Matt Fradd's Blog, page 53

The Weirdest Thing Martin Luther Ever Wrote

I’ve been doing some reading on the Protestant reformation lately (though I think I’m going to start referring to it as a revolt, since “reform” means making changes to improve something, and that isn’t what the Protestant reform . . . revolters did).

I came across this little ditty that I just had to share.

From H. W. Crocker’s fantastic book, Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2000 Year History

“In one of his many . . . combats with the devil—in which Luther would challenge the devil to “lick” his posterior—Luther thought the best tactic might be to “throw him into my anus, where he belongs.”[1] How one wishes for an exegesis by Dr. Sigmund Freud of that passage.”

__________

[1] Quoted in William Manchester, A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance (Little, Brown & Company, 1993), p. 140.

There Are No “Gay People,” Only People

There are, so far as we know, three types of persons: Divine, angelic, and human. There are no gay persons because people are not reducible to who or what they’re sexually attracted to.

When we call a person “gay,” we’ve done just that; reduced them. Said, “this is who you are, you are the type of person who is attracted to people of the same sex as you.”

No “Gay” People, Just People

Good grief! What a narrow and reductionistic view to hold of another person—a person created in the image and likeness of God. There are people who experience same-sex attraction, yes, but these people aren’t qualitatively different to us. They’re not “gay people” They’re just awesome, complex, beautiful children of God like the rest of us.

My friend Andrew, who experiences same-sex attraction, can’t stand it when people call him “gay.” He shares three reasons why:

1. We make it the norm to see ourselves first and foremost according to the attractions we experience instead of according to our identity as beloved sons and daughters of God.

2. We deprive people from coming to realize that attractions experienced (which are not specifically chosen) are distinct from embraced identity (which is specifically chosen).

3. We deprive people from coming to realize that sexual attractions are part of our fluid human experience, and that the experience of any attraction does not necessarily mean that the person will experience that attraction for the rest of his or her life.

Drop The Labels

This is not an “us” (heterosexual) and “them” (homosexual) thing. This is just an us thing. So my advice, for what it’s worth, is that we drop the labels.

All of us experience and are called to wrestle with sexual temptation, and all of us, to one degree or another, experience brokenness and distortions in our sexuality. We are all in this together.

The question we need to ask as Christians is, is chastity part of the Good News or isn’t it? If it is, and I think it is, then let us encourage each other to embrace it, live it, and grow in it.

And as we stumble and fall, let’s encourage each other to get up, return to the mercy and love of Christ, and start again.

Love has won and his name is Jesus. Let us place our trust in him.

3 Great Articles and 1 Great Video

Interested in diving deeper? Check out these three articles and this awesome video:

Love Is Not Hate by Jason Evert

Please . . . Don’t Call Me Gay by Andrew

Homosexuality: Am I Destined To Be Alone by Andrew

The Third Way from Blackstone Films on Vimeo.

Why Christians Should Rethink Their Attitudes Towards Atheists

Even Pope Francis Likes Randal’s new book!

Dr Randal Rauser is Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary where he has taught since 2003. He is the author of several books including his latest one which we’ll be discussing today, Is The Atheist My Neighbor: Rethinking Christian Attitudes towards Atheism.

I first became aware or Randal through his debates on Unbelievable? In every debate I found myself feeling sorry for the atheist he was up against. He’s that good.

While I certainly don’t agree with everything Randal believes and teaches, I do strongly encourage you to listen to his Unbelievable? debates. Listen to them here, here, and here.  

While Randal makes no apologies for his Christian faith, he believes in and exemplifies charity towards his atheist interlocutors.

In this blog I ask Randal three questions that concern his new book. Which you should get.

Christians can be condescending too

Matt Fradd: Today, in many circles, “atheist” has become a short-hand way of saying, “I’m more intelligent than you.” In many forums, atheists tend to speak patronizingly about God and those who believe in him. Many Christians, I think, at least back when The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, Letters To A Christian Nation, etc. came out, didn’t know how to respond to the attacks atheists were leveling at them.

Because of this, I’ve seen many Christians just resort to the same condescending tactics they’ve seen atheists use. Has this been your experience? If so, would you speak to it a little?

Randal Rauser: I have no doubt that the harshness of the new atheist critique of religion and Christianity has contributed to the growing hostilities between Christians and atheists. These days many atheists dismiss Christians as irrational and emotionally regressed, believing they cling to religion as a sort of celestial security blanket. To note one common target, petitionary prayer is often derided as an infantile appeal to a “sky daddy”. This lack of care and basic charity in the attitudes many atheists hold toward with people of faith is, to say the least, a hindrance to dialogue.

As you might expect, these dismissive attitudes are particularly common on the internet. I’ve seen many Christians take the bait in discussions in online blogs and chatrooms by seeking to defend their faith to those who outright mock their convictions. Exchanges that start off with such hostility and condescension rarely end well.

So it is little surprise that some Christians respond in kind. But even if such angry reactions are understandable, for those who are called to turn the other cheek, they are never justifiable.

