R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 209

Wednesday, Oct 17, 2018

Schism: Russian Orthodox Church severs ties with Constantinople, pointing to significant developments in geopolitics and world historyThe Guardian (Andrew Roth and Harriet Sherwood) — Russian Orthodox Church cuts ties with Constantinople

The pursuit of greater glory: What Putin’s quest to strengthen Russian identity has to do with recent headlinesThe Atlantic (Gabby Deutch) — Ukraine’s Spiritual Split From Russia Could Trigger a Global Schism

Hero or villain? The dramatic and horrific story of an abortion doulaBBC (Kirstie Brewer) — I've been an ‘abortion doula’ 2,000 times

One more step in the transgender revolution: Influential conservative transitions, is embraced by conservative communityWashington Post (Josh Rogin) — Giselle Donnelly can finally be herself

The post Wednesday, Oct 17, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Tuesday, Oct 16, 2018

Birth of mouse pups from same-sex parents brings to light major scientific and ethical issuesScientific American (Diane Fine Maron) — Same-Sex Mice Parents Give Birth to Healthy BroodThe Guardian (Hannah Devlin) — Healthy mice with same-sex parents born for first time

Breaking free of biological shackles: Headlines reveal attempt to discredit the family and unravel creationNational Geographic (Maya Wei-Haas) — Same-sex mouse parents give birth via gene editingForbes (Adam Barsouk) — Same-Sex Mice Can Now Have Kids. Are We Next?

Is it morally right to bring extinct species back from the dead? Wall Street Journal (Amy Dockser Marcus) — Meet the Scientists Bringing Extinct Species Back From the Dead

The moral pathology of our age: Morticians take steps to prevent opioid exposure after overdose deathsBaltimore Sun (Lillian Reed) — 'Last responders': Maryland's funeral directors consider stocking opioid overdose antidote Narcan

The post Tuesday, Oct 16, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Audacity of Gender-Reveal Parties: Another Step Towards Cultural Insanity

The leaders of the transgender revolution revile the celebrated declaration, “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl,” when a baby is born. Transgender activists recognize that their revolution cannot succeed until doctors who deliver babies, or ultrasound technicians at women’s cliques, stop labeling babies as a specific gender. The announcement of a baby’s gender, however, still fills delivery rooms and doctor’s offices with excitement. I predict that this practice will continue.

Recently, an article ran in “The Ethicist” column of the New York Times Magazine. The ethicist in this case is Professor Kwame Anthony Appiah. The headline in the article asked, “Should I Go to a Gender-Reveal Party?” The questioner who wrote in for advice posed to “The Ethicist” the following scenario:

“A close relation is pregnant with her first child and is having a gender-reveal party. She is overjoyed with the addition to our family, as am I. However, I am adamantly opposed to attending the gender-reveal party because it violates my moral code. I have worked in activism for my entire professional life and, though I am cisgender, I have strong feelings about gender politics and equality. Gender-reveal parties, where parents and guests learn a baby’s gender together, violate my values because they reaffirm society’s gender binarism and inadvertently perpetuate the stigma against non-binary genders. I know I will never experience firsthand the challenges of being gender-nonconforming, but when I think about how I might feel, I would be very hurt knowing my parents had a gender-reveal party for me before I was born with my incorrect gender. I know the non-binary community faces much deeper, more urgent problems than this hypothetical situation, but even so, I have a moral aversion to helping affirm society’s gender binarism. Should I attend the party?”

This question represents just one more step towards cultural insanity. The questioner cannot fathom nor allow for a party where people celebrate politically incorrect labels like “boy” and “girl.” Such a party violates the moral code of the transgender movement.

Indeed, the moral unction behind this question is breathtaking. Scenarios like this come, not on the leading edge of a moral revolution. Rather, the moral revolution must have made significant gains before an ethics column in the New York Times Magazine begins to get letters with this kind of moral outrage at a gender-reveal party.

Christians thinking about this moral confusion must first stop at the vocabulary used in this article—particularly the word, “cisgender.” Using that term plays into the entire gender revolution. The term indicates that someone born a male is quite comfortable with being male. Even adopting the vocabulary, therefore, becomes an enormous problem because the vocabulary assumes that you accept the ideology of the transgender revolutionaries—that gender fluidity exists and that the gender assigned at one’s birth may or may not be factual. “Cisgender” signifies that you buy into the idea that all of humanity must be identified on a spectrum, with cisgender at one end and gender-nonconforming, or, transgender at the other end.

Secondly, Christians need to note the kind of moral outrage indicated in the question. The questioner, filled with indignation, lashes out at a set of parents who had the audacity to throw a gender-reveal party—a party that apparently does nothing more than perpetuate binary stereotypes. Indeed, according to this article in the New York Times Magazine, gender-reveal parties could damage relationships between parents and their transgender children who find out that mom and dad threw a party which revealed an “incorrect gender.” This argument asks the reader to make incredible leaps in logic and to possess an imaginative framework which obfuscates all reality.

But here’s the third thing we come to understand about this article: It tells us that the writers, editors, and publishers of the New York Times Magazine believe that these are the kinds of questions we should be concerned about and that we too should experience the confliction, indeed, the outrage present in the question posed to “The Ethicist.”

The question, by itself, poses enormous problems and reveals the erosion of any sane ethic. The answer to the question, however, reveals the extent of this moral erosion. Professor Appiah, who currently teaches at New York University, responds to the questioner by saying, “First, let’s distinguish between two different issues. One is what you’re calling gender binarism—the idea that everyone is naturally either male or female. The other is the fact that trans people will identify with a gender other than the one they were assigned on the basis of their bodily appearance at birth. You could be trans in that sense and still believe in binarism: to say that you were assigned the wrong gender isn’t necessarily to reject the idea that there are two.”

Professor Appiah’s answer takes an interesting turn when he writes that “celebrating the discovery that a baby is a boy or a girl need not in itself stigmatize trans or intersex or non-binary people.” Appiah went on to say, “A parent celebrating the coming birth of a girl could be someone who’d be perfectly happy if the child turned out later to be a boy or neither a boy nor a girl. Indeed, as it becomes easier to identify intersex people prenatally, you could one day imagine having a party that revealed that the child was neither male nor female. And people who do have a hard time dealing with gender-nonconforming people aren’t likely to have their minds changed by the disappearance of gender-reveal parties.”

At certain moments, it appears that a society inches its way right up to the edge of a cliff. At other times, however, you see an argument that sprints towards the edge and leaps right off. That’s exactly the direction Appiah takes his answer.

Appiah goes on to state, “If there’s a problem with these parties, it’s mainly that they encourage the idea that gender is fixed in the womb and by your body. Let’s call that biological determinism about gender. The science in this area is very much a work in progress. But, we already know that gender identification isn’t fixed by your sexual organs and that the social meaning of gender is informed by culture.” Appiah makes a generalized, unsubstantiated claim that rejects any argument that would question his premise. He says that “we already know that gender identification isn’t fixed by your sexual organs.” Appiah’s reasoning demonstrates how the sexual revolution, through moral coercion, creates a change in an entire mentality and worldview. Appiah’s argument enshrines the principles of sexual revolutionaries who make audacious and radical assertions based solely upon the authority of the gender revolution. Anyone who dares to disagree with this unassailable authority represents an antiquarian ignorance and bigotry which must be eradicated.

Again, effectively upping the ante of political correctness, Professor Appiah responds to this questioner by saying that “many aspects of gender are not… biological. You can’t necessarily read from people’s bodies what their gender means to them.” In other words, biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity.

Christians operating from a biblical worldview understand Appiah’s assertions as manifest nonsense. The morally important distinction between male and female is essential. Indeed, the biblical worldview clearly grounds the distinction as a vital component for true human flourishing.

Gender debates dominate the news these days, dumping with them an incredibly toxic level of madness. While Christians should experience alarm, they should also possess greater awareness of the determination that grips the moral and sexual revolutionaries. Articles like this one in the New York Times Magazine, and arguments like Professor Appiah’s, demonstrate the unceasing desire of the LGBTQ agenda to invert civilization itself. As relentless as they might be, the moral revolutionaries aim at insanity and position arguments as reality that have no basis in any scientific court or, for that matter, common sense. Indeed, as demonstrated in Appiah’s argument, the sexual revolution hinders any serious inquiry into sexuality and blatantly obfuscates fundamental questions about the “research” advertised to the public as the new law which must govern opinion, policy, and morality.

We live in a society that has set off a massive chain reaction of confusion. Christians, however, equipped with a biblical worldview and empowered by God’s grace, can clear up the confusion, address the insanity, and promote true human flourishing.

The post The Audacity of Gender-Reveal Parties: Another Step Towards Cultural Insanity appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, Oct 15, 2018

A theology of stuff: How should we think about earthly possessions after Hurricane Michael’s widespread destruction?

Pastor Andrew Brunson returns to United States after being detained for two years in TurkeyNew York Times (Carlotta Gall) — Andrew Brunson, U.S. Pastor, Freed by Turkey and Heading Home

A victory for religious liberty as Britain’s Supreme Court rules speech that violates Christian beliefs cannot be compelledNew York Times (Ed O’Loughlin) — Belfast Bakery Was Free to Refuse Gay-Marriage Cake, Court Rules

Why a court ruling about a war memorial in Maryland is about a great deal more than one monumentWall Street Journal (Jeremy Dys) — Is a War Memorial’s Cross Illegal?

The post Monday, Oct 15, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

John 3:1-16

The post John 3:1-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Friday, Oct 12, 2018

Why we will likely never know the actual death toll from a storm like Hurricane MichaelNew York Times (Sheri Fink) — Tallying the Dead: Why a Storm Death in One State Might Not Count in Another

Can big data save us? When it comes to life-threatening decisions, the problem can’t be solved with predictive analyticsNew York Times (Malcolm Roberts) — Why We Ride Out Life-Threatening Storms and Do Other Crazy Things

The real lesson of National Freethought Day: A mind free of belief in God is actually the least free of all

The post Friday, Oct 12, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Thursday, Oct 11, 2018

As Hurricane Michael makes landfall, why human beings ought to be humbled by this kind of stormUSA Today (Susan Miller) — Hurricane Michael falls short of a Category 5 – by just 2 mphThe Verge (Rachel Becker) — How Hurricane Michael became catastrophically strong overnight

Abortion once again revealed to be central sacrament as feminist left turns on Democratic governor of CaliforniaTeenVogue (Adiba Khan) — California Governor's Veto of Abortion Care on Campus Is Another Example of Men Not Listening to Women

Is chivalry merely condescension? One woman, in the name of women, demands the end of respect for womenWashington Post (Amy S. Kaufman) — Chivalry isn’t dead. But it should be.

The post Thursday, Oct 11, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Wednesday, Oct 10, 2018

Contagion of gender confusion fueled by new study on teens and gender identityCNN (Mercedes Leguizamon and Brandon Griggs) — More US teens are rejecting 'boy' or 'girl' gender identities, a study finds

Why much of the moral confusion we see today is a socially-constructed confusionNew York Times (Kwame Anthony Appiah) — Should I Go to a Gender-Reveal Party?

As we see images of another hurricane approaching, we should be thankful that we live in an age when there are images to see

The post Wednesday, Oct 10, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Tuesday, Oct 9, 2018

After UN report on climate change, deluge of headlines warns of impending doomWashington Post (Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis) — The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say

Why those operating from a biblical worldview can understand environmental evils better than those operating from a secular worldview

Calling abortion a ‘fundamental right’ is a radical step, but it’s the next step for those committed to the culture of deathNational Review (Wesley J. Smith) — Forcing Doctors to Perform Abortions

The post Tuesday, Oct 9, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, Oct 8, 2018

After unprecedented political hurricane, Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh

Pragmatism, progressivism, and politics: How the trajectory of the Supreme Court led to this moment in American historyWashington Post (Robert Barnes) — The Kavanaugh court is the one conservatives have worked decades to buildWashington Post (Editors) — We need careful, restrained justices on the Supreme Court

After losing Kavanaugh battle, political left attacks the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and ConstitutionNew York Times (Michael Tomasky) — The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy CrisisWashington Post (Philip Bump) — Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans

Susan Collins fires back at Planned Parenthood after pro-abortion group reveals partisan double-standardWashington Times (Valerie Richardson) — Susan Collins swings back at Planned Parenthood over Supreme Court double-standard

The post Monday, Oct 8, 2018 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.