“Purity Culture” Hoopla: Comparing Notes

evangelical purity culture

I don’t know who came up with the phrase “purity culture,” but apparently I, my evangelical church friends, and our children were all part of it.

I guess.

It’s not like I was asked to sign a “purity culture” membership card to keep in my wallet as a parent. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a “culture.” I’ve never heard of purity culture cuisine. I’m not aware of any purity culture holidays, art, or burial practices.

Why does everything have to be a culture now, even when it isn’t?

I’ve been reading critics of “purity culture” ever since Joshua Harris came out with his latest in a string of announcements. At age 21 Harris had published I Kissed Dating Goodbye (IKDG), a book advocating an alternative to casual, serial dating. The book became a best seller and was enormously influential in shaping the evangelical and Christian home-school subcultures during the late 90s.

Twenty some years have passed and Harris has now very publicly renounced the central message of his book, announced that he is divorcing his wife of 19 years, and most recently, announced that he is no longer a Christian.

But more troubling, quite a few women who came of age in church youth group “purity culture” are now well into adulthood, and are claiming that “purity culture” damaged them, leaving them to wrestle with shame, fear, anxiety, eating disorders, nasty rashes, sexual dysfunction, inability to recognize sexual abuse, and more.

I’m sincerely puzzled. I was there. What these testimonies typically describe sounds nothing like what I saw. My five kids also grew up in church youth group “purity culture,” and I was a parent leader in our parent-led youth group in a theologically conservative, evangelical church. One of my sons read Harris’s book. One of my daughters went to a True Love Waits conference with a friend. More than one church youth conference or retreat was themed around guy/girl relationships and why casual dating and sex is not a good idea.

Regardless, here are all these testimonies claiming injury from Harris’s book. At first I concluded that, if his critics’ claims are true, Harris is doing evangelicalism a favor by repudiating his book and stopping further publication.

But then I actually read his book.

After hearing the backlash I was surprised that IKDG seemed sensible and sensitively written. I didn’t see any of the legalism or rigidity that I expected to find. Didn’t see any shaming or intimidation.

Then I tried to verify the specific accusations I’d been hearing. For example, here’s a quote from an opinion piece in Huffpost, specifically referring to Harris’s book, (emphasis added):

…Other messages from the book: Girls should be modest and meek. Boys are sexual creatures and if they have impure thoughts about you it is your fault. The body and its desires are to be suppressed at all costs. Harris’ ideas were par for the course in the purity culture that dominated evangelical circles like mine.
– Hannah Brashers, Huffpost Personal

I’ll assume we can all agree that such a message deserves to go down in flames. However, I could not find such a message in IKDG. Following is the closest I could find, from the chapter entitled, Purity. Harris encourages “brothers and sisters in the Lord” to protect each other. He has just addressed the guys, and here he addresses the girls, (emphasis added):

…You may not realize this, but we guys most commonly struggle with our eyes. I think many girls are innocently unaware of the difficulty a guy has in remaining pure when looking at a girl who is dressed immodestly. Now I don’t want to dictate your wardrobe, but honestly speaking, I would be blessed if girls considered more than fashion when shopping for clothes. Yes, guys are responsible for maintaining self control, but you can help by refusing to wear clothing designed to attract attention to your body…I know many girls who would look great in shorter skirts or tighter blouses, and they know it. But they choose to dress modestly. They take the responsibility of guarding their brothers’ eyes. To those women and others like them, I’m grateful…
– Joshua Harris, IKDG, p 99

Is he not humbly asking for help here? Is he not calling for mutual caring?

Why does his critic get it exactly backwards?

Let’s compare more notes
What follows is a rant by a blogger who has left Fundamentalism and wants to help victims of abuse. I’m not including her last name because my point is not to embarrass her. My point in responding here is that “purity culture” was more nuanced than critics want us to believe, and it’s wrong for them to preach that their terrible experiences are representative of all of evangelical subculture:

Katie P: “…Lack of sex education and/or relationship development are unfortunately hallmarks of purity/modesty culture. Purity culture teaches that any type of sexual education or experience outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong and deserving of severe punishment…”

“Severe punishment”? This is news to me. My wife and I taught our kids about sex and reproduction (age appropriately) while they were still elementary school age. We formally went into greater detail before they entered middle school, because we wanted them to hear about sex from us first. From then on we discussed sex, dating, human sexuality, and boy/girl relationships as questions were raised, which they were, often around the dinner table. We still do this as adults.

Katie: “…purity/modesty culture is also called rape culture. Another reason is the severe victim blaming that occurs within this toxic culture…[girls] are taught that their bodies are inherently sinful and tempting and must be covered (modesty) in order not to seduce men…”

Nope. In my lifetime I’ve never heard ANY living, literate, Bible believing person say that girls’ bodies are “inherently sinful.” In fact the Torah states that God personally created the female body and then pronounced it “good!” In evangelicalism, the Bible trumps human opinion – so why did she, or anyone else, say or believe this?

