The Troubles With Genders

How one can change genders and fit into society is today's hot topic  both in society and in the culture wars. How did it get this way?

We have a few problems with genders. For one thing, we live in a society that uses assigned biological sex to categorize us instead of in addition to gender. Meanwhile, we have more genders than our biological sex categories know what to do with. And so what we have is the pigeonhole principle. We end up with people from multiple genders being grouped  into the same biological sex category. And not everyone is happy with who has moved in theirs or other's biological sex neighborhood.

What is causing further tension is that  people are using their favorite ideology, which includes religion, alone to try to understand and solve the problems created by the expanded list of gender identities when science is telling us that biological factors can possibly contribute gender identification. This means that in order to resolve the conflict that arises when we have more gender identities than biological sex categories, people are demanding solutions while either deliberately ignoring or lacking awareness of what science is saying about gender dysphoria and identity. Thus the gender identity battlefield becomes hotly contested because, for many of us, the veracity of our favorite ideology is at stake. And so now many of us have personal investments in how others are categorized by biological sex.

In addition, gender identities don't always sit well in the biological sex categories in which they have been placed. Because we can't conflate the two, when the biological sex of a person makes a significant difference, the emphasis on gender identity is misplaced and those who strongly identify as being other than cisgendered have salt rubbed into their centuries-old wounds.

And speaking of those wounds, we have a long history, again counted in multiple centuries, of people who have a different sexual orientation than heterosexual or are not cisgendered being punished by our laws and marginalized in society. And these people are rightfully demanding equality. But they do not have enough allies in society who are willing and ready to cooperate in making their equality a reality.

From my perspective, those are all of the factors that makes gender identities other than being cisgendered such such a mess for society and a great hardship for those who are demanding their equality now. But again, that is from my perspective.

One common practice of those who are both relying on ideology alone to solve the gender identity problems is that they tend to conflate one's biological sex with one's gender identity. One might assume that only  religiously conservative Christians who are trying to resolve the gender identity problem of conflating biological sex and gender identity. After all, such people try to insist that the presence of the sex chromosomes and the physical appearance of the the genitalia are all the information one needs to know to determine with which gender a person should identify with.

However, there are those from the LGBT community who insist on conflating biological sex with gender identity as well. Their version of conflating the two consists of using only their gender identity to determine their biological sex. They do that despite the fact that gender identity deals with the psychological while biological sex deals with the physical. Because of the differences between one's biological sex and gender identity, one would think that resolving this problem would be a slam-dunk. However, since biological factors might affect gender identity, we have to admit that the distinction could be more complicated than we are willing to admit.

Also, those who insist that their ideology alone can solve the problems that come with gender dysphoria and identity also tend to be overly simplistic in identifying the causes for our gender identity problems. If we take my fellow religiously conservative American Christians for example, they believe that the prime cause for gender identities other than cisgendered is sin. And so the solution would be for the non-cisgendered is to repent and believe in Christ. They believe that because that is what they believe is the cause and solution for all of our social problems. That not everyone, or even enough people, who suffer from gender dysphoria will repent and believe does not alter that religious approach.

Or if we take Robert Jensen's approach where the root cause for gender dysphoria is patriarchy and the solution is provided by radical feminism, we see a leftist version of how many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians see and want to solve the problems with gender dysphoria. BTW, I hate disagreeing with Jensen because I have learned much from him. But like my fellow religiously conservative American Christians, he does not factor in enough of the biological factors that scientists are telling us are possible causes for gender dysphoria.

However, Jensen makes a very valid point against letting transgendered females participate in women's sports. It is that  they have benefited from being male in that males TEND to make them stronger than cisgendered females--musicians like me, certainly not all musicians, didn't always follow that tendency throughout our lives. And thus regardless of how far a male has transitioned into a female, they tend to have a physical advantage over cisgendered females and thus should not participate in women's sports.

That, along with the bathroom issue is why some of our gender identities don't always sit well with their preferred biological sex category. And these two areas are two of the areas where we see where the problems with gender identity causes the biggest commotion in society.

So what are many of the scientists telling us? For one thing, they are telling us that genetic mutations can contribute to gender dysphoria. In addition, males and females have different brain structures. And it seems that at least some with gender dysphoria are identifying with the sex associated with their brain structure. And so at least some females with gender dysphoria are identifying as males because they have a male brain structure while at least some males identifying as females do so because they have a female brain structure.

Science is also telling us that those with gender dysphoria tend to suffer from depression more than the cisgendered do. Those with gender dysphoria are also more at risk for committing suicide than their cisgendered counterparts. There are several factors that drive this tendency. Those factors range from the discomfort one feels when suffering from gender dysphoria to the negative reactions of family members, friends, and others to both the state of a person's gender dysphoria to their attempted transitioning. 