However, when I researched Is the Atheist My Neighbor? it became evident that long before there was a new atheism Christians as a group were themselves deeply hostile and condescending toward atheists. Atheism, the claim that no God exists, is largely a modern phenomenon which traces back to the 18th century Enlightenment. And as I discovered, throughout that time Christian pastors, theologians, philosophers, and other church leaders have consistently expressed scathing attitudes toward atheists.

For example, one famous 19th century Protestant pastor, Charles Spurgeon, denounced atheists as worse than the demons of hell. Spurgeon also quotes with approval essayist and hymn writer Joseph Addison’s description of atheists as vermin. Imagine that, referring to an entire group of human beings as a pestilence.

Fortunately, anti-atheist rhetoric is not quite that heated these days, but one still regularly hears sweeping dismissals of atheists as immoral and irrational. Understanding the dark history of Christian hostility toward atheists certainly goes some distance toward placing the new atheism into proper context.

To put it bluntly, I think the Christian community needs to own up to the extent to which we have failed to extend love and hospitality toward those within the atheist community. Rather than return new atheist barbs with our own heated rhetoric, I think we should own the fact that a good deal of atheist animus toward Christianity is simply the fruit of our own past mistreatment of atheists.

There Are No True Atheists

Matt Fradd: One of the things I’ve heard Christians say is, “No one is really an atheist, deep down they all know God exists.” If I were an atheist I would find this incredibly insulting. It would be like someone saying to me now, “Matt, you don’t really believe in God. You’re just frightened to admit it.” Um, ouch! Who the heck are you to be psychoanalyzing me? What are your thoughts on this, and what might be a better approach to take?

Randal Rauser: I agree. This looks bad. I don’t appreciate it when atheists tell me I’m a Christian because of some deep emotional issue. So by the Golden Rule, I presumably shouldn’t be trying to psychoanalyze them by telling them they’re really suppressing their latent belief in God. Not only is this insulting, but when you start talking to atheists, it also becomes increasingly implausible.

I remember one time I was out for dinner with an atheist friend. I told him that I experience God every day and he was genuinely fascinated by the claim. A day or so later he emailed me with a simple question. “You said you experience God every day,” he wrote. “Why don’t I?” I didn’t sense any hostility or condescension in his question. Rather, it seemed to be driven by a heartfelt perplexity.

This is a real problem. Indeed, philosophers have a name for it. They call it the “problem of divine hiddenness.” In short, if there is a God, then why doesn’t he make his presence evident to all those people who genuinely want to know that he exists, people like my friend? This is a great question, and Christian apologists and philosophers have offered some good responses worth considering. But at the very least I think we need to concede that there are such people. We simply can’t dismiss atheism as a disingenuous suppression of belief in God.

At the same time, I think it is important to understand why Christians often claim that atheism involves this willful suppression of belief in God. In my experience, Christians are often drawn to this position out of the belief that the Bible teaches it in passages like Psalm 14 and Romans 1. I argue in the book that this is false. In my view, the Bible doesn’t teach that atheism is always the result of sinful rebellion and the suppression of belief.

To sum up, we ought not claim that atheists really do believe in God or that they are suppressing belief in God. Rather, we should recognize that sometimes God seems to be hidden to some people. The next question is, why?

How Do we Love Our Atheist Neighbor?

Matt Fradd: Finally, would you give us a few tips on how to love our atheist neighbors? Other than us buying your new book, of course.

Randal Rauser: Sure. The best place to start is by setting aside any apologetic or evangelistic agenda. Your neighborhood atheist is not an evangelistic or apologetic project. Rather, he or she is a human being with a story to share … if you’re willing to listen. So take the time to get to know people and hear their story.

I find it fascinating, challenging, and often disheartening to hear the reasons why people don’t believe in God. But above all I have been changed by getting to hear the stories of other people. I guarantee that simply being the presence of Christ to those who have been alienated by the church or disappointed by life will do more than any apologetic argument.

Let me add that I don’t mean to devalue apologetics. I love apologetic argument. But arguments will be far more powerful once you’ve earned the right to be heard. And if I’m right that Christians have a long history of discriminating against atheists as a community, then I think we’ve got some work to do to establish good relations as a precursor to reasoned apologetic discussion

Learn more about Randal’s new book here.

Why I Love My Dad

Dad with my son, Liam.

Since Father’s day is approaching, I thought I’d share a few of the reasons I love my Dad. Now, in case I’ve got some of my Aussie readers freaking out, rest assured, Father’ day isn’t until September 6th over there, so you’ve got time!

Like many young men, my relationship with my Dad wasn’t always great. In fact there were times it was very rocky. As a teenager I, self-righteously, put all the blame on him. As I grew older (and hopefully humbler) I began to realize much of the blame for this could be laid on my shoulders also.

When I became a Christian at the age of seventeen, I attended different prayer groups who spoke about how important it was that people ask their Heavenly Father to heal the wounds inflicted by their earthly Fathers. If they didn’t, they’d just project onto God the shortcomings of their earthly Dads. This is good advice, I think; but like many things, it can be overdone, abused. People can become scrupulous, constantly examining their wounds, chalking up all of  their fears and personality defects to their relationship with their Father.

