GenderQueer

For millennia humans have taken the division of mankind into two sexes, men and women, as axiomatic.  This division is now coming under attack, with many saying they do not fit into the sex assigned to them at birth, or even that they are beyond this division—they are neither male nor female.  How should we respond to this?  Well, before responding to this attack on the classic understanding of the sexes, we should be sure we understand it.  What are these opponents arguing?  I think their argument goes something like this.

Premise One: Gender assignments are arbitrary.  While many people subjectively identify with their biological gender, many do not. 

Premise Two: Being assigned a gender which one does not identify with makes many people subjectively unhappy.

Conclusion: Because gender assignments are arbitrary and some make people subjectively unhappy, there is no good reason to keep perpetuating the classic division of the sexes; people should be allowed to choose their gender.

There are three ways an argument can go wrong.  (1) Your terms can be ambiguous.  (2) A premise or premises can be false.  (3) You can have faulty logic connecting your premises to your conclusion.  If none of these things go wrong the argument is valid.  Now, in the argument given above the terms are clear and the logic is sound.  However, as will be shown, the premises are false and therefore the argument is invalid.

To begin with the first premise, gender assignments are not arbitrary.  Gender is not an artificial construct.  It in fact has divine sanction!  “In the beginning God created them male and female.”  If you are tempted to say that the creation narrative is merely poetic and non-literal, in this case you must argue that Jesus Christ Himself misinterpreted this passage.  For in Matthew 19:4 Christ quoted Genesis 1:27 as literal and used it as an argument against divorce.  

People may want to define themselves from themselves.  They may want to shake off the fetters of what they take to be arbitrary limits on their freedom, but the fact is we live in a created world and the Creator has put limits in place.  It is a fantasy to think we can make up our own moral rules and categories any more than we can choose to make up physical laws to follow.  Gravity is a fact and the wise man will conform to this fact.  In the same way, there is a Moral Law and the wise man will conform to this fact.

The ancients knew this.  If there is any great divide between us and them it is that they defined freedom in terms of conforming to the Moral Law while we define freedom in terms of breaking it.  It was the scientific revolution and thinkers such as Francis Bacon and Descartes that shifted our point of view.  Instead of wanting understanding of the world so that we could conform our wants and desires to natural limits, they sought to change the world via applied science (i.e. technology) so that it would meet our desires.  And change the world they did.  We no longer relate to physical laws as we once did—e.g. we can fly!  But we’ve assumed that since physical laws apply in different ways, moral laws no longer apply as they once did.  If we can remake (to a large degree) the physical world in our image, why can’t we remake the moral world as well?

To begin with, physical, temporal things are subject to change, immaterial (or spiritual) things are not.  In fact physical things are constantly changing—your never walk into the same river twice, Heraclitus noted (for by the time you reenter the river, water has moved downstream and you are in that sense in a different river), but spiritual things are beyond change.  2+2 will always equal 4.  If you have a right triangle, A squared plus B squared will always equal C squared.  What is true will always be true (for after all, Truth is not a thing, but a person, Jesus Christ, and He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow).  Beauty and goodness likewise will never change (though our ability to perceive them can).  Likewise man’s nature is immutable.  Ancient man may have fought over a donkey or have been jealous of his neighbor’s sheep, but we fight and steal iphones and envy our neighbor’s new Lexus.  The things we quarrel over or are jealous of may have changed, but we are as greedy, envious, quarrelsome, lustful, etc. as we have ever been.  Given these facts, morality cannot change.  What is true and just has always been true and just and will never be anything but true and just.  We live in a purposeful world with limits and to think otherwise is to butt heads against reality.

On to the second premise.  There is no question that some people are subjectively unhappy with their biological gender.  The relevant question is: is this of any consequence?  

Subjective happiness (contentment) is not real Happiness for it is short lived and dependent on external factors outside our control.  Real Happiness, what the Greeks called Eudaimonia, is an objective state of blessing, or flourishing (it is the word Christ uses over and over in His Sermon on the Mount).  Contentment comes and goes, but Happiness can never be lost for it is not dependent on any material thing.

Now it is clear that happiness is the purpose, the end (the Telos, the Summum Bonum) the reason for which man was created.  No one ever says: I want to be happy so I can be rich.  Or, I want to be happy so I can be successful.  On the contrary, we covet success and riches precisely because we think they will make us happy.  Though our pursuit of happiness is often irrational, at all times we seek to maximize our happiness.  

But what is happiness?  Are we merely made for contentment?  For many things make us feel content, even bad things.  I may be a psychopath that is only content when I am cannibalizing someone, but will anyone argue that when I eat another human, even though it makes me happy, that I am living out the purpose for which I was created?  Mere contentment, and the futile search for it, is not our purpose.  But Happiness is.  Plato, Aristotle, Cicero—all the great minds of antiquity recognized this.  And the early Christians agreed with them!  But whereas the great pagans were searching for Happiness in vain, Christians knew its Source.  Our goal is indeed Happiness and this Happiness can only be found in Christ our Maker, Redeemer, and King.  

Since happiness is an objective state of flourishing, our perceived happiness and our True Happiness are often in conflict.  What makes me content for a moment may be sinful.  Sin is diminishment—it is a lack, the destruction or perversion of something good.  So when I sin, I destroy something good, something that in God I could find Happiness in, and I destroy, to some degree, myself and my ability to receive Happiness or be Happy.  Plato recognized this.  He said in the Gorgias that the worst thing that could ever happen to a man would be to gain everything he desired.  For this man would have contentment (though an ever diminishing contentment) and this contentment would forever hinder him from attaining True Happiness.   

If it is true that subjective happiness, our contentment, is often a foe to our True Happiness, then it is not good for people to be content if in achieving contentment they diminish their ability to attain True Happiness.  I think this is the case with people who want to change their gender.  Not only are they trying to break a norm of the Natural Order that cannot be broken, but in seeking their contentment in this way they are turning from The Source of their True Happiness.  

It seems insulting to say that someone can be mistaken about their true good, that someone can be confused or otherwise deceived as to what will make them happy.  But this is the case for all of us all of the time!  When we fell we fell completely.  We not only lost our ability to do good, we lost our ability to know what is good.  

Those that want to redefine themselves from themselves are trying to do what they cannot do, for there is a natural order and they are a part of it.  They did not create themselves and they therefore cannot create their own reality.  What is more, as they vainly attempt to recreate their reality, they act against their own good as what they are doing will hinder, not help, them achieve Happiness.  They are acting in ignorance both of the laws of nature and of themselves.   

It should be noted, that while I wrote this from a Christian perspective, you could make this critique from a Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, etc. perspective—basically any perspective save a post-modern or existentialist point of view that denies all order or absolutes.  And for those that think ‘it is modern, so it must be right,’ please show me who has proven our modern assumptions.  When have they disproven the old consensus and how convincingly have they done so?   

Lastly, why is it that we lack deep analysis of this sort in the public forum?  Newspapers and programs, the venues that dominate the public forum, are commercial enterprises!  Their goal is to make money, not to inform.  We prefer to consume media that is geared toward entertainment, not thinking, so they give us what we want.    

The Divinization of Human Love

Is it possible that if we love someone enough they will never die?  

A character in the trailer for Winter’s Tale asks this question.  For a Christian, the answer is simple, of course!  God’s love ensures that we will never die.  

Now it is not that there is anything magical about love in and of itself.  After all how can love, at worst a feeling and at best a committed disposition rooted in our will and character, keep someone alive?  It can’t.  God’s love alone, as great as it was, did not save us.  It was love informing His choices that saved us.  Think of John 3:16.  It does not say that ‘For God so loved the world everyone that believes in Him will receive eternal life.’  No.  It says that because God so loved the world He sent His son and made a way for us to receive eternal life.  

True love is not passive.  True love impacts everything—most of all our choices.  True love sacrifices itself in order to bring about good in the life of the beloved.  That is what God did.  He loved us, so He made a way, at a great cost to Himself, for us to have life everlasting.  

Love is not a powerful thing in and of itself.  It is not some mystic force that has existence or being independent of lover and beloved.  Love is powerful in what it compels us to do, in what it compelled God to do.  

But if we divinize human love, as I think this movie does, and if we think romantic feelings alone have the power to change us and give us life, we will blind ourselves to the true nature of love and the True Life that God's Love has brought us.    

Reclaiming Christmas for Christ

This was an email I sent out this morning to my family...


For the majority of human history humans have had to struggle to survive.  Until the 20^th century 90% of the world’s population farmed.  Harvests were uncertain and survival was a yearly struggle.  Scarcity was their great foe.  Still, in the midst of this scarcity they remembered God’s generosity to them by giving gifts.  Their gifts were simple—in Dickens England, just a century and a half ago, it was not uncommon for a child to receive an orange or some nuts for Christmas.  

