Twenty-three years ago, I wrote a book titled “Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage.” The first chapter was “What Are We Talking About?” in which I argued that in order to think biblically about the question of same-sex marriage, we had to think logically about the terms, including the term “sex.” Here is what I wrote:
Sexuality is a word less than two centuries old. It can be understood in a neutral sense as “the constitutionally bipolar character of human nature” (N.B. sex from the Latin “to cut”).
I then referred to the 1986 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which states:
As a rule, male and female complement each other at all levels of organization: as sex cells; as individuals with either testes or ovaries; and as individuals with anatomical, physiological, and behavioral differences associated with the complemental roles they play during the whole reproductive process.
Sadly, the 1986 edition was the last in a grand tradition. However, even the latest online version continues to say:
Sex, the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively.
I went on in my chapter to lay out the new “transformed” definition of “intimacy” which describes sex in terms of “plastic sexuality,” “confluent love,” and “the pure relationship.” This definition has become the new gender orthodoxy.
Some scientists, it seems, are fighting back. Two biologists from Penn State and University of Manchester are reviving the old orthodoxy. They write:
In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary….
The time for politeness on this issue has passed. Biologists and medical professionals need to stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex. When authoritative scientific institutions ignore or deny empirical fact in the name of social accommodation, it is an egregious betrayal to the scientific community they represent. It undermines public trust in science, and it is dangerously harmful to those most vulnerable.
One wonders how long before these researchers are excommunicated from their guild.
Anyway, it is strange to think that such an understanding of human nature in the image of God needs be prophetic rather than commonsensical, but since it is, I’ll utter another prophecy: the time will come when the 1986 Britannica definition will be restored to honor and the transformed definition will be as ludicrous as the Emperor’s New Clothes. How many people in the meantime will suffer confusion and loss, and not just academic, God only knows.
Why have you not named the biologists quoted, and provided a reference? If it’s to an article in the Wall Street Journal, it’s behind a pay-wall.
And how seriously are we to take your ‘prophecy’? Are you claiming divine inspiration? Are you expressing some belief that society is becoming more rational and that the present confusion over sex is just a temporary aberration? If so, I don’t share your optimism. In my judgement, the confusion arises from an ever more militant atheism and alienation from God, leading to spiritual and intellectual darkness and irrationality (Rom 1:21-22).
I am not sure how to take your comment. I do not see any reason to “out” the authors, but you can find their names via Google. And no, I am not claiming direct revelation but rather the inspired wisdom of Scripture – “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling” (Proverbs 26:27) – along with the commonsense wisdom of Hans Christian Andersen. Another frequent phrase in Scripture – “How long?” – is both an affirmation of God’s sovereign governance in history and a plea that He come to deliver us “right soon.”
I have heard of homosexuals being ‘outed’ to face potential public shame, but it seems odd to suggest that your biologists need such protection. If they were not writing publicly, they hardly prove the point you were trying to make, for in that case they are evidently not ‘fighting back’.
I don’t think a churchman should be using the word ‘prophecy’ in the loose way you have used it. ‘Prediction’ is sufficient.
Romans seems to me more relevant in this context than Proverbs.
Regarding commonsense wisdom, it has already shown itself to be insufficient – that’s why we’re in this situation where parliament, the NHS, the media all peddle the nonsense about transgenderism and even schools are forced to promote it. If I’m right in thinking that the malaise is spiritual, common sense will be largely impotent, though I grant that there comes a point when even Satanically motivated denial of reality hits the buffers.
“How long?” is a cry of the saints in the face of persecution. God will eventually avenge them, but not before many have died. ‘Us’, it should be noted, is not society at large (re your last sentence).
Goodness me! How can you claim that the “inspired wisdom of scripture” shows that “the new gender orthodoxy” will be overturned? Surely Christ’s return has nothing to do with your prophecy, neither does the verse you quote from Proverbs. There cannot in principle be any biblical reason why the “new gender orthodoxy” will go away in what are increasingly secular post-Christian societies. If the prophetic voice of the Bible says anything about this it seems to me to predict a continuing downward spiral.
I’m not sure I’m following this “Battle of the Two Steves”…
But then I’m only ending my first cup of coffee this morning…
My point is: How disingenuous of a bishop (of all people) to boldly claim the authority of scripture for something he’s said, when scripture clearly does not support his opinion. Please read my comment more carefully and that of Steven Robinson below. Bishops of all people are supposed to be able to “rightly divide the word of truth”. The bishop has made an elementary error that any average churchgoer would recognize instantly.
Perhaps there is good reason for optimism. Listening to a presentation titled “Faith in Democracy” (by a reasonably famous person I too will keep anonymous) I was prodded to ask myself, “If I have faith in God can I have faith in humanity?”
I have answered “Yes” for the moment and the fable of “The Emperors New Clothes” is part of the reason. We may go along with stupid stuff for awhile, but God has ensured we all do know it is genuinely stupid, so at some point we will largely return to our senses. While it may be children who, in their innocence, lead the way there are also others like Lawerence Fox, Jordan Peterson and perhaps our unnamed biologists who will let their frustration get the better of them and start bravely reversing the trend.
Just as everyone knows in their deepest being God exists we also know other truths such as the gender binary and the nonsense of same sex marriage. That people will finally get fed up should be no surprise. Shortness of patience at times should surely be recognised as a gift if God.
The scientists are Colin M. Wright, an evolutionary biologist at Penn State, and Emma N. Hilton, a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester, according to the WSJ article. There is no reason to think Dr. Noll is hiding their names; they have published an op-ed in the WSJ and so their names are easily accessible.
With Dr. Noll, I hope that more and more people will begin to notice and discard the irrationality of the “transgender” movement and accept basic biological facts.
That debate is more prominently occurring over that of transgender females (biological males) competing in female sport. In spite of hormones taken, the transgenders have an obvious unfair advantage, and people are standing up on behalf of biological females.
There is also some recoiling over the push to support the transition in prepubescent children, some shockingly young. Of course it would, have you ever known a child to change their mind over something major? Of course you have. But the path of transgenderism is irreversible at an early point, and the state of the body at the end of the process is not being adequately described. There’s an awful lot of regret, and the mantra that this is necessary to prevent suicide is just not true.
I think it’s a better strategy to fight this out where the facts are the clearest, and avoid the hopelessly vague “But this is their IDENTITY, and you’re a hater”.
In the meantime, we need to find ways to live Christ in front of this culture, and take a stand for the Scripture that describes Him to us.
Are we as believers then up for the challenge? To engage the culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be bold in our witness for Him. We are placed here for such a time as this. Are we who are called by God, who name the name of Christ going to stand for the truth of God’s Word in all areas, or are we going sit back and wail and bemoan the fact that the World (who is really surprised at this) is going against God’s Word. The Battle is not over, the war is won, but are to engage in the fight.
Do we really realize the cost of this? The children are being attacked left and right by the enemy and in this battle they are in the crosshairs. Drag Queen Story hour, mutilation of their bodies because they think they are what they are not. God created male and female and He doesn’t make mistakes.
In this battle remember then that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, and the we do not battle against flesh and blood, but we are called to be salt and light and to be doers of the Word and not hearers…nor complainers.
This subject was better understood in the 17th century. Hence the song:
“Man is for the woman made
And the woman for the man…”
Anyone wanting to go into details will find many performances of Purcell’s famous version on Youtube. I like those by ladies. They include one by Judith Nelson (chaste) and one by a choir called Sirenot Ensemble (less so)