Somewhat Random Reflections on Knowledge
Here’s some somewhat random reflections on knowledge if you’re interested…
How Can We Know Anything at All?
Wow. That is a super big question. And it’s a question that some people are not asking at all. That’s problematic. And in some ways ignorant. However, others are asking that question but they’re asking it in a proud way. That’s also problematic. And ignorant.
Let me ask you a question, how do you know your dad is your dad? Well, some of you will say, “He’s just my dad. He’s always been my dad. I’ve always known him as my dad.”
But I could say, “But, how do you know you know for sure he’s your dad?”
Others will answer, “I know he’s my dad because my mom told me.” But how do you know your mom’s not lying? Or, how do you know she knows the truth?
Perhaps the only way to know your dad is actually your biological dad is through a DNA test. But could it be the case that the DNA clinic is deceiving you? Is it possible that there’s a big conspiracy to deceive you? What if you are actually part of the Truman Show? Everything is just a big hoax for people’s entertainment?… How could you know without a shadow of a doubt that that’s not happening?
You really can’t. Not 100%.
We Can’t Know Everything
We, I hope you can see, can’t know everything. There’s a healthy level of skepticism, just as there is healthy humility.
Also, if we think our knowledge must be exhaustive for us to have knowledge, we will never have knowledge. And we will be super unproductive. I, for one, would not be able to go to the mechanic. And that would be bad.
Our knowledge is necessarily limited. We may not like it but that’s the cold hard truth, we must rely on other people. We must learn from other people. There’s a place for us to trust other people. Of course, we are not to trust all people or trust people all the time. But we must necessarily rely on people at points.
Philosophy and the History of Careening Back and Forth Epistemologically
John Frame, the theologian and philosopher, shows in his book, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, that the history of secular philosophy is a history of humans careening back in forth from rationalism to skepticism and back again. One philosopher makes a case that we can and must know it all, every jot and title. And when they’re proven wrong, the next philosopher retreats to pure epistemological anarchy, claiming we can’t know anything at all. Again, when it’s found out that that view is wrong and we can in fact know things, we swing back the other way. And so, the philosophical pendulum goes and we have people like Hume and people like Nietzsche.
The history of philosophy shows that we should be both skeptical about rationalism and rational about skepticism. Both have accuracies and inaccuracies. Which helps explain the long life of both.
The Bible and Knowledge
The biblical understanding of knowledge takes both rationalism and skepticism into account and explains how both are partly right and partly wrong. And it explains that though we may not be able to know fully, we can know truly. It also explains that there are more types of knowing than just cognitive and rational. The Bible not surprisingly understands who we are anthropologically and so is best able to reveal the whole truth epistemologically.
The Bible also understands that there is experiential knowing, tasting—experiencing something—and knowing something to be true on a whole different level than mere cognitive knowing. When the Bible talks about “knowing” it’s intimate, tangible, and experiential knowing. For example, it says Adam “knew” his wife and a child was the result of that knowledge. That, my friends, is not mere mental knowledge. It’s lived—intimately experienced—knowledge. It’s knowledge that’s not available without relationship.
Job says it this way, I’ve heard of you but now something different has happened, I’ve seen you (Job 42:5). Jonathan Edwards, the philosopher and theologian, talked about the difference between cognitively knowing honey is sweet and tasting its goodness. It is a world of difference. The Bible is not about mere mental assent. It is about tasting. Knowing. Experiencing. Living the truth.
The Bible says and shows that Jesus is Himself is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is what it means to know the truth. He is the truth and shows us the truth. He is truth lived, truth incarnate.
The Bible communicates that some people don’t understand, don’t know the truth. There’s a sense in which if you don’t see it, you don’t see it. If it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense. The Bible talks about people “hearing” and yet “not hearing” and “seeing” and “not seeing.” Some people believe the gospel and the Bible is foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14).
How Should Christians Pursue Knowledge?
First, our disposition or the way we approach questions is really important.
How should we approach questions? What should characterize us?
Humility! Why? Because we are fallible, we make mistakes. However, God does not. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Also, kindness, patience, and understanding are an important part of humility and asking questions and arriving at answers. So, “Faith seeking understanding,” is a helpful and common phrase.
Second, where do we get answers from?
Scripture. Why is this important? Again, I am fallible and you are fallible, that is, we make mistakes. And how should we approach getting those answers? Are we above Scripture or is Scripture above us? Who holds more sway? Scripture supplies the truth to us; we do not decide what we think and then find a way to spin things so that we can believe whatever we want…
Third, community is important.
God, for instance, has given the church pastor/elders who are supposed to rightly handle the word of truth and shepherd the community of believers. We don’t decide decisions and come to conclusions on our own. God helps us through Christ’s body the Church.
Fourth, it is important to remember mystery.
We should not expect to know all things. We are… fallible. So, we should keep Deuteronomy 29:29 in mind: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” There are certain things that are revealed and certain things that are not revealed.
Fifth, our questions and answers are not simply about head knowledge.
God doesn’t just want us to be able to talk about theology and philosophy. Deuteronomy 29:29 says, “that we may do…” So, God also cares a whole lot about what we do. Knowledge is to lead to action. We are to be hearers and doers.
What explains the contradiction of humanity?
What explains the contradiction of humanity?
Hinduism & New Age Spirituality on Suffering
Hinduism & New Age Spirituality on Suffering
What does Hinduism say about suffering?
The most prominent of the six schools of Hindu philosophy is Vedanta Hinduism. It teaches that suffering comes from ignorance (maya). This view teaches that we can be freed from suffering when we recognize our oneness with the Divine. This form of Hinduism thus says since all is divine, there is truly no sin and no suffering. Salvation is thus through knowledge, the knowledge that one is actually God.[1]
It is important to realize that Hinduism “does not technically name one religion but is a broad term that includes the various religious beliefs and practices of India. Hinduism has no founder and no single authoritative text.” But, “all Hindus share some core beliefs, including the eternality of the cosmos, reincarnation, karma, the caste system, affirmation of Vedic scriptures, and liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth as the ultimate goal of life.”[2]
A second view of suffering from Hinduism is that our suffering comes from a previous life in which wrong was done. As the Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler say in The Art of Happiness, “In the Buddhist and Hindu models… suffering is a result of our own negative past actions and is seen as a catalyst for seeking spiritual liberation”[3]
We, in this life, are thus paying for the wrongs we did in our previous lives. All suffering thus has its antecedent sin, somewhere.[4] We may not understand it but all suffering is thus just.[5] This is the doctrine of karma: people get what’s coming to them.[6]
A few questions come to mind. What acts of compassion to alleviate the suffering of others do you expect from Hinduism that does not believe in the reality of suffering? Also, as we have seen, Hinduism teaches Karma, people get the suffering that they deserve in this life. Does that lead to compassion for those who are suffering? Sadly, often it does not.
