Well, I was hoping by now that I'd have some one in line for my next discussion. Unfortunately I've been caught up in some other things that have taken up my time.
I was hoping to do something around the topic of Christianity and evolution, and here's why: Evolution has been become a bit of a hot topic, and there are a lot of different ways the debate has been framed. For example, many conservative Christians believe in what's typically called Creationism. Creationism is more or less the understanding that God created the world in 6 days, or 6 distinct periods of time, as is described in Genesis 1 or 2. This is often seen as in direct opposition to evolution. The vast majority of scientists, whether they have a particular agenda against Christianity or not, view the world as having come about by some process of evolution over millions or billions of years.
Without getting into too much detail I think it's important to distinguish between what evolution is, and what people believe it implies. That is, there is an assumption that evolutionary processes happen by completely blind forces and therefore gives a valid excuse to keep God out of the picture. This is what's known as materialistic naturalism. There's also an assumption from atheists and even some Christians that creationists are a bunch of obscurantist, ignorant people that haven't caught up with reality.
Anyway, some important questions being asked: Does Genesis 1 or 2 conflict with scientific evidence? What implications does evolution have, if any, for Christians? What about the historic Adam? What about original sin? What about redemption?
An interesting topic indeed...
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Monday, March 05, 2012
M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 3 - My Response
Welcome back to our conversations with M.K. and the LGBT controversies. If you haven't read any of the conversation thus far I invite you to read part 1 and 2 as it will help give context to the following post. M.K. has graciously answered a few general questions on where he sits personally on LGBT issues, and at this point I'm offering my own response. Although provocative, it should be made clear from the onset that this response is not a personal attack on M.K. It is merely a means to probing us both deeper into what we believe and why we believe it.
Speaking of, I would like to invite you readers to pose your own questions. M.K. has indicated to me that this is an extremely busy time right now so don't expect a rapid response. There is so much that could be said and asked, so please, go right ahead. Enjoy.
M.K., I’d like to thank you once again for taking the time out to answer these questions for me. I’m glad it has been enjoyable for you. It’s certainly been fun for me as well.
Part 1: The Question of Same-Sex Marriage
To start, I’d like to begin where we left off, regarding the questions of same sex marriage. The rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to citizens of the U.S. are bound primarily to its constitution. Recently, the U.S. supreme court (whose responsibility is, in part, to interpret the constitution) ruled that under the constitution that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional. This means, at the very least, that the door is still left open for states to recognize same-sex marriage.
I’m not an American, and neither have I read the U.S. constitution. Whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutionally acceptable is not something I’m particularly capable of answering. Regardless, I do know that the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey. S. White, in explaining the ruling, said that “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group. I think that you and I would both agree that marriage is something more than “tradition alone.” Rather, it is a covenant before God, instituted by God, for His glory, as a pattern set forth for human flourishing. It’s more than a practical social contract that’s been passed through the ages.
Nevertheless, you state that you “support the right of marriage equality...from the perspective of a citizen of the USA.” And that you “believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.” Is it because of the U.S. system that you support same-sex marriage? Suppose the U.S. Constitution flatly denies the possibility of any marriage arrangement beyond one man and one woman. Would that mean you would no longer support it? Or is there something beyond a nation’s constitution that ought to grant the right for same-sex couples to marry?
As for the church, it may not directly impact their ability to discriminate who they marry, it nevertheless remains a concern. For example, suppose a same-sex couple is recognized by the state as being married, and they begin attending a church that does not believe in same-sex marriage. What is the church to say to them? This where the church must answer the question: What is Marriage? The church may say that even if from a legal perspective they are married, they are nevertheless not actually married. This is because the state only recognizes marriage, but it does not institute marriage. According to the church’s definition of marriage this same-sex couple’s marriage cannot be recognized within the church.
This isn’t just an intramural question for churches. As a Christian, I believe that one of the church’s chief responsibilities is to be a herald of God’s Truth. I do not believe that one’s beliefs are merely private. So while it isn’t the church’s responsibility to write up a blueprint for a nation building, or foreign policy, or economics, etc., it does have responsibility to call out the state when it crosses the line. This is why, when it comes to marriage, the church doesn’t deal with these issues merely within its own walls.
But going back to the issue of the state, if the U.S. system is set up to allow same-sex marriage, what about other non-traditional marriages? Would the same arguments that apply to the acceptance of same-sex marriage also apply to the recognition of marriages between a man and several wives, or pedophilia, or any number of other arrangements? And if so, it also brings into question what interest the state has in recognizing personal arrangements. Why bother with it at all?
It all begs the question: is the granting of same-sex unions an innate right, or the collective will to power?
Part 2: On Sexual Identity
I believe you’ve touched on something a lot of Christians, myself included, and people in the church have not been called out on enough, and that would be their categorization of people based on their sexual orientation. The bottom line is it doesn’t help anyone, and we ought to repent of our errors. The truth is, at the end of the day, we’re all sinners. We’ve all fallen short, and we’re all deserving of God’s wrath, in desperate need of grace.
It seems to me there have generally been two ends of a spectrum that has defined the way we speak about LGBT issues. On the one end, there’s Lady Ga Ga’s “Born This Way” perspective. Through no fault of our own, we are the way we are because that’s just the way we were born. In this perspective, homosexuality is biologically determinative.
I remember a conversation with an old friend a few years ago who said he was gay. (Not as an identity, but as a descriptive term). He believed that homosexuality was a sin, and sought forgiveness and repentance for his behaviours. He later attended an Exodus conference where he hoped to be “cured” of his homosexuality. I told him I personally doubted the effectiveness of a 2 day conference. When he returned he thought it worked, but sure enough, within a couple weeks he was right back to the way he was. It seemed it was deeply ingrained into his nature. His story is very common.
Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that people are biologically determined to be homosexual. They believe the problem lies on the other end of the spectrum. They insist it’s entirely a personal choice, and if that if they just repented they could stop what they’re doing. In this perspective homosexuality is an entirely willful decision.
Research shows that neither position is entirely valid. There has been no “gay gene” discovered, but there may be certain biological factors which may contribute to the way one is sexually oriented. Even these biological factors are unclear as to whether they are the root cause. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as is the case with human brain physiology. There have also been many sociological factors that seem to have an effect on sexual orientation, such as the absence of a Father, or child abuse, etc. While there isn’t one particular scenario that guarantees a certain result, it does suggest that sexual behaviour and orientation is influenced in part by our experiences. Furthermore, sexual orientation is itself not categorically one way or another as the labels may suggest. Even ones sexual orientation seems to fall somewhere on a spectrum.
Unlike the story of my friend who was unsuccessfully “cured” of his homosexuality, there are plenty of stories of men and women who once were attracted to people of their own gender from puberty into adulthood, who later became attracted to people of the opposite sex. This suggests that change can and does happen, even if not overnight or in a complete 180 degree turn. This shows that sexual orientation is fluid, rather than fixed.
In any case none of this should be all that surprising. As a fallen human race we have been given over to all sorts of behaviours and temptations. Heterosexuality is not a saviour to the sexual deviant of any sort. The heterosexual is guilty of sexual sin as much as the next person. No man can perfectly live up to the ideals that God had originally instituted in creation. Whether slave or free, Gentile or Jew, Male or Female, we’re all guilty parties.
Response Part 3 - Gender Roles
I believe that the Bible’s authors unanimously agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible begins with a wedding where God gives Adam a woman, Eve, to unite them together in marriage. While it’s a human institution that reflects human culture, it’s still God’s idea, so it’s crucial for us to understand what the Bible has to say about it. Attempts have been made to re-interpret Scripture to justify alternatives, but I don’t think any of them have been truly successful.
You mention that “many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal.” I know what you’re saying and I agree. I think that’s tantamount to worldliness. It’s more about promoting old American family values than a truly Biblical portrait of marriage. At the same time the ancient wisdom of the Bible is deeply penetrating, often offending our modern western sensibilities. Even if the Biblical portrait of marriage isn’t necessarily the 1950s housewife, we can’t write it off as being outdated or regressive. Even in the culture of the Apostle Paul’s time his messages on marriage, sex, and even singleness would’ve been radical to many.
You write “[Mark Driscoll] is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about.” I personally don’t know Driscoll’s ideas on gender, although I think I may have an idea. Without bothering to speculate, what the Gospel of freedom does to gender roles could mean just about anything depending on where you go with it. It’s a loaded term to say the least.
Freedom is an interesting idea, and I think the how the Bible uses the term is quite different than how it’s often seen today. I like to think of it as follows: When God created the world, and all was good, it was made that all may flourish. Indeed, it was God’s command in Genesis 1:28 that we “be fruitful and increase in number; [and] fill the earth and subdue it.” All this could happen under the condition that Adam and Eve not eat the forbidden fruit. That would bring about a curse, destruction, death.
What is good allows us to flourish. It sets us free. What is bad will lead to our own destruction: death. But what allows us to flourish is to act in accordance with God’s original design in creation. People today see freedom as though it were the absence of restriction. For the Christian, however, freedom is a result of the obedience to the right restrictions. Adam and Eve only experienced true freedom so long as they were obedient to God’s conditions.
Ever since the Fall mankind has been on a path of destruction. Only through the redeeming work of Christ will we be able to experience true freedom again. With all this in mind, how does this speak to gender roles?
The Bible speaks of three institutions that stand apart from anything else--the Family, the Church, and the State. Apart from these there are businesses, sports, and any number of enterprises that the Bible doesn’t directly address or regulate. So long as we act in line with the principles that the Bible commands we are free to invent and operate these enterprises as we please.
If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, this suggests that there are certain differences in the roles of the genders, and I think the Bible speaks this way. Ephesians 5 comes to mind. The two opposites compliment each other, but they may not necessarily be interchangeable. Both genders have their own uniqueness, a purposeful part of God’s creation.
Outside the church and the family, however, I think the role of the man or woman isn’t nearly as directly regulated. For example, unlike the idea of the 1950s house-wife, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to engage in an enterprise outside the home as she sees fit. But whether either spouse is in a career or not, the husband and wife have responsibilities to their own marriage, family and the church that are a priority.
At this point I must admit my own ignorance as far as Biblical studies of gender roles go. You’ve brought to my attention something I’ve obviously taken for granted. That said, I think I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Paul’s principles of the conscience as laid out in Romans 14 are a good example of somewhere to start. On the one hand, I think there are attributes inescapably unique to each gender that go beyond mere physicality. I think it’s only appropriate that we act in accordance with the way God intended. On the other hand there are many things both genders share by virtue of simply being human, and we ought to examine our prejudices. But as Christians we must always keep in mind the very foundations that inform our beliefs, and to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.” (Romans 9:19).
M.K. This has been an enjoyable and enlightening discussion so far, and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m sure you’ve heard similar comments and arguments from others, but I’m very curious to hear your reaction. I trust that while we may continue to disagree with each other we will at least mutually respect the right to our hold our views.
Speaking of, I would like to invite you readers to pose your own questions. M.K. has indicated to me that this is an extremely busy time right now so don't expect a rapid response. There is so much that could be said and asked, so please, go right ahead. Enjoy.
M.K., I’d like to thank you once again for taking the time out to answer these questions for me. I’m glad it has been enjoyable for you. It’s certainly been fun for me as well.
Part 1: The Question of Same-Sex Marriage
To start, I’d like to begin where we left off, regarding the questions of same sex marriage. The rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to citizens of the U.S. are bound primarily to its constitution. Recently, the U.S. supreme court (whose responsibility is, in part, to interpret the constitution) ruled that under the constitution that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional. This means, at the very least, that the door is still left open for states to recognize same-sex marriage.
I’m not an American, and neither have I read the U.S. constitution. Whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutionally acceptable is not something I’m particularly capable of answering. Regardless, I do know that the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey. S. White, in explaining the ruling, said that “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group. I think that you and I would both agree that marriage is something more than “tradition alone.” Rather, it is a covenant before God, instituted by God, for His glory, as a pattern set forth for human flourishing. It’s more than a practical social contract that’s been passed through the ages.
Nevertheless, you state that you “support the right of marriage equality...from the perspective of a citizen of the USA.” And that you “believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.” Is it because of the U.S. system that you support same-sex marriage? Suppose the U.S. Constitution flatly denies the possibility of any marriage arrangement beyond one man and one woman. Would that mean you would no longer support it? Or is there something beyond a nation’s constitution that ought to grant the right for same-sex couples to marry?
As for the church, it may not directly impact their ability to discriminate who they marry, it nevertheless remains a concern. For example, suppose a same-sex couple is recognized by the state as being married, and they begin attending a church that does not believe in same-sex marriage. What is the church to say to them? This where the church must answer the question: What is Marriage? The church may say that even if from a legal perspective they are married, they are nevertheless not actually married. This is because the state only recognizes marriage, but it does not institute marriage. According to the church’s definition of marriage this same-sex couple’s marriage cannot be recognized within the church.
This isn’t just an intramural question for churches. As a Christian, I believe that one of the church’s chief responsibilities is to be a herald of God’s Truth. I do not believe that one’s beliefs are merely private. So while it isn’t the church’s responsibility to write up a blueprint for a nation building, or foreign policy, or economics, etc., it does have responsibility to call out the state when it crosses the line. This is why, when it comes to marriage, the church doesn’t deal with these issues merely within its own walls.
But going back to the issue of the state, if the U.S. system is set up to allow same-sex marriage, what about other non-traditional marriages? Would the same arguments that apply to the acceptance of same-sex marriage also apply to the recognition of marriages between a man and several wives, or pedophilia, or any number of other arrangements? And if so, it also brings into question what interest the state has in recognizing personal arrangements. Why bother with it at all?
It all begs the question: is the granting of same-sex unions an innate right, or the collective will to power?
Part 2: On Sexual Identity
I believe you’ve touched on something a lot of Christians, myself included, and people in the church have not been called out on enough, and that would be their categorization of people based on their sexual orientation. The bottom line is it doesn’t help anyone, and we ought to repent of our errors. The truth is, at the end of the day, we’re all sinners. We’ve all fallen short, and we’re all deserving of God’s wrath, in desperate need of grace.
It seems to me there have generally been two ends of a spectrum that has defined the way we speak about LGBT issues. On the one end, there’s Lady Ga Ga’s “Born This Way” perspective. Through no fault of our own, we are the way we are because that’s just the way we were born. In this perspective, homosexuality is biologically determinative.
I remember a conversation with an old friend a few years ago who said he was gay. (Not as an identity, but as a descriptive term). He believed that homosexuality was a sin, and sought forgiveness and repentance for his behaviours. He later attended an Exodus conference where he hoped to be “cured” of his homosexuality. I told him I personally doubted the effectiveness of a 2 day conference. When he returned he thought it worked, but sure enough, within a couple weeks he was right back to the way he was. It seemed it was deeply ingrained into his nature. His story is very common.
Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that people are biologically determined to be homosexual. They believe the problem lies on the other end of the spectrum. They insist it’s entirely a personal choice, and if that if they just repented they could stop what they’re doing. In this perspective homosexuality is an entirely willful decision.
Research shows that neither position is entirely valid. There has been no “gay gene” discovered, but there may be certain biological factors which may contribute to the way one is sexually oriented. Even these biological factors are unclear as to whether they are the root cause. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as is the case with human brain physiology. There have also been many sociological factors that seem to have an effect on sexual orientation, such as the absence of a Father, or child abuse, etc. While there isn’t one particular scenario that guarantees a certain result, it does suggest that sexual behaviour and orientation is influenced in part by our experiences. Furthermore, sexual orientation is itself not categorically one way or another as the labels may suggest. Even ones sexual orientation seems to fall somewhere on a spectrum.
Unlike the story of my friend who was unsuccessfully “cured” of his homosexuality, there are plenty of stories of men and women who once were attracted to people of their own gender from puberty into adulthood, who later became attracted to people of the opposite sex. This suggests that change can and does happen, even if not overnight or in a complete 180 degree turn. This shows that sexual orientation is fluid, rather than fixed.
In any case none of this should be all that surprising. As a fallen human race we have been given over to all sorts of behaviours and temptations. Heterosexuality is not a saviour to the sexual deviant of any sort. The heterosexual is guilty of sexual sin as much as the next person. No man can perfectly live up to the ideals that God had originally instituted in creation. Whether slave or free, Gentile or Jew, Male or Female, we’re all guilty parties.
Response Part 3 - Gender Roles
I believe that the Bible’s authors unanimously agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible begins with a wedding where God gives Adam a woman, Eve, to unite them together in marriage. While it’s a human institution that reflects human culture, it’s still God’s idea, so it’s crucial for us to understand what the Bible has to say about it. Attempts have been made to re-interpret Scripture to justify alternatives, but I don’t think any of them have been truly successful.
You mention that “many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal.” I know what you’re saying and I agree. I think that’s tantamount to worldliness. It’s more about promoting old American family values than a truly Biblical portrait of marriage. At the same time the ancient wisdom of the Bible is deeply penetrating, often offending our modern western sensibilities. Even if the Biblical portrait of marriage isn’t necessarily the 1950s housewife, we can’t write it off as being outdated or regressive. Even in the culture of the Apostle Paul’s time his messages on marriage, sex, and even singleness would’ve been radical to many.
You write “[Mark Driscoll] is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about.” I personally don’t know Driscoll’s ideas on gender, although I think I may have an idea. Without bothering to speculate, what the Gospel of freedom does to gender roles could mean just about anything depending on where you go with it. It’s a loaded term to say the least.
Freedom is an interesting idea, and I think the how the Bible uses the term is quite different than how it’s often seen today. I like to think of it as follows: When God created the world, and all was good, it was made that all may flourish. Indeed, it was God’s command in Genesis 1:28 that we “be fruitful and increase in number; [and] fill the earth and subdue it.” All this could happen under the condition that Adam and Eve not eat the forbidden fruit. That would bring about a curse, destruction, death.
What is good allows us to flourish. It sets us free. What is bad will lead to our own destruction: death. But what allows us to flourish is to act in accordance with God’s original design in creation. People today see freedom as though it were the absence of restriction. For the Christian, however, freedom is a result of the obedience to the right restrictions. Adam and Eve only experienced true freedom so long as they were obedient to God’s conditions.
Ever since the Fall mankind has been on a path of destruction. Only through the redeeming work of Christ will we be able to experience true freedom again. With all this in mind, how does this speak to gender roles?
The Bible speaks of three institutions that stand apart from anything else--the Family, the Church, and the State. Apart from these there are businesses, sports, and any number of enterprises that the Bible doesn’t directly address or regulate. So long as we act in line with the principles that the Bible commands we are free to invent and operate these enterprises as we please.
If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, this suggests that there are certain differences in the roles of the genders, and I think the Bible speaks this way. Ephesians 5 comes to mind. The two opposites compliment each other, but they may not necessarily be interchangeable. Both genders have their own uniqueness, a purposeful part of God’s creation.
Outside the church and the family, however, I think the role of the man or woman isn’t nearly as directly regulated. For example, unlike the idea of the 1950s house-wife, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to engage in an enterprise outside the home as she sees fit. But whether either spouse is in a career or not, the husband and wife have responsibilities to their own marriage, family and the church that are a priority.
At this point I must admit my own ignorance as far as Biblical studies of gender roles go. You’ve brought to my attention something I’ve obviously taken for granted. That said, I think I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Paul’s principles of the conscience as laid out in Romans 14 are a good example of somewhere to start. On the one hand, I think there are attributes inescapably unique to each gender that go beyond mere physicality. I think it’s only appropriate that we act in accordance with the way God intended. On the other hand there are many things both genders share by virtue of simply being human, and we ought to examine our prejudices. But as Christians we must always keep in mind the very foundations that inform our beliefs, and to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.” (Romans 9:19).
M.K. This has been an enjoyable and enlightening discussion so far, and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m sure you’ve heard similar comments and arguments from others, but I’m very curious to hear your reaction. I trust that while we may continue to disagree with each other we will at least mutually respect the right to our hold our views.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 2
Welcome to the second instalment of my interviews with M.K. I would like to share my gratitude once again to M.K. who has graciously been willing to partake in these interviews, especially given his very busy schedule these days. While I can't say I speak for all of them, I believe it's fair to say that most of the readers of this blog share opinions that are much different than M.K. As such I ask that you once again extend to him the respect M.K. deserves, especially given the nature of the conversation. However, I'm sure he would love your questions and feedback and on his behalf I'm inviting you to submit your own questions in the comments section. Part 1 can be found here.
You recommend the book "The End of Sexual Identity." What is the main thrust of the book?
The main thrust of Paris’ book is that we as Christians have simply given in to accepting the social constructions made by society, this happens in a multitude of ways.
How does the author aim to frame the debate?
She specifically focuses on how we as Christians have simply accepted the current system of sexuality as something that has always existed. In her mind, it is improper to think of heterosexual and homosexual as fixed eternal categories. Ultimately all our desire should be pointed toward God, and our identity is to be found in Christ, not in who we are sexually attracted to.
How has this changed your view?
Having studied a lot of gender theory related works; I was finding myself in agreement with her on basic concepts. Our current system for understanding sexuality and identity is just that, our current concept that fits our worldviews.
This is of course not to say that LGBT individuals have an invalid identity, as it is impossible to completely separate ourselves from our social and cultural contexts and worldviews. And LGBT persons have a rich history of existing in many cultures and places throughout history, but they most likely did not understand themselves in the same way we may know.
If I had to say that her book changed my view in one specific way though, I would say that it really did convince me that there are other ways to discuss these debates than the current framework we seem to be using of all or nothing.
How have we used sexual identity in ways that are unhelpful? What are some better alternatives?
I think that most people are missing out on seeing just how much variety there is in personal identity. We should not be forced to pick either straight or gay, and more people should be encouraged to find their identity outside of relationships-whether straight or gay.
I would like to note, that from personal conversation with Paris, that both she and I would believe that the Transgender discussion in the Church needs to happen separately and independently from discussion of gay and lesbian issues.
If the transgender discussion ought to be separate from the Gay and Lesbian issues, perhaps it would helpful to clarify what Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender all mean, and how one may be distinct from another.
In a basic distinction, lesbian gay and bisexual all relate to sexuality, where as the transgender umbrella of terms relates to issues of gender identity and personal gender expression.
A lesbian is a woman attracted to women, someone who is gay is a male attracted to men, a bisexual person may find themselves attracted to either sex. A term which is gaining steam in the LGBT community is pansexual, which means you are more attracted to individuals and their personalities than their gender or sex. I like to jokingly say that it means that it all pans out when you find the right person.
Transgender is an umbrella term. Before getting into type of transgender individuals, you must understand four terms. Sex is the biological pieces that you are born with. This would be the physical categories of male and female, as well as intersex. Gender and gender expression are the social rules and concepts which relate to how we express ourselves and also relate to gender identity, which is how we identify ourselves as male or female (or something else entirely)
So, someone who is transgender could be an individual who express themselves as a cross dresser, but does not have any disconnect between their gender identity and sex. Or individuals whose gender identity does not match their biological sex, and choose to either express this in some way, or if the disconnect is bad enough, some will desire to physically transition sexes.
