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.

No. 1-14

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.


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.


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.


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.