Think of the caste system. If someone was born into poverty that’s what they must deserve. If someone gets sick and dies that’s what they must deserve. Hinduism holds that humans “are directly responsible for the suffering (physical, mental, spiritual, existential, and so on) that they are experiencing.”[7]
That’s very briefly what Hinduism says about suffering.
The Bible as we will see teaches that we are not divine, we are not God; we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Ignorance is a problem but it is not the problem.
The Bible teaches the decisiveness of this life, we had no other life in the past.[8] What we do matters more than we can know. It does not just affect the next life where we get a retry. It affects eternity. So, the way people live and how they treat people has a lot of significance.
Also, from a Christian perspective, there is judgment. People will get what they deserve, we can be assured of that, but it’s not through Karma. It’s through Jesus, the good and just Judge (Rev. 22:12).
Lastly, Christianity places huge importance on compassion (Col. 3:12-13). Jesus came and suffered for us to ultimately alleviate our suffering even when we didn’t deserve it. Therefore, Christians are to be compassionate and even sacrificial.
What does New Age Spirituality about suffering?
First, what is New Age Spirituality?[9] It is a mix of Buddhism and Hinduism and personal feelings. It is kind of the “mix n’ match” of religions.
It’s basically impossible to distill down what New Age Spirituality says about suffering because you’d probably get a different answer from each adherent to the many forms of New Age Spirituality. I hope here, however, to give a general perspective.
It seems suffering in this view is a result of not being awakened to our inner power. We need to relinquish negativity so that “the universe’s healing power might flow unimpeded.”[10] If someone is in your life that you’re having trouble with, then the solution is to cut them off. They are not helping your inner calm so they need to go. New Age Spirituality seems to teach that the solution to suffering is to focus on yourself.
New Age Spirituality seems very self and inward-focused. Of course, they say they are very inclusive and accepting of everyone. So, New Age Spirituality is also very pluralistic. ‘You have your truth and I have my truth. And that’s fine.” That’s what proponents of this view would likely say.
Primarily, though, suffering is something to be avoided. What is messy and unlikable is to be avoided. New Age Spirituality in that sense seems to be an escapist mentality. In contrast, “the Christian path of obedience, sacrifice, and suffering can seem foolish, even masochistic.”[11]
Suffering exists for various reasons, but Christianity teaches that it is primarily a result of sin. Sin is not really a category for the New Age Spiritualists. Christianity also differs in that it says suffering is not always to be avoided.
Jesus waded into our suffering to provide salvation. And Jesus very often calls us to also take up our crosses. And love people. Even when it is difficult. Even when it means sacrificial suffering. Christians believe that they cannot agree with everyone (for example, Jesus is the only way to God) but they are to love and sacrifice for anyone—even when they disagree with that person and caring for them requires sacrifice (think of the Good Samaritan).
Notes
[1] E. Stanley Jones, Christ and Human Suffering [New York: The Abingdon Press, 1937], 58.
[2] Tawa J. Anderson, W. Michael Clark, and David K. Naugle, An Introduction to Christian Worldview: Pursuing God’s Perspective in a Pluralistic World [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017], 269.
[3] The Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, The Art of Happiness, 200.
[4] Jones, Christ and Human Suffering, 51.
[5] Some would take this to mean that we should not relieve the sufferings of others because it really is not helping them. They are getting their just desserts for their wrongdoing. If we relieve them in one way they will just suffer in another.
[6] Jones says, “There is a deep and abiding truth in the law of Karma. We do reap what we sow” (Jones, Christ and Human Suffering 54). See Galatians 6:8. However, the doctrine of karma is wrong although God does justly mete out justice.
[7] Scott J Fitzpatrick, Ian H Kerridge, Christopher F C Jordens, Laurie Zoloth, Christopher Tollefsen, Karma Lekshe Tsomo, Michael P Jensen, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Deepak Sarma, “Religious perspectives on human suffering: Implications for medicine and bioethics” in Journal of Religion and Health 2016; 55:159–173.
[8] The Bible says that it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes the judgment (Heb. 9:27).
[9] See also “Is the world enchanted?”
[10] Nicole Watt, “A Reiki Master’s Redemption,” 95 in Christianity Today.
[11] Watt, “A Reiki Master’s Redemption,” 95 in Christianity Today.
*Photo by Min An
Is science our salvation?
Science brings solutions. Solutions I thank God for. Without the breakthroughs in medicine that science has brought, my wife and son would not be alive because of a dangerous birth. The Bible tells us to be thankful for good things like science. It doesn’t say science isn’t real, or anything crazy like that. Instead, it says, “every good gift… comes down from heaven” and “should be received with thanksgiving.”
But, science is not everything. Science is not our salvation because science is wielded by humans, and humans do something that is unpopularly referred to as sin. So, in the most scientifically advanced century, there were also the most mass inflicted deaths. If the past is an indication of the future, science will continue to be a place of ethical stress and struggle. Science has been good in many cases, but science has also been used to propel genocide.
So, I’m super thankful for science but science is not our salvation. Science can’t even begin to tell us the meaning of life. It only answers questions that can be found through reproducible observations. It can tell us about the way the world is, but it cannot to us about the way the world ought to be.
Science might provide solutions, science might help us out especially physically, but our problems are deeper than that. Our problem is not just physical, it’s spiritual. And science knows nothing of the spiritual. It can’t see or do tests on what ills us at our deepest levels and so it can offer no final solutions.
If humanity is to be saved we need more power than even science offers. And we need it welded by a perfect person. Christians believe in just that person.
Christians believe Jesus is the Solution
Christ’s resurrection proves both that the world is more than meets the eye and that science, though often very good, is not our salvation. Jesus the Bible repeatedly shows, is our salvation.
“For the Christian the natural world is real and full of strangeness and wonder, but it is not the only reality or the higher reality, so important though science is, there are ways of knowing other than through science… After all, there are many sounds that humans cannot hear, but they are still objectively real and completely audible to dogs, bats and bears.”[1]
Yet, just because Christians believe more is needed than just science, does not mean Christians discount science. And just because Christians believe that Jesus is the solution, does not mean Christians discount reason.
Christianity is a reasonable religion. Or, it at least certainly claims to be. Each person has to decide for themself. But, the Bible indeed gives reasons to believe. It’s arguing for something. It’s proposing a full-orbed philosophy of life.
Christianity has been reasoned since the beginning. In fact, the Bible makes the huge claim that reason (logos) was fleshed out as Jesus walked in the flesh (see John 1:1-14). Wisdom walked the earth. Philosophy was not abstract, theoretical, and locked up in a far-away lecture hall. No. Philosophy was flawlessly lived out by Jesus who perfectly loved people and God.
Science cannot save us but it points us with a whisper and a roar to the One who can. Jesus can do the surgery on our hearts that we all need because He is knowledge and wisdom incarnate. He is philosophy. He is Logic made flesh.
Jesus the sovereign over science is the one who brings salvation. He is the sinless solution. The one alone who perfectly welds His power.
Notes
[1] Os Guinness, Fools Talk, 150.
Suffering? What does Buddhism say about it?
Suffering? What does Buddhism say say about it? Why does it happen and what hope is there in the midst of it? How should we respond to the reality of suffering?
Why does suffering happen?
Why does suffering happen? What hope do we have in the midst of suffering? And what do the major views of the world say about these questions?
There are a bunch of different forms of suffering. Suffering because of the actions of others, because of our own choices, from loneliness, from financial distress, from the death of a loved one. Statistics say there have been millions of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 alone. Suffering is sadly part of our world.
But, why? And did it have to be this way? Does it have to be this way?
In the upcoming posts we’re going to briefly look at what Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age Spirituality, Islam, Naturalism, and Christianity say about suffering.[1]
What does Buddhism say about suffering?
Buddha said, “Existence and suffering are one.” And Buddha explains, through the four noble truths,[2] that suffering is a result of desire. Therefore, Buddhism says, the solution, the way to end suffering, is for us to end desire. To get to our resting place then, to get to Nirvana, where we no longer suffer, we must cut the root of all desire.
Issa, an eighteenth-century poet from Japan, went to a Buddhist Zen Master for help. He was grieving. He tragically lost his wife and all five of his children. In Issa’s distress and grief he went to the Zen Master. The Zen Master said: “Remember the world is dew.” That was the solution that was given, “Remember the world is dew.”
Dew is fleeting. “The sun rises and the dew is gone. So too is suffering and death in this world of illusion, so the mistake is to become to engaged. Remember the world is dew. Be more detached, and transcend the engagement of mourning that prolongs the grief.”[3]
The answer given, then, is basically, “Be more detached. Care less.” After Issa received his consolation he composed one of his most famous poems:
I appreciate something E. Stanley Jones said:
“Buddha was right in diagnosing our difficulty as ‘desire.’ It is the desires of men reaching out to this thing and that thing that return to them disillusioned, pained, suffering. We seem to be infinite beings trying to find satisfaction with finite things. The result—suffering! Yes, Buddha was right in finding the root of our difficulty to be in desire, but he was wrong in the remedy. He would try to get rid of all desire, when the fact is that there is no possible way to get rid of one desire except to replace it by a higher desire.”[4]
What’s the Christian View?
The Bible actually agrees that we have desire and that it is strong. For example, Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us that we have eternity in our hearts. Therefore, the Bible as well as Augustine and Aquinas say we have great desire but they also say our desire can be met, but only by God Himself.[5]
So, let’s think through the implications of the Buddhist view of suffering. The Buddhist view leaves people wanting to leave earthly existence altogether and arrive at the passionless state of Nirvana; that is the true solution from the Buddhist approach.
One of the problems with this kind of belief is that it does away with the significance of good and evil. And thus it also does away with rescue. C.S. Lewis said it this way: “Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.’ The Christian replies, ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’”[6]
The Christian view of suffering looks at suffering as much more multidimensional. From a Christian perspective, there are many reasons for suffering:
- sin and wrong desire
- war and human conflicts
- living in a fallen and cursed world in which there are physical calamities such as hurricanes and pandemics
- health issues and physical infirmities
- economic distress
- humans sinning against other humans in various ways
- the abuse of secular and religious authorities and even at the hands of parents within the family structure
- Suffering, for the Christian, can also happen as result of living for Jesus the Lord[7]
For the Christian, the solution is much different too. The solution is not leaving earthly existence, the solution is Jesus coming to earth. And Him always having the right desire and doing the right thing and suffering in the place of humans.
Notes
[1] Of course, in the space we have, we cannot come close to an exhaustive account of each view. Instead, we’ll look at what I believe is a fair representation.
[2] This is what the four noble truths say: (1) Suffering is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth and (2) the cause of that suffering is desire. (3) We can therefore end all suffering by ending all desire. And (4) we can end all desire by following the eightfold path.
[3] Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk, 126.
[4] E. Stanley Jones, Christ and Human Suffering (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1937), 49-50.
[5] As Psalm 16:11 says, “In the LORD’s presence there is fullness of joy. At His right hand our pleasures forever more.”
[6] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
[7]See Apologetics at the Cross.
*Photo by JD Mason
Does science disprove miracles?
What is a Miracle?
David Hume, a skeptic philosopher believed a miracle is a violation and even a transgression of a law of nature. That view assumes the impossibility of miracles at the outset. It makes sense that someone who doesn’t want to believe in God, or God’s interference with our affairs, wouldn’t want to believe in the possibility of God’s intervention.[1] So, I understand where he’s coming from.
