she wants to, she must think about her body on a daily basis. Often it demands her attention. If she becomes pregnant, for months she lives minute by minute with the reality that a living being is growing inside of her body; a body that was designed to bring new life into the world. During the birthing process, her body naturally takes over, bringing her through the transcendent and intense experience of childbirth. After birth, first the colostrum, and then the breast milk produced by her body, is the best possible source of nourishment for her baby, delivering exactly the nutrients, minerals, prebiotics, and antibodies that her baby needs. These biological realities, to a greater or lesser degree, must necessarily shape the psyche of every woman.

There is simply nothing like this for guys.

Does the fact that we can now chemically and surgically alter our bodies mean we can change our sex/gender? No. It’s true that “sex reassignment” surgery can construct an authentic-looking vagina, even retaining tissues that enable many MTF (male to female) transgenders to experience orgasm during sex. But at the end of the day, it’s still a hole. It doesn’t connect to a cervix and uterus. There are no ovaries, no cramps, and no menstrual cycles. No possibility or risk of pregnancy. No (naturally) lactating breasts. A surgically constructed transgender vagina must be regularly dilated every day, for life, so that it doesn’t close up.

But what if a biological male identifies as female? This is a real thing.

I think we have to delicately ask, “How does a dude know what a woman feels like on the inside?” What if his idea of “feeling like a woman” is only a cartoonish caricature of femaleness? How would he or anyone else know the difference? We have to take his word for it, and I’m not willing to do that because people are wrong about stuff all the time. He may not “feel like a man,” but what does that mean?

Someone may ask, “Can’t we all live and let live, and let these people do whatever they want if it makes them happy and they’re not hurting anyone?” Yes. People are free today to do whatever they want, obviously. If only that were enough for them.

Why Gender is not a Social Construct
The hip, liberal viewpoint now is that sex is biological, but gender is not. Gender is supposedly a changeable, fluid continuum, and every point on that continuum should be celebrated. There are supposedly as many genders as there are people. But here is the deal: This is an opinion. It’s one, novel way of looking at human sexuality. There has been no new groundbreaking scientific “discovery” that there are a zillion genders (1). It’s a political perspective. It is every bit as legit to hold the opinion that there are only two genders – male and female – and that anything “in between” is disordered. But sexual liberals don’t like that viewpoint because they think it’s exclusionist and mean. It’s not – it should go without saying that people with disorders should not be shunned or hated.

Can we say that near-sightedness, far-sightedness, color blindness, macular degeneration, people with cataracts, and people born without eyes are all simply experiencing different ways of seeing? Are these simply all different points on a continuum that should be accepted and celebrated? Here is why worldview matters. Those of us who believe in a Creator and an intentionally designed universe would say that our eyes were designed for seeing; that there exists an ideal of perfect vision that is good. Do we therefore hate blind people? Of course not.

This is not obvious to everyone. In an accidental, mindlessly evolved universe, things cannot be objectively good or valuable – they simply exist. There is no ideal because there is no purpose to life. I once actually had a conversation with an evolutionist in which he found himself having to argue that working eyesight was not good. He could only say that he preferred having eyes that see, in our present context, but that blindness might someday be an evolutionary advantage. So for him, his preference for organs that actually function according to design is simply a cultural construct. I am of the opinion that this is wacky thinking, and I’m not sorry.

How can we know that gender is not a cultural construct? Because gender is similarly based in biology. Only women have the biological equipment necessary for gestation and childbirth. That’s not cultural. It’s been true in every culture for all of human history. Childbearing is a uniquely female, gender role assigned by our biology. A woman may or may not choose to embrace that role for whatever reason, but this doesn’t turn that gender role into a cultural construct. She may or may not exhibit stereotypically feminine behavior, but that doesn’t either confirm her gender or throw it into question.

