Learning to Know Ourselves: 1. Identity

Recently, we watched an episode of “The Magic Prank Show" on Netflix.  This series featured Justin Willman and his crew who "pull elaborate pranks on unsuspecting targets to help real people get payback."  In this particular episode, the aim was to help two brothers by helping one brother give a payback lesson the other brother for prematurely revealing that he was gay. 

Willman and crew set about learning all they could about the “outing brother” by interviewing the “avenging brother.” The interview soon revealed that the outing brother was terrified of robots and AI (artificial intelligence).  Armed with this knowledge, Willman’s crew unleashed the full force of the payback upon the outing brother.  They brought him face-to-face with Justin Hillman who, of all things, played a very convincing “human robot,” making the encounter very terrifying.  Imagine the emotions of the victim when he faced his greatest fear; and on top of that, a robot, who revealed to the outing brother knowledge of his deep, dark secrets.

Imagine how you would feel if you encountered a “being” who knew all about you.  Upon recovering from the initial shock, you might ask yourself,
“Does this someone or something have good or evil intentions?” 
“Can I trust this all-knowing “being” who knows all about my relationships, account numbers, and personal secrets?

Then, suddenly you feel convicted: 
“How well do I know myself?”
“Does this robot know me better than I do?”

Finally, your logic converges on an interesting notion:
1)  “If this robot knows all about me, and
2)  “If this robot is “good,” then
3)  “Why shouldn’t I trust Him to lead me on a path to a more fruitful life; a life more likely to fulfill the purpose for which I was born?  After all, what better counsellor is there than one who knows all about me, has only good intentions for me, and is willing to help me? 

Wouldn’t you agree?   Now, please read on and hold your initial thoughts for later.

What Shapes Our Identity?
When we wonder how well we know ourselves in relation to what others know and think about us, we enter the realm of our personal identity.  Our identity is defined by our family, friends, life history, values, interests, preferences, and traits.  Our identity as individuals is expressed through our behavior, wardrobe, and communication. 

In an earlier blog, entitled “Reflections at Age Seventy-five” (Click HERE), we considered some basic influences and ways our identity is shaped, including our worldview [Click HERE.].  Who we are and are becoming is shaped by both genetic (hereditary) and environmental factors —e.g. cultural influences through the institutions of family, school, church; and influences of the economy, politics, media, the arts, and entertainment.

A more straightforward example of how heredity and environment interact relates to our adult stature and overall health.  As most of us know, our height, weight, and overall health are all influenced by both our heredity and our nutrition (health care and hygiene, especially during early development).  A much more complex example is the matter of how heredity and environment interact to influence how our biological sex and gender are determined.  This blog and Part 2 to follow will address the important topic of gender identity and expression.

Biological Sex and Gender Identity
Our biological sex is generally assigned at birth and is typically identified by three anatomical (physical) distinctions as follows: 
1) gamete type (female = eggs; male = sperm);
2) gonad type (female = ovaries; male = testes;
intersex = part ovary-part testis); and,
3) chromosomal inheritance (female = XX; male = XY; intersex = when the SRY gene (“Sex-determining Region Y” gene) is translocated or deleted; or mutation of the AR (androgen receptor) gene on the X-chromosome which influences sex hormone balance (e.g. estrogen <> progesterone). 

According to gender theory, biological sex which is based on anatomy differs in meaning from gender which is based on one’s attitudes, feelings, and behaviors.  The American Psychological Association (APA) defines gender as the “attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex.”  A person is considered either gender-normative or gender-nonconforming based on whether or not the person’s behavior is viewed as compatible or incompatible, respectively, with the cultural norms for that person’s biological sex.  

Having defined gender, we can understand that gender identity is one’s internal sense of who they are with respect to their concept of male, female, neither or both as defined by cultural norms.   In other words, one’s perceived sex is based on performance (e.g. behavior, clothing, cosmetics) that society expects from those it designates as “man,” “woman,” or “nonbinary.”  A person whose gender identity differs from (or is “across from”) their assigned biological sex at birth is considered transgender (or trans).  Cisgender describes persons whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.  So-called gender dysphoria is the psychological distress a person experiences when they sense a discrepancy between their gender identity and their biological sex assigned at birth.

Those who accept the claims of gender ideology as noted above generally accept that gender (behavioral role, performance) is not always coupled to one’s biological sex (anatomy).  But this claim needs further examination.  To understand why, we need to define another biological term—epigenetics. 

Epigenetics [(epi = “on top of”) + (genetics = “pertaining to genes, genetic variation, heredity”)] is a relatively new field which studies how behavior and environment cause changes that promote or suppress the expression of our genes.  Epigenetic research reveals that two people having the same gene or genes can differ in appearance and/or behavior when the environment of one person triggers difference(s) in gene expression.  In other words, our DNA (genes) inherited from our biological parents only partly influences our physical traits and behaviors.  This is true because environmental factors are constantly operating “on top of our genes” to determine how and when those genes can be expressed to influence our metabolism, hormones, etc.