The world has changed much (at least in America—most of the developing world still faces scourge of scarcity).  Our great foe is not scarcity, but excess.  Except in very rare circumstances, children are far more likely to suffer the ravages of excess than scarcity.  For example, childhood obesity and diabetes affect far more than malnutrition.  We eat excessively, drink excessively, and spend excessively.  What is more, this appetite for excess has come to influence the celebration of our faith. 

   

Far from being a time to remember our Savior’s birth, Christmas has become a time of excessive consumption.  We no longer buy just for children, we buy for adults.  And it is not just parents that buy for children, aunts and uncles, grandparents, great aunts and uncles, coworkers, neighbors all buy for children (at least our children)—it is not uncommon for kids to receive gifts from upwards of 20 individuals.  

Gifts have become the center of a day set aside for the remembrance of our glorious Savior’s birth.  Gifts, even for committed Christians, have replaced Christ as the center of Christmas.  Need proof?  

Christian Philosopher Phillip Cary wrote this:

It is a safe bet that most Christians in America would feel far more guilty if they neglected their Christmas shopping than if they failed to go to church on Christmas.  We feel less obligation to sing praises to the newborn king than we do to get everybody their presents.  That’s just how it is for us in our culture: we take it for granted that we have to buy Christmas presents, whereas the responsibility to join other Christians in worship does not get nearly so powerful a grip on our hearts.  And we hardly notice that this has happened—that consumerism has gotten a larger share of our hearts than our own religion.  

I think he is right about this.  If we are being honest with ourselves we would admit that we would feel more guilty if we skipped buying presents than if we skipped church.  This should tell us something!

We don’t want to be like this—we don’t want our kids growing up like this.  We want Christmas to be a religious holiday (i.e. Holy Day)—not an exercise of commercialized consumption.  When the culture is opposed to Christ the Church must be counter-cultural.  We have had this conviction for years, but have betrayed our consciences in not following through with it.  We know people enjoy giving gifts (we enjoying giving and receiving gifts) and in an effort to spare others’ enjoyment and feelings, we have compromised.  

We’ve now come to the conclusion that if we are ever going to act on this conviction, we must act now.  And we feel compelled to act.  We feel this conviction is Biblical and as Christians we have an absolute duty to follow our consciences when they are prompted by a Biblical truth.  In response to this conviction we have concluded that this Christmas, as well as coming Christmases, will be gift free.  

It is not that any one individual has bought too much—on the contrary everyone has been very understanding of our desire to have minimal gifts.  But when we have roughly 20 people buying for us and our kids, even if everyone is buying a minimal amount, taken together we still receive far, far too many gifts.  

Our kids are not in need.  What is more, they already have everything they want!  So their gifts are not need based or even want based—they are given things in excess not only of their needs, but in excess of their desires.  To be bombarded with things beyond what you desire—to have more clothes than you can wear, more books than you can read (yes, you can have too many books—this should be evidence that this conviction is divine in nature!), more crafts than you can make, more toys than you can play with—this makes one less grateful, less creative, less happy, less respectful of property, and less willing to share.  And this how people are.  As a society we are becoming increasingly less content, we are increasingly rude, we are increasingly alienated and selfish—we don’t want to have kids like this.  We love them too much and want to do all in our power to keep them from becoming like this.  Yet can we live as everyone else does and expect our children to be different?  

There is even evidence that giving our children so much makes them less likely to bond with an individual toy, which in turn makes them far less able to bond with other humans as adults.  Our throwaway consumer culture, that begins when our children are young, leads right to our hookup culture and our throwaway marriages.  Indeed many have begun to ask: what are we depriving our children of by giving them so much? 

Americans are increasingly reliant on the things they buy for their emotional well-being, so it is no surprise that billions are spent on commercials—we are not equipped to resist them.  It is no surprise that the average American annually spends 103% of their income.    

What is worst of all is that this time of excessive indulgence, this time of receiving far beyond what we need or want, is connected with our honor and remembrance of the birth of Christ.  It is no surprise that the American Church is ineffectual both domestically and internationally.  How can we celebrate Christ’s birth by giving excessively to the point of causing harm when billions suffer in poverty?  

We want out of this.  We don’t want to raise spoiled, narcissistic, self-centered kids that find their value in the things they consume.  And that is the average American.  This is a huge problem that requires a drastic solution.    

But we do also realize that the gift giving impulse is healthy.  If you want to give a gift to us or our children, give them the gift of time.  They would be far more happy to read a book or play a game with you than they would be to open up a present from you.  If you want to give a financial gift, start a college savings account for them or give to a charity in our name.  Or, better yet, support a child through Compassion International or Worldnet in their name so that they can learn true generosity and the true meaning of Christmas—giving to those with nothing with no expectation of receiving anything in return.  

Thank you all for understanding.  We are looking forward to seeing you all for Christmas and hope this change of focus increases our love for our Lord and for one another.

Loving Things in Christ

What did Jesus mean when He said: Whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him (Matt. 13:12)?

Things that are temporal (i.e. non-eternal), by definition, do not last.  If all we have is temporal, we may think we have things, but what we think we have will not last and we will ultimately be left with nothing.  

For example, my body is temporal.  I may think I am able to control it, that it is mine.  But some day, whether gradually or suddenly, it will give out on me and I will be left with nothing.  What I thought I had will be taken from me.  

That is why we must be careful what we love and how we love it.  Love binds us to the beloved.  If we love the wrong things, or more appropriately, if we love things the wrong way, they will be taken from us and we will be begrieved in our separation from them.  

We are to love God, first and foremost, for only He is eternal.  Only in Him can we find lasting love, for He alone is lasting.  In loving God, we may love other things, and to the extent that we love them in God, to the extent that they are connected with God, they will last and our love of them will likewise last.

What does this mean?  Consider again the physical body.  If I love it as an end, as something valuable simply in itself, my love is doomed to frustration.  My beauty will fade, my health will fall, and ultimately death will overtake me.  But if I love my body as a means, if I see it as a temporary vessel that God has gifted me for the building of His Kingdom and the furthering of His Glory, my love will not end in frustration.  On the contrary I will welcome death as a friend, as a doorway into new life and being, as the means casting off what was never meant to last so that I could put on everlasting glory.  My love of my body is not wrong, for my body is made by God and it is good.  Love for what is good is good.  But loving a means as an end is idolatry for it gives to a creature what is rightfully due to the creator alone.  It takes something good, love, and corrupts it, bends it, into something bad—that is, after all, what sin is.  

St. Augustine recognized this.  As a young man he was overwhelmed with the death of a close friend.  Reflecting on it later in life, he recognized that his grief was a just punishment for his sin, for his foolish love.  How can one not suffer, he asked, when they love what is mortal as if it were eternal?

His love for his friend was in itself noble, but since this love was apart from God, it became corrupt and the pain he suffered was evidence of its corruption.  

So too any type of love can go bad.  Love of money is good—it can be a valuable tool to build God’s kingdom.  Money can help us feed the poor, heal the sick, and clothe the naked.  But apart from God, the love of money devolves into consuming greed.  If we live in greed and are parted from our money, we will be devastated.  But if we love our money in Christ, we will not fret when it is taken from us, for we only loved it to the extent that it helped us serve Christ, and Christ remains.  

Likewise, love of God’s creation is good, but apart from God we, like the pagans of old, will worship it as an end in itself instead of seeing it as God’s handiwork, instead of seeing it as a sign that points us towards Him and His glory.  

If we do things in Christ, our deeds will endure like gold and silver (I Cor. 3:12).  Beauty, truth, and justice are eternal and deeds done in furtherance of them will likewise endure.  What we do apart from Christ will not last.  The same is true of our loves.  What we love in Christ will endure and when we are separated from it we will not grieve without hope, for what was good in it will remain in Christ.     

Can We Be Good Without God?

What did Luther mean when he argued that all our good deeds, done apart from God, are sins?

We all know the commandments: do not steal, do not murder, do not bear false witness, etc.  The majority of humans follow these commands—at least most of the time.  

Yet according to Luther, this is no moral good.  We must ask not only if people are following these commands, but why.  Why don’t people murder?  They don’t want to go to prison.  Why don’t people steal?  They don’t want to lose their job or be punished.  Why don’t people lie?  They want others to trust them.  

That is all fine and well for non-Christians, but what about Christians?  Why do Christians follow the commands?  If left to their own devices, their motivation can  be, at best, fear of hell.  

Whether or Christian or not our motivation to obey the commands is self-centered.  But so what? 

According to Christ, the first and greatest commandment is this: to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.  When we obey His commands out of self-interest we disobey this great command.  In fact, we cannot obey this command apart from His aiding grace.  

So can we be good without God?  Yes and no.  We can obey God’s secondary commands apart from His grace, but in doing so we break the greatest of His commands.  It is in this way that every deed, done apart from God, is sin.