I hope that is a helpful start to understanding a wide world of terms.
Can we still use terms heterosexual and homosexual as merely descriptive?
I think even in light of Paris' thoughts, we still can use the social terms that are at our convenience. We are social creatures, and we cannot completely detach ourselves from our modern world views.
Every culture has set its own norms, taboos, and expectations for Gender roles. But are gender roles arbitrarily dictated by the culture?
This would relate to the term gender expression that I mentioned earlier. Gender and sex are intimately related. Personally I think that there is an innate nature of some level of gender identity, whether as male or female, or something androgynous. We in turn may find out whether this relates to our biological sex, and based on our societies and personal feelings we will choose how we express it. So in my opinion, gender is both innate and built by society.
Do you see certain Biblical expectations toward being a man or a woman?
Personally I would say not. I do think the bible can speak into cultural expectations, and can speak to us as people enmeshed in our societies gender roles. However, in my mind much of the gendered discussion in scripture is more related to cultural concepts of the time and pointed towards a wider biblical vision of equality between all people. To me a key verse is Paul saying in Galatians that in Christ there is no male or female, and that distinction was as trivial to our christian identity as Jew and gentile.
I recently wrote a paper for an independent study where I attempted to examine redemptive history from a transgender standpoint, and to understand how we read a lot of gender assumptions into scripture. It was a very rewarding paper.
Paul speaks to the Galatians about our true identity being found in Christ rather than our ethnicity, our status in society, or our gender. By doing so he demonstrates that our identity is given by grace alone through faith alone rather than some inherited, achieved, or innate status. In your opinion, what are some ways that gender has negatively effected the way we read about redemption?
The first thing that comes to mind is Mark Driscoll. He is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about. Many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal. The biblical ideal is that we are one in Christ, and that should never be used as a way to claim authority over another human being.
I don't know if I would say that it has caused us to understand redemption itself improperly, but our gender ideals often get in the way of the church and community functioning in a more biblical and healthy way.
I know you to be someone who supports gay marriage. Why have you chosen this position? Would you consider it a "right?" Why or why not?
It is true that I support the right of marriage equality. In doing so, I am speaking from the perspective of a citizen of the USA, and in the context of our politics, my answers may not speak into other political contexts. I believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.
I do not believe this infringes upon Churches either. Churches are allowed to set up their own standards to "discriminate" on who they marry. For example, when I was married in a Catholic church, I had to go through a certain amount of counseling and such before being allowed to be married. Churches can marry whom they want, and deny others, as long as it is not just a random standard.
In fact, I think it is a triumph of the concept of marriage to see that gay couples desire the life long commitment that marriage means.
The historical Christian consensus is that homosexuality (as a behavioural pattern) is a sin. In other words, it's a question of whether it's intrinsically right or wrong. Agree or disagree, and why?
I will admit at this point that I have put far more effort into studying biblical issues relating to transgenderism than I have researching into the biblical issues surrounding homosexuality. However, I have a lot of people who I know have put serious time into researching it, and come away believing that one can be gay, in a relationship, and Christian, and I would agree.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 1
I'd like to introduce you to someone, who for now, will be named MK. Those readers who may already know who I'm referring to likely know him personally. But in the interest of maintaining privacy over sensitive personal information, we will leave it at that unless he decides at a later time to fully disclose his identity. What is about to follow is the beginning of a series of interviews with MK and his perspective on the controversies of LGBT. MK is someone I've known for a few years now. I am very grateful for his willingness to take time to participate in these interviews, especially given the sensitive nature of the content. As such, I ask that you give him the respect he deserves for doing so. He is my friend. Although I've learned much from him already, and have much more to learn, we maintain different perspectives on these issues. This is not an endorsement. The aim is to have a respectful, comfortable platform with which to dialogue so that, ultimately, we can all benefit in one way or another. At the very least it will help us examine our own beliefs so that we will better know what we believe, and why we believe it.
*Note* This is MK's first submission. It has been reformatted from an original document in order to fit the desired format. The original letter will be posted later.
Ben: First of all, for those who don't know, what does LGBT stand for, and who are these people?
MK: For those that are not as familiar with that acronym as I am, LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. It is used as a quick and easy way to summarize all of those who fall outside the norms of understanding and expressing their sexuality and gender identity. These are those who find that their sexual attraction does not fall neatly into the heterosexual norm, or those who find that their gender identity does not match the biological sex which they were born into. And this is a community of people who have been hurt and ostracized. By friends, family, and their church homes.
Ben: How would you describe yourself among those terms?
MK: I have experienced the pain and the hurt first hand, as I identify under the broad transgender terminology. I felt the pain of spending the first 20 years of my life hiding a part of my identity, but I have also felt the pain of losing friends who want nothing to do with me after they find out. I knew from a young age that the boy box did not seem to fit me properly, but did not find out that my feelings fit a broader concept of being transgender till about middle school. I tried to pray it away, I tried to hide it, I tried to be someone else, but I just could not escape that it was a part of my identity. I am a Christian, who happens to also be transgender
Ben: In your opinion, what do you find are some common misperceptions regarding the LGBT community and where do you stand as someone trying to change those misperceptions?
MK: One author whose dialogue on this issue that I particularly enjoyed, is Jenell Williams Paris, who is a professor at Messiah College, and wrote The End of Sexual Identity, which is a high caliber unbiased look at how we have taken this debate in a completely wrong direction. I would recommend it to everyone.
While primarily advocating for Transgender faith issues, which are a concept many denominations or individuals have not even begun to grasp with, I am involved in wider LGBT faith advocacy, particularly through GIFT, a group that exists to advocate and support LGBT Christians. And in my own organization, the Transgender Education Collaboration. In my experiences I have encountered a multitude of opinions on these topics, and I am sure that many of you readers may find yourself of differing opinions than myself.
But I hope that with this dialogue we can all come away with an understanding that these are deeply personal issues, and should perhaps not be the focus of such public debate and vitriol. I also hope that we as Christians can move away from using language, regardless of where we stand on the issues, which can lead some individuals to depression and self harm or suicide.
I look forward to the conversation to Ben, and hope you all find it to be a blessing.
*Note* This is MK's first submission. It has been reformatted from an original document in order to fit the desired format. The original letter will be posted later.
Ben: First of all, for those who don't know, what does LGBT stand for, and who are these people?
MK: For those that are not as familiar with that acronym as I am, LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. It is used as a quick and easy way to summarize all of those who fall outside the norms of understanding and expressing their sexuality and gender identity. These are those who find that their sexual attraction does not fall neatly into the heterosexual norm, or those who find that their gender identity does not match the biological sex which they were born into. And this is a community of people who have been hurt and ostracized. By friends, family, and their church homes.
Ben: How would you describe yourself among those terms?
MK: I have experienced the pain and the hurt first hand, as I identify under the broad transgender terminology. I felt the pain of spending the first 20 years of my life hiding a part of my identity, but I have also felt the pain of losing friends who want nothing to do with me after they find out. I knew from a young age that the boy box did not seem to fit me properly, but did not find out that my feelings fit a broader concept of being transgender till about middle school. I tried to pray it away, I tried to hide it, I tried to be someone else, but I just could not escape that it was a part of my identity. I am a Christian, who happens to also be transgender
Ben: In your opinion, what do you find are some common misperceptions regarding the LGBT community and where do you stand as someone trying to change those misperceptions?
MK: One author whose dialogue on this issue that I particularly enjoyed, is Jenell Williams Paris, who is a professor at Messiah College, and wrote The End of Sexual Identity, which is a high caliber unbiased look at how we have taken this debate in a completely wrong direction. I would recommend it to everyone.
While primarily advocating for Transgender faith issues, which are a concept many denominations or individuals have not even begun to grasp with, I am involved in wider LGBT faith advocacy, particularly through GIFT, a group that exists to advocate and support LGBT Christians. And in my own organization, the Transgender Education Collaboration. In my experiences I have encountered a multitude of opinions on these topics, and I am sure that many of you readers may find yourself of differing opinions than myself.
But I hope that with this dialogue we can all come away with an understanding that these are deeply personal issues, and should perhaps not be the focus of such public debate and vitriol. I also hope that we as Christians can move away from using language, regardless of where we stand on the issues, which can lead some individuals to depression and self harm or suicide.
I look forward to the conversation to Ben, and hope you all find it to be a blessing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
2012
In 2003, Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code" was released to the public and by 2009 it had already sold over 80 million copies worldwide and been adapted to a major motion picture. It's the story of Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor who studying symbols, and a cryptographer named Sophie Nevue of the Paris police department. Robert is supposed to be in Paris on business and ends up getting roped into helping a murder investigation which ends up spiralling them into all sorts of fanciful adventures involving an alternative history of the Christian Church. Dan Brown's ideas were partially inspired by real historical events and partially by conspiracy theories such as Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene, and so-called secret societies like Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion.
Aside from the enjoyment of a mystery-detective novel, what the popularity of the book revealed is that many people have a fascination with the possibility of conspiracies in church history, and that not many people know anything about church history in the first place. The main problem, of course, is the use of factual events with a predominantly fabricated history. If you didn't already know better, there was no way to distinguish what was real and what wasn't. Seeking to fill that void in understanding there are many historians who wrote up detailed rejoinders for the book's numerous inaccuracies.
In just this past year, 2011, Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" quickly rose to the top of the best-seller list, clearly striking a chord with a culture that wants to know about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived. The blogosphere furiously erupted, giving the book far more publicity than Harper Collins could've hoped for. The book drew vast criticisms against Bell, charging him with the label of a bona-fide universalist. More than that, however, it revealed that many people, believing Christians included, often knew little about the historic doctrines of Heaven and Hell.
Many Christians have denounced these books as heretical, but by virtue of the controversies surrounding them it helped bring a renewed interest in important issues that many people had little or no previous understanding. In fact, many of the questions that were brought up by these books may not have been asked or been taken seriously before by our contemporaries.
Obviously each generation has its particular controversies, and faithful Christian leaders have done well to help answer those questions biblically. In our day we see our countries go to war with questionable justification, we see radical changes in definition of marriage, the prevalence of abortions and even doctor-assisted suicides. We see the growing challenges of maintaining liberty among diverse cultures, an ever-increasing gap between the richest and the poorest, and a world which seems to be moving faster every day. But as the writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us, "What has been will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9). History can teach us many lessons, but we cannot begin to come to grips with these issues without first engaging them.
And that brings us to the theme of my blog for 2012. My aim is not to bring up controversy for the sake of seeking attention, but to provoke serious thought about important issues. To do that this year I will be introducing to you to some personal friends and family members with discussions about some interesting and possibly very personal topics. Some of them hold views that are contrary to my own, but by engaging in dialogue I hope that we will ask the sort of questions that will garner a deeper, richer understanding of God's grace and wisdom in all things.
Join in the conversation, and check back soon for the first dialogues.
Many Christians have denounced these books as heretical, but by virtue of the controversies surrounding them it helped bring a renewed interest in important issues that many people had little or no previous understanding. In fact, many of the questions that were brought up by these books may not have been asked or been taken seriously before by our contemporaries.
Obviously each generation has its particular controversies, and faithful Christian leaders have done well to help answer those questions biblically. In our day we see our countries go to war with questionable justification, we see radical changes in definition of marriage, the prevalence of abortions and even doctor-assisted suicides. We see the growing challenges of maintaining liberty among diverse cultures, an ever-increasing gap between the richest and the poorest, and a world which seems to be moving faster every day. But as the writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us, "What has been will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9). History can teach us many lessons, but we cannot begin to come to grips with these issues without first engaging them.
And that brings us to the theme of my blog for 2012. My aim is not to bring up controversy for the sake of seeking attention, but to provoke serious thought about important issues. To do that this year I will be introducing to you to some personal friends and family members with discussions about some interesting and possibly very personal topics. Some of them hold views that are contrary to my own, but by engaging in dialogue I hope that we will ask the sort of questions that will garner a deeper, richer understanding of God's grace and wisdom in all things.
Join in the conversation, and check back soon for the first dialogues.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
A Bone to Pick
Just so we're clear, I don't like the show Bones. That will probably become abundantly clear as you read this. I find it difficult getting past the predictable plot lines, the shameless plugs from sponsors, and the silly 3D holographic computer an art student brilliantly designed that can re-enact entire sequences of events with nary a mouse click. This computer, with its obligatory pointless beeps, is able to do in 5 seconds what would take weeks to accomplish in real life. It just seems far too convenient for making a 1 hour program. It's all so hokey.
But it's the main character, Bones, with whom I really have a ...uh... bone to pick. If you've seen the show, you probably already know what I'm on about. If not, here goes. Every episode of Bones, at least from what I've seen, follows the same basic pattern. They find a dead body, and a bunch of nerdy people in a lab examine the bones and other microscopic nonsense and are magically able to figure out exactly how, where, and when the victim was killed. Meanwhile, Mr. FBI uses this information to pin down the villain in some clever and entertaining fashion. And there you have a simple recipe for a run-of-the-mill American crime drama.
The main character, Bones, is the brain behind most of the operation. That is, its her expertise as a forensic anthropologist (I'm not making that up) that helps them figure everything out. Her character is very socially awkward, and as a result, very annoying, and one of the reasons for that is her irrational insistence on her own superior rationality.
Now, obviously, that's her schtick. But I wouldn't find it so unbearable if her colleagues could at least give her a good smack upside the head with some good old common sense. But that's not important right now. You see, Bones takes on the persona of a person completely convinced by what we'll call the "scientific worldview." The scientific worldview really isn't scientific at all, it's actually quite philosophical. It basically assumes that all that exists is entirely material, and all can be explained rationally and logically. Like science. I could go on about the inherent inconsistencies within her worldview, but worldviews aren't necessarily consistent to begin with, so I'm not concerned about that.
For Bones anything to do with God is absurd, the stories in the Bible are "myths", and morals, while useful, are merely shaped by cultural contexts. Interestingly, the writers have been able to develop her pattern of thinking quite a lot. They're clever enough to think things through enough to suggest that, perhaps, some of them are convinced by it themselves. And, from what I can tell, there hasn't been much in the way of quality intellectual retorts either. A shame really.
If you found my posts on secularism too boring to read through, watch a few episodes of Bones. She represents that worldview pretty well. And if you did read them you may recall that we shouldn't be surprised by the logic of the ardent secularist. That's because it's the presuppositions that are the problem. I think Bones and the secularists are just too naive to realize that.
The thing about Bones, despite her social ineptitude, is that she is very brilliant and has an incredibly high IQ. She has no problem telling others about it either, which tends to make people feel a little insecure. I think the same is true with secularism against Christianity. It gloats about its own superior rationality. It attempts to relegate Christianity to the fringes, dismissing it as unscientific, irrational nonsense. As a result, many Christians have felt the insecurity of sounding stupid.
But if there is a God, and the word is his revealed Truth, then Christianity cannot be the unscientific, irrational nonsense the secularist makes it out to be. In fact, it's they very height of rationality. The denial of God, of a higher moral order, the original created order of things, and our need of repentance, is the height of irrationality. It's a blatant denial of the Truth.
The Bible talks about the cross being foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) to those who are perishing. It should be no surprise that we sound silly. In fact, even as believers we often have a difficult time accepting the cross. But the real folly is to buy into the idea that Christianity is as much nonsense as the secularist would have us believe.
But it's the main character, Bones, with whom I really have a ...uh... bone to pick. If you've seen the show, you probably already know what I'm on about. If not, here goes. Every episode of Bones, at least from what I've seen, follows the same basic pattern. They find a dead body, and a bunch of nerdy people in a lab examine the bones and other microscopic nonsense and are magically able to figure out exactly how, where, and when the victim was killed. Meanwhile, Mr. FBI uses this information to pin down the villain in some clever and entertaining fashion. And there you have a simple recipe for a run-of-the-mill American crime drama.
The main character, Bones, is the brain behind most of the operation. That is, its her expertise as a forensic anthropologist (I'm not making that up) that helps them figure everything out. Her character is very socially awkward, and as a result, very annoying, and one of the reasons for that is her irrational insistence on her own superior rationality.
Now, obviously, that's her schtick. But I wouldn't find it so unbearable if her colleagues could at least give her a good smack upside the head with some good old common sense. But that's not important right now. You see, Bones takes on the persona of a person completely convinced by what we'll call the "scientific worldview." The scientific worldview really isn't scientific at all, it's actually quite philosophical. It basically assumes that all that exists is entirely material, and all can be explained rationally and logically. Like science. I could go on about the inherent inconsistencies within her worldview, but worldviews aren't necessarily consistent to begin with, so I'm not concerned about that.
For Bones anything to do with God is absurd, the stories in the Bible are "myths", and morals, while useful, are merely shaped by cultural contexts. Interestingly, the writers have been able to develop her pattern of thinking quite a lot. They're clever enough to think things through enough to suggest that, perhaps, some of them are convinced by it themselves. And, from what I can tell, there hasn't been much in the way of quality intellectual retorts either. A shame really.
If you found my posts on secularism too boring to read through, watch a few episodes of Bones. She represents that worldview pretty well. And if you did read them you may recall that we shouldn't be surprised by the logic of the ardent secularist. That's because it's the presuppositions that are the problem. I think Bones and the secularists are just too naive to realize that.
The thing about Bones, despite her social ineptitude, is that she is very brilliant and has an incredibly high IQ. She has no problem telling others about it either, which tends to make people feel a little insecure. I think the same is true with secularism against Christianity. It gloats about its own superior rationality. It attempts to relegate Christianity to the fringes, dismissing it as unscientific, irrational nonsense. As a result, many Christians have felt the insecurity of sounding stupid.
But if there is a God, and the word is his revealed Truth, then Christianity cannot be the unscientific, irrational nonsense the secularist makes it out to be. In fact, it's they very height of rationality. The denial of God, of a higher moral order, the original created order of things, and our need of repentance, is the height of irrationality. It's a blatant denial of the Truth.
The Bible talks about the cross being foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) to those who are perishing. It should be no surprise that we sound silly. In fact, even as believers we often have a difficult time accepting the cross. But the real folly is to buy into the idea that Christianity is as much nonsense as the secularist would have us believe.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Justice and the Christian - Part 2
This is part 2 of a series of justice and Christianity.
In the last article I talked about a protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's finds its ground zero in the geographical epicentre of a corrupt, greedy, capitalist system: Wall Street. The name refers to the 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller amount of wealth than the top 1%. So, being the vast majority of the human populace, there are obviously quite a large number of Christians among them.
And what exactly are they doing about it? Well, it could be anything really.
The ideas of ethics, inalienable rights, fairness, justice and responsibilities owe so much to the foundations of Christian thought. It's difficult to argue for human rights without grounding them in something outside ourselves. So it's no surprise then that Christians are often amongst the forefront of social justice.
In fact, Christians have been involved in social justice in at least two significant movements within the past century. One of those saw the rise of liberation theology in Latin America through the middle of the 20th century. It arose mainly as a response to the growing injustices against the poor in that region, arguably similar to the movement we're seeing today.
Liberation theology, although frowned upon by the Vatican, was mainly a Roman Catholic response. The 99%, on the other hand, seeks to involve anyone earning less than the top 1% of the world's earners. But if the occupy Toronto movement is indicative of the movement at large, it's far less monolithic than liberation theology. The protests were not simply against the growing economic hardships of the middle and lower class, but against wars, the prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, and even bad grammar. One sign read, "Emancipation proclation." I think he meant "proclamation." With no clear message it's difficult to see whether there's really a message at all.
If I could see one thing, however, something that is both implicit and occasionally explicit, is the growing marxist interpretations of the societal problems, and that has definite similarities to the liberation theology movement in Latin America. For them, cooperation, not competition, is the only way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, to promote justice and dignity for the individual, and opportunity and fairness for all.
To be perfectly fair, nowhere does Jesus, or anyone else in the Bible for that matter, give us a blueprint for political and economic systems. Neither marxism nor free-market capitalism bears God's proverbial stamp of approval. But that's not to say there haven't been forms of either one that have been influenced, at least in some part, by Christian thought. Christian socialist parties continue to exert influence throughout the world as well as more right-of-centre parties. Churches in America have congregations where both Republicans and Democrats in good conscience sit next to each other in the pew, sharing the same cup and loaf in the supper.
Marxism will not be the saviour to those whose misfortune has been blamed by greedy capitalism. Nor is capitalism the beacon of freedom for those under the tyrannical rule of a communist government. But whatever sort of society you find yourself, good theology forces you to think seriously about how you relate to your neighbour and how you can positively influence the world around you. People like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, and Abraham Kuyper probably all had differing ideas on political and economic systems. But each of them, driven by their theology, brought about significant change.
More on this later...
In the last article I talked about a protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's finds its ground zero in the geographical epicentre of a corrupt, greedy, capitalist system: Wall Street. The name refers to the 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller amount of wealth than the top 1%. So, being the vast majority of the human populace, there are obviously quite a large number of Christians among them.
And what exactly are they doing about it? Well, it could be anything really.
The ideas of ethics, inalienable rights, fairness, justice and responsibilities owe so much to the foundations of Christian thought. It's difficult to argue for human rights without grounding them in something outside ourselves. So it's no surprise then that Christians are often amongst the forefront of social justice.
In fact, Christians have been involved in social justice in at least two significant movements within the past century. One of those saw the rise of liberation theology in Latin America through the middle of the 20th century. It arose mainly as a response to the growing injustices against the poor in that region, arguably similar to the movement we're seeing today.
Liberation theology, although frowned upon by the Vatican, was mainly a Roman Catholic response. The 99%, on the other hand, seeks to involve anyone earning less than the top 1% of the world's earners. But if the occupy Toronto movement is indicative of the movement at large, it's far less monolithic than liberation theology. The protests were not simply against the growing economic hardships of the middle and lower class, but against wars, the prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, and even bad grammar. One sign read, "Emancipation proclation." I think he meant "proclamation." With no clear message it's difficult to see whether there's really a message at all.
If I could see one thing, however, something that is both implicit and occasionally explicit, is the growing marxist interpretations of the societal problems, and that has definite similarities to the liberation theology movement in Latin America. For them, cooperation, not competition, is the only way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, to promote justice and dignity for the individual, and opportunity and fairness for all.
To be perfectly fair, nowhere does Jesus, or anyone else in the Bible for that matter, give us a blueprint for political and economic systems. Neither marxism nor free-market capitalism bears God's proverbial stamp of approval. But that's not to say there haven't been forms of either one that have been influenced, at least in some part, by Christian thought. Christian socialist parties continue to exert influence throughout the world as well as more right-of-centre parties. Churches in America have congregations where both Republicans and Democrats in good conscience sit next to each other in the pew, sharing the same cup and loaf in the supper.
Marxism will not be the saviour to those whose misfortune has been blamed by greedy capitalism. Nor is capitalism the beacon of freedom for those under the tyrannical rule of a communist government. But whatever sort of society you find yourself, good theology forces you to think seriously about how you relate to your neighbour and how you can positively influence the world around you. People like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, and Abraham Kuyper probably all had differing ideas on political and economic systems. But each of them, driven by their theology, brought about significant change.
More on this later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)