Can Gender Be Uncoupled from Sex?
Returning to the gender ideology that claims gender is uncoupled from biological sex, we see that epigenetics disagrees.  Research reveals that individuals who respond to social influences leading them to choose to adopt a transgender identity and then express their identity in a trans lifestyle may experience an “epigenetic imprint” on their brains as a result of their transgender behavior.  This imprint in turn, influences the person’s neuro-hormonal physiology which consequently influences the individual’s biological sexual expression.  That is, our thoughts, choices, behaviors, and other factors associated with gender expression can produce real, physical, neurological imprints or changes in our brains; and therefore, how we think about ourselves and behave.  This relationship has major implications which we will expand upon later.  But first, consider a simpler example of epigenetic imprinting.

Epigenetic imprinting has been shown to occur in numerous ways when chemicals from the environment enter the human body.  Related to our discussion of gender identity, research has shown that certain chemical ingredients of cosmetics can exert an epigenetic imprint on the brain.  This imprint can in turn affect one’s sexuality through hormonal and physiological changes.  It is therefore possible that transgender expression in a trans male could combine with the person’s use of cosmetics to further drive trans behavior and identity.

In order to apply the above concepts, consider how growing up in a dysfunctional home can influence the gender identity of a child.  The child is deprived of the loving nurture of a father or a mother, doesn’t receive proper nutrition or health care, and experiences rejection by peers.  These unfortunate stressors are called adverse childhood experiences (ACE’s; Click HERE to read more.).  ACE’s can among other things, increase the likelihood that the child will question their identity, including their gender identity.

If the child chooses to become transgender, the internal patterns of thought associated with the new gender identity may give way to gender expression.  As the child outwardly performs his or her gender role via behavior, clothing, cosmetics, and voice, these behaviors can cause epigenetic imprints upon the child’s brain.  Epigenetic imprints represent changes in thoughts reinforce and reaffirm the child's transgender mindset and behavior.  n turn, the child may seek to undergo hormone therapy or gender confirmation surgery.  We can hope that this child and many like him or her will first be willing to seek and receive wise counsel.  [Note that this scenario is given as an example while hopefully avoiding our being overly simplistic.]

Considerations - Before Gender Affirming Treatment
Two considerations should be entertained by children, adolescents, and adults in regard to gender identity.  First, each candidate for gender affirming treatment should be informed of the risk and potential negative medical, emotional, and social consequences.  For instance, a recent article in Lancet: Child and Adolescent Health (Malone et al (2021) concludes that “There is growing acknowledgment worldwide that the practice of providing gender-affirming care for youth is far from settled science.” Read more, HERE.

Second, as we have noted, personal identity is a complex, multi-faceted component of personhood.  Therefore, gender alteration involves more than reshaping the physical body by the surgeon’s scalpel or by hormone treatments.  Humans are also comprised of soul and spirit which can be positively or negatively affected by these treatments.  More on this subject in Part 2.

Ultimately, we must ask the question, “Who gets to define the social norms for what is “male” and “female?”  And, “Is there an Authority that exists above these human definitions—One who knows more about biology, psychology, and theology, or body, soul, and spirit than any of us know?”  In our judgment, this Authority is the God of the Bible who reveals Himself as our Creator, Helper, and Counsellor.  He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present through His Spirit.

Returning to our analogy of the all-knowing AI-robot featured in our introduction, by faith, we believe that our Almighty God meets the requirements of One who is worthy of our attention and obedience in matters of body, soul, and spirit.  This is because His Word in the Bible affirms the following line of reasoning:
1)  Because God is our Creator and knows all about us, and…
2)  …because God is “good,” then…
3)  …why shouldn’t I trust Him to lead me on a path to make my life more fruitful and more likely to fulfill the purpose for which I was born?

Recap.  And What Comes Next?
Thank you for reading and thinking through these complex issues with us.  So far, we have defined some of the terminology of gender identity.  But we must realize that knowledge of the terminology, while necessary is not the same as understanding and helping those who struggle with their gender identity.  We must understand with humility and compassion the underlying assumptions behind gender identity and transgenderism.  By understanding these concepts and engaging with those struggling with gender identity with compassion we are better prepared to build relationships of understanding.

We are humbled when we recognize the challenge all of us face, beginning from our birth: the challenge of knowing ourselves and discovering our abilities and purpose in the world around us.  The pursuit of personal identity has gotten even more challenging in recent years with the growing cultural pressures particularly on children and adolescents to “discover their identity.”  In Part 2 of “Knowing as We Are Known,” we will attempt to focus the Light of God’s Word upon the issues of our biological sex, gender identity, and gender affirming strategies.
  
May We Ask You?
When you think of your own personal identity and how it has been shaped, and continues to be shaped, what thoughts come to mind?  Maybe you would like to share your response or a question from your reading of this blog via the “Comment” link below.  You may choose to respond privately via our e-mail:  silviusj@gmail.com. 