As I started having kids of my own—realizing first-hand how extremely difficult it can be to be a good Dad—I began to have a whole lot more compassion. Many of the mistakes I would say he made, I made during the first years of my kids life.

At some point there was a shift, which, if I put it into words would sound like, “yep, my Dad made mistakes, he did and said some things that really hurt me. But you know what? Who hasn’t! I’ve also said and done things that have deeply hurt others, including my kids. But my Dad did many good things, and I’m not going to allow his mistakes to blind me to those.”

So, with that said, here’s a few things my Dad did that I think were tops.

1. He always loved my Mum (that’s right, “Mum”)

My Dad always spoke beautifully about Mum. I remember several times—one in particular—when we’d be driving together and he’d start going on about how great Mum was. “She’s a bloody good woman, your mother,” he’d say. Dad worked a stressful job, and whenever he’d come home, Mum would have two cups of coffee ready (the instant kind—yuk!). Every weekday the two of them would talk under the verandah for a good while. I remember Dad telling me, “If I didn’t have your beautiful Mother, I don’t know what I’d do.”

Whenever my Dad would travel for work (which wasn’t often), he’d always hide post-it notes around the house for Mum to find, telling her how much he loved her. Don’t get the idea that my Dad was sappy, he wasn’t. He’s got as thick an Australian accent as you could imagine and most of the post-it notes, I’m sure, were cheeky. Mum loved it.

As a kid, I would often hear my Mum, late at night, belly laughing to some joke my Dad had told her. No one could make Mum laugh like Dad—maybe Carl Barron (Aussie reference). One day while the two of them were driving home, Dad told Mum a joke that made her laugh so hard she lost control of the car! Dad had to take over driving from the passenger seat while Mum cried with laughter.

You want to know what the joke was? If you’re easily offended don’t read the next few lines: “If I’ve got a moth ball in this hand, and a moth ball in this hand, what do I have? . . . a bloody big moth!” That was the joke. The joke that nearly left me an orphan.

2. He would defend us tooth and nail

When I was 13, there was a teacher at my school who, to say he didn’t like me would be an understatement. One day, in front of several year 12 girls (seniors) he called me a bad name. Like a really bad name. Like a, it’s-such-a-bad-name-I-won’t-repeat-it-on my-blog, bad name. I remember feeling really hurt but was hesitant to tell Dad. Why? Because I knew he wouldn’t let it go. I knew he’d “call the bastard!” (it’s much less offensive if you imagine it in an Aussie accent) and let him have it.

That’s exactly what he did do when I eventually told him and my poor teacher—I actually felt sorry for him—was forced to apologize to me.

3. He Persevered

I don’t know if this quote is attributed to anyone in particular, but it’s a good one: “be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” How beautiful and true is that. Everyone you and I’ve met today—the lady at Walmart, your next door neighbor who you only caught a glimpse of as he drove by, your spouse—is fighting a battle. The battle of life. And life, let’s be honest, can be brutal!

I mentioned earlier that my Dad had a very stressful job. From all appearances he hated it. And yet he did it. He also had a very difficult, hard-headed, selfish son (me), and yet he did his best to love me too. When I look around and see the many Dads who gave up on their families and walked out of their lives, I’m incredibly grateful for my Dad who, despite how hard things got, stuck it out. What a good man he was and is. I’m thankful to God for him.

One final story which doesn’t really fit into the categories I’ve laid out but I think is worth telling. When I was about to propose marriage to Cameron, I asked him if we could go on a walk so that I could tell him of my plans. I knew he’d be honored that I told him before Mum. We went for a walk around a few blocks, and I showed him the modest ring I bought. . . . side note: my Dad isn’t what you’d call a religious man, which, I think, makes his advice all the more impressive. . . His council to me was that if I was to get married “to this girl” I should always be faithful to her. But, not being a strong Catholic he didn’t have the sort of pious, religious jargon that you might be expecting. He said, “there’s all these married blokes jumping in and out of bed with different sheilas. Bullsh*t it is. You stay faithful to her, okay?” “Yes, Dad.”

Happy Father’s day to the man who has influenced me in ways I won’t fully understand until Heaven.

Dear Single People, Stop Looking for Your St. Joseph/Virgin Mary

Okay. I have no idea where I’ll be going with this post. That’s not true, I have some idea. I have the title. I want to share with you some thoughts that are beginning to bubble in my mind. I then want to ask you to leave a comment in the comment section (obviously) to help me grasp what I’m trying to say/beginning to understand.

Let’s hope by the end of this post I’ve said some helpful things and nothing too misleading.

You ready? Me neither.

I want to open a discussion over what I hear many teenage and young adult single Catholics say: “I’m waiting for God to send me my St. Joseph.” And the equivalent for blokes, “I’m looking for my Mary, or, St. Therese.”

Sorry to burst your bubble, but . . .

There are no more St. Josephs. There are no more Virgin Mary’s (there was only ever one of each). What there are are, those who have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23). This, of course, has always been the case, but due to the sexualized culture in which we live, the ubiquity of porn, the break down of the family, the rejection of universal truths (e.g. try saying this in a blog without having all sorts of nasty thing said about you: “men are men and women are not. Women are women and men are not.”) this is especially the case.