However, I do agree with her that the female form can be “tempting”; not because it’s sinful but because it’s awesome. That’s kind of the point. My wife and I did indeed have modesty talks with our girls. We were intentional about communicating that there is nothing shameful, sinful, or bad about their bodies or about being female. As Harris stated, it is solely on the dudes to control their thoughts and actions. In part, a girl’s choice to dress modestly is to help those of us guys who are actually trying not to objectify women. Many guys aren’t even trying.

Katie: “…Men are taught that they are “visual creatures” who are unable to control their sexual impulses at the sight of a women’s body…”

A revealing criticism. First, dudes do not need to be “taught” this – that we are “visual creatures.” We are this. That’s why there is a multi-billion dollar porn industry – because most guys are enthusiastically able and willing to be sexually aroused by solely visual means. It is girls who, imho, should be taught this about guys, because girls generally do not experience sexual arousal in the same way. My wife and I felt that we would leave our daughters in a naïve and vulnerable position if we didn’t educate them on this biological fact.

Second, regarding male sexual impulses: I’ve read testimonies from women who, due to shame and indoctrination, became unable to think of themselves as sexual beings, causing problems in their marriages as adults. This is sad. This also underscores how boys and girls are different. For most guys, once their pubescent hormones kick in and they find themselves in a world half full of girls, you could no more convince them that they’re not sexual beings than you could convince them that they are the Pope. There are scientifically verifiable reasons for this. “Purity culture” acknowledged them.

Katie: “…Oftentimes in purity culture, women are also given purity rings by their fathers symbolizing their commitment to remain “pure” for their husbands and to obey their father until he gives them to their future husbands.”

Yes, this was a thing. I never did it because I felt it was redundant. Also maybe a little weird. For me. I wouldn’t necessarily fault dads who did it, unless they forced their daughter to sit under a bare light bulb in a concrete cell with no food or water until she signed the pledge. (Which I’m sure evangelicals are being accused of doing, somewhere).

Katie: “…It’s easy to see why purity culture creates such a toxic, unhealthy, dangerous environment sexually, emotionally, and relationally. But for those who are living in this culture, it’s almost impossible to escape. God is used as the ultimate weapon to keep people in line…”

She’s describing cult behavior. Healthy evangelical subculture is not like this.

The youth group my kids came up in did have an informal no-dating policy. It was mostly unspoken, but was certainly articulated at conferences and retreats. During this time my son served as the youth worship leader. Beginning in his sophomore year he also had a steady girlfriend all through high school. No one said anything to him or me about it. No “weaponizing” God to keep him in line. Nothing “toxic” or “dangerous.” He and his girlfriend married after graduating college and have a great relationship today.

I could go on with more examples but I think you get the idea. Many people’s experience with “purity culture” was positive and healthy.

What Made the Difference?
Why did “purity culture” catch on? “Purity culture” gained popularity because Bible-believing parents thought it could be a positive way for the larger subculture to reinforce their values around sex and dating. Joshua Harris’s book became a best seller because he was a young, single guy, articulating what a lot of evangelical parents already believed about love, sex, and dating. They felt a young person saying it would help give the message credibility in the eyes of teens.

There is nothing sinister here. A lot of evangelical parents came to Jesus from out of secular culture and hoped to spare their kids some of the mistakes they had made. Obviously, in the arena of sex and dating, some mistakes come with a big price tag.

Furthermore, there was nothing new about the idea of saving oneself sexually for marriage, or “dating with a purpose,” or generally treating the opposite sex with care and respect. It’s just that this message contradicted the voices of secular education, media, and entertainment. In this sense “purity culture” was a radical alternative message.

Meanwhile, in the minds of many parents, the secular culture’s view of dating and sex is a train wreck. Many parents had been there and found it unenlightening. Secularism promoted a message opposite that of evangelicalism: Sex is no big deal. Sex is merely recreation. Sex is entertainment. Porn can spice up your marriage. There is a world full of people settling for less than God’s design for love, sex, and marriage. Evangelical parents wanted something better for their kids.

So what went wrong?
I suppose the short answer is: sometimes people get stuff wrong. Given a topic as personal, sensitive, and deep as human sexuality, this is not surprising.

Apparently many young people felt motivated by feelings of shame and fear – those are bad motivators. Apparently false or insufficient information was sometimes given. One woman wrote that, for many girls, once they put on the purity ring, that was the end of the discussion. That’s bad parental communication.

I don’t doubt the testimonies of the critics, but I don’t know the solution to the problem. There is a balance to strike when opposing concerns are both based on truth:

  • How do you promote modesty, while also avoiding victim-blaming?
  • How do you promote a positive, feminine body image, while avoiding crass sexualization of the female form?
  • How do you present accurate, comprehensive information about sex and marriage, while avoiding the secularist anything-goes approach?
  • How do you promote saving sex for lifelong, monogamous marriage, without shaming, or promoting legalism?
  • How do you hold up an ideal standard for courtship and marriage, without being formulaic, or marginalizing those who do not conform to that standard?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences about “purity culture,” and how the church could do better.

Advertisements

My #MeToo Story

MeToo movement backlash

As a student at art college, one autumn I decided to take a psychology class at a neighboring campus, UMKC. The KC Art Institute didn’t offer psychology classes, at least not formally. (The Art Institute itself was actually kind of like one big psychology experiment, but that’s another story).