The Importance of Starting Places
Is Science able to Disprove Miracles?
Should we Believe every Miracle Claim?
Does Science Disprove Miracles?
Notes
Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?
Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?
Newton, a scientist that also happened to be a fish, was a keen observer of the ecology of the fishbowl. He was surprised to observe regular patterns in his fish universe. But he did.
For example, Newton observes that food daily falls upon the surface of the water at the same time each day. It is a law of nature. It’s just the way the world is.
Newton observes other natural phenomena like the temperature of the water. He further notes that each death of a goldfish results in a distant flushing noise and then in reincarnation of that goldfish. Newton, awestruck by his discoveries, publishes his findings in his magnum opus entitled Fishtonian Laws.
Many read his groundbreaking work and are convinced that the laws of the fishbowl are unassailable. After all, the patterns observed have always been that way and so always will be that way. No outside source can act within the fishbowl. The reality is food appears every day and as a goldfish dies, a new one appears. That is the unbroken chain of events we observe. That is the way it’s always been. How could it be different? Who or what could act on these laws of nature?
We are in a closed system; the aether of the universe—in which we live, move, and have our being—is constrained by an invisible force. There is an unknown unobservable wall that keeps us from knowing what is outside nature, what is outside the physical universe. There is no way for us to know the metafishbowl.
In the post-Fishtonian world, there were still whispers of the metafishbowl—of the supernatural hand of God—but most of those stories were dismissed as baseless dreams. After all, even if there were a God that set up the fishbowl, he no longer acts in the fishbowl. Such a being is wholly other and transcendent and would not care about lowly fish.
Everything just goes on swimmingly by itself. We shouldn’t expect an outside hand, right?… There is no reason to think an outside being or force could act within our world.
Or, does something smell fishy about this story?
Doesn’t science contradict what Christianity teaches?
The Bible talks about a lot of crazy things like walking on water. We can walk on ice but we can’t walk on water. Doesn’t that automatically prove Christianity is false and even foolish?
Also, the Bible cannot be tested in a laboratory so we cannot have scientific proof that it’s true. By this criterion, however, we can’t prove most things. We can’t even scientifically prove the assumptions of science.
If you buy a bookshelf from Ikea and the tools you need to build it are not included, then you’ll be limited to the tools you have. If you don’t have enough tools to build it then what happens? The bookshelf is either left completely unbuilt or in some haphazard condition.
It’s a similar situation with science. Certain philosophies of life provide different ‘tools’ for the assembly of the scientific method. Without those tools science will not be able to stand. So, what “tools” do you need to assemble the scientific method?
Reasons to believe in the predictability and regularity of nature
A controlled and orderly creation rather than a capricious one is necessary for science to get a foothold. There must also be reasons for people to believe that the world is ordered. As John Frame has said, “For science to be successful, the world must display a high degree of regularity and predictability.”[1] But, for the scientific method to work, we need more than just regularity, we need to also believe in that regularity. “Unless we assume predictability and regularity in nature, it is impossible for experimental science to conduct its work.”[2]
Nature is orderly, not out of control. And because nature is ordered it allows for the study of that order. The idea that the universe is ordered did not arise from ordinary experience. From casual observation, creation often seems capricious.[3]Yet, trust in a cosmic Creator and Lawgiver provided such things as the laws of motion.
Belief in the rationality of God not only led to the inductive method but also led to the conclusion that the universe is governed rationally by discoverable laws. “This assumption is vitally important to scientific research, because in a pagan polytheistic world, which saw its gods often engaged and jealous, irrational behavior in a world that was nonrational, any systematic investigation of such a world would seem futile.”[4]
The Christian account of the world gives reason for believing in mathematical precision. Other accounts expect unreconcilable mathematical problems. If the gods, for example, are at war or not in control of nature then one cannot expect exactness, only various levels of ignorance. That level of confidence does not lend itself to space travel and brain surgery, let alone the scientific method.
Nature is good, not a god to worship
The physical world is also real, not an illusion. Creation has inherit goodness but not godness. One’s view on the nature of reality not surprisingly affects how one can think about science. If one believes that reality is that we are all unknowingly god then it’s going to impact the way they think about the physical world around them.
The view that holds that we can and should escape from the sufferings of the world by ridding ourselves of all desire does not lend itself to scientific discoveries. And so, one would look in “vain for as much as a rudimentary concept of science, of scientific enterprise, or of scientific spirit, in the rather depressive pages of the Vishnu Purana. Its main purpose is rather to teach man how to escape from the clutches of the sensual, tangible world.”[5]
Time is linear, not cyclical
The basic choices in the origin and development of the universe “are only two: cyclic or linear, or rather, chaos or order.”[6] If the cosmos were cyclical—time repeating itself over and over again—then it would seem we can’t make gains. Optimism would be abolished. Many civilizations have, however, believed in cyclic cycles.
Take the Chinese for example. They have a very long and, in many ways, incredible history yet their cyclic notions of the world kept them behind scientifically for many years. In China, “the interpretation of cosmic and human history in terms of cycles was far more than intellectual entertainment for a few scholars. Rather, it acquired at a very early age and enjoyed until very recently a semi-official status.”[7] And so, in that culture, casual connections were not observed. Even “measurable, quantitative aspects of events occurring closely in time could have no particular significance”[8] for the Chinese. Thus, not surprisingly “despondency about man’s ability to decipher the exact patterns of nature made itself felt time and again.”[9]
Without the optimism of a linear understanding of the universe and of time, science is servilely paralyzed.
“The spirit of experimental method simply could not assert itself in a cultural ambience in which the urge to escape from reality constituted a pervasive pattern. With the slighting of reality there came a weakening of the search for truth about the external world. Science, however, cannot arise, let alone gain sustained momentum, without an articulate longing for truth which in turn presupposes a confident approach to reality”[10]
Whereas, many Christians during the scientific revolution believed that they could do science to the glory of God. They wanted to, as Johann Kepler said, “think God’s thoughts after Him.”[11] Thus, they had a lot of motivation for practicing the scientific method. Christianity provides the intellectual attitude, ethics, and assumptions that make modern science possible. As Peter Harrison said, “religious considerations provided the motivation to pursue science, provided its core philosophical presuppositions, informed its methods and content, and lent it social legitimacy.”[12]
So, to the question: “Doesn’t science contradict what Christianity teaches?” I’d say the answer to that appears to be no. In fact, Christianity seems to have been part of what led to the blessings of modern science.