The next date you will go on will be with a sinner, FYI.

It’s interesting to me how a line like that—the one I just wrote—doesn’t shock us. Nor do people feel ashamed when they say, “Hey, I’m a sinner.” But a sinner is one who sins, right? And I never hear people act so nonchalant about the particular sins they commit, “Hey, I’m a fornicator.”

But back to your next date. Swap “sinner” with one of the following and notice the difference in your reaction.

The next date you will go on will be a person who is a liar/selfish/arrogant/racist/a glutton/greedy/slothful/hateful . . . See what I mean?

Sin sucks.

Now, let me quickly respond to what might be your reaction to what I’ve said so far. I am not arguing,”hey, everyone’s screwed up, therefore go ahead and marry the next broken and wounded shmuck you lay your eyes on.” I’m not saying that, that would almost certainly be disastrous.

What I’m inviting us to do is to prayerfully reflect upon the way we shun and run from the poverty in others (and in ourselves). It’s easy to say, “love the poor.” But I (and I’m sure you’re different) feel awkward, inconvenienced, and most times repulsed when a homeless man asks me for money.” I feel the similar things when I encounter the awkwardness, depression, arrogance, etc. in others (colleagues, friends, strangers, me). We want people to be like the glowing rectangle in our pockets, I think. We want them to work. We don’t want any glitches. We hate glitches.

But glitchy, hurting people are all we have to choose from, right?

I saw a beautiful photo the other day that I immediately texted to my wife:

So there’s a few thoughts. I know, I know, there’s little in here in way of a conclusion. That’s almost certainly because I don’t have one. So go on, I have no doubt most of you reading this are wiser and holier than me. Begin a discussion below.

How do we embrace the poverty of others? Of those we date, of those we’re courting, of those we’re married to, or those we are?

I look forward to your mind-blowing answers below.

Responding to Transgenderism With Logic and Charity

In a recent interview with Dianne Sawyer, Bruce Jenner (whose name you probably know by now) announced that he is a woman:

“Are you a woman?” asked Sawyer.

“Yes, for all intents and purposes, I am a woman,” Jenner replied. …“I built a nice little life. Again, Bruce lives a lie. She is not a lie. I can’t do it anymore.”

Despite what Jenner may think—I’m certainly not questioning his sincerity—he is wrong; he is a he.

In this article I will address the growing issue of transgenderism, give three (more) examples of this crisis, and then conclude by suggesting three approaches to addressing this issue proponents of this view.

Let me begin by summing it up in a nutshell (or a tweet—the 21st century equivalent):

“Men are men and women are not men. Women are women and men are not women” (Tweet, if you dare).

The degree to which this sounds discriminatory or sexist (or even hateful to you and me) is a good indicator to the degree in which we have been influenced by a small but incredibly influential movement in our country today that wants to say that sex—by which I mean maleness and femaleness—is not something objective but rather a mere social construct that has no basis in reality. Sort of like what side of the road you drive on, or what objects you use for currency.

These people want to say that sexual orientation is a continuum, and maleness and femaleness are arbitrary bookends. So a man, like Jenner, can self-identify as a woman, and should be allowed to, that’s fine; and a woman can self-identify as a man, and that’s fine.

So let’s look at some more examples, similar to the one mentioned above.

Three Examples of the Crisis

 

1. Genderless bathrooms. In August 2013, California enshrined certain rights for transgendered students in kindergarten through twelfth grade, so that if you’re in a public school, and you’d like to use the bathroom, and you’re a male who thinks he’s a female, that’s okay; no one can stop you. Now, I don’t know about other guys, but when I was fifteen years old, I would have loved that rule. Whose silly idea was this?

2. Boy in a prom dress. Tony Zamazal was a senior in 2013 at Spring High School in Texas. He approached his school and said because he self-identified as a female, he would like to go to the prom in a dress, please. And the school said, well, no, you have to wear the standard tux like all the other men. Tony went home and, as he said, began ranting about it on Facebook. It was picked up by the American Civil Liberties Union, which contacted the high school and said its stance was unconstitutional. The school backed down, and Tony went as a lady. Or so he thought. Now, I don’t say that mockingly—I’m not denying that he feels that way. What troubles me more is that when ABC News covered this story, it lied. It said things like, ‘She’s so happy that she can go in what makes her comfortable.”

3. Lesbian moms and the boy who’s a girl. Third example, you may heard of a couple of years ago. Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, a lesbian couple who lives near San Francisco, adopted a boy, and at the age of three, they say, he started to self-identify as a girl. So now he’s thirteen and he’s been on hormone blockers for years so he doesn’t go through puberty and develop into a man, then he can get a sex-change when the time is right.

How Did We Get Here?

How did we get here? One, we rejected God. And as the Vatican II document ‎Gaudium et Spes states, “For without the creator, the creature would disappear, when God is forgotten, the creature itself grows unintelligible” (GS 36). Second is the breakdown of the family. I like the way Jay Budziszewski puts it in his book The Meaning of Sex. He says wrongheaded sexual ideologies undermine families, and ruined families generate a readiness to accept wrongheaded ideologies.

How Should We Respond?