One evening after my intro to psych class I was on my bike headed back to my dorm at my own campus. A carload of girls pulled alongside me, and one the girls shouted out, “NICE ASS!” as the car sped past, the girls in the car laughing uproariously.

As a college boy, I thought this was funny. And then I saw that it was about to get funnier. Looking down the road, I saw the traffic light turn red. The carload of girls had to stop at the light. I grinned to myself and pedaled as quickly as I could and caught up to the car.

I put on my most polite voice, looked into the car, and innocently asked,

“I’m sorry…you shouted something out to me back there, but I didn’t understand what you said.”

It took a few seconds for them to figure out that I was the guy they’d harassed. One of the girls shrunk down and buried her head in her hands, others tried to stifle their giggling. The girl sitting next to the driver, to whom I was speaking, pretended not to know what I was talking about.

I innocently persisted. There were no other cars on the street after all. She suddenly remembered, “Oh!…I said nice BIKE. I said I like your bike.” The car erupted with stifled laughter again. Then the light turned green and as the car sped off, she shouted out more profane remarks. The end.

Men and Women are Different
As you read this, you probably recognize that my story doesn’t really qualify as a #MeToo story. I agree. I didn’t feel victimized, or threatened, and I found the whole thing to be amusing. I assume these girls were just having a little fun by getting back at some random guy (me) for all the times they had been harassed on the street, (not by me, just for the record).

I’m really telling my story to illustrate the fact that men and women experience their sexuality differently. No young, female college student in her right mind would purposely approach a carload of guys who had just harassed her on the street. Certainly not in the evening with no one else around.

My Failed Campaign

When I was a hormonal high schooler, I remember sitting in the school cafeteria with my testosterone-crazed male peers and listening to them talk about girls. This wasn’t talking about girls as in, “wow, she’s cute.” This was cold, graphic, predatory talk. By my junior year, in addition to being raised well, I was a serious follower of Jesus, so I had compelling worldview reasons to treat women with respect. Nonetheless, as a normal male I could see within myself the same sexual impulses as those that ruled my hormonally hopped up peers.

As I looked around and compared the guys and girls I knew, I saw stark differences between the sexes that I felt no one was addressing. I felt pretty sure that most girls assumed that most guys approached sex the same way they did. Almost universally, if there was a word to sum up how most girls approached guys, I felt that word would be “unsuspecting.” I sort of took it upon myself to inform my female friends about what guys are really like.

It didn’t go all that well. Mostly I couldn’t get them to believe me.

This was understandable – it is difficult for any of us to imagine ways of thinking that are foreign to us, especially if we would rather hope such things not be true. Regarding male sexuality, it’s probably too generous to even call it a way of “thinking.” It’s more like a way of responding to a hormone-induced state of being.

At any rate, unless a girl had suffered abuse, there seemed to be little evidence for what I was saying, because guys seemed to be so “nice.” I tried explaining that, yes, a lot of guys act nice in order to get into a girl’s pants. I knew a guy who boasted that he would tell a girl he loved her to get her to sleep with him. But what girl wants to believe the world is like that?

Plus, there were factors that confused the picture.

There actually were guys who, for reasons of morality and integrity, fought internally against their animal impulses and worked at viewing women with respect.

There actually were plenty of girls who seemed to be inviting exactly the kind of non-discriminating sexual attention that the unapologetically horny guys wanted to give them.

Nothing was what it seemed to be on the surface.

The Failed Sexual Revolution
Underneath it all was the backdrop of what was then called “sexual liberation,” which seemed like an incredibly stupid idea to me, even at the time, because it raged against the societal taboos that protected women. The sexual revolution seemed to me to overwhelmingly benefit men at the expense of women, and yet, feminists were at the front of the parade leading the charge.

Weird, and yet, predictable, because the feminists were mostly women.

But it’s even wrong to say the sexual revolution “benefitted” men. It simply accommodated the animal impulses of men, which doesn’t truly benefit men or women.

Many #MeToo stories we are now hearing occurred when unsuspecting women accepted invitations to visit a man’s hotel room, home, or office alone. This used to be taboo. But now that we’re all “sexually liberated,” such taboos that once protected women are gone. So the culture has changed, but male animal nature has not, leaving girls and women vulnerable. The proof is that so many women are surprised by sexual harassment and assault by men they trusted and “thought they knew.”

One imperfect but convenient aspect about taboos in more discreet eras was that sexual proclivities could be dealt with, and the vulnerable protected, without going into graphic detail about the reasons why the taboos were necessary. Today we are supposedly more “open,” but we’re open about the wrong things. Who knew that powerful men were using their influence to coerce women for sex??? Well…um…apparently everyone. But no one was talking about it, men or women.

The high-profile men who have recently been outed – including Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Al Franken, and many others – have been called monsters. I call them unethical. Calling them monsters relegates their natural human sexual impulses to some frightening, dark, inhuman realm. For all I know they’re mostly probably pretty normal men, but lacked accountability, and principled worldview beliefs sufficient to restrain their impulses, so they gave in to the temptation to abuse their power. One could argue that, in part at least, the climate produced by the sexual revolution enabled these men to operate freely as sexual predators.