Personal Meditation:  The Word of God in Scripture affirms God’s loving character and counsel to you and to all of us throughout its pages.  Our favorite passage of Scripture that speaks to His intimate knowledge of each one of us is Psalm 139.  We urge you to read this very personal revelation from God and written by a Hebrew shepherd, musician, poet, warrior, and king whose name was David.

Additional Reading:
A Guide To Gender Identity Terms, Laurel Wamsley, NPR.  June 2, 2021.  Click HERE.

Does Gender Leave an Epigenetic Imprint on the Brain?  L.R. Cortes, et al.  Frontiers in Neuroscience, 26 February 2019.  Click HERE.

What is Epigenetics?  Center for Disease Control.  Click HERE.

Coronavirus Resistance:  Biological and Spiritual.  Oikonomia, March 22, 2020.  Click HERE.

Key Terms and Concepts in Understanding Gender Diversity and Sexual Orientation Among Students. American Psychological Association Divisions 16 and 44.  2015.  Click HERE.

Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria: The Science Is Far From Settled.  Malone, et al.  2021.
Lancet:  Child and Adolescent Health  Click HERE.

Sexuality vs. Gender: What's the Difference?  Cynthia Vinney, Verywellmind.  April 18, 2024
Click HERE.

Human Sexuality: A Nexus of Scripture, Science, and Sociology

Surrendering Standards for Sexuality

During my boyhood in the 1950’s, human sexuality was very much on people’s minds but it was not openly discussed in most homes, churches, and schools.  Although sex was a “hush-hush” topic in our farm home, I am thankful for parents who modeled gender differences and helped guide me toward manhood and to faith in God. 

Meanwhile, all around us, the so-called “sexual revolution” was emerging while the intactness and values of many American families were deteriorating.  Many fathers and mothers in post-war America became consumed with their dreams of the good life.  Many chose paths that led them away from honoring God and loving their spouses, children, and families.  Churches that once were an integral part of family and community life also began to compromise the Gospel message.  Divorce and adolescent rebellion became more and more common.

Some churches watered down the Gospel message of salvation by faith in the blood of Christ, God’s provision for redeeming fallen man.  Like ships without an anchor, they began to drift in the current of the morally deteriorating culture.  Other churches fired up their message about the “wages of sin” but failed to welcome sinners with the love and mercy shown by Jesus who welcomed sinners.  Consequently, many conservative, fundamentalist churches fumbled their chances to attract the spiritually lost who were left alone, groping in the dark to find love and purpose.  Ignored and rejected, many young Americans rejected God and set out to find a “love” apart from His plan.

Fast forward to the present.  We can now see the harvest of the seeds sown in the 1960’s-1970’s.  What started as a minority counterculture of rebellion against spiritual and social norms has become a dominant force that threatens to upend the moral foundation of America.  The movement has been given legitimacy by calls for “individual rights” which accompany a “liberal” education and persuasive messages from Hollywood and the main stream media.  As a result, our culture is drowning in moral confusion while being caught up in angry debates over God’s gifts of marriage, family, and human sexuality.

Ignoring or Suppressing the Science of Sexuality
Our understanding of human sexuality is being distorted not only by misguided social influences but also by those who publish misleading scientific reports or who suppress valid findings from the scientific community.  A lack of “good science” and “good social science”  have been misleading our culture ever since the now-discredited Kinsey Report on human sexuality.  In 1954, leading statisticians issued for the American Statistical Association a critique of Kinsey's 1948 report, stating that “conclusions drawn from data presented in the book are often stated by much too bold and confident a manner…[and] the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing.”

More recently, neuroscientists and sex researchers like Dr. Debra Soh are providing mounting scientific evidence that sex differences between men and women are biologically based and not socially influenced.  In a podcast interview with Ben Domenech on the Federalist Radio Hour, Dr. Soh explains that gender differences are real, and are caused by different levels of the hormone testosterone between developing boy and girl babies.  According to Dr. Soh, contrary to politically correct views, there is no scientific evidence that gender is a social construct such that each individual can therefore be free to choose their gender. 

Dr. Soh laments the fact that left-based thinking gives the false impression that men and women should think the same in regard to how and why they engage in sexual relationships and how they respond when relationships go bad.  False, politically correct notions that men and women are not different causes much confusion among women who are left wondering why they do not feel the same as men in judging the quality of sexual relationships and in how they feel compared to men when relationships go bad.  Gender misconceptions combined with the continuing “hush-hush” attitudes about sex that tend to prevent good communication between partners is an ongoing threat to developing strong monogamous relationships.

Given the fact that our moral standards have been eroding; and, that left-leaning, agenda-driven politics is denying the science of human sexuality, it is no wonder that gender identity has become so confusing that it requires a glossary of terms to help us determine who we are sexually.  If Dr. Soh and the large body of scientific research to which she refers is correct, determining our gender ought to be as simple and straightforward as simply being observant during diaper changes, and then “training up our children in the way they should go.” (Proverbs 22: 6). 