So how can we respond to this crisis? I want to give three responses: the scientific, the philosophical, and the pastoral. Now obviously this is a gigantic topic, and we’re just skimming the surface, but I hope as you encounter people who self-identify as a different sex—though you should know they’ll use the word gender to make sex seem more fluid, more changeable—or if you’re dealing with people who sympathize with this, I hope this will be a help to you.

1. The Scientific Response

It’s important to understand that in promoting the truth about the human person, the Church is on the side of science when it says that it’s impossible for a person to change his sex. The brains of the sexes are intrinsically different: Male brains are different from female brains. This affects many aspects of our behavior. How we handle stress, how we dress, how we navigate; it even affects our sight. Men and women not only see the world differently metaphorically, we actually see differently due to the differences in our retinas. 

In a Cambridge University study, researchers noted that women were much better at picking up on facial cues than men. They studied 102 day-old babies to see if there was a difference in the length of time they looked at a face, at a social object, and at a mobile, physical-mechanical object. The male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile, while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in biological origin.

These differences also affect how we hear: Women hear better than men. In 2005, neuroscientist Larry Cahill published an article called “His Brain, Her Brain” in Scientific American. He writes, “Over the past decade, investigations have documented an astonishing array of structural, chemical, and functional variations in the brains of males and females.” He goes so far as to say this raises the possibility of developing sex-specific treatment for conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and depression.

2. The Philosophical Response

A couple of months ago I was standing in line at the San Diego airport and I overheard a man and a woman having a chat. They clearly had just met, and he said, “Oh, my wife’s pregnant, too.” She said, “Oh, wonderful, what’s the sex?” He said, “Well, we’re not going to raise it as a blue baby or a pink baby, we’re going to raise it a yellow baby.” I thought maybe he meant the kid had jaundice. One of my babies was a yellow baby, too—he had to be under lights at the hospital. But what this man meant was that he wasn’t going to impose the social construct of sex upon his child. Whether his child self-identified as a male or a female was up to him/her.

What would happen if I began to explain these neurological differences to this man? Perhaps he would say what a lot of people have said: “Fine, there are differences in the bodies and brains, but I’m not defined by my body.” The idea that we are not our bodies, that we are souls in a machine, is wrongheaded. As the Church teaches, we are body-soul composites: one being made of two types of stuff, both equally personal and equally a part of who we are. 

Think of the absurdities that result if you say, “I’m not my body.” That would mean that when you kiss your child goodnight, you’re not actually kissing your child, you’re manipulating the husk that is not you to kiss the husk that’s not your daughter. 

In logic there’s a tactic called argumentum ad absurdum, where you assume your opponent’s false position is true, and then you follow it to its logical conclusion, which hopefully shows him that it is absurd.

And so we could say, “Why stop at sex? If we’re not defined by our bodies, why should we impose the social construction of ‘species’ upon our children?” If we can say, “Well, he looks male, but he’s apparently female,” we can say with equal logic, “Well, he looks human, but he says he’s a panther” or “a parrot.” You might think I’m being ridiculous, but do a Google search on species dysphoria or species identity disorder, and you’ll see that’s this isn’t as ridiculous to some as you’d imagine.

Someone might say, “Haven’t you heard of aphroditism, or Klinefelter syndrome, or Turner Syndrome, where the sex of someone is ambiguous?” Yes, but surely the tiny number of anomalous cases doesn’t do away with the huge majority of cases where a person’s sex is normal and easy to determine. That would be like saying that because there is a rare genetic disease called progeria that produces rapid aging in children, people can self-identify whatever age they want. 

3. The Pastoral Response

How should we respond to people who believe that one’s sex is what one makes it? With great love, compassion, and sympathy. I hope you don’t misunderstand me: I’m not criticizing these people, I’m criticizing the logic behind the mindset. But I don’t doubt for a moment that there are people who feel that they’ve been placed in the wrong body.

Let me quote to you from an eleven-year old boy who self-identifies as a girl. He calls himself Sadie. He wrote a letter to his school:

The world would be a better place if everyone had the right to be themselves. Including people who have a creative gender identity and expression. Transgendered kids like me are not allowed to go most schools because the teachers think we are different than everyone else. The schools get afraid of how they will talk with the other kids’ parents, and transgendered kids are kept secret or told not to come there anymore. Kids are told not to be friends with transgendered kids, which makes us very lonely and sad. When they grow up, transgendered adults have a hard time getting a job because the boss thinks the customers will be scared away and so forth.

So, obviously, we need to love these people. But loving does not entail lying to the person. We need to say it’s because I love you that I need to speak truth to you—and it might hurt, and you might call me a hater, but you have to know that I have your best interests in mind.

I would suggest that if you come across a man who self-identifies as a woman, you should ask him a question: “When you say you’re a woman, what do you mean?” He might say, “Well, I’m attracted to other men.” Okay, so you’re attracted to other men—but that doesn’t make you a woman. He might say he likes what girls like. Okay, full disclosure, I like some things girls like too. I don’t like sports. He might say he identifies with the female form, that he likes it and wants it as his own. Well, okay, you need to understand that men’s and women’s bodies are different, but that doesn’t mean unequal, and they’re both good, and you need to rediscover the goodness of your own sexuality.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way:

In creating men “male and female,” God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity. “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God” (Mulieris dignitatem, 6). Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way  (CCC 2334-35).

Men and women are different, and thank God for that. 

Further Reading

Looking for further reading? Here are some good books and articles to get you started:

Books

The Meaning of Sex by Jay Budziszewski 

Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax (Doubleday: New York, NY, 2005)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2331-36

Articles

“His Brain, Her Brain” by Larry Cahill, Scientific American, May 2005

“Gender-Specific Gene Expression in Post-Mortem Human Brain: Localization to Sex Chromosomes,” the National Institutes of Health

“Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children,” Michelle Cretella, principal author, American College of Pediatricians (April 2008).

What is Pascal’s Wager?

Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician and philosopher who lived in the 17th century. In his Pensees (paragraph 233) he writes what has come to be known as “Pascals Wager.”

There are many blogs and video’s out there which claim to show Pascal’s wager spurious and childish. I disagree, I think it has merit, and so in this post I’d like to offer my take on it.

Sometimes, after reflection and study, people feel that they can’t decide between atheism and belief in God. Where they are at that moment, the evidence seems to evenly weighted or too difficult to evaluate.

What then?

If these are the two belief systems that you feel torn between then there are two basic choices: You could choose to go ahead and belief in God or you could refrain from doing so.

If it seems impossible to decide between these options based on the evidence then one can legitimately consider the advantages of choosing one course of action over the other.

4 Possible Scenarios

What would the results be of your choice, depending on whether God really exists? There are four possible scenarios:

A. You choose to live as if God exists and you are correct:

God does  exist.

B. You choose to live as if God does not exist, and

you are incorrect: God   does exist.

C. You choose to live as if God exists, and you are incorrect:

God does  not exist.

D. You choose to live as if God does not exist, and you are correct:

God  does not exist.

If A is the case then you stand to receive the infinite good of everlasting life!

If B is the case then you risk missing out on this infinite good.

If C is the case then what awaits you after this life is not heaven but non-existence. During life you would have had a bit of inconvenience due to living as a believer and having to deny yourself certain things, but that is not as much of a problem as it might seem, since studies show believers tend to live longer, healthier, and happier lives.

If D is the case then you would have a bit more freedom to indulge your lower passions in this life, but that is not as much a gain as it might seem, since you would also miss out on the benefits that religion brings to people’s lives, including a sense of purpose and meaning that there is no rational basis for if we are just walking bags of chemicals.

Comparing these four options, A would result in you achieving infinite gain, B would result in you missing this gain, and C and D would both involve small, finite gains or losses determined by the limitations involved in living as a believer and the benefits gained in this life by doing so.

That being the case, if you feel torn between atheism and belief in God, and if you feel that you can’t decide based on objective evidence, then your rational choice would be to go with belief in God. You stand to achieve an infinite good (if you are right) but only a finite loss at most (if you are wrong). By contrast, if you choose not to believe in God then you risk an infinite loss (if you are wrong) at at most a finite good (if you are right).

Rational self-interest, which is certainly part of human nature whether you believe God built it into us or not, clearly points toward believing in God.

Not an Argument for God’s Existence

Bear in mind that this is not an argument for Gods existence but rather an argument for belief in God’s existence. It doesn’t argue directly that he exists but that, in certain circmstances, it is rational for us to choose to believe in him.

It also is not an argument designed for every possible situation. It is designed for those who feel torn between atheism and belief in the kind of God that Christianity proposes, but who aren’t at a point where they feel that they can settle the question by objective evidence. If you are in that situation, then this argument can help you.

Some might have a concern that they would be doing something morally wrong if they were to choose belief in God without objective proof, but this argument can be turned on its head.

If atheism were true then there would be no objective moral values, and thus by definition your choosing to believe in God would not be morally wrong. You would be completely innocent in believing. There couldn’t be anything wrong with believing if there were no such thing as right and wrong to begin with.

Make Your Move

There are many times in life when we must make decisions about what we will believe without having conclusive proof. Such proof is a luxury that we often do not have.

If you waited, for example, to have conclusive proof that a prospective spouse will always be faithful to you and never betray you then you will never get married. In fact, in trying to obtain conclusive proof, you would likely crush the relationship between you before you were even engaged.

At some point, you must decide that you have “enough” to make the commitment and choose to embark on a life together, even without total proof. Given the fears and anxiety that often accompany the act of getting married, many people find themselves in a situation where, at least at the moment, they don’t know how to evaluate the evidence anymore and they must take a leap of faith to marry.

Something very similar applies to the decision to believe in God. Like marriage, it is a momentous, life-changing choice, and that can interfere with our ability to rationally evaluate evidence. When that happens, deciding based on self-interest is rational.

God understands that. In fact in the gospels Jesus appeals to our rational self-interest, asking, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36, KJV).

Now go and read Pascals Wager.

What I’m Working on This Year

Me wearing a hat. #YoureWelcome

The Lord is risen, Alleluia!

Thanks for being here. I wanted to give you an update on what I’ve been doing and some of the projects I plan to accomplish this year.

My wife Cameron and I just bought our first home in Georgia, north of Atlanta. Since we were married nine years ago, we’ve moved eight times. Eight times. Eight times. We have four kids. Yes, we’re exhausted. It’s good to finally settle down somewhat.

This year I’ve been busy. I’ll speak to well over 60,000 teens and young adults (as well as some adult conferences) on pornography, and different Christian apologetic topics.

My main focus, however, is on pornography. For the last several years I have spoken at Steubenville youth conferences around the country (they do an amazing job!), and each time I was there, speaking to groups in the thousands, usually giving the basic gospel message, I couldn’t shake the thought that many of these teens who were looking up at me, were (and are) immersed in hard-core pornography.

Why I’m Fighting Porn

What does hard-core pornography do to someone? I’m convinced, to borrow an analogy from St. Bonaventure, that it, as it were, bends us over on ourselves, making us less able to perceive, from the goodness and beauty of created things, the creator (Wisdom 13:5). It perverts the intellect and weakens our wills. Conversely, I’m convinced that the man or woman who decides porn is an abomination, and fights to be free of it, will become more open to the grace of God and the Gospel. [1] I’ve had more than one conversation with people who once considered themselves atheists, but who, after deciding porn was immoral, are more inclined to say they are agnostics. For how does one explain the immorality of porn? If people have no intrinsic worth, how can you speak of degrading them? You can’t degrade what has no grade, no worth, to begin with.

So. That was a long way of saying, this is why I’m focusing on this area of pornography.

This year I will be releasing three books. Here’s a little about each.

1. A book and app for teens

In  few weeks, Mark Hart (from Lifeteen) and I will be releasing an awesome book for teens and young adults on how to be free of porn. The book will be accompanied by an app, and the two will go hand in hand. It’s going to be awesome, way cooler than what you’re probably thinking; but, alas, I can’t reveal anything more at this time. Stay tuned!

2. A book for wives

Many of you have heard of, and read, my book Delivered, which is a book of true stories from men and women who were addicted to porn and who have found, to some degree or another, freedom from it. We released it just over a year ago now and it’s been awesome to see how well it’s done. Over 50,000 copies sold. The reason for this (apart from it being a great book!) is that we sold it for $2 a copy when it was bough in bulk (20 copies).

So, this new book for wives will be similar. It’s a book that my wife and I are both putting together. Instead of stories from men and women who found freedom from porn, this will be a book of stories of wives who have suffered the betrayal and trauma (some suffer PTSD) due their husbands porn use. These stories are, Wow! I don’t think we read one that didn’t bring us to tears. They’re heart-wrenching but ultimately hopeful. Women—wives, I mean—are the forgotten wounded in the carnage porn is wreaking in our society. It’s high-time we reached out to them with love and understanding. This book will also be sold for $2 in bulk. Should be out this fall.

3. A book that responds to porn from a secular point of view

I’m writing a book for Ignatius Press that we might be calling The Porn Myth. In it I’m going to make the case against porn with logic, anecdotes, and statistics. This is going to be a ridiculously well researched book that will not bring faith, God, Jesus, or Church teaching into my arguments at all. So if you know someone who might be open to hearing why porn is a grave social ill which is corrupting individuals, relationships, and society at large, this will be the book you’re gonna want to give them.

Prayers, please.

If you would be so kind as to remember me (and my family) in your prayers throughout this year, I’d greatly appreciate it. If you’d like to lear more about how I’m working (with the help of a whole lot of awesome people) see my site The Porn Effect

Totus Tuus Maria

———-

[1] Don’t read between the lines. I’m not saying that atheists are atheists because they look at porn. Obviously there are many morally upright atheists who are atheists for intellectual reasons.

 

 

What You Didn’t Know About The Good Thief

St. Dismas: The Good Thief.

The good thief, as he is commonly referred, is an unnamed character who appears in all four Gospels— though it’s his interaction with our Lord in the Gospel of Luke that’s made him famous.

Though he’s never been officially canonized by the Church, he is believed to be a saint by virtue of Christ’s words, ““Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” So I suppose you could say he was canonized preemptively by the Lord himself!

He is traditionally referred to as St. Dismas and his feast day is March 25th.

What You May Not Have Known

But here’s something you may not have known about the good thief.

When we cross-reference the account of the crucifixion in the Gospels we can infer something very interesting about St. Disamas. Namely, that before repenting and asking to be saved, he too reviled Christ along with the crowd and the other thief.

Let’s take a look at the Scriptures.

Two Robbers

All four Gospels tell of two criminals (no more) who were crucified alongside of Christ:

“Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand, and one on the left.” - Matthew 27:38

“And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.” - Mark 15:27

“There were also two other malefactors led with him to be put to death. . . . they crucified him there; and the robbers, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.“ - Luke 23:32-33

“The soldiers therefore came; and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.”- John 19:32-33

Reviling Jesus

Two of the Gospels accounts recount Jesus being abused by the these criminals. In the Gospel of Matthew we read:

“And they that passed by, blasphemed him, wagging their heads, And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said: He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God.

And the selfsame thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him with” -  (27:39-44).

In Mark we read that the chief priests and scribes were mocking him, saying, “Let Christ the king of Israel come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him (15:32).

The Thief Becomes The “Good Thief”

So far we have seen that there were two criminals crucified on either side of Christ and that at one point both were abusing him. It is in Luke’s gospel that we see one of the thieves rebuke the other and request to be saved.

“And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise” - (23 39:43).

From this we can conclude that at some point after St. Dismas “reviled him,” and before he asked Jesus to remember him in his Kingdom, he repented. What beautiful humility St. Dismus displayed, and what astounding mercy Jesus gave.

A Prayer to Saint Dismas

Glorious Saint Dismas, you alone of all the great Penitent Saints were directly canonized by Christ Himself; you were assured of a place in Heaven with Him “this day” because of the sincere confession of your sins to Him in the tribunal of Calvary and your true sorrow for them as you hung beside Him in that open confessional.

You who by the direct sword thrust of your love and repentance did open the Heart of Jesus in mercy and forgiveness even before the centurion’s spear tore it asunder; you whose face was closer to that of Jesus in His last agony, to offer Him a word of comfort, closer even than that of His Beloved Mother, Mary; you who knew so well how to pray, teach me the words to say to Him to gain pardon and the grace of perseverance; and you who are so close to Him now in Heaven, as you were during His last moments on earth, pray to Him for me that I shall never again desert Him, but that at the close of my life I may hear from Him the words He addressed to you: “This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.”

Amen.[1]

One Mediator Between God and Man: A Socratic Dialogue

One of my readers wrote to me today and asked if I would briefly explain how to respond to a protestant who says that since Christ is the one mediator between God and man, going to the saints for intercession is inappropriate.

Since I’m sitting on a plane, flying home to Georgia, with little to do (except drink really bad coffee—It’s like they brewed it through a smelly sock), I thought I’d write a Socratic dialogue on the issue. Hope it helps.

Read my other socratic dialogues here.

Sam: Got a question for you, Justin. How many mediators are there between God and man?

Justin: You’re referring to 1 Timothy 2:5 where it says there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Yes?

Sam: So your answer is one?

Justin: Well, yes. Jesus Christ is the unique mediator between God and man. Mediator with a capital “M,” you might say.

Sam: Okay. Then why do you put countless mediators between God and man? I’m talking about Mary and the saints. Are you saying those are mediators with a small “m”?

Justin: What do you think a mediator is?

Sam: A go-between. But we need no other go-between. Christ Jesus paid the debt for our sins. We have access to the Father through him!

Justin: Hmm. I would have described a mediator as one who “brings estranged parties to an amicable agreement.” That’s how The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it. And yes, Jesus Christ is the one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father.

Sam: Okay, but what about Christ as the one mediator or God’s grace? In Hebrews chapter seven the authors speaks of Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand side of the Father. It says, “He always lives to make intercession for them.” Would you agree that intercessor is a synonym of mediator?

Justin: I can see how those words are used interchangeably, yes.

Sam: And yet you call upon the intercession of Mary?

Justin: I do.

Sam: And in doing so, you are rejecting Christ’s singular role as mediator. This, Justin, is blasphemy!

Justin: You are incorrect, Sam.

Sam: Oh, well, fair enough then. I’m convinced.

Justin: No, look. If you are going to accuse me of something as serious as blasphemy you better know what you’re talking about, and, quite frankly,  I don’t think you do. Are you open-minded, Sam? Are you open to seeing why you’re wrong?

Sam: That felt slightly condescending, but yes.

Justin: Turn to 1 Timothy with me. You’re referencing verse five of chapter two as an argument for why Christ being our unique mediator means that only he can intercede for us to God.

Sam: Yes, and that we shouldn’t go through others like Mary and the saints to get to him.

Justin: Right, but read for me the preceding four verses that lead to that verse—verse five.

Sam: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 

Justin: So, according to St. Paul it is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior that we offer intercessions for all men. Do you disagree with St. Paul? Has he got it wrong? Are these words—from verse one to four—contradicting what he’s saying in verse five?

Sam: Of course not, don’t be silly.

Justin: If I asked you to pray for me—and I already know the answer to this, but humor me—, would you?

Sam: Yes. 

Justin: You’d offer intercession for me?

Sam: Yes, yes, I see your point but if you thought you could only come to Christ through me, that would be horribly wrong, and yet many Catholics act as if they can only approach Christ through their rosary beads or prayers to statues.

Justin: Well, look, I’m less interested in defending how certain Catholics may misunderstand what their Church teaches than I am in defending what the Church does teach. The fact is, when we offer intercession for each other we are participating— in a lesser, subordinated way—in Christ’s unique mediator-ship. In Romans 12:4-6, it says:

“For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.”

Does Christ need to use us to mediate his grace? Absolutely not. Has he chosen to? Absolutely. Through his body, the Church.

Sam: I guess we’ll have to disagree. I see no evidence in Scripture that supports the Catholic claim that we can ask Mary of the Saints to intercede for us.

Justin: Well, perhaps we can discuss that at a later date. In the meantime, why don’t we intercede for each other that the Lord would give us his grace as we strive to seek and submit to the truth.