But there is a very small minority of cases where people who transitioned from male to female or vice-versa regret their decisions.

So, what how should we respond to gender identity problems. One thing we can do is to admit our society's structural weaknesses in solving this problem. One such weakness is how we use a binary approach to categorize people by biological sex. In reality, we have 3 biological sexes: male, female, and intersex. And we need to acknowledge that to show that perhaps the differences between males and females, though significant, are less than what we continue to think they are.

Another societal structural weaknesses is that we don't include gender identity along with biological sex in categorizing people. Using both gender identity and biological sex to categorize people would eliminate how our current pigeonhole principle contributes to the problems with gender identity. That is we would no longer have to have people with more than two different gender identities placed in the same biological sex category. Such a remedy would be costly and require significant changes to our society. These changes would be more than just acknowledging the difference between biological sex and gender on one's birth certificates. It would require changes in how we run sports programs, share bathrooms and shower facilities, group people people schools and colleges for example. And those changes would not be without problems. But we have acknowledge that categorizing people solely by one's biological sex and then trying to force a binary approach to that categorization is a structural weakness that ensures that the mere addressing gender identity problems will forever a highly contentious venture. 

Also, we have to abandon solely relying on preferred ideologies to understand and try to solve the problems that go with acknowledging more than 2 genders. It's not that we abandon our preferred ideologies. It is that we let those ideologies be tempered by what science is telling us. Here we should note that if scientists do not fully understand the causes for gender dysphoria, then those who rely on their preferred ideologies alone who also ignore or are unaware of science is saying about the subject will know even less. But unfortunately, those who know less about gender dysphoria and identity seem to be speaking the loudest about the subject.

Finally, because we live in a democratic society, we must be promoting for and working for the equal rights of those with whom we agree and disagree. That is because in a democratic society, we must become invested in promoting the full equality of others in society. That is because democracy is more than just the majority rule, it is about equality.

We Christians Need To Learn More About Gender Before Talking About It

 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. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 20, 2022

April 12

To Joshua Farris and his article on gender binary and the back and forth discussion we had on the subject. In particular, the comment below is a response to his April 12th comment at 7:27 PM. This appeared in Mere Orthodoxy.

JF,

Again, your theology is dictating a reality that observation has contradicted (see https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx  and https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-is-same-sex-sexual-behavior-so-common-in-animals/ ). I’ve seen other articles report other numbers but the point is clear, that there is scientific consensus supporting the widespread practice of homosexuality in many animal species.

What is the point of my notes to you? The point is rather clear. How we judge homosexuality and transgenderism depends on the context. We agree on the same message about homosexuality and transgenderism when the context involves what is acceptable in Church or evangelism. But when the context is society, we cannot force New Testament sexual morality on unbelievers in society. We cannot not only because there is no New Testament examples or teaching to do so, we cannot because doing so harms the reputation of the Gospel. Now I’ve been clear about context determining how we talk about homosexuality and transgenderism from the beginning.

My citing of Deborah provides a counter example to the binary gender parameter about which you proclaim. That is because, in some Native American Tribes, Deborah would not fit into the binary gender parameter. Not every group works with the same understanding of gender identity.

There is as problem that I mentioned in my very first comment: the conflation of biological sex with gender identity. Whereas the conservative approach seems to say that one’s biological sex should be the only factor in determining gender identity, the LGBT community says that one’s gender identity must be considered ones biological sex. Both sides are wrong.

Finally, by calling my case a revisionist one, my guess is that you are implying that my case is wrong. But what is my case? That we use the Scriptures as the ultimate guide for the Church and in evangelism but that in society, we use history and people’s experiences along with the principle of treating others as equals.

The value of revisionism depends on the reliability and results of older views. After all, would we call abolitionists in the 1800s ‘revisionists’ in an effort to imply that they were wrong? Did Calvin, Luther and the leaders in the Roman Church regard heliocentrism as revisionist even if they didn’t use the exact word? It’s not that we should easily disregard the past, but we can’t afford to make it canon either.

Finally, you know the Christian perspective, but do you understand the varied perspectives of unbelievers? Also, can you escape the intense gravitational pull that your theology has placed on you to see the Christian perspective from the eyes of an unbeliever. It is what I wrote before, you try to deduce too much which is why you employ a plethora of labels from which you then make conclusions. And in so doing, you make it more difficult to share the Gospel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 17

To Harrison Perkins and his blog article on why we Christians must abide by the Church's confessions. This appeared in Heidelblog.

To really represent Post Modernism here, one must first acknowledge that it has real problems with exclusive truth claims. Thus, what light does Post Modernism shed on Confessionalism?

