Is there a way in which the transgender movement is different than the debate over homosexuality?
AW: Yes, definitely. But first, let me note that they demonstrate some similarity because underlying both issues is the question of teleology. In the case of sexual desire, the question becomes: How are sexual desires to be directed and for what purpose? In the case of the transgender phenomenon, the question is: Does human embodiment have an objective and discernible nature? Both assume some degree of plasticity to human nature that I think violates both Scripture and natural law.
.. Seen in this light, transgenderism is a far more foundational and consequential issue because it makes us unable to direct the totality of the person toward any concrete goal of personhood, not just their sexual desires.
.. Are Christianity and transgenderism compatible?
AW: Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6 v 9-11 offer a helpful way to answer this question:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Paul’s words show that there are practices and lifestyles that, if left unrepented of, can prevent someone from inheriting—that is, having a place in—the kingdom of God. To live as a Christian is to accept God’s authority over our own.
.. Transgender identities fall into that category — they are not compatible with following Christ. A person’s gender identity reflects how they define what it means to be a human being. That self-definition will either correspond to God’s revelation in his word or it will not. God has created human beings in his own image as male and female. Our identity, therefore, is defined by God in his purposes for his creation and in his new creation in Christ. The design of humanity is purposeful and good, and part of our design is that we are men and women. To deny or overturn that distinction is to nullify God’s revelation both in nature and in Scripture. The Bible calls it suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1 v 18).
.. But it does mean that a settled rejection of God’s purposes for us as male or female cannot be reconciled with following Christ. Someone can embrace a transgender identity or find their identity in Christ, but not both.
.. Likewise, it would be possible to identify as transgender and also be trusting Christ as Lord because they have not yet realized the implications of the lordship of Christ in this area of their life and identity. As and when they do realize it, a Christian person would change their behavior in this area, with God’s help.
.. the idea of maleness and femaleness are integral to human flourishing and social stability. A theology of the body is missing in most churches, and if there is one,
.. progressive judicial philosophy means picking a desired outcome and reasoning backwards until the Constitution can justify it
.. Yes, its impact on children and adolescents.
Children who express gender confusion are now encouraged to explore it.
.. Most kids grow out of their confusion, but society’s affirmation makes it more likely that children will go down this path. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
.. An article recently highlighted a transgender day camp. One of the paragraphs reads, “Some change their name or pronouns daily, to see what feels right.” That sounds polite, tolerant, and very social justice-y. But that’s unbridled radicalism dressed up as effete 21st century parenting.
.. there’s a growing number of voices that are talking about transgender skepticism and some who regret transitioning and who have transitioned back — what’s called “Desisting.”
.. Perhaps the most outlandish example of transgender overreach is the attempt to brandish “genital preference” as some form of transphobia. What is that, you ask? Without getting too graphic, if a person has a revulsion against having attempted intercourse with someone of the same anatomy, but who has a different “gender identity” — that’s transphobic.
.. So, for example, imagine a scenario where a man dates a transgender woman (a biological male). If the man objects to having intimate relations with the transgender woman because the transgender “woman” has a penis, that’s now bigoted, because anatomy is irrelevant to gender identity.
.. “Affirm me, or else you’re harming me.” How can conversation and debate ever occur when such zero-sum inanities are thrown about? When did it become acceptable in public discourse to reduce disagreement down to the level of personal harm? People who hate Christianity do not do me any harm. In fact, the Scriptures portend a future where that’s to be expected. Now, if there’s actual harm, or threatened harm, that’s a different situation.
.. where critique does occur, we’re told it is tantamount to violence. If I can be so blunt, this has the seeds of totalitarianism in it. If you can get society to believe that men can become women, and women can become men, what can’t you get society to believe? The language of “dignitary harm” is ever-expansive in its use today, and it may be the most weaponized asset used against religious conservatives in the years ahead.
.. Why must I affirm their understanding of the issue but them not affirm mine? Why must I assent to the belief that suppressing one’s innate biology and nature is healthy? I will never subscribe to the idea that psychological impairment which incites troubled souls to take irreversible action is ever loving, kind, or compassionate. Conservatives and Christians can play the affirmation card, too. So use progressives’ language and arguments against progressives. Make them play by their own rules. Tolerance and inclusion are two-way street.
.. First, as a general principle, parents ought to have the right to send their children to a school that does not teach contrary to what the parents believe — especially on a subject like this. Parental rights are at stake because a child is being exposed to conversations and situations that some parents are wholly opposed.
.. First, as a general principle, parents ought to have the right to send their children to a school that does not teach contrary to what the parents believe — especially on a subject like this. Parental rights are at stake because a child is being exposed to conversations and situations that some parents are wholly opposed.
Alas, All Societies Have Closets
- I think it is also obviously true that at least some of these people would have married and lived conventional heterosexual lives, and been satisfied in them. Why? Because the same-sex desire within them wasn’t as strong as it was in others, and they could manage it, or grow past it.
- On the other hand, the kind of society that gave them the psychological support for embracing exclusively heterosexual expression of their sexuality would also cause more suffering for those whose sexual desire is more strongly same-sex oriented.