Will the #metoo movement succeed?
In one sense, the #MeToo movement is what I thought I wanted decades ago – a general female awareness that men are jerks. Even though I had theological reasons that told me all of humanity – both male and female – is corrupt and fallen, I still tended to put women on a pedestal.

In more recent years my sympathies toward men have grown, and I believe I see more clearly that both men and women (and everyone in between) are seriously jacked up and in need of redemption and spiritual guidance. I have several close examples of decent men who have been used by women, and lost much in the process.

Regarding the #MeToo movement, I now personally know at least 2 men who have probably had careers destroyed because of unproven accusations from women. I can testify with certainty that not all men are guilty of sexual misconduct. I regularly meet with other men for purposes of accountability, with no “help” at all from feminists shaming me for being male.

I’ve generally been inclined to be sympathetic to the idea of feminism, because historically, men have overwhelmingly tended to abuse their masculine strength, and because I believe in the fundamental equality of men and women. But unfortunately, in practice, feminism consistently veers into a tangle of toxic solutions and malignant ideology. This is not necessarily true of #MeToo.

The Me Too Movement was founded by Tarana Burke, a black woman and survivor of sexual abuse who set up a non profit in 2006 to help young women of color find community and healing from sexual abuse. The more recent social media iteration of the movement is more focused on raising awareness and calling men into account for their actions.

As it is today, I believe the Me Too movement has been a positive force. It is giving formerly silent women a voice, affirming those who have been abused, and bringing to light the issue of sexual harassment and sexual violence. It also contradicts stereotypes about women propagated by the porn industry – lies that many men would like to believe. I think this benefits all women, and helps to create a powerful societal atmosphere of unacceptability around predatory sexual behavior.

In other words it’s a step toward re-erecting societal taboos that have fallen, or perhaps even replacing them with something better.

But the Me Too Movement is not going to change the biological impulses of men. We are all still going to have to learn to live together, in community, in an understanding way.

Furthermore, if the Me Too Movement becomes politicized and partisan, it will be a loss for women. Unfortunately, this already seems to be happening. If the Me Too movement becomes co-opted by, and identified with, left wing feminism(s), it will cease to be a voice and a help for all women, even as it claims to be so. It will become one more divisive faction, issuing irrational ultimatums in our already badly fractured society.

Both the perpetrators and the victims of sexual misconduct cross all political, racial, economic, professional, and ideological lines. No one, (outside of the porn industry), is championing sexual violence. We can’t allow the issue of sexual violence and sexual harassment to become a political tool. May we all move toward more dialogue and healing, and away from walling ourselves off from those who are different from us.

Christian Sex, Sects, & Secular Sex

sex, incel, marriage

Well, sex is in the news again. (Surprise!) I thought I would use the occasion to articulate the purpose of sex from a biblical worldview, at least from my perspective.

It’s not as obvious as one might think. Based on comments from my atheist acquaintances I get the impression that there is probably some misunderstanding around the topic. I would assert that God’s view of sexual intercourse as defined in the Bible is unique, foreign, and “unnatural” in comparison to that of secular culture.

I should add that it’s also profound, life-enhancing, and sustainable, according to my personal research.

Promiscuous Sects
The recent news event that set me to thinking about all this was a misogynistic terrorist act in Toronto which led to the deaths of 10 victims, mostly women. This particular vehicular act of violence was perpetrated by a man who identified with something called the “incel rebellion movement.” Incel is short for “involuntary celibate.” Apparently many men in this category see themselves as low-status men who, through no fault of their own, are not stereotypically “hot.” Some are angry at the “shallowness” of women who won’t have sex with them.

These men seem to share an underlying assumption that everyone is entitled to sex.
I wonder where they got that idea?

The thing about sexual intercourse is that it involves another person’s body. It’s not something a single individual can claim a right to. The answer to involuntary celibacy cannot involve the imposing of involuntary sex on another person, at least in civilized society. That’s called rape. The incel mentality reeks of pornified thinking, though I can’t verify the connection.

Here’s a quote from Elliot Rodger, who wrote an incel manifesto shortly before going off and shooting 6 people and wounding 14 in Santa Barbara in 2014:

“…I’m 22 years old and I’m still a virgin. I’ve never even kissed a girl. I’ve been to college. For 2 and a half years…and I’m still a virgin. It has been very torturous. College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun, and pleasure. But in those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness. It’s not fair…I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It’s an injustice – a crime. Because, I don’t know what you don’t see in me. I’m the perfect guy. And yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentlemen. I will punish all of you for it. On the day of retribution I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB, and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck up, blond slut I see inside there…” (Elliot Rodger’s Retribution Video.)

There’s a lot wrong with this picture. All I’ll say is that, in addition to whatever else is going on here, from my perspective these guys have been jerked around by the assumptions and lies of secular culture and its shallow and self-contradictory view of sex: on one hand sex is merely recreation. Sex is not a big deal. But at the same time a life without it is practically a fate worse than death, and secular culture compels us to think about sex 24/7, literally invading our private spaces with sexual imagery.