First, we need to acknowledge that the sources for much of Confessionalism comes from Europe and thus comes from a very limited representation of the Church both geographically and in terms of the times.  And so some of the above claims made about Confessionalism need to come with a disclaimer besides the fact that there is no single expression of Confessionalism because the Church has multiple sets of confessions. Thus, whose confessions should serve as a guide for the Church as a whole? Perkins favors the Reformed confessions but he doesn't address why those are the confessions we should follow.

Second, if we were to be honest with ourselves, we would immediately acknowledge that confessionals is a kind of traditionalism. And what we should generally note about traditionalism is that it tends to depend too much on the past to interpret and respond to the present. And part of that over-dependence  assumes that there have been no significant changes in historical context between then and now so that what was said back then fully applies today as it did back then and what was practiced back then can be strictly practiced to today because what was said and practiced back then run no risk of becoming irrelevant. At this point we should note that it is not that time eventually makes the everything past irrelevant; it is that time does introduce new problems and situations. Thus, some things from the past do become irrelevant while other things require different applications of principles taught in the past. 

Third, when talking about traditionalism in the light of the Scriptures, we must always keep Mark 7 in mind lest we become like the religious leaders whom Jesus spoke against then for substituting their pet traditions for God's Word. We must always be cautious to not put our pet confessions on such a high pedestal so that they either replace the Scriptures or become a canon above the canon of the Scriptures. The latter is done by claiming that one's pet confessions almost exclusively, if not exclusively, contain the best explanations of the Scriptures.

Here we should note that like the Scriptures, the writers of our confessions were human and thus contained their own personal issues as well as  saw things from the context of the culture and times in which they lived. However, unlike the Scriptures, confessions are not God-breathed which means that they were spared the prevention of errors being entered included in the confessions.

We should note one more thing about traditionalists. Traditionalists are the mirror-image of narcissists. For those from both groups elevate a given set of time periods above all other time periods in terms of some particular goodness such as knowledge or virtue. For example, narcissists elevate the present time above all other time periods so that the past is irrelevant and thus unnecessary to learn because it has nothing relevant to offer to people living today.  In contrast to that, traditionalists elevate a given set of time periods from the past above the present so that  we only need to consult the wisdom from those given time periods from the past to solve any of today's problems. Thus, what traditionalists do carries with it the implication that those favored teachers from those designated past time periods have nothing to learn from people living today.

So while Perkins would like us to favor his pet set of confessions as almost, if not, exclusive guides to understanding the Scriptures, he is directing us Christians to run into problems and even perhaps even partial threats to our faith all of which have been experienced by others in the past.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Comments Which Conseratives Block From Their Blogs For February 9, 2022

Feb 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost article on how strictly an officer in the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations hold to the standard confessions and catechisms such as the Westminster Standards. This appeared in Heidelblog.

From my conversations with people, there is wider disagreement with the Standards than are are outwardly expressed. Here we should note that despite the fact that no one is holding a literal gun to their heads to keep them silent. But how many non-literal guns can exist in this context?

However, the key issue that revolves around strict subscription to the Standards is left unmentioned in the article above. Mark 7 touches on that issue. At what point does a required subscription to the Standards make a group like the Pharisees from  that chapter in Mark? Jesus rightfully accused the Pharisees of substituting their traditions for the Scriptures. That occurred when they placed  their traditions on too high a pedestal. 

So, in essence, the Westminster Standards are to us what the traditions of the Pharisees were to them. And the more strict subscription to those standards is required, the more it reveals the pedestal on which we have placed those standards. And the question becomes for us, how much do we want to imitate the Pharisees in substituting something man-made for what was God-breathed? 

BTW, at least those who first defined Christian Fundamentalism in order to distinguish authentic Christianity from liberal theology stuck to a small, and rightfully selected,  number of  essentials.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comment below is based on the 2nd audio clip on the webpage.

To W. Robert Godfrey and his recorded adult class lesson on how the abandoning of Christendom has some very negative marks on the world today. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog. 

Regarding Godfrey's lesson, the problem is that while Godfrey speaks to the recent disorientation of Christians to a world that is changing from revolving around Christendom to another view of reality. But the problem is that not all have experienced Christendom as something positive. The LGBT community has been harshly persecuted under Christendom. In America, Christendom promoted white supremacy. In the world, Christendom justified colonialism and imperialism. In Europe, there were religious wars and harsh religious persecutions. Under Christendom, women had to live as 2nd class citizens in America for a long time. And reversals to these abuses and atrocities are not being associated with the promotion of Christendom but with the abandoning of Christendom. And so while Christians are experiencing disorientation because of the changing of the guard in terms of how the world and life are interpreted, others are experiencing some levels of liberation with the end of Christendom.

