A school district in Illinois has voted to allow biological males who identify as girls unrestricted access to the female locker room. Privacy stalls are available, but transgender students will no longer be required to use them.

One student was in tears after the ruling, telling reporters she felt “uncomfortable, my privacy’s being invaded, as I am a swimmer. I do change multiple times, naked, in front of other students in the locker room. I understand that the board has an obligation to all students, but I was hoping that they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself.”

Robin Williams was right: “Words and ideas can change the world.” And not always for the better.

Yesterday we discussed God’s call to choose courage when our culture rejects biblical truth and morality. Today, let’s think together about some practical ways we can respond biblically to such opposition.

Ephesians 6 reminds us that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (v. 12).

Using Paul’s military metaphor, let’s consider three imperatives.

One: Remember what is at stake

It’s tempting to accept society’s relativistic narrative that truth is individual and subjective, that evangelical opposition to unbiblical morality is a matter of personal preference rather than a reflection of objective reality.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Continue reading Denison Forum – School district forces females to share locker room with biological males who identify as ‘girls’: Three biblical imperatives →

Imagine a day when your church cannot refuse to hire a person to lead your congregation’s ministry for expectant mothers on the basis of that person’s pro-choice agenda.

Or a day when a staff member at your church cannot be disciplined for encouraging others to have an abortion.

If your church is in New York State, that day has come.

Why Senate Bill 660 is so important

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Senate Bill 660 recently. It specifies that an employer shall not “discriminate nor take any retaliatory personnel action” against employees with respect to their beliefs and choices regarding abortion. The bill makes no exceptions for religious organizations.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) states that the bill “requires all employers—including churches, religious schools, faith-based pregnancy care centers, and religious nonprofits—to disavow their beliefs about abortion, contraception, and sexual morality by forcing them to hire and employ those who refuse to abide by the organizations’ statements of faith.”

As a result, faith-based hospitals in New York State cannot require future or existing employees to abide by their pro-life commitments. Nor can faith-based schools or businesses. Nor can churches.

Two versions of “discrimination”

What do we do when two versions of “discrimination” collide?

Pro-choice advocates believe that pro-life employers discriminate against them by refusing to hire pro-choice employees. They ask you to imagine being told by a pro-life CEO that you cannot work at his engineering firm because you believe abortion should be the decision of the mother rather than the government.

By contrast, pro-life advocates believe that the State of New York discriminates against pro-life employers by forcing them to consider candidates who reject the employer’s commitment to life. They ask you to imagine being the CEO of a Baptist hospital who must hire a pro-choice advocate to lead your pregnancy center.

The logic of the pro-choice position

Each side in this culture war is convinced that its logic should prevail.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that it “need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” claiming that “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” The Court therefore chose to give the mother whose body supports the fetus the right to decide whether or not to abort that fetus.

Such logic extends to the claim that pro-choice advocates are not forcing anyone to choose an abortion. Rather, they say they are working to preserve the mother’s “reproductive rights.” They believe that she, not the government, is in the best position to make such a determination.

Over the years, I’ve heard from people who say they are personally opposed to abortion but do not believe it is the government’s right to make this decision for others. They would say they are “pro-choice” but not “pro-abortion.”

The logic of the pro-life position

By contrast, pro-life advocates are convinced that life begins at conception. We cite clear biblical teachings as well as strong scientific evidence for the humanity of the so-called fetus in his or her mother’s womb.

We agree with the American Declaration of Independence that every person possesses “unalienable rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We therefore believe that the mother’s right to choose should not take precedence over her child’s right to live.

While pro-choice advocates claim that such a position discriminates against the mother, we counter that their position discriminates against the child. The mother may be required to bring a child to term, enduring several months of significant challenges in the process, but her child will then have an entire life to live. If she aborts her child, ending the challenges posed by her temporary pregnancy, her decision is obviously permanent for her child.

And we note that when a child is born, it simply moves from inside his or her mother’s body to outside of it. In New York State, that child can be aborted just moments before his or her birth. By what logic is the intrinsic nature of a baby different when it shifts location?

“Be strong and courageous”

I have taken us down this road today to make a point: Despite the logic of the pro-life position, which I consider to be far superior to that of pro-choice advocates, our society is reaching a tipping point with regard to religious freedom on this issue. If current trends continue, Christians will pay an escalatingly high price for affirming biblical morality on abortion. We are facing similar pressure on LGBTQ issues and euthanasia.

I plan to focus tomorrow on practical ways we can respond biblically to such pressure. For today, let’s decide that we want to.

As Joshua prepared to lead God’s people into an uncharted land and future, the Lord said to him: “Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9).

Note that this word came to Joshua before he began facing Canaanite enemies. The Lord called him to choose courage before he needed courage.

This is because courage does not earn the provision of God—it positions us to receive it. If we will not go into battle, we cannot experience the presence and power of God in the battle.

Is there any price you won’t pay to follow Jesus?

NOTE: Due to requests for print-friendly, text-only versions of The Daily Article, we will now include a link to a downloadable PDF of every Daily Article. Please feel free to save and print these, then share them with your friends, family, church, or community. Today’s Daily Article may be downloaded here, but note the “Download PDF” link below, which is where you may download future Daily Articles.

Denison Forum

Pete Buttigieg has “surged to a 10-point lead in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary,” according to a poll released yesterday. The New York Times reports that he also holds a “commanding lead” in Iowa’s presidential caucuses.

Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard and studied at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. He served in the military in Afghanistan, reportedly speaks eight languages, plays the guitar and piano, and is active in the Episcopal Church. His debate performances have displayed his obvious intelligence and grasp of policy detail. In many ways, he seems an ideal fit for many Democratic voters.

Buttigieg is also gay and is married to his husband, Chasten. An LGBTQ advocacy magazine named him one of fifty “trailblazing individuals who actively ensure society remains moving toward equality, acceptance and dignity for all queer people.” In their view, he is “reshaping politics and driving the religious right crazy in the process.”

How our society has changed on same-sex marriage

As the leader of a nonpartisan ministry, my purpose today is not to endorse or criticize Mr. Buttigieg as a politician. Rather, it is to note the degree to which his popularity highlights our society’s acceptance of homosexuality.

In 2004, 60 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while only 31 percent were in favor. Today, the numbers are reversed: 61 percent support same-sex marriage, while 31 percent oppose it.

By contrast, only 32 percent of non-evangelical Americans have “warm feelings” toward white evangelical Christians, the group most identified for its opposition to same-sex marriage.

A recent essay in the Wall Street Journal notes that 44 percent of Americans aged eighteen to twenty-nine say they identify with no religion; one of the reasons most cited by “nones” for their antipathy is that they “don’t like the positions churches take on political/social issues.” The author, a college professor, adds that some of the “issues” his students object to most often have to do with “women’s reproductive rights and non-heteronormative sexuality, especially same-sex marriage and transgender rights.”

A group of clergy prayed for a Planned Parenthood clinic

My purpose today is not to debate biblical teachings on same-sex relationships (for more here, please see my article, “How does same-sex marriage affect you?” (PDF) and chapters three and four in my book, The State of Our Nation: 7 Critical Issues).

Rather, I’d like to focus today on the confusion wrought in the culture by the conflicting signals Christians are sending on this issue.

Pete Buttigieg and his husband were married in the Episcopal Church. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the United Church of Christ are among other American denominations that either endorse or permit same-sex weddings. By contrast, most Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, and Pentecostal churches in America forbid same-sex weddings, as do the Presbyterian Church of America and many Methodist congregations.

Continue reading Denison Forum – Pete Buttigieg now leads in New Hampshire: Biblical responses to the popularity of the first openly gay presidential candidate →