As much as many of us religiously conservative Christians like to scapegoat the current Sexual Revolution, or the current cultural revolution, as the cause for the fall of America, we are all too often biblically correct in talking about sex but arrogantly ignorant of what is going on around us.
In a talk posted on the Ligonier website, Harry Reeder (click here for a bio) gives a talk about the sexual issues of the day, especially about gender identity and sexual orientation. And while he does a good job talking about biblical standards on gender identity and sexual orientation, he shows a lack of awareness over what parts of our society and culture are saying and responding to (click here for the video of his talk).
He gave this talk sometime this year, and one of the first things he mentions is that there is proposed state legislation that would allow infanticide for a child born alive for up to 28 days. Reeder did not name the state where infanticide was proposed. He might have been talking about and two pieces of legislation about abortion in Maryland. But the first piece is about abortion and writer of the second piece of legislation firmly said that the bill was not allowing infanticide . The confusion over the bill was because of the use of the word 'perinatal.' Religiously and politically Christian, the ACLJ, and some pro-life groups sounded the alarm (click here and there for sources).
Also, Reuters reported that social media reported that the state of New York had passed legislation that would allow for infanticide for up to 28 days after birth. But no such law was even proposed (click here for the source).
And a California bill that would do away with investigations of still-births has been described as allowing for infanticide. That claim was made by a pastor as well as a Trump associate. The source of the confusion might have been because an earlier version of the bill that included the term 'perinatal death,' but the language was change (click here for the source).
There apparently seems to be a hightened sensitivity to the abortion issue. Why the increased sensitivity? Is it an honest response to a growing anticipation for the worst to come or just attempts at political manipulation so that the religiously conservative Christians stay in the political fold.
Next Reeder talks about the current cultural revolution on gender and sex which some call the new Sexual Revolution. He claims that revolutions don't show tolerance for differences. Rather, he claims that this revolution is looking to make all people subservient to the demands of a given revolution. Reeder warns his audience about the 'culture shapers' who are promoting the new cultural revolution. And the list he gives is pretty much the same old scapegoats that religiously and politically conservative American Christians use. They consist of big business, big government, media, journalism and the academy.
The disturbing part of that list is that it is the same list of scapegoats that conservative conspiracyphiles have given when denying the pandemic and vaccines, climate change, and the validity of the 2020 Presidential Election. Such a list can only make and keep the flock insular in terms of the sources for news. And insularity can cause groups to morph into cults.
But what is the current cultural revolution really about? Isn't it at least in part about looking to establish equality for those in the LGBT community? And what is that revolution in response to? Isn't that revolution trying to correct the centuries of persecution that those in the LGBT community have faced? Are there some overreactions and try too hard efforts in the cultural revolution? Certainly, what else should we expect after centuries of certain group being marginalized by society. But this aspect of the revolution is not brought out by many Christian leaders who publicly condemn it. And it is not a perspective that Reeder seems to have for it appears nowhere in his talk.
Reeder wants his audience to have resources that would allow them to resist this current revolution. These resources include some ministry groups, some theologians, and the book of Genesis.
Reeder gives 3 possible responses that the Church could give to this cultural revolution if it is not careful: isolationists by ignoring the revolution, accept that times change, or capitulate because revolutions do not tolerate differences.
In talking about Genesis, he goes to the first two chapters. That is because these chapters address all of the issues that this current cultural revolution is about. Reeder then very negatively describes the culture revolution. And in so doing he wrongly itemizes some of the things. One such thing was that this revolution has introduced 59 different gender identities. I only found a list of 12 gender identities from Perri O. Blumberg and Emily Becker in an article in Women's Health (click here for the source).
BTW, before listing those identities, the writers of that article made three very important points that many of us can learn from. The first point they made is that sexual orientation is not gender identity. The latter deals with how you feel about yourself, not what your selection of sexual partners. The second point they make is that genitalia is not the sole determinant of one's gender identity. Genitalia deals with biology, gender identity deals with one's psychology. A third point states that gender identity can exist on a continuum. That means that the area in between any 2 points important.
Reeder goes on to attribute all of what what we see in non-biblical sexuality and gender identity to sin. Though that answer is right in one context, it is incomplete in other contexts. And so scapegoating sin doesn't provide a full enough explanation as to why we are seeing what we are seeing in the current cultural revolution. It doesn't take into account the historical or the current social contexts of what we are seeing. Thus, Reeder is implicitly encouraging us to not listen to people who could share why they have a given sexual orientation or gender identity. Reeder is implicitly encouraging us to ignore the historical context that centuries of marginalization the LGBT community has had to suffer through.
In addition, it may be that Reeder is ignorant of those issues. It may be that Reeder is not aware of gender identity in other cultures. For example, he may not have known that some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders. It should be mentioned here that their gender identity approaches don't necessarily translate neatly into what we see from the LGBT community today. If Reeder had a better awareness of these items, perhaps his talk would be somewhat different.