The world would have us not take sex so personally. It’s just sex. So we should protect our emotional selves by being chill about sex. It’s just hormones and evolutionary impulses after all, so let’s take it for what it is and just enjoy it. Existentially. Hook up. What’s love got to do with it? Or marriage? “Life is short; have an affair.” We may as well use sex to sell product.

I would respectfully like to call bullshit on all of that. There is a more wholistic view.

Hey Look At Those Sexually Repressed Christians Over There
C S Lewis once pointed out a common misconception that secularists may tend to have about “Christian” sexual mores: that we think sex is innately “sinful,” or somehow unspiritual. Forgive me for not having time to look up Lewis’s actual quote, but the idea is that if something is forbidden, or has “rules” around it, this may not mean that thing is considered to be bad or evil. It may be the precise opposite.

We have laws against stealing, not because property is bad, but because property is valuable. Likewise, God prohibits sex outside of marriage, not because sex is evil but because it is a valuable and powerful gift in its intended context.

Many have pointed out that it’s unbiblical to think that the God of the Bible considers sex to be dirty, evil, or otherwise unspiritual in and of itself. The goodness of sex is explicitly stated in the Torah: in the creation story God began with an unashamed, naked man and woman in a paradise, instructed them to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth,” and pronounced the whole thing “good.”

It’s human rebellion and meddling that perverts the goodness of sex in both secular and religious cultures. We have a massive porn industry. Secularists insist on deconstructing sex, gender, marriage, and parenthood in the name of humanistic enlightenment. On the religious side we see inventions such as a celibate priesthood, which is a human innovation of religious sects, not a biblical directive.

God’s Idea of Sex
Belief in a Creator who designed human sexuality yields a very different worldview perspective from a belief that we are here by accident with no transcendent purpose, value, or authority. Following is an understanding of sex with which I believe most self-proclaimed followers of Jesus would agree:

The Bible depicts God as an eternally, innately, relational (triune) being who has always existed in love and relational unity. So loving relationship is both the starting place and the goal of our existence. As beings created in God’s image, we are wired to find fulfillment in relationship as well. We all long for connection with others. The overarching story of the Bible is the story of God restoring humanity to the possibility of loving relationship, both with Himself and with others.

Marriage was intended to be an expression of relational unity in creation; what the Bible refers to as “oneness” (Gen 1:24; Matt 19:4-6; Eph 5:28-31.) Sex within marriage is meant to be an expression of that oneness between a husband and a wife; mind, soul, spirit, and body. The unity in diversity in marriage is a profound reflection of the image of God in human experience. The apostle Paul says it is also picture of the love and unity between Christ and His church (Eph 5:31-33 .)

One can see Paul underlining these ideas in this passage:

“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own…” (1 Cor 6:15-19.)

Practically, God intended sex to be a bonding expression of love within the context of an adult, lifelong, faithful, monogamous, biologically unrelated, marital relationship. This also happens to be the best context for raising children, which works out great since hetero sex is procreative.

This does not necessarily mean that Christians must be consciously meditating on being in the image of the triune God, or cranking up Mozart’s Requiem in D Minor every time they make love. This is simply the shape of reality in which followers of Jesus live and move and have their being.

The point is that sex is not a happy accident of evolution that we can make into whatever we want. We may try, but the shape of reality that God has created has a stubborn way of reasserting itself. We may find that butting heads with that reality leads to despondency . We may find sex apart from love and commitment to be ultimately lonely and unfulfilling, despite having lowered our expectations.

The Bible explicitly states that God’s desire and plan for us, His creation, is unity and loving relationship (Eph 1:9-10; Jn 17:3.) But truth is an essential part of that unity. Lies separate people. Lies about love and sex are no exception.

No, I’m Not Judging You
Someone may now be thinking, “If you think you’re going to get unmarried people to stop sleeping with each other, you are delusional.” I would agree. I wouldn’t dream of even trying. Many secularists seem to assume that people like me would like to force everyone to stop having promiscuous sex, stop being gay, stop getting divorced, stop using birth control, stop smiling, stop eating ice cream, and so on. Nope. I’m all about free will and diversity.

Hopefully my critics would be happy to know that my wife and I always taught our kids that they shouldn’t expect people who don’t claim to be followers of Jesus to behave like followers of Jesus. Instead we can confidently be who we are, and love other people where they are. There is no hatred of people implied in anything I’ve said here.

I’m simply putting an alternate view out there as something that doesn’t get said in a public forum very often. I think it might be a welcome perspective for some people.

I set out this alternative view of sex for those interested in a healthy, life-enhancing, loving alternative. My guess is that there are some reading this who feel out of step; you feel that sex means something more to you than what the world tells you it should mean. You may feel quietly defensive that you don’t want to be viewed, and don’t want to view other people, as evolved pieces of meat. If this is you, I want to affirm that you’re not alone and that you are not crazy. I think you are right. I think our Creator who loves us has wired us to know better.

I welcome your comments below. Feel free to message me privately also.

What Jesus Said About Marriage Equality

Jesus-in him all things hold together

The words of Jesus have a way of keeping His followers off the fence. For example, in the ongoing religious freedom and marriage equality “debate,” it is sometimes pointed out that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Therefore, some have argued, perhaps followers of Jesus shouldn’t be saying anything about it either.

However, while it’s true that we have no record of Jesus specifically mentioning homosexuality, we do have an extremely pithy statement from Him about what God intended marriage to be. This is fitting, because today’s marriage equality debate is not ultimately about homosexuality anyway, as the Left and its sympathetic media would have us believe. The debate is and will continue to be about the redefining of marriage.

The statement on marriage made by Jesus is remarkable in its relevance, precision, and transcendence. In three sentences there are at least eight defining aspects articulating what Christians believe the Creator of marriage intended marriage to be. I’ve created a diagram (below) so that this can easily be seen.

But first, I want to examine a meme that has been circulating in discussions on social media. It supposedly shows why the Bible doesn’t support “traditional marriage.” (The white caption is mine because I couldn’t resist commenting.)

How can “biblical marriage” be a thing?
The argument is that marriage has changed over millennia many times, and that the current redefining of marriage to include same sex couples is simply another iteration of an evolving institution. After all, the Bible itself contains many examples of marriages that today’s evangelicals consider to be objectionable, so how can evangelicals argue for “biblical” or “traditional” marriage?” Here’s the meme:

There are at least three reasons why this meme fails:

  • Example #1 misrepresents Gen 2:24, which it claims to be describing. None of the 4 points listed in example #1 are true for this verse. In truth, Gen 2:24 describes God’s ideal conception of marriage as it existed before “the fall” – before sin and death entered the world. We’ll return to Gen 2:24 in a moment.
  • The rest of the meme’s examples are post-fall, including references from the Torah of the Mosaic Covenant, a body of law given to instruct and govern a Jewish theocracy in ancient Israel. Jesus states that the Torah contained concessions due to “the hardness of men’s hearts, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8.) In other words, the Torah does not express God’s ideal will or desire for human interaction, obviously. Rather it was a “custodian,” to govern an unregenerate, rebellious body of people, until something better would come in the Messiah (Gal 3:23-26.) The Bible presents a linear, progressive revelation of God. It is a fundamental misunderstanding to assume that old covenant Levitical law represents God’s ultimate ideal, or that New Covenant followers of Jesus are bound by it.
  • The meme ignores the fact that in the New Testament, Jesus and His apostles unequivocally teach a return to the ideal of marriage in Gen 2:24, doing away with polygamy, slavery, religious war, a non-egalitarian standing of women in the church of Jesus, and observance of the written Torah in general (Ro 7:6; 1 Cor 7:1-3; Gal 3:28; Eph 6:12.)

What Jesus said
Jesus begins His statement on marriage by referring, not to Levitical law, but to the unspoiled created order: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” This refers to a passage in the first chapter of the Bible where we find the phrase,

“So God created man [meaning both men and women in Hebrew] in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them”
(Gen 1:27)

Thus Jesus’s defining statement on marriage is rooted in a transcendent basis for the worth and equality of the two sexes: both were made in the image of God, reflecting His likeness.

Proceeding from there, He goes on to either explicitly state or imply the defining characteristics of marriage as God conceived it. Since everyone likes rainbows now, I’ve shown this in the rainbow-colored chart:

Jesus gay marriage equality

As you can see, types of unions that fall outside of Jesus’ ideal of marriage would include homosexual, polygamous, incestuous, promiscuous, “monogamish,” and temporary sexual relationships, to name a few.

Definitions draw distinctions. If marriage has any definition, then it must exclude some people. It is important to note that by focusing on gay marriage, the U. S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision also excludes many consenting adults who at this moment want the legal right to marry but instead suffer discrimination. (Read their testimonies.)

In addition to Jesus’ statements, the New Testament states that marriage is a “profound mystery that refers to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32.) Throughout both testaments of the Bible God repeatedly uses heterosexual marriage as a metaphor to describe His relationship with His people. In the New Testament, the church of Jesus is often described as His bride. Furthermore, marriage is widely understood to be a reflection of the unity-in-diversity that exists within the loving, generative, triune Godhead itself.

Thus, for the majority of those who follow Jesus and the Bible, lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a profound ideal with both practical and symbolic applications.

Admittedly, Jesus articulated a very high bar for marriage. Of course, this is not to say that people in alternative types of unions should be hated, or executed, or harassed, or fired from their jobs, or generally refused service, or be otherwise excluded from the human family. But their relationships are simply not marriages according to Jesus. Jesus commanded His followers to love everyone, but He also called them to observe His teaching, which He claimed to be truth. It’s really that simple for Christians (John 8:12, 14, 31-32, 47, 51.)

So for followers of Jesus, this is not about hatred or bigotry. Despite what the news media continually says, it’s not even “anti-gay.” (Many same-sex-attracted people agree with and follow Jesus.) The Left is simply using hate-shaming to manipulate the public, move its agenda forward, and attempt to get Christians to shut up and leave the field.

Entitled to your opinion
You may not agree with what Jesus said. You may not agree that Jesus actually said these things at all. You may believe that Jesus was gay. Or you may not believe that Jesus ever even existed. You may think the Bible is a book of fairy tales. You are free to believe whatever you want about God and Jesus, and, according to our Constitution, congress may not make a law that forces you to participate in “an establishment of religion.”

However, neither does our Constitution allow congress to make a law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. For a great many American citizens, marriage is a religiously defined institution. Government may not force these people to participate in an ideological campaign to redefine marriage, sex, and gender.

Yay. This is freedom. It’s a two-way street. The Left is free to march on with its now decades-long, disease-ridden, death-producing sexual revolution. Followers of Jesus are free to not join in the parade for a cause that they believe to be a bad idea that ultimately harms society in general and children in particular. People on both sides can have compassionate reasons for believing as they do.

The bottom line is that followers of Jesus simply don’t believe they have the authority to redefine a fundamental concept that God has so clearly defined. We happen to believe that human government does not have that authority either.

Fine. So why not hold to your beliefs privately and just obey the law?
Because secularism is not a neutral, default position. It’s not as though religious viewpoints are biased while secular viewpoints are somehow unbiased.

For example, abortion-on-demand is not unbiased public policy. Recognizing only gay marriage from among other types of alternative love relationships is biased and discriminatory. The opinion that gender is determined by one’s feelings while sex is determined by one’s body is simply one, unsubstantiated theory. In fact these three examples can be seen as part of an ideological, sociopolitical movement called postgenderism or transhumanism.

In a diverse, pluralistic, and free society, religious viewpoints needn’t be any more private than do secular viewpoints. Followers of Jesus are free to aspire to a higher “supernatural” view of marriage, sex, and life, though they may not impose this on others. In the same way, secularists are free to aspire to a lower, “natural,” animalistic view of marriage, sex, and life, though they may not impose this on others. In all of this, American government should remain as limited as possible, while ensuring basic human rights and freedoms for everyone within the constraints of the Constitution.

Should the state be forcing either of these two groups to participate in the other’s well-intentioned vision? Nope, not in a free society. But…wait…what if lots of celebrity actors and musicians and big corporations say that only “progressive” opinions on marriage and gender should be legally protected? Still nope. The correct answer in America is always freedom and pluralism (meaning the peaceful coexistence of competing ideas in a free marketplace of ideas) within the constraints of our Constitution.

What are the implications of this?
American Christianity is firmly opposed to theocracy. Christians are not seeking to force non-Christians to live as Christians. Or to criminalize sex outside of marriage. Or to criminalize divorce. Or to criminalize gay unions.

This is not what Christians are advocating. Neither is it right for the federal government to redefine marriage along arbitrary, ideological lines, and then impose that definition onto everyone else. Americans for whom marriage is a religiously defined, fundamental, societal institution have a first amendment right not to participate in and associate with an ideological movement they believe to be malignant and morally objectionable.

The point of this post has not been to prove Jesus right. The point has been to simply point out what the gospel writers say He said about marriage. This is the crux of the current religious freedom “debate.” Religious conservatives are not misreading or cherry picking their own text when they disagree with “marriage equality.” Agree or not, there is a large population of the world that will not be going along with the ideological campaign to redefine marriage, and they have compassionate, humanitarian reasons for refusing.

In America, the government cannot force its citizens and their businesses to behave as political liberals, any more that it can force them to behave as political conservatives. We already have a solution to the religious freedom debate: limited, constitutional government.

 

Check out my kids’ storybooks designed to inspire love and reinforce a biblical worldview in the kids you love! SHOW ME!

Isn’t the Solution for Planned Parenthood Very Simple?

The Sexual Revolution & AbortionThey could stop doing abortions.

Since the most recent video scandal, defenders of Planned Parenthood have been retorting that abortion only accounts for a very small percentage of the services that Planned Parenthood provides. As if abortion is an insignificant part of what Planned Parenthood does.
Okay, then. If abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, then why not stop doing them altogether? Why not just stick with actual women’s reproductive health services?

But this will never happen. Why? Why is providing abortions a deal-breaker for Planned Parenthood? Why will Planned Parenthood risk losing over $500 million in taxpayer funding rather than stop doing abortions?

They will not stop because their reasons are ideological.

Gender feminism and the Postgender movement will not accept an ethic that compels a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The key word is unwanted. Apparently, “Progressive” ethics is ultimately about autonomy, self-determination, and “equality,” even if this means demanding a woman’s right to kill her offspring in utero; and it does. These people believe that women cannot be on equal footing with men so long as women are bound by a biologically assigned role that men are not bound by.

The connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy must be severed, or else women can’t possibly share an “equal status” with men. This is essential to the sexual revolution. It doesn’t matter if a woman freely chooses to have sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. Her male partner doesn’t have to worry about living with an unwanted pregnancy, so neither should she. It wouldn’t be fair. For radical feminism, legal abortion is basic to ensuring equality with men.