I do not mean to oversimplify here.  As Dr. Soh admits, there are differences in degrees of maleness and femaleness among members of each gender.  Dispositions toward increased maleness and femaleness can arise, respectively, in males who developed under lower prenatal levels of testosterone, and in females with higher prenatal levels.  Then, whereas gender is determined by a person’s prenatal neurophysiological development as noted above, I believe variations in hormonal levels within-gender can predispose a boy or girl to respond by developing secondary traits of the opposite sex depending on parental and other social influences.  We’ll return to this point.

Speaking into the New “Hush-Hush” about Sexuality
Although a majority of people are concerned about sexuality and pursuing sexual fulfillment, anyone who dares to speak up about what God’s Word says about sexuality risks being called a hateful bigot.  Thus, western culture has transitioned from a “hush-hush” about human sexuality in the 1950’s and 1960’s to a new form of “hush-hush.” The current “hush-hush” is given to anyone who wishes to address what God’s revelation in Scripture has to say about our sexuality.  How then can a Christ-follower keep his or her call to be “salt and light” in a world that largely rejects the authority of God and His revealed Word?

Given the current climate of moral relativism, you may be asking, “What right does any person have to question the gender preferences and sexual behavior of anyone else?”  Indeed, many people regardless of sexual orientation do not acknowledge the existence of God or the authority of the Bible.  Others may respect the authority of Scripture but question whether God views homosexual behavior as being worthy of eternal judgment in Hell.  Still others argue that Jesus offers love, mercy, and forgiveness of sinners and did not condemn homosexual behavior.  But there is a clear message in the Scriptures--God does exist, His design for sexuality is objectively defined in the Bible, He remains a righteous judge with whom all of us must give account, and He remains ready to forgive and redeem all repentant sinners.
 
If we acknowledge God’s authority revealed in the Bible, then we must accept that God has called us as Christ-followers to love our neighbor and to share His gift of love in the Person of Jesus Christ.  In His “Great Commission,” recorded in Matthew 28: 18, Jesus said, All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples… Jesus calls His disciples to “make disciples”—i.e. make more teachable followers who live by my example and are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, if Christ-followers are being obedient to Christ’s commission, it is our responsibility to express our faith in word and in deed.

But there are right and wrong ways to share God’s message.  The Apostle Peter (apostle = “one who is sent”) teaches us the manner in which we ought to approach others to witness of God’s love and purposes for mankind.  He wrote (emphasis mine), But sanctify the Lord God (i.e. set apart and honor God as holy) in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with gentleness and reverence… (1 Peter 3: 15).  According to Peter, our lives must first be a reflection of the humility and love of Jesus Christ as described in the Gospel accounts.  Second, we must be ready to speak the truth as God’s Spirit gives us the opportunities to answer or respond to questions.  And, third, our approach to those who need to hear God’s truth must be with gentleness and respect for both God and our neighbor.

Returning specifically to the matter of sexuality, sexual preference, and sexual behavior, Christ-followers must be able to respectfully explain God’s plan and purpose for sex in the context of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  In response to a question about God’s view of divorce, Jesus answered as recorded in Matthew 19: 4-6 by quoting from the Old Testament (Genesis 1: 27 and 2: 24):  Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

Christ followers must also be able to answer the claim that, although the Bible does condemn sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage (e.g. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11) Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  If Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality, how can Christians claim that God will judge homosexuals?  Dr. Robert Jeffress provides an excellent response to this claim in his short article, “Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality?”

Conclusion and Recommended Resources
Truly, today’s culture is saturated with sex, erotic imaging, sexual innuendo, and all the preoccupation, confusion, and frustration that results in lives lived apart from God’s plan and purpose for sexuality.  It also follows that a sex-saturated culture can make Christ-followers forget that God sent His Son to redeem humans from all kinds of sins, not only sex outside of the biblical marriage bond, but also such sins as lying, stealing, gossiping, murdering, coveting, etc. (see 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; Galatians 5: 19-21).  As David wrote in Psalm 51: 5, every one of us were born into this world as sinners.  As fallen offspring of Adam, we are prone to commit any or all of the sins listed above that are outside of the moral bounds established by a loving Creator in His Word.  Because this article focuses on how Christ-followers ought to approach our neighbor when he or she is caught in immoral sexual behavior, I will conclude by reference to two excellent resources.

Allen Atzbi, General Manager at Living Waters, has written an online article, “Coming Out of the Closet on Homosexuality.”  This article provides an excellent resource for individuals and for group discussion.  It is also an excellent preparation for viewing the movie, Audacity, written and produced by evangelist Ray Comfort.  This free online movie provides good insights on homosexuality and good examples of how Christ-followers can address this sensitive issue as loving ambassadors with an informed, gentle, and respectful approach to anyone in need of Christ’s love and forgiveness.   Audacity is also a good resource for group discussion.  The movie subtitle is “Love Can’t Stay Silent.”  I’m thankful that God’s love reached me-- because He couldn’t “stay silent.”

How About You?
1.   What would you do if you saw a same-sex couple approaching a malfunctioning elevator in a high-rise building, knowing that if they step on the elevator, they will plunge to certain death?  Do you have a right to warn them?   Should they feel offended if you approached them with the warning?  The article, “Coming Out of the Closet on Homosexuality” and the movie Audacity uses this analogy and others to emphasize the obligation we have to minister to those around us.

2.  What must a Christ-follower do to earn the right to approach a person or couple who is openly rejecting God’s moral standards?  Watch Audacity and see what one person chose to do and how his action opened the way for him to share his faith.

3.  I welcome your comments, questions and corrections where I may be misrepresenting the issues surrounding human sexuality and the role of Scripture, science, and social science in shaping a proper response to this important issue.

When an Atheist Longs for a “Higher Love”

Atheists reason, and some profess, that God and other deities do not exist.  Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a hunch that many self-proclaimed atheists remember being offended and perhaps deeply hurt by one or more well meaning persons of faith.  Some Christians may act toward unbelievers out of ignorance, others out of arrogance, and yet others out of a sincere but carnal desire to “win” a God-denier to faith in order to claim the atheist as a trophy of a hard-to-win pagan.  By the way, I have probably already unintentionally offended at least some atheistic readers who argue that their belief is based on sound logic, not emotional scars.  No offense intended as you will hopefully see by reading on.

The Bible teaches that those who deny God are on the road to eternal judgment (John 3: 16; Romans 3: 10,23; 6: 23).   God does not “clear the guilty” (Numbers 14: 18) just because they can point to a Christian who offended them sometime in their life.  Yet, it ought to be true that every sinner saved by God’s grace is constrained by Calvary’s love and desirous of sharing the Gospel of God’s love with unbelievers—and, in a way that is not disrespectful (2 Corinthians 5: 14-15; 1 Peter 3: 15).

I cannot deny that there has been selfishness in my motivation to communicate with atheists in recent years.  Therefore, it has been good medicine for me to read The Faith of Christopher Hitchens (Nelson, 2016).  I discovered this title in a book review by Benjamin Wiker, Senior Fellow at the Veritas Center for Ethics and Public Life, Franciscan University.   The book’s author, Larry Taunton, director of Fixed Point Foundation, refers to Hitchens in his subtitle as “the World’s Most Notorious Atheist.”  I was immediately intrigued upon learning that Taunton is an evangelical Christian who writes from his experience as a close friend of Hitchens between 2007 and 2011 when Hitchens died of cancer.

Readers of The Faith of Christopher Hitchens are humbly and respectfully introduced to the man whom reviewer Benjamin Wiker describes as “a real, lovable, cantankerous, flawed, hilarious, foolish, brilliant, sinful, and multi-faceted human being.”  But more fascinating and valuable is the way in which an evangelical Christian, Larry Taunton, respectfully and lovingly earns the right to become a friend of Hitchens.  Though reluctant to publish many aspects of their unusual friendship, Taunton finally agrees with a publisher that he should write the book.  What resulted is a captivating narrative that recounts the tumultuous boyhood of Christopher Hitchens in England during the 1950’s, his rejection of the notion of God as a teen, and his development of a separate public and private “set of books” that governed his thinking, communication, and behavior in his adult life.  As Taunton explains, the growing chasm between the public and the private Christopher Hitchens is a key to understanding how an atheist could drastically change his allegiance from the Left to the Right following the 9/11 attack on America, and eventually gain new respect and friendships with evangelical Christians.

Christopher Hitchens and brother, Peter Hitchens

As further incentive for you to read The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, I will provide a list of questions the book has caused me to ask, each one dealing with a facet of the larger question, What can I as an evangelical Christian learn from Larry Taunton about building a friendship of mutual trust and respect with those who have a different view than I of the natural world and beyond (if they acknowledge such?  Hopefully, this article will motivate you to read The Faith of Christopher Hitchens.  And better yet, maybe some of my questions will promote  a more in-depth reflection and discussion.  If so, I’d love to read comments posted to me from the link below.

1.   Am I cultivating friendships with people who deny the existence of God, or reject His claim on their lives?  If so, how well am I representing the love of Christ to them?

2.   Hitchens’ favorite song was Steve Winwood’s, “Higher Love.”  He admitted to Larry Taunton’s son, Michael, “I do long for a higher love (p. 4).”  With all humility, do I recognize that within the heart of every man and woman is the need to experience God’s redemptive love, and that God might use me in some way as an important channel of His love?

3.   What can I learn from the accounts of the boarding school experience of two English boys—one, Christopher Hitchens who found in its harsh and often unreasonable discipline what became for him “metaphors for rejection of God and church;” the other, C.S. Lewis, who found an equally harsh experience what became for him “a metaphor for how faith, patience, and anticipation is built into life.” (p. 12-13)

4.   How many pre-adolescent and adolescent children today experience a roadblock to conversion to faith in God, often resulting in a hatred of God and Christianity, because of a failure of parents and teachers to help them acquire a truly Christian view of God’s gift of   sexuality?  

Michelangelo's "The Awakening Slave"

5.  Is each human being “self-made” as illustrated in Michelangelo’s The Awakening Slave, pictured 

as a man writhing to get free of the marble block restraining him?  Hitchens denied that his father’s lack of faith had anything to do with his own becoming an atheist; instead, seeing himself as a “self-made man” who came to atheism purely out of rational means.  But, Hitchens’ father had two sons, both “Bible-burning atheists and communists.”  The fact that God works in the affairs of fathers and sons is evidenced by what eventually happened--one of the sons becomes a Christian (p. 48)!

6.   Is it possible that many atheists do not embrace atheism so much because it is logical and intellectually fulfilling as because it allows them the opportunity to legitimize their rejection of moral claims upon the lifestyle they choose?

7.   Hitchens embraced atheism because it allowed him to square the public and private “sets of books” that he kept.  And, he chose words as his weapons to defend his position, “rather than loving words insofar as they lead to truth (p. 22-23).”  Do I fall into the same trap when I give priority to eloquence and scholarship over pursuit of truth, understanding, and respectful discourse with those who do not share my beliefs?

8.   For Hitchens the atheist, the logical political allegiance was to socialism which is antithetical to Christianity.  As Dostoevsky wrote, “Socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question….”  Do we realize why socialism today is increasingly popular in spite of its dismal history of economic failure and the deaths of millions of people?  Socialism is increasingly popular because many are deceived into believing that “our generation” will avoid the “Stalinist perversion of an otherwise perfect system” and will “get it right” in the attempt to “set up heaven on earth?” (p. 24)

9.   Do some atheists see Christian attempts to relate to them as trophy-hunting expeditions?  Taunton suggests that Hitchens often found the efforts of Christians who sought to “convert” him as intellectually stimulating and entertaining.  But, he also loathingly considered other professing Christians like Rev. Al Sharpton as “intellectual frauds” when he learned that they held little or no allegiance to the authority of the Bible.  Read how Hitchens exemplifies a God-denier or God-hater who warms to some conservative evangelicals who displayed intellectual competence integrated with warmth and respect.

10.  What happens when an atheist like Christopher Hitchens is confronted with a horrific event like 9/11?  Hitchens could not help but judge the terrorist act as “simply evil” and not, as liberal progressives often claim, the result of some outside injustice--economic, social, political, or cultural?  If instead, murderous acts originate by “human free will” out of an evil heart, it becomes “freely chosen evil.” It follows that our whole “human family” is morally corrupt and in need of an outside Deliverer—the God an atheist claims does not exist!  Read how Hitchens came to see the contradiction.  Psalm 49: 7-9:  No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him-- For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever--that he should live on eternally, that he should not undergo decay.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

11.  How did the gradual warming of Christopher Hitchens toward Christianity come about by a Gospel witness grounded in the authority of Scripture as the sole arbiter of what defines Christianity, and not (as Hitchens often encountered) personal testimonials and human opinions?   How many times does my witness for Christ become diluted by too much emphasis on “my experience” as opposed to presenting the objective claims of the Gospel message?

12.  How did Larry Taunton, upon first meeting Hitchens, in 2007, avoid getting stuck in a “cart-before-the-horse” misunderstanding over how their lifestyles differed (e.g. smoking, drinking), allowing Taunton to say, from almost the beginning, “I knew I liked him…our rapport was immediate (p. 96).”

13.  How does a Christian friend of an atheist locate the moral limits (if any) beyond which the atheist will not go?  For example, was Hitchens’ atheism consistent enough (as was Peter Singer’s atheism) that he was comfortable with the Godless conclusion that there is no moral basis for treating human babies any differently than piglets or peeps?

14.  How did the adoption of a Russian girl, Sasha, by Larry and Lauri Taunton; and, Sasha’s vibrant Christian testimony to Christopher provide him with a glimpse of the “higher love” which he longed (see #? Above)?  Therefore the LORD longs to be gracious to you, and therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; How blessed are all those who long for Him (Isaiah 30:18 ).

15.  Finally, does an increasingly warm and tender friendship of mutual trust and respect between an evangelical Christian and a professing atheist lead the latter to bow his knees at the altar of repentance and faith in God, and to take hold of that “higher love” he had longed to find?  You’ll have to read The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, but please don’t start with the last chapter.

Nature Speaks to Us, “Choose Life!”

Two of the most amazing relationships on Earth are sexual reproduction and the subsequent maternal nurturing of offspring.  Both processes involve complex coordination of form and function in both animals and seed plants.  To date, evolutionary biologists have been unable to provide a plausible explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction by time, chance, and random mutations.

Human sexuality is unique according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures because it has both moral and biological significance. Moral commitment to marriage and responsible parenting within the family unit determine the character of each subsequent generation.  Indeed, many scholars argue that human civilizations have risen and fallen in accordance with their respect for the institutions of heterosexual marriage and family.

Shortly after conception, the developing embryo begins
sending a hormonal message as if to say, "I'm here mom."

Today, the foundation of heterosexual marriage and the family is being undermined by a growing disregard for the moral teachings of the Bible.  Our pluralistic society has increasingly viewed Christianity as only one  among many “religions” from which to choose.  Moral relativism has made it very easy for traditional marriage and family to become marginalized.  As a result, some scholars have pointed to the order and purpose within the natural world as a basis for establishing moral and ethical values and human choices apart from “religion” per se.  For example, the fruitfulness of the host of different species of vertebrate animals owes its success generally to the faithful nurturing of offspring by the parent generation.  Those who know this fact, regardless on their “religion,” conclude there is something inherently very wrong with wanton abuse or killing of animals or their young.

Natural law ethics is based on the belief that by observing the order, harmony, and beauty in nature, we can intuitively reason that we have a moral and ethical obligation to respond properly to it.  It follows that senseless abuse or killing of an animal or human being is a moral and ethical violation of natural law because such acts disrupt a purposeful, forward progression in nature.

In a previous Oikonomia, entitled Stewardship of Creation and “Natural Law” we emphasized that natural law ethics are consistent with what we learn in Genesis when it claims that there is order and purpose in the natural world, and that mankind is both capable and responsible for discerning this order and purpose.  There we also affirmed that application of natural law ethics can inform the biblical mandate for stewardship of God's creation (Genesis 2: 15) through transformation of our character. The steward who takes time to discern the order and purpose in nature (creation) will strive to learn more about her surroundings and how her actions will influence that order and purposeful progression.  Therefore, we believe that a robust environmental stewardship ethic can arise from a merger of natural law ethics and Judeo-Christian ethics.

Like Genesis 1-2, Romans 1: 16-22 emphasizes mankind's responsibility as stewards of God's truth and righteousness (v. 16-18).  Here, we also learn that God has given us the ability to know Him personally (v. 19), to understand and be in awe of His great power in creation (v. 20), and to live with thankfulness and reverence toward Him (v. 21).  Instead, mankind suppressed the truth revealed through the order and unity of creation (v. 18) and followed futile speculations and false reasoning (v. 21-22).   This suppression of truth describes the actions of those who, in spite of the evidence of order and purpose in creation and what their conscience tells them, choose to defy and act contrary to both natural law and God’s divine revelation in Scripture.  In other words, mankind’s rebellion is demonstrated by his rejection of “two books of revelation”—the natural revelation and the divine revelation in Scripture.

Most agree that the divine revelation in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures clearly supports laws against murder.  But, even apart from the biblical teaching, we see that natural law ethics provide a strong moral argument against murder. Murder brings a crashing halt to the intricate order of life processes in the human body and smashes the purposes, hopes, and dreams of a precious, living being.  Unless his sensibility, reason, and conscience are seared, mankind's reaction to senseless killing of human and animal alike is to feel deeply the wrongness of it. Because of an innate sense of right and wrong, the one who kills needlessly may live in misery and regret even without knowledge of the Bible's command, "Thou shall not murder (Matthew 5: 21-22)."

Today, slightly more than half of Americans polled oppose the practice of abortion under most or all circumstances.  Opponents of the pro-life position argue that abortion is not murder because human life does not begin until some point in late-term or at birth. However, this argument is strongly opposed on the basis of natural law ethics.  Here, one can argue that it is wrong to interrupt the orderly and purposeful progression of human development which normally advances in a seamless fashion from fertilized ovum to a fully formed human in the mother’s womb.  There is literally no identifiable stage in human development other than conception to mark as the beginning of an individual human life.

Those who accuse pro-lifers of causing the guilt and misery in women who have chosen abortion often want to silence Christians and their moral stand.  But, if it is true that natural law ethics provides a strong case against abortion, then emotional and physical consequences may be expected even if Christianity could be erased from our culture.  In support of this notion, recent scientific findings are uncovering more subtle and unexpected consequences of the abuse of the natural order of human reproduction.

First, there is growing evidence that abortion tends to diminish and even jeopardize the life of the mother. The Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act of 2007 which cites evidence of "severe and long-term effects" of abortion on women, including depression, eating disorders, suicide attempts, intense grief, emotional numbness, rage, sexual dysfunction, and relationship difficulties.”  [Click HERE to read H.R. 1457.]  According to a report published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, “An analysis of 22 studies on abortion and mental health showed that women who had an abortion faced an ‘81% increased risk of mental health problems’ and that nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was ‘shown to be directly attributable to abortion.’” [Click HERE to read more.]  Another study reports similar emotional disruptions in the fathers of aborted children [Click HERE to read more.].

Those who blame the emotional consequences of abortion on pro-lifers who create a moral stigma against abortion cannot be totally disregarded.  After all, history reveals that voices of moral opposition have in at least some instances served to keep cultures from drifting into immoral practices.   However, scientific research from Scandinavia where there is even less social opposition to abortion than in America nonetheless reports that the suicide rate is 40 percent higher in the first year after an abortion [Click HERE to read more.].  There are both emotional and biological consequences to interrupting the natural progression of human development.  Commenting on the same study, Dr. Camilla Hersh, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, adds “For every abortion a woman has, her risk of having a premature baby goes up 30 percent. It’s 30 percent higher with the first one, 60 percent with the second.” 

What is the take-home message of these statistics?  It seems that when human development within the woman’s body is interrupted with an abortion, we encounter consequences that are deeply rooted in the natural order, design, and purposes for sexuality and reproduction in the female body.  When these processes are thwarted in their purpose, the consequences play out in the form of not only emotional imbalances but also biological disruptions as expressed in the tendency of premature births.  As ethically wrong as it is to take the life of an unborn child, we must also consider the apparently unavoidable biological consequences produced in the mother.  But first, I want to address some words of comfort and admonition to those who have chosen to abort a child.

Readers who have chosen to abort one or more unborn children may be experiencing emotional or biological effects right now.  If so, I do not want to add to your grief.  Nor do I want to treat you as a statistic.  Although I believe abortion is a violation of both natural law and divinely revealed moral law, there is comfort and forgiveness to be found in God’s mercy as revealed in the Bible.  I pray that you will read Psalm 139 and pursue God to find His answer for bondage to sin and guilt.  Christ will cleanse even your conscience from sin (Hebrews 9: 11-14) as you surrender to Him. Then you will recognize your sin as the cause of your anguish, and stop blaming Christians and their "moral hangups" for your guilt and unrest.  I would encourage you to visit Oikonomia, August 30, 2015.  Near the end of that article, start reading with “How About It?  where you will find an invitation to consider the “Good News” (Gospel) of Christ.  There is also a link to a helpful outline, called “What Are the Four Spiritual Laws?” This resource presents the Gospel and invites you to consider the salvation and forgiveness of Christ that is available to all of us sinners.  You are also welcome to e-mail me if you have particular questions (silviusj@cedarville.edu).

Scientists are discovering a "beautiful cooperation" between
mother and the unborn child that lasts long after birth.

We have seen that interruption of the natural order of human sexual reproduction by abortion can have serious negative effects.  But, on a more positive note, science is discovering even more evidence of amazing benefits to mothers who “choose life” and do not disrupt the natural order of the processes of prenatal development.  Rheumatologist J. Lee Nelson, of the University of Washington, speaking to NPR Radio, explained findings from her laboratory that an unborn baby’s cells can move through the placenta and into the mother’s bloodstream where they can enter her heart, brain, liver, and other organs.  These cells can act like stem cells and transform into other cell types that can form collagen, participate in wound healing, and even reduce the risk the mother will develop cancer or rheumatoid arthritis.  The mother’s cells, including cells from previous pregnancies, can also cross through the placenta and into her baby, thus providing a biological linkage among siblings.  Dr. Nelson calls it “a beautiful cooperation” between a mother and her unborn child.

I close with two points for your consideration.  First, even if one doesn’t recognize the authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that defend the sanctity of human life, there is reason to consider the claims of natural law ethics.  Natural law ethics offer a robust defense of sanctity of human life and this ethic is strengthened as science continues to reveal the marvelous array of intricate relationships involved in prenatal human development. By providing both disincentives and incentives, nature  apart from the Bible calls out to us, "Choose Life!"

Second, we should take more seriously every aspect of our stewardship of the natural world.  The notion of “natural law” should humble us to realize our part in an amazing order of creation which speaks of order, design, and purpose.  We should avoid actions that thwart obvious purposes at work in nature, especially to needlessly jeopardize our own life or the life of another human or creature.  However, natural law ethics alone cannot inform us of the Great Cause of the order and design of creation.  Only the divine revelation of Scriptures can explain our moral depravity and our need for salvation through faith in Christ Who died as our atoning sacrifice (e.g. John 3: 16).  Creation displays an order, pattern, and purpose that points to God as Creator.  And this is the Creator Who is affirmed in the divine revelation of Scripture as the God Whose invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1: 20).   

…God is forever seeking to speak Himself out to His creation. The whole Bible supports the idea. God is speaking. Not God spoke, but God is speaking. He is by His nature continuously articulate. He fills the world with His speaking Voice.  (From:  A.W. Tozer,  “The Speaking Voice”, in The Pursuit of God (Regal)

How About You?

Are you sensitive to God speaking to you as you observe the "book of nature" with its display of the order and purpose of life all around you?  Do you also sense God's invitation for you to consider the "book of His inspired Word," the Bible, which assures you of His love and victorious life when you seek out and follow His plan and purposes?   Want to share your thoughts or a question?   I’d love to hear from you.  Just use the “Comment” box below.