Why should the binary, heterosexual system of human reproduction be the standard for defining human sexuality? Because of the fact that the continued existence of humanity has always depended on it. This means something. It means that binary heterosexuality is a good, healthy, proven, whole, and self-sustaining system. To be self-sustaining is part of what defines good. This is not to say that those who deviate from it should be taken out and shot, but neither should we go redefining marriage, sex and gender to help them feel better about themselves. At least not yet.

There remains much to be learned about gender dysphoria before we start breaking out the party hats and dismantling western civilization. I realize that transgenders – people whose gender identity does not match their natural biological gender – find relief in having a sexual category where they fit in. But what if it’s not a true category? What if this is not a natural phenomenon that we should be normalizing? This is a big question. If the transgender movement is correct, then when babies are born, doctors should stop biasing the way parents think about them by announcing, “It’s a girl!” or “It’s a boy!” Because we won’t really know. Apparently, we still won’t know even if the child wins a gold medal in the Olympic decathlon as an adult man.

One possible cause of gender dysphoria
It is possible that environmental factors may cause or contribute to gender dysphoria. There are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) prevalent in our environment and food now that weren’t there just a few generations ago. If a fetus developing in utero is subjected to such chemicals, which are known to damage or inhibit normal sexual development, could this account for an increasing number of children and adults experiencing gender dysphoria today? We can’t say for sure because more research needs to be done.

But will the research be done in our hyper-politicized environment? Have you ever heard anyone in any media even mention EDCs? I’m guessing that transgender people would prefer to think of themselves as the vanguard of a new, revolutionary, liberated human sexuality rather than as people with birth defects.

Radical Feminism, Transgenderism, and Postgenderism
An alien visiting our planet might assume that a movement called “feminism” would embrace the essential and uniquely feminine role of childbearing. But no, radical feminism sees this biologically defined role as innately oppressive, and the idea of the nuclear family as something from which we must be liberated. Pregnancy is practically seen as a weapon used against women. Therefore, the gender feminist camp of the feminist movement, far from being offended, is heartened by transgenderism, gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion-on-demand, and pretty much anything else that helps to subvert the ideal of lifelong, loving, heterosexually monogamous marriage. It is in the interest of radical feminism to obliterate the connection between sex and reproduction in general, and women and the innate role of childbirth in particular.

Here is a vision of equality by radical feminist author, Shulamith Firestone, from her seminal postgenderist work, The Dialectic of Sex, published in 1970:

“Humanity has begun to transcend nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origins in nature…The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either…the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally…For unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family – the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled – the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated. We shall need a sexual revolution much larger than – inclusive of – a socialist one to truly eradicate all class systems.”

Yes, you read that right. Women cannot be equal with men until their biologically assigned role is overcome through technology, and the nuclear family is abolished. This is at once an admission from the Left that left-wing sexual politics cannot work in the natural world, and also a beaming example of the astonishing arrogance of atheistic humanism.

This explains why we see a curious refusal on the Left to associate sex with procreation, and childbirth with the female gender. This is why we see a campaign to keep gender superficial and interchangeable between sexes. It’s part of a utopian political movement.

So what do we do with each other?
With such fundamentally clashing views competing in our culture, how can we all co-exist? The answer is actually very simple – pluralism and freedom. (Here I use “pluralism” to mean the intentional co-existence of competing ideas.) If you’re reading this and you’re a transgender, or gay, or feminist person, I hope you are happy. I really, really do. I don’t bear you any ill will at all. But if you need me to celebrate your viewpoint in order to be happy, that’s going to be a problem for you. If you intend to use the power of government to force your ideological agenda on me, that’s a serious problem for all of us. We need to all be free to carry out our lives, according to our beliefs, in the free marketplace of ideas. Then we will see how this all shakes out.

I think it would be very helpful if we would all go out and meditate on our COEXIST bumper stickers. Then, if you’re looking for a profound movie, I recommend The Giver.

Relevant links:
1) Why Johns Hopkins Hospital Stopped Doing Sex Change Operations
2) Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent

Sign up to learn about Scott’s extraordinary children’s storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview: http://www.bigpicturepublishing.com