And while Godfrey uses Stalin to show the negative implications of what Marx said, he neglected the details that show that Stalin was not a Marxist. And for all of Marx's faults and errors, what Godfrey attributes to Marx ain't necessarily so. Similarly, Hitler is not the logical result of abandoning Christendom especially when his anti-Semitism was, in large part, a result of centuries of European Christian anti-Semitism. After all, today we see a post Christian Europe that is far different in positive ways than what we saw when it was under Christendom.

Yes, a lot of today's thinking is horrible and threatening. But if we ignore the bad fruits that our religious ancestors produced through Christendom, we will not see  Christianity's, and by Christianity I am referring to Christians, contributions to today's bad fruit and thus we will have no credibility when challenging the current ways of the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comment below is based on the 1st audio clip on the webpage..

Feb 5

To Chris Gordon and his adult Church lesson on sexuality in which he addresses homosexuality and gender identity. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

It's not that Chris Gordon's answers to the sexual orientation and gender identity issues of today are wrong,  it is that by sticking solely with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Scriptures, he has a turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to many of the struggles people are experiencing with these issues. He is basically saying that while he doesn't need to listen to the life experiences of people whose sexual orientation and gender identity are unbiblical, but they need to listen to him. And that serves somewhat of a microcosm of the Conservative Church's response to people today.

BTW, life tells us that there are more than 2 biological sexes today. Those who are born as intersex comprise another biological sex. And the problem there is that because of the percentage of people who are born that way, many of us conservative Christians want to think as if that does not happen. That is our preference until one knows someone or has a friend who is intersex and has listened to the problems they face.

In terms of gender identity, it seems that many in the LGBT community and many conservatives who feel anxious by the presence of those from that community share the same fault; they conflate biological sex with gender identity. While the former is a physical, biological reality, the other is a psycho-social reality. In addition, while we know somewhat of what nature says based on the outward evidence of one's biological sex, we don't know what nature is saying on the inside. And since the biological reality of our sex and our gender identity are not identical, we need to recognize the complexity of the issue of one's gender identity. Here it might be useful to study the Native American tribes that recognized up to 5 genders, though those gender identities are not necessarily parallel to what we see in our culture today, and they honored those who held to a different gender identity than what they were born with as people whose spirit conquered their flesh. BTW, the triumph of the Spirit over the flesh is something we celebrate from a different perspective.

In addition, what many people are referring to when they speak of liberation today is the liberation from society's attempts to marginalize them for their differences. And American Christianity, in contrast to how Rosaria Butterfield's pastor friend treated her, has played a prominent role in promoting harsh attempts at marginalizing people from the LGBT community by society.

As for sexual orientation, here we should note the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So what is nature telling us about homosexuality, and for many, their sexual preferences?

Finally, we should note that when Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1, he follows that up with the stern warning not to judge others in Romans 2. Why? It is because we believers in God can identify with those sinning unbelievers from Romans 1 because of our own sins. And so we should be describing this issues not as observers who are reluctantly and from a distance viewing  horrible acts of some alien species, but as fellow sinners. We should also note that we have multiple identities. We have a new identity in Christ, but we still have an identity with the tax collector from the parable of the 2 men praying. We can easily identify with that tax collector unless, of course, we prefer to find our identity with the Pharisee from that same parable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 5

To R. Scott Clark and Brad Isabell for Clark's quoting of Isabell's article on the riff between the Side B Movement and the traditionalists in the PCA over church participation by those Christians in the Side B Movement. Clark quotes part of Isabell's article in his blogpost on Heidelblog.

Isabell's full article can be found at:

   https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-word-on-narratives

I've commented on this before here. It seems that there are errors made by both sides on the issue of whether being SSA but celibate disqualifies a person fr0m serving as.a church officer. Overtures #23 and #37 certainly introduce a hierarchy between heterosexuals and homosexuals who don't act on unbiblical desires. And a contributing motivation for that hierarchy could be homophobia for sure. But that's could be and so assuming support for those overtures implies homophobia is wrong and an overreaction.

At the same time, one must understand the historical context for such an accusation. There are people who are emerging from centuries of societal marginalization of homosexuals. Defensiveness and a hyper level of oversensitivity are normal reactions to long standing social injustices and persecution. And the normality of those reactions is often hidden when people are so wrapped up in their theology that they forget what it means to be a person. After all, theology is not substitute for experience; rather, it is to provide an important aid in how we structure and interpret our experiences. Unfortunately, some believe otherwise.

Instead of a peaceful and Biblical resolution to the debate, there will be nothing more than continued strife, the demonization of others,  and self-righteous posturing by those on both sides unless both sides realize their own errors and the unbiblical way in which they are reacting to others.