Next, Reeder reads from Genesis 1 and comments on how God made man in His image. That he made man male and female. And that together they show the image of God. That God gave the command to take care of and take control over the earth to both Adam and Eve.
Then Reeder cites Genesis 2 and its description of a helper for Adam which was Eve. That Eve was created specifically so that Adam would not be alone. From here, Reeder gives his audience five principles for them to use when facing the current cultural revolution.
Principle #1: gender identity and sexual orientation are theological issues. Why? Because all of life is theological. But here he seems to be saying that these are only theological issues. He is right in saying that understanding these issues starts with God's revelation. But he also implies that there is nothing to learn here from natural revelation. That what we are seeing in this cultural revolution is a rejection of how God's creation is a testimony to God. And what we see in God's creation are several binaries which a rejection of God is first evident in attacks on the binaries of God's creation.
Principle #2: heterosexuality is the divine decree of God and is the only good, holy, and shameless sexuality. Man and woman together display the fullness of God's image. Reeder states that people as rebels against God oppose the binary of heterosexuality. Reeder then goes off on a tangent as he contrasts freedom as defined by man with freedom as defined by God. In the latter freedom, we are made free to do what God wants us to do rather than to do what we want to do.
Reeder then mentions monosexuality without knowing its full definition as he wrongly links it with pornography. Someone who is monosexual has romantic feelings for people one sex or gender only whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. He then talks about money made from pornography and transgenderism, especially on transgender surgery on children. But transgender surgery on those under 18 is done solely on a case by case basis and is not widespread and yet he implies that transgenderism on children is a very profitable business.
Principle #3: all other sexualities besides heterosexuality is the invention of sinful man. Here he includes monosexuality as the invention of sinful man even though only being heterosexual is part of being monosexual. Any sexuality beside heterosexuality is unnatural.
Principle #4: heterosexuality is only good only in marriage. Heterosexual experiences outside of marriage is not approved of by God. Meanwhile, Reeder defines marriage as a 'heterosexual, conjugal, monogamous relationship.' In addition, he defines marriage as a relationship where the husband and wife are 100% committed to each other. Sex outside of marriage has consequences.
Reeder then states that marital sexuality should and can be good and without shame. He goes on to say that there are only two genders and that it takes both genders to 'testify to the Creator's image.' But here he seems to conflate biological sex with gender. In addition, it is the woman, the wife, who keeps man from being alone according to the creation mandate. What God told Adam to do, according to Reeder, he could not do by himself. He needed a woman for his wife to fulfill the creation mandate. Reeder states that God made marriage so man to do what God wanted man to do. Marriage was made for man.
Principle #5: Reeder states that the Gospel is the remedy to the cultural revolution and the problems it is addressing. That is because the Gospel takes away both the penalty and power of sin.
In the end, Reeder makes some very sound biblical statements about genders, Adam and Eve, and sexuality. Unfortunately, there is so much other information about sexuality and gender which Reeder seems to regard as irrelevant. In addition to the previously mentioned lack of information, he also gave some misinformation, which we really need to correct, all of which we need to include in our discussions with others about sexuality and gender. And if sin is the only explanation and the Gospel is the only remedy, then one could easily conclude that we need not listen to the views and even experiences of others.
Yes, sin is the reason for our picking alternative ways of life outside of the Scriptures. Yes, homosexuality is unbiblical. But not all sinners are homosexual. And so we might learn some helpful information by studying why some sinners are homosexual while others are bisexual and while still others are heterosexual. The same goes with people who reject God's binary in terms of gender identity.
But there is also a biblical negligence on Reeder's part. That negligence is seen in a leaving out of an important piece of Biblical information when discussing sexuality and gender identity. For while the Scriptures teach us that God created males and females and that a man should be united in monogamous marriage a woman, we no longer have a nature as it was originally created by God. We have a fallen nature, and here I am not just talking about sin. I am talking about a biological fallenness. For while God made man in His image as male and female, we have three biological sexes: male, female, and intersex. The existence of people who are intersex is proves that we are no longer dealing in biological binaries. And if that is true regarding one's biological sex, how can we not expect there to be more than two genders with which people identify? This inclusion of nature as fallen and mentioning some of the possible effects of nature's fallenness is a Biblical shortcoming of Reeder's talk.
While we can say that at least Reeder is not calling Christians to directly transform culture, his vulnerability to false stories about infanticide, his lack of acknowledgement of the fallenness of nature, his lack of awareness of how gender identity issues were seen and handled by different cultures, his neglect to mention the historical context of the current cultural revolution, his wrongful views of what monosexuality is about, and so on shows that if Reeder wants to successfully talk to those who are outside of the religiously and politically conservative Christian camp, where perhaps his voice is needed more than at a Christian conference, Reeder need a fuller education of sexual and gender identity issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment