Apologetics

Agender Max and the Abolition of Humanity

A New Generation Overthrows Gender,” an article from NPR, says “Max, age 13, is agender — Max is neither male nor female. When referring to Max, you don’t use ‘he’ or ‘she;’ you must use ‘they.’” But, this is actually pontificated. It is not a suggestion. The dogmatic assertion is Max, thirteen, agender, is not male nor female.

This comes through people who are very knowledgeable as psychiatrists and psychologists. One psychologist quoted, Diane Ehrensaft, says, “We are seeing more and more kids saying, ‘You know what? What’s with this either/or business? What’s with this boy/girl, and you have to fit in one box or the other?’” All the paradigms of civilization, to be a bit redundant, seem to have been kicked to the curb.

“So, what does ‘agender’ mean to Max?” Well, Max is instructing us now. It is sort of like he is teaching those people who are Neanderthals a little bit about how human sexuality works. He says, “Because I don’t feel like I’m both guy and girl,” that means, of course, “that I’m neither.”

Just as an aside, there is also a little sidebar in the article about gender versus sexual orientation. The explanation is “Gender is the way you express yourself to the world, and your sexual orientation is who do you go to bed with.” The definitions are, well, I would say interesting at best.

So if, according to NPR, “same-sex marriage was yesterday’s battle to redefine gender roles and privileges, and transgender rights is today’s fight, American society may now be on the cusp of the most transformational shift yet — the end of categorizing people as either male or female.”

How do you translate all of that? You translate that by saying we have to as Christians come to the realization that the sexual revolution has posted a very decisive victory. Complementarity with respect to same-sex marriage is now, well, I mean you know it — if you have not been under a rock, you know it — it is considered pure unadulterated bigotry. Of course, the latest permutation is what we ae talking about: gender fluidity, or agender status, or fifty-seven different gender designations.

What we are witnessing in real time is what may rightly be called the abolition of what it means to be human. (By the way, the cover story in the Christian Research Journal is on just that: “The Abolition of Man Today.” It is one of the reasons that all last month I was so excited about putting that Journal into the hands of people. We have to look at what the abolition of humanity looks like today. Dr. Adam Pelser did that in eloquent fashion in the Journal. It is a must read.) Again, biblical anthropology has been cast aside, meaning that the Christian worldview has been jettisoned.

Now, why is this important? Why am I talking about this? I am talking about this because this is a social experiment that is going to end very, very badly and that for millions and millions of people. Which means this: the church continues to have a role. The church will be picking up the pieces of lives that have been devastated. The reason is now we are all kind of marching lockstep to the tune of a social experiment based on the size and scope of the latest lobby group. We are not sailing by a North Star; we are sailing by winds that are extraordinarily dangerous.

—Hank Hanegraaff

This blog adapted from the May 3, 2017, Bible Answer Man.

Apologetics

Sounding the Alarm for Transgender Regrets

CRI-Blog-Hanegraaff, Hank-Sound the AlarmI was reading an article before I came into the studio, and quite frankly got emotional. The article was written by Sophia Lee. She is writing for World Magazine. The title of the article is “Sounding the Alarm,” which is subtitled: “Many transgender persons regret what they did to their bodies and souls, and some are pleading that others not repeat their mistake.”

Sophia writes as follows:

Robert Wenman was four years into being a “full-time” transgender woman in Ontario, Canada, when a police officer asked him: “You got all your legal rights by now. Why don’t you just enjoy life as a woman?”

The question left the then-LGBT activist stuttering: Here he was, training a group of law enforcers on transgender rights, yet he couldn’t answer a basic question: Why? Why was he still campaigning, still fighting?

The Canadian healthcare system, after all, had paid for his sex reassignment surgery and 10-day postoperative stay. The court changed his birth records from Robert John to Rebecca Jean. He had a secure job at the Canada Post with full access to female facilities, and his family accepted him. Wenman was the textbook case of a successful transgender woman—so why, he wondered, did he feel he was constantly battling something?

For days, Wenman stewed on the question and thought about all the ways he had blamed “intolerant society” for “the destruction in our souls.” Yet the deeper he searched his heart, the clearer he reached a painful acknowledgment: He had said he was fighting for transgender rights, but he was really fighting an internal battle. “I’ve been trying to fix things on the outside without fixing the inside,” he said.

The idea that anything needs fixing inside a transgender person is anathema to big media. Time calls transgender rights “America’s next civil rights frontier.” The New York Times has, in its own words, “forcefully” advocated a transgender “crusade,” with former Times editor Andrew Rosenthal calling those who question the transgender movement “ignorant, stupid people.” This year, National Geographic joined the crusade, dedicating its first issue to the emerging “gender revolution.”

What’s missing from these stories, however, are the silent laments of individuals who now see their transgender experience as psychological and physical mutilation.

I cannot read the entirety of the story, but let me just progress a little bit with what Sophia Lee wrote. She talked about how

Many underwent irreversible surgery and now regret it….

When a psychiatrist told Robert Wenman he had gender dysphoria and advised him to transition into a woman, every loose piece of his life seemed to lock into place: “Oh yeah! Of course that’s it: I’m really a woman in a man’s body” ….

So in 1991 when a transgender expert told him to transition into a woman, Wenman thought that would solve all his problems…He…began hormone therapy, and he changed his legal documents…he flew out to England and he underwent sex reassignment surgery, and then returned home to Canada in euphoria.

But, there was a problem.

At 6 feet tall with big, manly hands and a masculine voice, Wenman struggled to “pass” as a woman and dreaded being in public. One stranger’s weird look would provoke days of anguish…and kids…gaped at him…

Outwardly, Wenman…giggled with fellow trans “sisters” at local bars, and preached that gender is a psychological construct.

But after seventeen years as living as a woman, Wenman, now sixty years old, has transitioned back to a man. His surgery, unfortunately, is irreparable. Now hearing the stories of husbands who come out as transgender then leave their families he grieves. He says, “I want to shake them and scream, ‘You don’t know what you’re doing!’”

All of this and more in an article “Sounding the Alarm” by Sophia Lee. I tell you it is a very courageous thing that she did to chronicle these stories in face of the preponderance of the narrative in a different direction. Time magazine, New York Times, National Geographic, and it goes on and on. This is an unending narrative. It is very, very shrill. If you say anything counter to this narrative, as demonstrated in the article, you are called “ignorant” and “stupid.” “Be quiet! We have this under control.” But, in the meantime there is a silent holocaust. We are sowing to the wind while reaping the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7). Tragic circumstance.

—Hank Hanegraaff

Apologetics

Discussing Homosexuality with Gentleness, Respect, and Clarity

cri-blog-dallas-joe-speaking-of-homosexuality

Give us if you will a state of the union. From your perspective, where are we?

We are on the deep end. When the culture shifts to a different viewpoint, those holding a traditional viewpoint are now required to explain and even defend their refusal to shift with the culture. Peter said, “Always be prepared to give an answer” (1 Peter 3:15, NIV), and that word “answer” to my thinking is a key word in this discussion. We are making our apologia our defense.

That is what the book Speaking of Homosexuality: Discussing the Issues with Kindness & Clarity is about because more than ever, the church is required to make a defense for our claim that God indeed defined what He created as existing between a man and a woman exclusively. Because we believe that marriage has a specific definition, which our culture has now varied from, we’re called on to defend that position.

Here’s where it gets dicey, though. We are being called on to defend something we know but largely have not examined because we never thought we would have to defend it. It seems so self-evident. Our very anatomy testifies to the normalness of a heterosexual union and the abnormalness of a male mating with a male or a female with a female. What we seem to know intuitively and by observation we are still being challenged to defend. Sometimes I think defending the obvious can be tough because the thing is so self-evident we wonder why we have to defend it, and for that reason I think many people haven’t bothered to think it through.

Let’s start with your own life story. You were a gay-activist., yourself?

I was. I was like many people. I realized early in life that I was attracted to the same sex. I acted on those attractions at a young age, and then heard the Gospel and responded. I was born again in 1971 under the ministry of Pastor Chuck Smith at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California, during what we often call the Jesus Movement. I served the Lord very fervently for years, while silently wrestling with homosexual temptations.

I reached a point of giving myself permission when I was in my early 20s to give into those temptations, and then I had a dilemma. I did not want to abandon Christianity. I also didn’t want to abandon homosexual practices, and I heard about a church where I would be given permission, sanction if you will, to express both parts of myself—my spiritual life and my homosexuality. I thought for years, when I say thought, I debated on college campuses and I promoted the idea that homosexuality and Christianity were compatible until 1984, when the conviction of the Holy Spirit combined with the knowledge that I had with sound teaching in my earlier years just became too much for me, and I had to admit I had been kidding myself.

You say that you knew what you believed, but at first you didn’t know how to state it. Then you knew how to state it, but you didn’t know how to defend it. And then you came to the place where you knew how to defend it, but you didn’t do it with the right attitude. I think a lot of people can relate.

I think so. Yes. So often we know what we believe, but we’ve never known how to explain it. Often times, as I point out in the introduction to my book, when I first tried to explain my beliefs, I sputtered through it because the subject can be so emotional that when you try to finesse it too much you make a fool out of yourself. I’ll give you a good example; it’s the one I gave in the introduction to the book. When I repented of homosexuality in January of 1984, I needed to tell my gay friends about the decision I had made. I sat down with some of them and I started trying to explain. Now I made one of many mistakes that I have made over the years. The first one I made was trying so hard to put it nicely that I got too vague, too hypersensitive, and I lost all verity. I said vague things like, “I’ve had kind of a spiritual awakening” and “I’m not sure that this is right anymore” and “I’m seeking God’s will;” rather than simply saying, “I repented of homosexuality because I have come to believe it is a sin.”

What I have found, when people sense you are trying too hard to finesse your words, you come across as phony, you come across as apologetic and not really convinced of what you’re saying. I bring this up because I think many believers today are so concerned about not giving offense, that they are actually dancing pirouettes, when they should be speaking plainly, always respectfully, and with gentleness, but with clarity. I find many people who are either non-Christian or pro-gay appreciate it much more when we are honest and direct and respectful with them; rather than trying to finesse our words so much that we wind up saying virtually nothing.

—Joe Dallas

This blog adapted from the October 3, 2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

Apologetics

Life in a Brave New Gender Fluid World

cri-blog-hanegraaff-hank-gender-fluiditySeptember 27, 2016

I typically read a local newspaper and USA Today, but this morning they weren’t delivered. So I picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal and read it from cover to cover. In the health and wellness section, there is a very interesting article titled “With Insurers on Board, More Hospitals Offer Transgender Surgery.”

The article tells the story of Stacey Parsons, a 45-year old man, at least biologically, who “had genital surgery in August at Cleveland Clinic.” Stacey grew up as Scott Orms, a self-described gay man but still unhappy with his choice of sexual orientation. Then he saw a documentary on television, and it changed his life forever. As the result of what he saw on television, Scott decided to transition to Stacey. He began hormone therapy, had surgery to remove his testicles, began breast augmentation, and then began to date Mike Parsons. They were subsequently married in 2012.

Well, thereafter, as the article continues, the Cleveland Clinic performed a vaginoplasty, creating a vagina by using parts of his penis. Next came feminization surgeries and finally a wonderful new life as a female named Stacey.

“To change somebody’s life in a few hours is really rewarding,” says Rachel Bluebond-Langner, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. I guess we can thank God for the new openness to transgenderism and for Obamacare that now makes it all possible for as little as $50,000 to $125,000. If you want that kind of surgery, it’s now available.

The Wall Street Journal does mention,

Research on the surgeries is mixed. Critics point to a 2011 study published in the online journal PLOS One by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden that followed more than 300 transgender people after surgery and found they had a higher rate of psychiatric care, suicide and mortality than a control group. But a number of other studies have shown that transgender people undergoing various surgeries report greater quality of life and satisfaction years later. Doctors say with more academic institutions tracking the procedures, higher quality studies in the future should produce more evidence-based outcomes.

So they admit there is at least the possibility that you might want to kill yourself, but that this is not conclusive.

This is a new world in which we live. A world in which biology is no longer associated with your gender; rather, I should say, is no longer associated with your biology, it’s associated with whatever feeling you happen to have. In New York City it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. The New York City Commission on Human Rights is committed to “ensuring that transgender and gender nonconforming New Yorkers are treated with dignity, respect” and part of that means that an individual has the right, I’m reading right from their Gender Identity Card statement, “use the locker room most consistent with their gender identity and/or expression without being required to show ‘proof’ of gender.” “Courtesy 101,” according to the New York City Commission on Human Rights, “If you don’t know what pronouns to use, ask. Be polite and respectful; if you use the wrong pronoun, apologize and move on…Respect the terminology a transgender person uses to describe their identity.” It could be “Bi-Gendered,” or “Crossdresser.” It could be “Drag King” or “Drag Queen.” So, if the person is a “Drag Queen,” you want to make sure that you say, “Drag Queen.” If it is “Bi-Gender,” you want to make sure you say, “Bi-Gender.” Other identities include: “Butch,” “Two-Spirit,” “Third Sex,” “Gender Fluid,” in other words you switch back and forth from one gender to another depending on the time of the month or day of the week, “Gender Gifted,” “Gender Blender,” and many others. I think there are some fifty-six or so genders now.

We live in an age of gender fluidity and according to the New York City Commission on Human Rights, “If you believe you have been discriminated against,” well there is something like a 911 number to call, instead of 911 it is 311. It’s the New York City Commission on Human Rights, you call them. And you say you have been discriminated against. If you are a man, who feels that you are a woman, and you go to the woman’s locker room, you start to shower there, and someone says, “What are you doing here?” and discriminates against you, you have a hotline number to call.

It is a brave new world, and it is not a joke. Quite frankly, sometimes when you read these things, you this cannot be serious. It is in the Wall-Street Journal in the Health and Wellness section, it has to be a joke. But, it is not a joke. It is dead serious. The culture has changed dramatically. It has changed with vast rapidity, such that today, again as I mentioned earlier on, biology no longer determines your gender, your gender is determined by how you feel at any given moment.

—Hank Hanegraaff

Blog adapted from the September 27, 2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

Apologetics

Politicians Reflecting a Devolved Culture

cri-blog-hanegraaff-hank-politicians

“If anyone wonders what the costs of discrimination are, just ask the people and businesses of North Carolina. Look at what’s happening with the NCAA and the ACC. This is where bigotry leads and we can’t afford it, not here or anywhere else in America” —Hillary Clinton | Campaign speech, Greensboro, North Carolina, September 15, 2016

“My full, complete, unconditional support for marriage equality is at odds with the current doctrine of the church I still attend. But I think that’s going to change too. I think that’s going to change too. And I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis, who surveyed the entire world including mankind and said, ‘It is very good,’ ‘It is very good.’ Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge?’ And to that I want to add: Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it” —Tim Kain | Human Rights Campaign dinner speech, Washington, DC, September 10, 2016


Hillary Clinton was in North Carolina. North Carolina, of course, is one of the battleground states. She had a huge rally and made a big issue out of gender fluidity.

What was interesting, as you listen to Clinton, was that she left no room or place for anyone who wants to thoughtfully consider whether or not gender is determined by biology as opposed to being determined by feelings. No room whatsoever for what the civilized world has always believed prior to her recent dogmatism. If you have the temerity—the reckless boldness to think—that gender might be determined by biology, she has a name for you and its certainly not pleasant. She renders you a bigot. All those who hold to the opposite position are guilty—she stamped it—they are guilty of bigotry. Pure and simple.

If you, for example, you think that perhaps, you are just considering this, perhaps a person with male genitalia should not shower in a public facility with females, well then you rightly belong in her infamous basket of deplorables. You can’t even think about this anymore. It’s a settled issue. You don’t hold her point of view, you are in the basket. You are deplorable. Perhaps even irredeemable.

It is truly astonishing unspeakably radical just a short while ago is now considered to be beyond debate. Any opposition to Hillary Clinton’s point of view is now rank bigotry.

On top of all of that you have Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kain, just a few days ago, addressing America’s largest pro-gay lobby group, and pontificating that the Bible is in full support of same sex marriage. His slight of mind in this regard is simply breathtaking. Says Kain, the “creator in the first chapter of Genesis…surveys the entire world including mankind and said ‘It is very good’” “Who am I to judge,” says Tim Kain, “Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.”

Now here again it is kind of interesting because Kain has changed his point of view ant that quite recently (See “Kain cites Genesis 1…”). I suppose if you have not followed along with Tim Kain, if you are not lockstep with him now, you belong in Hillary’s basket of deplorables as well.

If what Tim Kain believes to be true is true, then the Bible is internally incoherent. When God created male and female to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7), He made a mistake because this self-evidently cannot happen through same-sex unions. Not only that but also God’s affirmation of creation (Gen. 1:31), contra Tim Kain, occurred prior to the fall (Gen. 3). If it applies, as Kain supposes, to that which happened post fall, or after the fall, then God not only affirms homosexuality but He would be affirming everything else—murder, incest, bestiality, adultery, and everything that makes a fallen world desperate for redemption.

When you think about this a little further, here you have a person who potentially could be the second most powerful man in the entirety of the free world who misses the basic message of Scripture. I am not talking about minutia or complex matters. I am talking about the basic message of Scripture. Worst still, he purposefully seeks to mislead a biblically illiterate nation as to what the grand metanarrative of Scripture actually is! We are not just talking about any book here; we are talking about Tim Kain missing the most basic message of the most significant book in the history of humanity. The Bible, of course, has been read by more people, it has been translated in more languages, it has been sold in more copies than any book in the history of humanity, in the history of the world. In fact, it is the very book by which Western Civilization has determined its ethos, its morays, its civil liberties, its art, its language, its science, its jurisprudence, and he can’t understand its basic message or purposefully misleads people.

This is an epic moment in human history. I suppose to some degree it is fair to say that people like Tim Kain simply reflect the culture. The culture has devolved; therefore, now we get people running for the highest office in the land that resort to twisting the biblical text, misunderstanding the biblical text, or even worst, calling those that disagree with their vaunted positions “bigots.”

Hillary Clinton was very, very clear. You keep this up, you keep thinking that biology determines gender—which is what the free world has always thought, in fact what the world has always thought period, even pagans thought that—but if you believe that now, we are going to see that you are punished. These politicians, of course, are pointing out that North Carolina has lost millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars as the result of the NBA, which has put down its iron boot, and now the ACC and other groups pulling their tournaments from North Carolina. She says you keep this up, you are going to pay the economic price. If you do not want to pay the economic price, you do not think, that is not permitted, you follow me lockstep or else.

—Hank Hanegraaff

For further related study, please see the following:

Cultural Free-Fall (Hank Hanegraaff)

The Transsexual Dilemma: A Dialogue about the Ethics of Sex Change (Joe Dallas)

This blog adapted from the monologue on the September 16, 2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

Apologetics

Is the Current Transgender Bathroom Bills Debate a Primary Issue?

Dallas, Joe-TransgenderBathroomPrimarySecondary

Hank Hanegraaff: This is a special edition of the Bible Answer Man broadcast. My special guest is Joe Dallas. We’re going to be talking about a cover story in the Christian Research Journal titled “Of Bathroom Bills and Basic Beliefs,” transgenderism, homosexuality, and things related. I want to start out by talking about an the April 21, 2016 article from USA Today entitled “NBA Should Move All-Star Game from North Carolina Now” by Nancy Armour.

Armour states,

NBA commissioner Adam Silver reiterated Thursday that the All-Star Game won’t be played in Charlotte next February if hatred, bigotry and discrimination continue to be the law of the land in North Carolina…

…North Carolina lawmakers have shown no signs of budging from their hateful stance.

It is also pointed out by Armour that,

Bruce Springsteen, Boston and Pearl Jam have all canceled concerts in North Carolina in protest of the law. PayPal dropped plans for a global operations center in Charlotte, costing the state 400 new jobs.

If those public shamings weren’t enough to prompt a change of heart, no amount of “pretty pleases” by Silver and the NBA will, either.

In Armour’s opinion,

The best way to deal with bullies – there’s no other way to describe North Carolina’s small-minded lawmakers—is to stand up to them. With as popular as basketball is in North Carolina, home to both Steph Curry and Michael Jordan, the NBA pulling the All-Star Game would be the strongest statement yet that intolerance has no place in today’s world.

Armour’s bottom line is this: “North Carolina’s discriminatory law [HB2] is both hurtful and hateful.”

Think of all those words she used in one article: “hateful,” “hurtful,” “bigotry,” “discrimination,” “bullies,” “small minded lawmakers,” and “intolerance.” The rhetoric has ratcheted up on this subject, and I can tell you that there is not a day that has gone by in the last month wherein I did not read two or three front page news articles on this subject. All of that led me to ask Joe Dallas to write a cover story for the current edition of the Christian Research Journal, which is entitled “Of Bathroom Bills and Basic Beliefs.”

Joe Dallas has been on the Bible Answer Man broadcast many times. He is the Program Director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California. It’s a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors. He’s author of some incredible books on human sexuality, including A Strong Delusion and the forthcoming Speaking of Homosexuality. Along with “Of Bathroom Bills and Basic Beliefs,” he also contributed to the same issue of the Journal another article that just fantastic: “Is Gay Christian an Acceptable Identity?” This is must reading for every Christian on the planet. As always Joe, it’s great to have you on the broadcast.

Joe Dallas: Hey, Good being here, Hank.

Hank: I want to start out with a very simple question. Is the issue at hand, the issue which I tried to set forth in the opening of the broadcast; is this a primary issue or a secondary issue?

Joe: That’s an important question because, Hank, if it is a secondary issue, why are we bothering?

I think that if we cannot be persuaded to change our position, as believers, the next tactic will get us to see that position as a secondary issue, which we don’t really need to stand firm upon. We would not break fellowship over say when we may or may not believe the Rapture of the church is going to happen, or over which gifts of the Spirit are available today. We would not call those primary issues.

I would argue that this is a primary issue for a number of reasons, the first being the very account of creation. Hank, we can’t get around this simple fact. To be human is to be sexual. To be sexual is to be male or female. To be male or female is to have an assigned sex given to us with our Creator’s foreknowledge. Those are foundational truths, when we try to alter them, we create madness, and candidly, just listening to you now describing the current scene, what other word could you use other than “madness”?

Hank: Joe, I kind of set this up at the opening of the show, but give us some kind of idea of what you’re driving at, what the subject matter is that we are underscoring in the broadcast, when you talk about “Bathroom Bills and Basic Beliefs.”

Joe: Yes. We’re taking about a couple of things simultaneously. We’re talking about transgenderism, Hank, which is a broad common term covering primarily the more technical term, transsexual. A transsexual is an individual we feels that he or she was born with the wrong body and is in fact a member of the opposite sex. A transsexual male will say, “I know I have the body parts of a male, but all my life, I have felt I am a woman.” That is a condition commonly called gender dysphoria. When a transsexual realizes he or she has that condition a decision has to be made. Either I am going to treat this condition as though it is a problem, which I need to manage and deal with, or I’m going to give into to it, and say the problem is my body not the condition.

Now, traditionally, Hank, we have believed that if someone believes they are in the wrong body the problem is their beliefs. Only recently have we come to begin believing as a culture that the problem is actually the body, and not the beliefs. There’s the rub, because as more people come forward and say “I demand the right to determine for myself what my sex is regardless of what my anatomy testifies,” there is concurrent with that a demand that the culture come into agreement with that assessment. So, more and more people who are saying, “I am female,” even though they have male parts, are also demanding that we refer to them as female and that reverence needs to extend it self even to which bathroom and shower facilities they use.

That is the crux of the controversy we’re facing, really on a national level, but, as you have said, specifically now in North Carolina. However, as you know Hank, President Barack Obama has sent out a letter from a federal position basically saying that schools will need to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, and he is interpreting sex discrimination as discrimination against students who identify as transgender. What we are seeing a resistance to is the federal based move to force women and girls to allow males, anatomical males, into their showers or their bathroom facilities or vice versa, simply based on the male saying “I am a female, and that’s all I need to say.”

Hank: You point this out in the article, but there are people who are in very significant positions in our culture, like Governor Nicky Haley (South Carolina) and Charles Krauthammer (Fox News) who both contented that HB2 represents a fabricated problem?

Joe: Well, I wish they were right. I wish that I was overreacting. I wish that the millions of us who are concerned about this were overreacting. But, Hank, the problem has already shown itself, it’s not fabricated, it’s now historical. There are already a number of cases—which I’ve cited in the article we’re talking about, in this special edition of the Journal—cases which men have seized on this new opportunity to enter into women’s restrooms and changing rooms, and they are not transsexual men, they are simply males, because you really do not—in order to take advantage of these new laws—you don’t have to really be transsexual, all you have to do is say, “I am a woman,” and that gives you access into the women’s facility.

So, there are two reasons we’re concerned about this: One is the very real problem of sexual predators. We know they exist. We know that to some extent they will always prey on victims, but this gives them a “green light” like they never had before.

The second problem is the violation of a girl. The violation she will feel having to share toilet facilities or shower facilities with an anatomical male, whether that male is in any way physically violating her or not, she will feel violated by his presence because of what we would call “natural modesty.” We’re trying to rip natural modesty away from women and force them to accept communal showing and toilet use with anatomical males all for the sake of catering to a very minuscule percentage of the population which is making this demand.

For further related study, please see the following equip.org resources:

The Transsexual Dilemma: A Dialogue about the Ethics of Sex Change (Joe Dallas)

How Do Biblical Ethics Apply to Hermaphrodites? (Hank Hanegraaff)

(Blog adapted from the June 8, 2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast.)

Apologetics, In the News

About Barack Obama’s Bathroom Edict

Hanegraaff, Hank-Barack Obama’s Bathroom Edict

May 17, 2016

I was thinking today of President Barack Obama’s bathroom edict. Do you remember John F. Kennedy envisioned a man on the moon? Obama envisions a man in a woman’s bathroom.

Think about the paradoxes, in our crumbling post-Christian culture, we’re steeped in a naturalistic worldview; therefore, on one hand, children are told that human beings are mere molecules in motion. In other words, there is no room for a subjective first person point of view. Yet, in an ironic twist, children are now to walk lockstep in the belief that they are not determined gender wise by objective biology but by an individual first person subjective conscious feeling regarding gender. Think about it? It is a mind warp.

Today I was reading an article by David French titled “President Obama’s Transgender Proclamation is Far Broader and More Dangerous than You Think.” He’s absolutely right. French points out that on May 9th Vanita Gupta , head of the Civil Rights Division of Justice, said,

Here are the Facts. Transgender men are men—they live, work, and study as men. Transgender women are women—they live, work and study as women.

In other words, according to the Department of Justice, it is a simple fact that a man can have a menstrual cycle, and a woman can have a penis, and that men can get pregnant.

Then 3 days ago, May 13 the administration threatened

Every single public school in America with the loss of federal funds unless it adopts the administration’s point of view that gender is defined not by biology but instead by personal preference.

French makes a number of points. First of which is that

Teaching biology and human physiology will be hate speech unless it’s modified to conform to the new transgender “facts.” Teachers will have to take great pains to note that chromosomes, reproductive organs, hormonal systems, and any other physical marker of sex is irrelevant to this thing called “gender,” which, “factually,” is a mere state of mind.

At least according to this narrative! Secondly,

Any statements of dissent — from teachers or students — will be treated as both “anti-science” and “discriminatory.”

In other words, it’s against science and it’s discrimination.

The argument that a “girl” with a penis remains a boy will be treated exactly the same as an argument that blacks are inferior to whites or Arabs inferior to Jews.

Third point is,

Public schools will now be even further opposed, doctrinally and legally, to orthodox Christianity.

Children are going to be taught, not only that their churches are factually wrong in their assessment and gender but they’re actually bigoted and hateful, kind of like White Supremacist.

Because the Administration’s edict is tied to funding not even civil disobedience can block the enforcement.

Unless schools can declare their full and complete independence from federal funding, they will continue to face escalating pressure from the federal government to use their classrooms to transform American culture and values.

Think about a remark on May 9th of Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She

Very deliberately compared the DOJ’s aggressive actions to guarantee male access to women’s restrooms (and vice versa) to the fight against Jim Crow. These words were an unmistakable declaration of political war against people of orthodox faith.

When she uttered those words she didn’t just grotesquely exaggerate the plight of the transgender, she minimized the reality the memory of past discrimination.

No one understands this subject in my view as well as Joe Dallas, who has an incredible article, “The Transsexual Dilemma” He points out

Traditionally, if a man felt like a woman yet inhabited a male body, his feelings, not his body, were viewed as the problem. They were considered something to be resisted, modified if possible, and contrary to what was. Currently, what one is is being determined by what one feels—an ominous trend when one considers its implications. It is, in essence, an attempt to define reality by desire, knowledge by intuition.

Then Joe talks about a counseling session with a person named Kim.

“I know I’m a man because I feel like one!” Kim screamed at me as our session continued, leaving me stunned that an intelligent, educated woman subordinated a verifiable truth—her born, inalterable state—to subjective (though strongly held) perceptions.

The only way in which we ultimately change culture is by changing the hearts of people. So many people look at the Presidential race that we have going on right now and I heard one key evangelical voice say that now we have a choice of the lesser of evils and therefore we shouldn’t vote in this election. We should abstain from voting. The truth of the matter is the Presidential candidates reflect our culture. That’s the reality. They always will. We should still be involved in voting because our vote is going to have enormous implications for the years that lie before us as yet.

We have to ultimately recognize our responsibility as Christians to be able to give cogent, clear, concise, and compelling answers to the questions that the culture is asking. We need to learn how to reach rather than repel.

When Christians do not understand how to think clearly about these issues they lose by default. The bathroom edict narrative, as I pointed out, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The minute you start thinking about it you see the ironic twist. You see the self-stultifying statements. The problem is the narrative is repeated over and over with such dogmatism that unless you can respond with gentleness and with respect but clearly the thought is that there is no cogent response on the other side of the ledger.

So we as Christians must learn discernment skills and must take seriously our responsibility to train our children in such a way that they themselves can think. They need to learn discernment skills.

—Hank Hanegraaff

(Adapted from the 5/17/2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast)