Login

Shock: Look How Many Christians Reject Bible's Teaching on Gender

The consequence for these rebellious believers will be far worse than it will be for a society that rejects science.

For those who foolishly thought America’s problems were the result of progressive liberalism attacking the natural law and moral order of God from the outside, this from Pew Research should sufficiently clear up that utter misconception:

Most Christians in the United States (63%) say that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by their sex at birth.

Conversely, what that means is that 35% of self-identified Christians say that whether a person is male or female is not necessarily determined at birth.

There are actually a couple different ways to look at this startling statistic.

First, when compared to non-Christians – specifically the atheist/agnostic crowd – it comically demonstrates that the common perception that Christians favor “faith” over “science” is utterly false. At least on the issue of biology and sexuality.

When a child is born, every gene, every cell in the body is coded and stamped with the same biological sex. In fact, the efficacy of our entire scientific apparatus of disease prevention is built upon this reality:

The phrase “every cell has a sex’’ captures the essence of how fundamentally different men and women are when it comes to health.

Our cells, the very building blocks of our existence, are infused with differences that cannot be ignored when we study the prevention, detection, and treatment of disease. From cardiovascular disease to lung cancer to Alzheimer’s, the experience of illness is distinct among men and women. Yet often we ignore these health differences, and fund and conduct medical research that is flawed because it fails to recognize sex differences.

While 63% of Christians embrace this reality, only 29% of self-identified atheists/agnostics do. Who is anti-science?

But the second observation about this statistic isn’t quite so rosy. The Bible is explicitly clear about biology and gender. From the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden and the creation of man, all the way forward to the words of God’s Son Himself,

“Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female?’”

It is not an impressive commentary on the state of American Christian allegiance to Christianity when 35% of those who claim the faith think the Son of God didn’t quite have the whole gender thing figured out. In fact, it smacks of a body of supposed believers who have come to be so consumed by the “fine sounding arguments of men” (Colossians 2:4), and so infatuated with earning “praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43) that they have “exchanged the simple truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25).

Given what Christ said about those fence-sitters who aren’t comfortable committing their lives and transforming their minds in full surrender to His Lordship, I would dare say that the consequence for these rebellious believers will be far worse than it will be for a society that rejects science.

You should have included some Bible passages about these non believers burning in hell

I'm sick and tired of people interpreting the Bible any way they feel like. I come here for the correct interpretations.

What about those Christians who, like me, believe that our gender was not determined at birth, but before birth?

Didn't the Lord tell Jeramiah "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

If God already ordained him a prophet, don't you think He might have known he was male?

Once we've rejected the word, we've rejected the WORD. Once we've rejected the WORD, there's no other recourse for us. I'm not sure which more accurately reflects the American church today, Thyatira or Laodicea. Maybe a mix. Nonetheless, we are quickly abandoning God's Word, and therefore the 'Word made flesh', and it's not possible that it bodes well for us.

To make light of, or totally reject, the order in which God created 'In Our image...' is to equally be dismissive of the picture of marriage which Paul clearly states is to reflect God's relationship to His people. I think this is no different that being ambivalent toward divorce in our culture, as it all shows an apathy directed toward God's purpose and design.

3

Nowhere in this article do I see the word Hermaphrodite which is a scientific fact. Instead I see the accuser. I see the misinterpretation of the Bible. Instead of Love, I see using Hell as coercement. That is not Gods way.

What's the misinterpretation? I think we would all accept that there are instances where the corrupted nature of our existence produces anomalies. I don't think that's Peter's point, though. I think he is rather referring to the idea that "Since I feel male, then I must be male" etc.

For a small minority of humans, the male vs. female division is less clear cut.

Heck (and Erick Erickson for that matter), being conservative, seems to categorically deny the existence of these individuals.

I think the problem for Heck and others like him, is that this does not fit their narrative. If someone is born this way, then it must have been God's intent. But if God is against it, then it has to be learned behavior or personal choice etc. I can't speak about transgender people -- I only know one and we've never discussed the issue. However, I have known scores of Gay people. Every single of them knew they were born that away.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Not sure this quote really applies to the discussion. Where in the bible does it say that a person’s gender is defined by their sex (or genes) at birth?
Your quote makes it clear that god made them man and woman, but that could mean anything. Maybe you are born biologically a woman, but transition into a man. If god created you, surely he pre-defined your transition.
You look at biblical passages and interpretation them through your own lens. Nowhere in the bible does it say your gender is determined by your sex. Nowhere does it say it’s determined by your genes. Nowhere does it say that it is determined by society.

To attempt to be man or woman, when born the other, is to reject the scientific, clear provable sex. So you argue that God would have made a man, but gave him the parts of a woman, so he could "transition" with dangerous surgeries and medications years. Rejecting birth gender is a direct rejection of the authority of God and His creation. It also rejects science. It is illogical that the same people who claim that we are but a bunch of cells tossed together, then come up with a "feeling" that rejects the actual cells, but then will not admit that there is anything beyond the cells. You simply cannot have it both ways. We have a soul/spirit or we don't. We can't not have one when convenient and then add it in when those cells reject what you want.

My first objection to the stats is that they are using self-identified "Christians". Anytime a survey does that, you are getting a sample of people who are not Christians and claim to be. This is true for "evangelicals", "conservatives" or any other number of things people claim to be. Something like 70 or 80% of the population claim to be above average intelligence too, when by math, it can only be 50% at most. I would guess many of the people who say they are Christian, but do not believe in nor follow the teachings of Christ are many of the ones who reject science on sex and gender. Someone who had never received salvation is not a Christian, even if they generally identify as one, occasionally go to church, or even believe in the existence of God and Christ. We would have to ask the question out of a Barna survey or something similar, that is going to drill the question down to get a much closer representation of actual Christians. Now, we can have a discussion of the danger of the cheapening of the term in our society, but that is a separate issue. It has been and is an issue in any society that is considered "predominately Christian" all the way back to the point when Rome quit persecuting Christians in the early Church.

Maybe we should let you decide who is a "real Christian."

Claiming to be a Christian and actually being one are two different things. We all sin, but if you don't, at least, attempt to live by Christ's teachings in my book you are not a Christian. Salvation is through Jesus Christ, but acceptance of that fact should make you a changed person. That is the object of full immersion baptism--the old person goes in and the new person comes out. That means you are a changed person. If a person continues to live by their past sinful nature they are not a changed person are they a true follower of Christ or just a person hedging their bets.

If using Hell as motivation for following Christ was not God's way, I don't know why Jesus spent so much time discussing Hell as opposed to Heaven in the bible. I also then don't know why the bible uses the term "being saved" over and over- since you know, that implies there was something you needed saving from. It's also hard to take anyone who identifies as Christian seriously when they have a point of view defending transgenderism, when that almost always means they also defend homosexuality, which is even clearer yet as condemned in the bible.

Stories