Therefore, those of us who oppose abortion on demand are said to be waging a “war on women.” But we’re not. We’re waging a war on an inhumane utopian fantasy. We accept the natural order of creation and recognize the value, equality, and sanctity of every human life regardless of differing gender roles.

Going backwards?
But maybe gender feminists have a point. Why not use abortion to level the gender playing field?

Because by definition, abortion undermines any meaningful notion of equality. It abuses power, destroying vulnerable individuals in order to advance the status of more powerful individuals. It saws off the limb on which it is sitting.

The only way that abortion can work as an equalizing force is to pretend that a human fetus is not a human being. But it is simply a biological fact that a new human life begins at conception. If we’re going to hold that human life has innate value, then there is no rational way to argue that a human fetus has no value.

If we do not value innocent human life from its beginning point, then we are left with arbitrarily qualifying some other point at which a life is human and has value. Any such arbitrary point opens the door to creepy ethical scenarios. For instance, if we pick viability, does that mean that the dependent elderly and disabled are not fully human? Is it then ethical to terminate them at will and sell their organs for research?

But what about cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?

These objections cannot be brushed off lightly. In cases involving rape and incest, the girl/woman has had a pregnancy forced on her. It is wildly unjust that anyone should ever be forced into such a situation. At the same time it is unjust that an innocent human life should be ended because it originated through the selfish actions of a male perpetrator. There is no perfect answer. Such is the world in which we live.

A Pro-life position does not advocate no abortion whatsoever. Pro-lifers who say so are misinformed, in my opinion. The life-of-the-mother argument is held up by the Left as an example of so-called Pro-life extremism – an example of why Roe v Wade is necessary. But the truth is that abortion was allowed in cases where the life of the mother was endangered before Roe v Wade. Such decisions have always been made by the mother and her family.

How can the decision to terminate such a pregnancy be considered a Pro-life decision? It is Pro-life because the life of the mother is at stake. What is being weighed in such a case is the fundamental right to life of two separate individuals; the life of the mother vs. the life of the child. But in the vast majority of abortion scenarios, what is being weighed is a woman’s “right to choose” vs. the right to life of a child. The right to life is simply more fundamental – the right upon which all other rights rest. If we fail to uphold innocent human life, certainly secondary rights are expendable as well.

As a compromise, even as an ardent Pro-life person I would support a law or amendment making an exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, even though I would not necessarily agree that abortion is justifiable in those situations. Factual numbers around these scenarios are elusive, but in combination these constitute probably well under 5% of abortions, so such a law would still do away with so-called abortions of convenience. Abortion for non-medical reasons is not health care.

Planned Parenthood’s better world

Damning investigative videos about Planned Parenthood are not new. They’ve been trickling out for years now. Several years ago, when Planned Parenthood workers from several different states were secretly recorded, assuring white donors that their donations could indeed be designated to specifically abort black babies, what I heard angered me.

Later, a Live Action hidden camera filmed a 13-year old girl seeking an abortion at an Indiana Planned Parenthood facility. Rather than report the situation to Child Protection Services, as the law requires, the nurse instructed the girl to lie about the age of her 31-year old partner in order to circumvent the law, and then directed the girl to a neighboring state for a secret abortion. Very disturbing.

Then, when a Planned Parenthood worker was caught on hidden camera coaching a sex-trafficking pimp on how to circumvent the law in order to obtain abortions for his underage, non-English-speaking “workers,” I was angry. However, Planned Parenthood could throw these employees under the bus because they weren’t in high-level positions.

But the latest string of videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, implicates several Planned Parenthood representatives at the highest levels of the organization.

Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the abortion issue has divided the American public. We didn’t need videos to know that taking an innocent human life for money is a bad thing. But even now, even in light of the latest revelations, I haven’t heard the Right demanding that Planned Parenthood and their radical sexual politics be driven out of existence. But is it so unreasonable to ask that taxpayer dollars not be used to subsidize them?

If “Progressives” must have abortion-on-demand in order for their vision of equality to work, let them do it without the forcing the humane sector to fund it. If there is going to be an abortion industry, let it stand on its own, like other service industries. Let the industry find it’s own sympathetic benefactors. Let us see if a business that terminates infant human lives for money will somehow have the effect of fostering human flourishing, equality, and a culture of enlightenment.

It fascinates me that while we continue to advance scientifically and technologically as a society, we remain morally and ethically lost. The same science and technology that is used by some to ease human suffering and make the world a better place is used by others for oppression and for harm. Human action continues to be darkened by greed, willful ignorance, and arrogance on a worldwide scale. The research lab cannot tell us right from wrong, or even if such a thing as right and wrong exists.

Planned Parenthood is one modern example of misapplied science and technology in the service of a well-meaning, but tragically mistaken, ideology. However, there is plenty of misapplied science to go around on both sides of the political spectrum. When all is said and done, how we perceive our problems and solutions still comes down to our beliefs. Our beliefs dictate our behavior.

Here’s hoping we can still respectfully talk to those whose beliefs differ from our own about things that matter to us all. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Baby doctor

Found on the sidewalk outside the micro brew pub near my house…

Are you looking for great storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview in the kids you love? Visit my online store HERE!

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.