Notes
[1] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, YEAR), 271.
[2] John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015), 72-73.
[3] See Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live, 423
[4] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 222.
[5] Stanley L. Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition).
[6] Jaki, Science and creation.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Johannes Kepler, Peter Harrison says, “had wanted to become a theologian but eventually came to the realisation that ‘God is also praised through my work in astronomy.’ For Kepler, the whole world was the ‘the temple of God’ and hence to study nature was ‘to honour God, to venerate him, to wonder at him’” (Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21).
[12] Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21.
[13] Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21.
[14] Mark Noll, “Science, Religion, and A.D. White,” 7.
What explains the possibility of science?
Where did the idea or faith in an ordered world—a controlled rather than a chaotic cosmos—come from? Is this view just the view humans have always had? Is it the default view of humans? What explains the possibility of science?
One author has said that “the emergence of science is a more extraordinary event than many children of the atomic age would imagine.”[1] Or, as Peter Harrison has said, “there was nothing inevitable about the emergence of modern science.”[2] We often take science and all the possibilities that science allows for granted. For most people in the history of humanity, that has not been an option. Because science as we know it was not in existence.
Many saw the world as chaotic and capricious, not controlled. The view that the world has discoverable laws has not been the norm. Why would one see the world as chaotic and uncontrolled? On the other hand, why would someone see the world as controlled? And, what difference do these views make?
These views are two different tracks that take you vastly different places. Seeing the world as inherently chaotic and capricious does not lead one to think there are laws that world govern the world. The most you could hope for would be survival, not science. If there are no rules to a game, you don’t think you’re going to win the game or even make much progress. Your goal, more likely, is to stay in the game as long as possible.
If, however, you believe in a controlled orderly world, it makes all the difference in the world. If there are rules to “the game of life” then one might find that there are advantages to knowing those rules.
Perspectives about whether the cosmos is chaotic or controlled have had huge implications on how people have thought about an enterprise like science. If we believe something is lawless, we don’t look for laws to study.
Or consider this, in many ways a stone mosaic and stone driveway are not that different. Both are spread-out stone. I, however, look at one with intention to find the pattern and picture. I don’t do that for the other because I know no pattern or picture is there.
That’s the way, apparently, humans have always been. The world has witnessed a few great cultures, cultures one would think capable of producing science. Yet, many times science has experienced a stillbirth.[3] Why?
It would seem, if we believe in a Creator it makes sense to believe in creation, something that was created, created with a purpose. If there’s a Law Giver, it makes sense that there would be a law, and order and rules to creation. If, however, things just came somehow from chaotic chance, it makes sense that things would be chaotic.
“There is considerable historical evidence, particularly in the writings of René Descartes, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, suggesting that the very notion of ‘natural laws’ is rooted in the understanding of a rational creator God who sustains an intelligible universe.”[4]
So, what impact does the view of the cosmos being controlled or chaotic have? That is, what impact did the view of God and the world have in connection with science? In my understanding, and of many authors I’ve read, it had/has a big impact.[5]
“Great cultures, where the scientific enterprise came to a standstill, invariably failed to formulate the notion of physical law, or the law of nature. Theirs was a theology with no belief in a personal, rational, absolutely transcendent Lawgiver, or Creator. Their cosmology reflected a pantheistic and animistic view of nature caught in the treadmill of perennial, inexorable returns. The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.”[6]
Christians believe the cosmos is not chaotic because it’s controlled by a Creator. The universe is ordered because it follows orders. The law of gravity follows the rules of the Law Giver. God governs the world and so we can make scientific discoveries. Experiments are repeatable because the laws that govern the universe exist, they repeat. They were in operation yesterday, one year ago, today, and we’re counting on them being in operation tomorrow. But, why are they in operation? And, why should we count on them being in operation tomorrow?
If we came into being by chance, and the laws of the universe somehow are in operation by chance, isn’t there a pretty big chance they won’t be in operation tomorrow?… And, what is ‘chance’? Isn’t ‘chance’ just a reference to something that is statically improbable happening? But, that’s not an actual explanation of what happened or why, right?
Notes
____
[1] Stanley L. Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition).
[2] Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21.
[3] Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe.
[4] Denis R. Alexander, “Miracles and Science” Faraday Paper 20. “French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) pioneered the idea of physical laws of nature, arguing that God had set the world in motion at the moment of creation and that he continued to move things in accordance with laws that he had freely chosen” (Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21).
[5] E.g. John Hedley Brooke, Science and religion: Some historical perspectives, Herbert Butterfield, The origins of modern science 1300-1800, Stanley L. Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe, Pearcy and Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian faith and natural philosophy, and Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunt, and the end of slavery.
[6] Jaki, Science and creation.
*Photo by Trnava University
How should Christians think about gender?
How should Christians think about gender?
How should Christians think about gender? This is an important and controversial topic. This is merely one post but hopefully the beginning of a grace-filled, loving, and humble pursuit of the truth. We won’t be able to cover everything here but I hope this will be a good first step on a productive journey.
As we begin, I want to read a quote from Andrew T. Walker, he was one of my professors and he has written a book on this topic and I just love this quote from him. He asks: How would Jesus talk to us about this topic?
“He would listen to us, and he would love us, and when he disagreed with us, it would always and only be out of compassion, never oppression. There is no hurting person he would mock, or shun, or insult, or sneer at. He is so determined to pursue what is best for all of us that he died—excluded, mocked and rejected—to secure it.”[1]
That is the heart we want to have as we approach this subject. We want the best for others. And when we disagree we still want to love. Jesus modeled this and He calls us to imitate Him.
What is gender dysphoria and what does it feel like?
Dysphoria means “a state of dissatisfaction/anxiety.” So, gender dysphoria means “a state of dissatisfaction or anxiety having to do with one’s gender.”
“Gender dysphoria is the medical term for the experience that one’s gender identity and sex, or how one was biologically identified at birth, do not match, resulting in conflict.”[2]
People with gender dysphoria feel like the body they were born with doesn’t match the way they feel. They don’t feel comfortable with their gender. They feel like something is not right. And so, people with gender dysphoria may not dress in a way that is typical. They may also take medicine or have surgeries to look different.[3]
Have you ever been in a setting or in clothing that you didn’t feel comfortable in? I remember singing a song from The Sound of Music in front of a bunch of people at the fair with my sisters. If you know much about me, you know I can’t sing. So, me singing in front of a bunch of people was not comfortable (for anyone!). But, perhaps the worst part was the silly outfit I had to wear. I felt and looked so goofy.
I had to do that quite a while ago and thankfully it only lasted a few minutes. But, I remember it. And not fondly.
Imagine feeling out of place in your own body. Actually, I think a lot of people can relate to that to some degree. But, imagine you felt so uncomfortable that you felt like your body was not the right gender. That’s how some people feel. One person expressed it like this: “Dysphoria feels like being unable to get warm, no matter how many layers you put on. It feels like hunger without appetite…. It feels like grieving. It feels like having nothing to grieve.”[4]
Greg Eilers says it this way: “I was crushed with gender dysphoria. I had grown to hate myself. I could not look at myself in a mirror. I despised being a male and loathed wearing men’s clothes. I longed to live as and be recognized as a woman.”[5]
This, I hope, stirs our compassion and empathy for those suffering and struggling. Jesus, Scripture says, sympathizes with our weaknesses (Heb. 4:15);[6] we too should sympathize with the struggles of others.
With our desire for the good of others in mind, are you familiar with pica, the eating disorder?… It is a compulsive eating disorder in which people eat nonfood items; things like dirt, clay, flaking paint, and even bedding from hamster cages and metal; things that clearly are not good for you and can be very harmful.[7]
In this example, we see that our desires are not the litmus test for what is right or good for us… Some things are harmful even if we have a desire for them…[8]
Where then can we go to know what is good for us? Where is our guide for life? This is the issue, this is really what it comes down to when we consider gender… Where do we locate authority, knowledge, and trustworthiness?[9] Our feelings and desires? Society? Or from somewhere or someone else?
How do we know what is good for us? How do we know what will lead to our health and thriving?
If Christianity is true, and God created the world and loves the world, then we want to hear what He has to teach us on this subject.[10]
Christians find their direction, bearings in the world, and authority on the firm foundation of the crucified Creator. “He may not always agree with out feelings or our reason—but he can be trusted, and he knows what he’s talking about, and he has the right to tell us how to live.”[11]
1) God’s Creation and Gender
God tells us what the blueprint is for us to function to our fullest in the book of Genesis (Gen. 1:26-27) and Jesus reiterates that same truth (Matt. 19:4).[12]
“He [Jesus] answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female’” (Matt. 19:4).
Scripture shows us that “men and women are different. Our differences extend to the deepest levels of our being: chromosomes, brains, voices, body shapes, body strengths, and reproductive systems. What our bodies are designed and destined for are different. How our bodies are designed bear witness to the difference that reflects God’s creative will for humanity.”[13]
I think it’s helpful to make a few observations from this passage. (1) We see we are created people. (2) We are created male and female. And amazingly I’ve read that scientists are able to tell if a person is male or female by looking at a single cell from anywhere in their body. (3) And so, I think it follows that what God the Creator does, people should not seek to undo.[14] He, as the Creator, knows how His creation is supposed to function.
God’s good intention for humans when He created them is that they be male and female. In this way, human unity and diversity images Him (notice, however, that it’s not unity in chaos).
God made man first so as to emphasize something: man’s need for woman. The Bible says, “It is not good for man to be alone.” That’s not how it’s supposed to be. How it’s supposed to be is there is to be a “helper” fit for him (Gen. 2:18).
That’s God’s good plan for humanity: male and female; “equal, and different; intended, not interchangeable.”[15] That, of course, does not mean that women are one ounce less important than men because they are called to be a “helper.” In the Bible God Himself is described as a helper (Ps. 54:4; 118:7). Women are certainly not less important![16] God’s a helper but He’s not less important![17]
God could have designed things differently. But, He didn’t. And after God made Adam and Eve, as male and female, He said that it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Therefore, we see God has a particular good purpose for His binary—male and female—creation.
If it is true that God exists then it’s true that He knows what He’s doing.
If God doesn’t exist or He doesn’t know what He is doing then we are left in a big mess. That would mean we have no guidance in how we are to function. It means we are in the forest without a compass. We are traveling through complex roadways with no GPS. It means there is no guidance whatsoever. That not only do we not have guidance about gender; it means we don’t have guidance regarding any moral issue.
It means we make our own way. We make our own meaning. No one has the authority to tell me or anyone what to do. I have no basis to tell you not to be a jerk…
If, however, God exists then we have guidance. We have reason to think there are ways that are good to live and treat people and ways that are not good to live and treat people. It means we are more than evolved animals with animal impulses.
And if God knows what He is doing then it would make sense to listen to Him. He is the Creator. He knows how we are supposed to function.
Back when God originally made humans, when everything was still very good (Gen. 1:31), Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). “Imagine that: a world where everyone is at ease with who they are and how they’re made; and feels good about how they look, rather than embarrassed or awkward or deeply disturbed about it; where people are able to completely trust those around them, so that they are able to be open with them. That is a wonderful world.”[18]
So, the first thing we’ve seen that Christians believe is that there is a good God that actually exists that has a good plan for His people. God knows the best way for people to live and because He loves us He wants us to live in that way (Kind of like how parents don’t want their kids to just eat cotton candy all the time. It’s not because they don’t love them. It’s because they do love them. In the same way, God wants what’s best for us and He knows what’s best for us).
2) Rebellion and Ruin and Gender
God wanted the world to be a certain way. He wanted us to live and thrive. But, we know that life is not always that way. We all have struggles and temptations. Why is that?
The Bible tells us that something tragic happened with humanity. Humanity disobeyed God. Humans failed to function according to the “Owners Manuel,” so to speak.
I had a friend that was having some trouble with his car. It just didn’t have the power it used to have and should’ve had. My friend couldn’t figure it out so after a few weeks he took it to someone who knew what they were doing, a professional mechanic, to have it looked at and the mechanic right away knew the problem.
The car was not supposed to be driven for miles and miles, day after day, week after week, with the parking brake on. That was not the intention of the car creators. And when the car is operated in that way it cannot fulfill its purpose to the best of its abilities.
Since the fall of humanity in Genesis 3, humans have struggled with following the “Owners Manuel.” We often do what we think is best. We often don’t notice that it causes a lot of problems.
We all have brokenness. I, for example, struggle with anger. We all have struggles.
God says love people and treat them with respect. I sometimes want to yell at people, or worse.
We all struggle in various ways (James 3:2). Some people, like me, struggle with anger issues. Some people struggle with same-sex attraction, some people have gender identity struggles.
The Bible explains the fact that we have struggles. And God understands that we have struggles.
But, the cold hard reality is “we have neither the authority nor the ability to rewrite or reconfigure how God made his world. It’s his creation; we’re just living in it.”[19] The truth is “when we as creatures reject the Creators blueprint, we are both rebelling against the natural order of how things objectively are, and (though it may not seem like it) we are rejecting the life that is going to be the highest good for us.”[20]
I do think it’s important for us to realize that even after the fall of humanity we are still “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14). So, there’s a lot of ruin, but we are not ruined. Your body is still good.
“The Fall of Adam has led to disorder in all aspects of human existence, including in how humans form in the womb. Recognizing that we are all subject to the brokenness of sin can help us have compassion toward those whose physiology falls outside the norm.”[21]
Rebellion leads to all sorts of ruin. But, thankfully God doesn’t leave us there.
3) Jesus’ Rescue and Gender
As I’ve said, I struggle with anger. I’ve acted out in anger before and hurt people. That’s not God’s intention. God takes sin seriously because it’s damaging. Because of sin, I deserve punishment but Jesus offers peace. Look at Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Therefore, through Christ, there’s no condemnation. I’m even a new creation (2 Cor. 5:21)! That, however, doesn’t mean I don’t struggle. I do. I will, I’m sure, until I die.
But there will be a day when my struggle will be gone! Look at Philippians 3:20-21: “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself.”
Sometimes when we have a particular sin, temptation, or struggle we can identify ourselves in that way. But, the reality is, who we are in Jesus is our truest self. Our deepest identity as Christians is to be found in Christ.
Jesus is the most important thing that any of us have in common. Jesus is the most crucial aspect of our identity. He is more important than where we’re from, our race, status, or sex. Listen to what Galatians 3:28 says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
But, that doesn’t mean there aren’t differences. It’s saying the biggest most important thing is that all Christians—no matter who we are or our background—are all “one in Christ Jesus.” But, differences when carried out in holiness are beautiful. The Christian Church is to be like a beautiful mosaic rather than a drab old musty basement wall.
So, even with male or female we shouldn’t push unbiblical stereotypes, partly because stereotypes are often just based on the changing cultural climate and not in the objective truth of Scripture. Consider, for example, that pink has not always been considered a “girly” color[22] or consider that men in the 14th century were basically the first to wear yoga pants (i.e. hoses that were sometimes quite colorful).
By this, I’m not saying that we should disrespect societal norms (cf. Deut. 22:5). I’m saying that the stereotype that men aren’t supposed to cry is wrong. Jesus Himself cried.[23] What about dancing and poetry? Is dancing and poetry more feminine than masculine? Well, King David who killed wild beasts, slew a giant, and was one of the most elite soldiers that walked the earth also danced and composed poetry. So, just because someone is different from society’s stereotypes does not mean that that person should rightly be a different gender.[24] God, not the ever-changing culture, should be our guide.[25]
How should Christians think about gender? As we consider the rescue of Jesus and the topic of gender there are a few helpful observations for us to make.
1. Jesus knows us better than we know ourselves.
Sometimes people say something like this: “If you’ve met one Steelers fan, you’ve met them all.” What people mean by that is that all Steelers fans are the same. I love what Preston Sprinkle says in his book, Embodied. He says, “If you’ve met one transgender person, you’ve met one transgender person.” The reality is, every transgender person is different. Even every Steelers fan is different. It’s important that we understand that every single person has a different story and has different struggles.
2. Jesus cares more deeply than we can imagine.
Christ cares deeply. And calls Christians to too. “How Christians treat transgender persons matters. Christ is not served when we simply spout Biblical bullet points rather than delve deep to understand the crushing condition that is gender dysphoria and help ease the pain of those suffering it.”[26]
3. Jesus, as the Creator, knows what’s best for us (John 1:3).
4. Jesus calls us to welcome, love, and listen as He Himself does.
I agree with Andrew T. Walker:
“A church should be the safest place to talk about, be open about, and struggle with gender dysphoria.”[27]
“A transgender person ought to feel more loved and safe visiting a Bible-believing church than in any other place in the world!”[28]
5. Jesus calls us to a life of sacrificial discipleship.
We’re all called to suffer and sacrifice for our Savior.
“Jesus told his disciples, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it’” (Matt. 16:24–25).
This will look different for all of Jesus’ disciples but will also be worth it for all of Jesus’ disciples. Further, Jesus promised that the Helper would be with us to help us.
What about…
How do we go about in the real world with this? What are some practical ways we need to navigate this issue in real life?
Bigotry
“Unless you celebrate then you are bigoted and unloving.’ But, is this true?
It’s not bigotry to believe that biology determines one’s sex/gender. Throughout at least the vast majority of history humans have understood there to be just two sexes/genders. Does it not instead seem potentially more prejudiced to hold to potentially innumerable sexes/genders when the world over, throughout most of history, disagrees? Should that at least cause one to be respectful of those who see it differently since, after all, they hold the majority position by a long shot? Not that the majority is necessarily correct but the person that screams the loudest is not necessarily correct either.
Pronouns
Preston Sprinkle gives a very helpful overview of the arguments in his book Embodied but he advocates for “pronoun hospitality.”[29] I agree with Andrew T. Walker though, when he says “The best solution is to avoid pronouns altogether if possible. Calling a person by their legal name or preferred name is more acceptable because names are not objectively gendered, but change from culture to culture.”[30]
Intersex
What about intersex?
“’Intersex’ describes someone born with atypical features of their sexual anatomy or sex chromosomes. Depending on which conditions are counted, estimates of the proportion of people who are born intersex vary greatly, from 1.7 percent to 0.018 percent. The higher estimates include people with any kind of disorder or difference of sexual development (who may not even be aware of it), while the lower estimates restrict intersex to describe people whose sex organs are not classifiable as either male or female or whose chromosomal sex does not match their anatomy.”[31]
It should be understood that intersex people
“exist and will most often go through significant hardship as a result. The presence of intersex people represents a biological aberration rather than a biological norm or additional third biological sex. But there is much more to be said. As we have already seen, all of us, irrespective of any biological challenges we may face, of any kind, have been fearfully and wonderfully made. There are no exceptions… our bodies are all fallen; we all encounter a measure of bodily brokenness. But that does not take away from the care with which God has made us.”[32]
There are different intersex conditions but people can serve, love, and glorify God with those conditions. In Acts 8, an Ethiopian eunuch saw the good news of Jesus for the first time and was baptized as a disciple (v. 35-38). We don’t know the specifics of what it meant for him to be a eunuch. Was he intersex, castrated, or something else? We just don’t know.
What we do know is that his identity could rest securely in Christ. Christ got at the core of who he was. And he went from not being able to go into the inner courts of the temple because of his condition, to being able to go boldly (through Christ) to God His Father (cf. Is. 56:3-5).
Jesus welcomes all people at great cost to Himself (Rom. 15:7) and He calls those same people to walk in holiness, whatever their particular struggles, and to be on mission to share His love with others.
Notes
[1] Andrew T. Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 15.
[2] Greg Eilers, Ministering to Transgender Christians: A Resource for the Christian Church, 42.
[3] “A person with gender dysphoria has intense and persistent feelings of identification with another gender, and a strong discomfort with one’s own assigned gender. Gender dysphoric individuals might experience distress with their body, with being perceived and treated as their assigned gender, and with the expected role of their assigned gender” (Greg Eilers, Ministering to Transgender Christians, 42).
[4] Rebecca McLaughlin, The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims, 96.
[5] Eilers, Ministering to Transgender Christians, 16.
[6]“To those whose biological reality is painful and confusing, Jesus gets it… The biological complexity some might have to face is… part of the bodily brokenness that all of us have to reckon with in one way or another. For every single one of us, our body is imperfect and causes us some amount of suffering. Such suffering varies hugely from person to person, but no one should feel somehow in a category of their own. Your experience may be very different from that of other people. It may seem that no one else, however much they try, truly gets it. That may be true. But Jesus sees all and knows all. He has lived as a human on this earth and suffered the extremities of physical pain. He is not “unable to sympathize with our weaknesses… (Heb. 4:15)” (Sam Allberry, What God Has to Say about Our Bodies, 53-54).
[7] “Would it be kind to tell someone suffering from anorexia that their self-perception of being overweight is correct simply because that is how they perceive themselves?” (Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 72).
[8] “An (imperfect) analogy might help. Color-blind people find it either hard or impossible to distinguish between green and red. Color-blindness is not uncommon—you may in fact experience it. And, thankfully, there are lots of work-arounds to keep it from being too much of a hindrance to daily life. But it is nevertheless a reality for many. But just because some struggle to distinguish red from green doesn’t mean that the colors red and green do not actually exist. They clearly do. They are objective realities. That some confuse one for the other does not change that. In fact, when we drive, our lives depend on the fact that these two colors really do exist and are not subjectively determined. Yet the fact that these colors exist doesn’t mean that there is no confusion or difficulty for anyone. There is” (Allberry, What God Has to Say about Our Bodies, 53).
[9] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 45.
[10] Rebecca McLaughlin, 10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and Answer) about Christianity, 136.
[11] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 45-46.
[12] “Jesus affirms both the binary of male and female in creation and the binding of male to female in marriage” (Rebecca McLaughlin, The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims, 103).
[13] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 56.
[14] Cf. Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 59.
[15] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 57.
[16] “According to many ancient philosophies, men were more important than women. But the Bible tells a different story. God made humans—“male and female”—“in his own image” (Genesis 1:26–28). Men and women are equally important. But they are also importantly different” (McLaughlin, 10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and Answer) about Christianity, 136).
[17] In some ways, I think this implies the vast importance of women! Men need women. Men cannot do the work God’s called them to on their own!
[18] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 60.
[19] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 51.
[20] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 52.
[21] Eilers, Ministering to Transgender Christians, 58.
[22] https://www.britannica.com/story/has-pink-always-been-a-girly-color
[23] “Jesus was the perfect man. But he was no gender stereotype… No follower of Jesus need hold to rigid gender stereotypes, in which men make skyscrapers and women decorate their walls. Instead, we must cling to our Savior. He is the one who knows us to our core and loves us to death and beyond. He made our bodies, and he holds our hearts. Our deepest identity lies in him” (McLaughlin, The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims,109).
[24] See McLaughlin, 10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and Answer) about Christianity, 150-51.
[25] “Some people think real men don’t cry. But Jesus cried. Some people think real men sleep with lots of women. But Jesus never even had a girlfriend. Some people think real men don’t stand for insults. But Jesus took insults all day long. He defended the weak, but he wouldn’t fight back to defend himself. Some people think real men don’t cook or care for kids. But Jesus did both these things. If we want to know what it means to be a perfect man, we must look at Jesus.
Women are called to copy Jesus too. He is the perfect human, so all Christians—male or female—are called to imitate him. But the ways in which Jesus used his strength and power for others, not himself, is a particular model for men, who often have more physical strength and have traditionally had more power (Philippians 2:1–11)” (McLaughlin, 10 Questions, 138).
[26] Eilers, Ministering to Transgender Christians, 124.
[27] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 121.
[28] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 122.
[29] Preston Sprinkle, Embodied, 205.
[30] Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 157.
[31] McLaughlin, The Secular Creed, 102.
[32] Allberry, What God Has to Say about Our Bodies, 50-51.
in X 