- Can we have a society in which heterosexuality is considered normative, but homosexuality is tolerated, and gays and lesbians treated with respect, dignity, and love? I think it is possible in theory, but it seems to be utopian.
He is opposed to same-sex marriage but in favor of civil unions. In principle, he is against gay adoption, but in practice, he told me, “there are so many gay couples who are wonderful parents that I find it hard to maintain any ardor for stopping it.”
.. Hanby argues that, where we used to see human beings as possessing intrinsic properties—masculinity, femininity, the ability to glorify God through procreation—we now take a nominalist view of ourselves, seeing our bodies as subservient to our minds. We use technology, such as the birth-control pill, to subvert the natural way of things. Gay marriage, in this account, is a stepping-stone to a profoundly technologized society in which “the rejection of nature” is complete. Today, it’s sex-reassignment surgery and surrogacy; tomorrow, we’ll be genetically engineering our way into a post-human future.
.. as Christians, we cannot accept that homosexual desire is morally neutral. (Nor, I hasten to add, can we accept that heterosexual expression outside of marriage is morally neutral.)
.. how you answer this question: What is sex for?
.. Not, “what is gay sex for?” or “what is straight sex for?” but “what is sex for?” The Bible, and the teaching of the Church, has a clear answer to that. It is not the modern answer.
.. 15. The reason we cannot agree on what sex is for is that we don’t agree on the answer to the question, “What is a human being for?” Meaning, “What is our purpose in life?” Is it to live in harmony with God’s will? Is it to fulfill our desires? Is it something else? Again: traditional Christianity has clear and consistent answers to these questions — and they are not the modern answers.
.. 16. I have said it many times before, and I’ll say it again: I am glad the closet is gone, and would not want to see it return. I would like to live in a society that leaves gay people alone to live as they like. It is fair, though, for people like Andrew to ask how, exactly, I propose to privilege heterosexuality without in some form re-instituting the closet. I don’t have a satisfying answer to that question.
.. Is it possible to tolerate the expression of belief and behavior that gays and their allies believe is immoral, and doing damage to others? Or should orthodox Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) belief regarding homosexuality be stigmatized socially for the sake of increasing social virtue, and bringing about a better society? If so, well, aren’t you saying that Christians (Muslims, Jews) should go into the closet with their beliefs?
.. 18. All of which is to arrive at the depressing conclusion that one way or the other, there’s going to be a closet. It’s already there for many orthodox Christians who work in academia and other professional circles, and it will expand. A lot of Christian kids will grow up feeling immense pressure to leave the faith or in some sense to be unfaithful to orthodox Christianity because of all the stigma heaped upon it over sexuality.
Giving Away Your Billion
What would I do if I had a billion bucks to use for good? I’d start with the premise that the most important task before us is to reweave the social fabric. People in disorganized neighborhoods need to grow up enmeshed in the loving relationships that will help them rise. The elites need to be reintegrated with their own countrymen.
.. I’d use my imaginary billion to seed 25-person collectives around the country.
.. A collective would be a group of people who met once a week to share and discuss life. Members of these chosen families would go on retreats and celebrate life events together. There would be “clearness committees” for members facing key decisions.
.. The collectives would be set up for people at three life stages. First, poor kids between 16 and 22. .. navigate the transition from high school to college.
.. Second, young adults across classes between 23 and 26. This is a vastly under-institutionalized time of life when many people suffer a Telos Crisis.
.. Third, successful people between 36 and 40. We need a better establishment in this country. These collectives would identify the rising stars in local and national life, and would help build intimate bonds across parties and groups
.. The insular elites already have collectives like this in the form of Skull and Bones and such organizations. My billion would support collectives across society
Richard Rohr: Law and Grace: Grace Must Win
a match in which grace must win. When it doesn’t, religion becomes moralistic, which is merely the ego’s need for order and control. I am sorry to say, but this is most garden-variety religion. We must recover grace-oriented spirituality if we are to rebuild Christianity from the bottom up.
In Romans and Galatians, Paul gives us sophisticated studies of the meaning, purpose, and limitations of law. He says its function is just to get us started, but legalism too often takes over.
.. Why did they fail? Because they relied on being privately good instead of trusting in God for their goodness!
.. Law is a necessary stage, but if we stay there, Paul believes, it actually becomes a major obstacle to transformation into love and mercy. Law often frustrates the process of transformation by becoming an end in itself. It inoculates us from the real thing, which is always relationship. Paul says that God gave us the law to show us that we can’t obey the law! (See Romans 7:7-13 if you don’t believe me.)
.. We’ve treated Paul as if he were a moralist instead of the first-rate mystic and teacher that he is.
.. Ironically, until people have had some level of inner God experience, there is no point in asking them to follow Jesus’ ethical ideals. It is largely a waste of time. Indeed, they will not be able to even understand the law’s meaning and purpose.
.. Humans quite simply don’t have the power to obey any spiritual law, especially issues like forgiveness of enemies, nonviolence, self-emptying, humble use of power, true justice toward the outsider, and so on, except in and through union with God.