Archive | Christianity

How homosexuality undermines male friendships

Anthony Esolen has a prescient essay in which he demonstrates that homosexuality undermines male friendships. He argues that the removal of the taboo and the openness of homosexual relations in the modern age cast a shadow over male friendships in general. He writes:

Imagine a world wherein the taboo has been broken and incest is loudly and defiantly celebrated. Your wife’s unmarried brother puts his hand on your daughter’s shoulder. That gesture, once innocent, must now mean something, or at least suggest something. If the uncle were wise and considerate, he would not make it in the first place. You see a father hugging his teenage daughter as she leaves the car to go to school. The possibility flits before your mind. The language has changed, and the individual can do nothing about it.

By now the reader must see the point. I might say that of all human actions there is nothing more powerfully public than what two consenting adults do with their bodies behind (we hope) closed doors. Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not.

If a man cradles the head of his weeping friend, the shadow of suspicion must cross your mind. If a teenage boy is found skinny-dipping with another boy—not five of them, but two—it is the first thing you will think, and you will think it despite the obvious fact that until swim trunks were invented this was exactly how two men or boys would go for a swim.

Because language is communal, the individual can choose to make a sign or not. He cannot determine what the sign is to mean, not to others, not to the one he signals, and not even to himself.

Esolen argues that the shadow of homosexual signaling reduces men to bonding through stereotypical boorishness:

The sexual revolution has also nearly killed male friendship as devoted to anything beyond drinking and watching sports; and the homosexual movement, a logically inevitable result of forty years of heterosexual promiscuity and feminist folly, bids fair to finish it off and nail the coffin shut.

What is more, those who will suffer most from this movement are precisely those whom our society, stupidly considering them little more than pests or dolts, has ignored. I mean boys.

And then Esolen offers this most devastating observation:

The prominence of male homosexuality changes the language for teenage boys. It is absurd and cruel to say that the boy can ignore it. Even if he would, his classmates will not let him. All boys need to prove that they are not failures. They need to prove that they are on the way to becoming men—that they are not going to relapse into the need to be protected by, and therefore identified with, their mothers.

Societies used to provide them with clear and public ways to do this. The Plains Indians would insert hooks into the flesh of their thirteen-year-old braves and hang them in the sun by those hooks, for hours—a test of endurance and courage. At his bar-mitzvah the Jewish boy reads from the Holy Torah and announces, publicly, that on this day he has become a man.

In our carelessness we have taken such signs away from boys and left them to fend for themselves. Two choices remain: The boys must live without public recognition of their manhood and without their own certainty of it, or they must invent their own rituals and signs.

And here the sexual revolution comes to peddle its poison. The single incontrovertible sign that the boy can now seize on is that he has “done it” with a girl, and the earlier and more regularly and publicly he does it, the safer and surer he will feel. If sex is easy to find, and if (as mothers of good-looking teenage boys will testify) the girls themselves seek it out, then you must have a pressing and publicly recognized excuse for not having sex. To avoid scandal—think of it!—you must be protected by your being a linebacker on the football team, or by being too homely for any girl to be interested in you.

A boy who does not agree to a girl’s demand for sex will be tagged with homosexuality. She will slander him herself. Ask teenagers; they will tell you. But even a linebacker known as a rake will not dare to venture into the dangerous territory of too-close association with the wrong sort. He, too, will avoid the close male friendship. The popular and athletic boys will thus have their tickets punched, while the others live under suspicion, alienated from the other boys, from the girls, and from one another.

This must happen. In large part, it has already happened. But we must try to remember when it was not so, if we are going to gauge what we have lost.

Indeed we have lost much. Esolen wrote this about twelve years ago, and we have lost so much more in that interval. Sexual connotations seem to infuse even the most ordinary spaces—spaces where such connotations did not used to exist. Everything is sexualized, and thereby scandalized. It has been a great loss indeed.

Beware of casting off taboos. You will lose more than the taboo.

Esolen’s piece is a long read but worth your time. Read the rest here.

Church Clarity ought to be about biblical and theological clarity

On Wednesday, the website ChurchClarity.org appeared online. Its stated mission: to pressure churches to make clear on their websites whether or not they affirm homosexual immorality and transgenderism. The leadership team that runs the website is comprised exclusively of those who affirm homosexual immorality and transgenderism. And they seem to be focused on forcing evangelical megachurch pastors to clarify where their churches stand on the issue.

I looked through the website and found a number of problems with it. Here are several of them in no particular order:

1. The website claims that it merely wants clarity and that people on all sides of the issue ought to agree about that. That sounds reasonable until you read the fine print. It turns out that this group does not want theological or biblical clarity but only clarity about a church’s policies. The site says:

Church Clarity is not interested in evaluating theology or doctrine, but rather organizational policy. Policies are much more straightforward and have clear impact on people. Will your church let a trans woman join a women’s group? Will your pastoral team officiate a wedding for a gay couple? These are the policy questions we are seeking to clarify. What we’re not interested in: A church’s theological position on whether queer Christians go to heaven, whether same-sex attraction is natural or chosen, how gender plays out in the story of Adam and Eve, etc. You get the point. Conversations around LGBTQ+ issues often drift needlessly into theological debate. That is why we painstakingly emphasize our laser focus on evaluating the level of clarity in regards to a church’s actively enforced policy.

The problem with this is obvious. The clarity that this group calls for falls short of the clarity that Jesus requires (2 Cor. 4:2). Being clear about policies is fine. But even more central is being clear about what a church believes. A church’s policies ought to be grounded in clear biblical teaching, but “Church Clarity” does not aim at “evaluating theology or doctrine.” And yet this is precisely what the Lord expects churches to do. Followers of Christ will recognize that no one is served by putting theology and Bible on the backburner. In fact, that is a recipe for falling into the same kind of error that the founders of “Church Clarity” are into.

2. “Church Clarity” believes that churches have to earn their tax exempt status. A lack of clarity on LGBT issues could be grounds for denying churches tax exempt status:

Churches are unique organizations in America. They enjoy tremendous public subsidies, as they are recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt religious organizations. In exchange for these subsidies, churches are expected to play a vital role of serving their communities. But there is very little accountability to demonstrate that they are earning that subsidy. In fact, many churches fail to uphold the basic standards of transparency that we, as a society, expect from most other organizations.

“Church Clarity” seems unaware that churches don’t “earn” tax exemptions. The United States government does not give tax exempt status to churches because they meet some minimum threshold of usefulness to a community. They are given because of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Supreme Court has held that tax exemptions are not subsidies, that they help to uphold the separation between church and state, and that they are based on the first amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion (see Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York). Is “Church Clarity” really suggesting that churches should lose their tax exemptions based on their website content? If their websites don’t meet Church Clarity’s standard of clarity? Do we really want the federal government policing church websites to determine whether their policies on LGBT issues are clear enough? This is absurd.

3. “Church Clarity” seems particularly concerned about churches “where ambiguity and misleading practices have become normalized.” They write,

Many churches have avoided fully or clearly disclosing their church policies out of a desire to be “seeker sensitive,” that is, a desire to attract “seekers” and convert them into loyal “customers.” This capitalist mindset is particularly dangerous in a spiritual context. It means that pastors will preach about “welcoming” and “loving” all people, no matter who they are, while quietly refusing to officiate weddings or grant full membership to LGBTQ+ people.

There are clear laws and regulations in the for-profit world that protect us from “false advertising” and “bait and switch” tactics. But while we hold the marketplace accountable for such violations, we rarely insist that churches abide by these basic norms. Are the stakes not much higher when it comes to spiritual matters? Is a clearly communicated policy on a church’s website an unreasonable expectation? We don’t believe so.

“Church Clarity” claims to be targeting “seeker sensitive” churches, but they do not seem to realize that they implicate non-seeker sensitive churches as well. What they call “false advertising” and “bait and switch” may not be those things at all. It is not false advertising when a traditional church welcomes all sinners to visit the church, to hear the message, and to come to Jesus. That’s what every faithful church teaches, and it is in no way at odds with upholding the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality. Perhaps if “Church Clarity” were a little more interested in theology and Bible they would recognize that.

Again, keep in mind that “Church Clarity” doesn’t want theological or biblical clarity. They only want churches to advertise whether or not sexually immoral people can participate in every level of a church’s membership and leadership. It doesn’t matter to them whether the church’s website is theologically or biblically clear.

4. “Church Clarity” focuses on megachurches. There is a reason for that. There really are pastors of megachurches who have been evasive and silent on this issue. Some of them are suspected of being “affirming” but of being too cowardly to admit it. “Church Clarity” seems intent on blowing up their evasions and forcing the issue. I agree that the evasions are unhelpful and cowardly. I do not agree with Church Clarity’s suggested remedy.

Pastors who have been evasive need to repent, but they don’t need to follow the agenda of “Church Clarity” to do that. They need to make plain their commitment to biblical orthodoxy. They need to make plain their church’s convictions in a doctrinal statement (I recommend the Nashville Statement). And they need to set forth a biblical and theological vision of human sexuality in the teaching ministry of the church. How an unorthodox, apostate group rates them on these efforts should be of no concern at all. How God rates them should be of utmost concern (1 Cor. 4:2-5).

Spurgeon on the “reproach” of believer’s baptism

“If I thought it wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up, and become what I believed to be right… If we could find infant baptism in the word of God, we should adopt it. It would help us out of a great difficulty, for it would take away from us that reproach which is attached to us,—that we are odd, and do not as other people do. But we have looked well through the Bible, and cannot find it, and do not believe that it is there; nor do we believe that others can find infant baptism in the Scriptures, unless they themselves first put it there.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, et al., The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, vol. 1 (Chicago: F.H. Revell, 1898), 155.

Book Review of “Single Gay Christian”

I just finished reading Gregory Coles’ moving memoir Single Gay Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity (IVP, 2017). In many ways, there is much to admire about this book. Coles is a great writer and has put together a real page-turner. This is not a boring book. Coles’ honesty and vulnerability come through in just about every page. Coles is telling his own story—warts and all—and he’s gut-wrenchingly honest about his emerging awareness of himself as a same-sex attracted man.

Coles’s story is a very human story, and just about anyone (same-sex attracted or not) can resonate with the humor and the pathos that he narrates. By the end of it, you feel like you know the man. And this is a man who embraces the Bible’s prohibitions on same-sex immorality. Because of that, he has dedicated himself to a life of celibacy out of faithfulness to Christ. As hard as it is, Coles has concluded that faithfulness to Jesus on this point is more important than pursuing a gay relationship.

So there is much that I resonate with in Coles’s story. In the end, however, I share the same concerns about the book that Rachel Gilson expressed in her review at TGC.

First, this book falls squarely within the celibate gay identity genre, in which the author rejects gay sexual behavior and gay marriage but embraces a gay identity. Coles argues that being gay is “central to my identity” (p. 37). He resists referring to himself simply as one who experiences same-sex attraction. Coles believes that describing himself as same-sex attracted might imply that the experience is merely a “phase” he is going through (p. 63). He maintains that being gay is something that defines him at the core of his being. His sexual attractions are not just how he is but who he is. Coles writes:

I began to realize that my sexual orientation was an inextricable part of the bigger story God was telling over my life. My interests, my passions, my abilities, my temperament, my calling—there was no way to sever those things completely from the gay desires and mannerisms and attitudes that had developed alongside them. For the first time in my life, I felt free to celebrate the beautiful mess I had become (p. 43).

Coles not only argues that homosexuality is core to his identity, he even suggests that it may be a part of God’s good design.

Is it too dangerous, too unorthodox, to believe that I am uniquely designed to reflect the glory of God? That my orientation, before the fall, was meant to be a gift in appreciating the beauty of my own sex as I celebrated the friendship of the opposite sex? That perhaps within God’s flawless original design there might have been eunuchs, people called to lives of holy singleness?

We in the church recoil from the word gay, from the very notion of same-sex orientation, because we know what it looks like only outside of Eden, where everything has gone wrong. But what if there’s goodness hiding within the ruins? What if the calling to gay Christian celibacy is more than just a failure of straightness? What if God dreamed it for me, wove it into the fabric of my being as he knit be together and sang life into me? (pp. 46-47)

Coles suggests that same-sex orientation may be a part of God’s original creation design and that homosexual orientation within Eden is an ideal that exceeds that which people experience outside of Eden.

I do not know how to reconcile this perspective with scripture or with the natural law. Same-sex orientation is not simply a “creational variance” (as Nicholas Wolterstorff has described it). Scripture teaches explicitly that homosexual desire and behavior are “against nature”—meaning against God’s original creation design (Rom. 1:26-27). Nor can I reconcile this perspective with what Coles says elsewhere about same-sex orientation being a “thorn in the flesh,” which suggests that same-sex orientation is not a part of God’s original design. Which is it? A thorn in the flesh or something God “dreamed” for people as a part of his original design?

The answer to this question is not clear in this book, and that omission has enormous pastoral implications in the lives of people who experience same-sex attraction. Should they embrace their attraction as a “gift” from God that is a part of his original design for them? Or should they recognize those attractions as a part of what has gone wrong in creation? Should they try to find something holy in those desires, or should they flee from them? I am concerned that readers will not find a clear answer in this book. And there can be soul-crushing consequences for answering those questions incorrectly.

Second, Coles says that the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not as clear as conservative Christians suggest. After studying the issue and really digging into it for himself, he concludes that the Bible does not support same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, because the Bible is less straightforward on the matter than he previously was led to believe, he ends up treating the issue as one that faithful Christians may agree to disagree about. He writes,

The Bible’s treatment of homosexuality was complicated. More complicated than the well-meaning conservative preachers and ex-gay ministers were ready to admit. But the fact that it was complicated didn’t make every interpretation equally valid. There was still a best way of reading the text, still a truth that deserved to be pursued.

And when I pursued it, I got the answer I feared, not the answer I wanted. More and more, I found myself believing the Bible’s call to me was a call to self-denial through celibacy (pp. 36-37).

Coles goes on to explain that even though he embraced a conservative stance on the issue, the Bible’s lack of clarity continued to affect his views.

I was still sympathetic to the revisionist argument that affirmed the possibility of same-sex marriage. Part of me still wanted to believe it, and I understood at the most visceral level why some sincere Christians might choose to adopt this view (p. 37).

Even though Coles disagrees with those living in homosexual relationships, he nevertheless identifies some who do as “sincere Christians.” Near the end of the book, he elaborates even further:

And yet if I’m honest, there are issues I consider more theologically straightforward than gay marriage that sincere Christians have disagreed on for centuries. Limited atonement? “Once saved always saved”? Infant baptism?… If we can’t share pews with people whose understanding of God differs from ours, we’ll spend our whole lives worshiping alone (pp. 108-109).

Coles says that he does not wish to be the judge on such matters and says that judging other people’s hearts is “none of my business” (p. 110). He adds that the issue falls under the warning of Romans 14:4: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall” (p. 110).

Coles seems to equate differences about homosexual immorality with differences that Christians have about second order doctrines. But how can homosexual immorality be treated in this way when the Bible says that those who commit such deeds do not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In scripture, sexual immorality is not compatible with following Christ (Eph. 5:5-6). How then can “sincere Christians” engage in such activity and still be considered followers of Christ? Coles does not seriously engage this question. He simply says that “sincere Christians” may come to different conclusions.

So much of the evangelical conversation on these issues has been colonized by secular identity theories. Those theories are premised on an unbiblical anthropology which defines human identity as “what I feel myself to be” rather than “what God designed me to be.” If there is to be a recovery and renewal of Christian conscience on sexuality issues, secular identity theories must give way to God’s design as revealed in nature and scripture. Gay identity proposals, in my view, are not bringing us any closer to that renewal.

I really enjoyed getting to know Coles’s story. I can’t help but admire his continuing commitment to celibacy and traditional marriage. I want to cheer him on in that and say “amen.” Still, I am concerned that the celibate gay identity perspective he represents is not biblically faithful or pastorally helpful. And the issue is important enough to flag in a review like this one. Evangelicals need to think their way through to biblical clarity on sexuality and gender issues, but the celibate gay identity view is muddying the waters.

Archbishop of Canterbury on Homosexuality: “I can’t give a straight answer”

GQ published a short interview with Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby last week. In it, Alastair Campbell asks Welby a series of pointed questions about the morality of gay sexual activity. Welby’s response is astonishing.

I am not surprised that Welby fails to defend what the Bible teaches about sexuality. I am surprised that he is so honest as to why he won’t give a straight answer. Welby admits that his obfuscation is essentially political. Here’s an excerpt:

Alastair Campbell: Is gay sex sinful?

Justin Welby: Do you know, we have done religion, we have done politics, why am I surprised we are on to gay sex?

Because I feel sorry for Tim Farron, who kept being asked this question, so I am asking you.

You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to. Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through. [Pause, mildly embarrassed.]

Why can’t you?

Because I don’t do blanket condemnation and I haven’t got a good answer to the question. I’ll be really honest about that. I know I haven’t got a good answer to the question. Inherently, within myself, the things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness, stability of relationships and loving relationships.

But that could be a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

I know it could be. I am also aware – a view deeply held by tradition since long before Christianity, within the Jewish tradition – that marriage is understood invariably as being between a man and a woman. Or, in various times, a man and several women, if you go back to the Old Testament. I know that the Church around the world is deeply divided on this in some places, including the Anglicans and other Churches, not just us, and we are – the vast majority of the Church is – deeply against gay sex.

So this is where you are having to be a politician.

Yes. I am having to struggle to be faithful to the tradition, faithful to the scripture, to understand what the call and will of God is in the 21st century and to respond appropriately with an answer for all people – not condemning them, whether I agree with them or not – that covers both sides of the argument. And I haven’t got a good answer, and I am not doing that bit of work as well as I would like.

But is that because the politics are so hard, you have these Ugandan bishops and the liberals who believe something very different and you have to try to reconcile them?

It is irreconcilable.

So is homophobic hatred sinful?

Yes. Because you are hating individuals. I don’t think it is sinful to say that you disagree with gay sex. But to express that by way of hatred for people is absolutely wrong in the same way as misogyny or racism is wrong.

Is that not morally a cop out?

Yes. I am copping out because I am struggling with the issue.

These statements from Welby are so morally confused. One thing, however, is very clear. Welby is unwilling to defend the teaching of scripture and of the 2,000-year consensus of the Christian church. Instead, he feels it his duty as the archbishop to cover “both sides of the argument” and offend no one—to tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear (2 Tim. 2:3).

How far this is from the New Testament’s vision of pastoral leadership. That vision involves integrity of conviction and the willingness to contend for the truth in the face of opposition.

Titus 1:9 “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

2 Timothy 2:24-26 “And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

These are basic pastoral duties, but they are altogether missing in Welby’s response. Any pastor unwilling to take up these duties is not qualified for the office they hold, and it is great tragedy when they do hold it.

Getting downwind of ourselves

A wise preacher once said that it is good to get downwind of yourself whenever you can. Sometimes we don’t smell our own B.O. when everyone around us wishes that we would.

It’s an odiferous metaphor for the way our lives sometimes unfold. Sometimes our self-perceptions do not match the perceptions that others have of us. And even if other people’s perceptions are wrong, we do well to understand what their perceptions are. Sometimes they are right.

I thought about that as I read the Texas Monthly profile of Jen Hatmaker. If anything, the article helps evangelicals to get downwind of themselves—to see where self-perception may not match the perception of the world around us. Those differing perceptions offer insight into what the definition of “evangelical” even might be.

The article has some sage observations from Ray Ortlund to that end. Here is an excerpt:

But after the 2016 presidential election, evangelicalism is once again facing a crisis of faith. Similar to the fundamentalist movement, evangelicalism has taken on a political tone, sometimes being used in the same sentence as “alt-right.” But are people who identify as evangelicals truly guilty of being what mainstream culture deems as racist, sexist, homophobic—or has the term been hijacked?

“The word evangelical can be stolen and taken unfair advantage of,” said Ray C. Ortlund Jr. in a speech on the history of the movement at a conference hosted by The Gospel Coalition. Partly, the label is easy to misconstrue because of the relative freedom of the word. Descriptively, its definition can point to its history, its stereotypes, its perception in this culture. The prescriptive piece is what is often missed. Because to be evangelical is not to be white, or a Republican, or conservative, or to even wear the label of Christian. The label cuts to the very core of a person’s beliefs, the heart of their personal theology.

There are so many of us who wish evangelical could remain a description of the theological convictions of conservative Protestants. But that is not how the term is perceived by the watching world. And those of us who wish to retrieve the theological heritage of the term would do well to remember that.

Should intersex infants be subject to “corrective” surgeries?

The Washington Post has published a long-form piece featuring a number of heart-rending stories about intersex persons. For those unfamiliar with intersex, it is term used to describe a variety of conditions which involve some physical disorder of sex development.

The Post article focuses on the debate about “corrective” surgeries for intersex infants. An older protocol pioneered by John Money favors such surgeries. Intersex activists are against them.

The thing that comes out so very clearly in the article is the emotional turmoil and uncertainty often suffered by intersex persons—especially those who underwent surgeries as infants that permanently impaired them in some way.

Our thinking about the intersex experience is ultimately a theological question. What the Bible teaches about our special creation as male and female, about the Fall, and about the new creation all figure into how Christians think about these things. Articles 5 and 6 in The Nashville Statement offer some guidance:

Article 5
WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female.
WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.

Article 6
WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.
WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

LGBT activists will often point to intersex conditions as evidence to disprove the male/female norm of scripture (Gen. 1:26-27; Matt. 19:4), and Article 5 rebuts that argument. Article 6, however, focuses on the fact that no disorder of sex development diminishes the dignity and worth of any person. All are special creations of God and are his image-bearers. Jesus knows them, loves them, and invites them to follow him.

But what about the surgeries that are the focus of The Washington Post piece? Although the issue is complicated, I agree with those who lean against such surgical interventions. I have a long section in my sexual ethics book about intersex. Here is an excerpt of my conclusions:

The phenomenon of intersex should call forth our compassion and our love for our neighbors who carry in their persons a painful reminder of the groaning creation. It should not call forth from us a revision of the binary ideal of Scripture…

How should parents deal with a child born with an intersex condition? There is no once-size-fits-all strategy, given the complexity of the possible conditions. Nevertheless, here are some guiding principles I would suggest for parents caring for a child with this condition. The first set of principles I would recommend are more theologically oriented. First, everyone needs know what the creation ideal of Scripture is. According to Genesis 1-2, man’s unfallen state is a clearly gendered state, and this is the norm. Second, the entrance of sin into the world and God’s subsequent curse means that all kinds of physical difficulties afflict the human condition. Disorders of sex development would be included in that. Third, the gospel of Jesus Christ not only frees from the penalty and power of sin in the present, it also promises eternal life in the future. That life involves the resurrection of our physical bodies. It means a renewal and restoration of what was lost in the Garden of Eden. In the resurrection, all disorders of sex development will be swept away, and intersex people will be healed and made whole. That hope of restoration should be held out to the child throughout his life even if some ambiguities about his condition remain unresolved.

Here are some principles I would suggest with respect to medical treatments. First, parents should be extremely reluctant about—if not altogether against—corrective surgery when the child is an infant. This is especially the case when the surgery would involve the modification of the child’s genitals or reproductive organs. Perhaps surgical procedures would be in order at some point during the child’s life, but do not rush a child into surgery simply out of a desire to make the child “normal.” Second, try to determine as soon as possible the chromosomal make-up of the child. If there is a Y chromosome present, that would strongly militate against raising the child as a female, regardless of the appearance of the genitals and other secondary sex characteristics. It would also suggest that medical treatments designed to make the child into a female are out of line. Third, understand that not all doctors and medical professionals share your biblical convictions. Worldviews affect the treatment of intersex conditions. Some doctors may view gender as a social construct and therefore would not let biological markers (such as a Y chromosome) determine the child’s gender. Fourth, parents need to take an active role in understanding the condition and pursuing treatment options in keeping with their biblical convictions.

What Is the Meaning of Sex?, pp. 180-82

If you are an intersex person and feel estranged from your own body, you need not feel estranged from Jesus. Jesus loves intersex persons. He knows what it is like for a person to suffer for no fault of his own. And he offers you hope and life. His powerful death and resurrection address not only your condition but the human condition and provides forgiveness and reconciliation to every sinner who receives Christ by faith. This message brings with it a promise of the renewal of all things in the age to come, which means that all of our broken bodies will one day be what God intended them to be. He knows every one of your tears and offers to wipe away every last one of them (Rev. 21:4). If you have felt your body to be a barrier to life and joy, it is no barrier to Jesus and to real life and real joy. They can be yours because of him.

Alastair Roberts: “Hugh Hefner, the Logic of Porn, and the Homosexualization of Sex”

Alastair Roberts has written long form piece about an article that Christianity Today reprinted some years ago. The original article included some countercultural salvos against pornography. Roberts says that the CT version seems to have downplayed those details:

The striking thing about the CT version is the way in which it reworks the original article in a way that removes much of the bite of Prof. Schuchardt’s thesis on two fronts: carefully downplaying his masculinization of women and feminization of men claims and also his claims about the homosexual character of the culture of porn. Both claims make some appearance in the CT article, but in a form that are radically weakened from their form in the original piece.

Yet Schuchardt’s original thesis, though overstated at points, is an important one. Our society, in whose construction Hefner has played no small part, depends upon the feminization of men, the masculinization of women, and the homosexualization of their approach to sex. Such assertions violate all of our culture’s sensitivities, but they are important.

The rest of Roberts’ article is a must-read because he defends the thesis that our culture’s fixation on pornography relies upon the “feminization of men, the masculinization of women, and the homosexualization of their approach to sex.” In the conclusion, Roberts writes:

Speaking forthrightly about these issues jeopardizes the respectability that Christians so covet. It will even provoke outrage from a great many modern Christians, who have a great deal invested in the neutralization of sexual difference and pretending that men and women are largely interchangeable in the family, in the church, in society, in politics, and in the economy. It will deeply offend those whose extreme concern not to say anything remotely insensitive about homosexual persons prevents them from speaking forthrightly about the intrinsically disordered and destructive character of the acts they are drawn to. It will anger people who have made their peace with the extremely elevated levels of porn’s background radiation within our society and within their own lives and will rationalize or excuse the effects that it is having upon us.

However, our desire for respectability and the approval of men shouldn’t lead us to defang the teeth of truths that will pierce our thin skins. The issues Prof. Schuchardt’s original article highlight are very real and are effecting us all. We must speak candidly about them and address them unflinchingly both in our own lives and within the society at large.

Read the rest of this very insightful article here.

Kenwood Music: “Hope of Every Promise”

Kenwood Music is a ministry of the church where I serve as associate pastor. Under the direction of Matt Damico, they have just released a new album titled Hope of Every Promise. Matt Damico wrote the words and music for most of the songs on the album with one credit going to singer Bethany Breland.

This really is an outstanding set of worship songs Matt has put together, and I highly recommend it to you. You can watch and listen to the lyric video for the song “Good to Know the Father” above. But even better than that, you can buy and download the entire album from iTunes, Amazon, or Bandcamp.

Jimmy Scroggins: “Jesus Is the Multiplier”

Yesterday was unusual for me in Southern Seminary’s chapel. I sat in my seat on the verge of tears for nearly the entire sermon. The preached word is always powerful and transforming in ways that we do not always detect. But sometimes the Lord lands in special power in ways that we can quite clearly detect. That is how Jimmy Scroggins’s message landed on me yesterday.

The message is titled “Jesus Is the Multiplier,” and the text is the feeding of the five thousand in Mark 6:30-44. There are four simple points: (1) Start where you are, (2) Use what you have, (3) Do what you can, and (3) Trust Jesus as the multiplier.

I think it is worth your time to give a listen. You can watch it above, listen below, or download here.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes