Josh Benner

Tag: lgbt

  • Parents allowing children to decide their gender: why?

    child-childrens-baby-children-s.jpg
    A recent article from NBC talks about a Massachusetts family who are raising their twin boys without a gender. The idea behind this parenting philosophy is to allow the twins to decide for themselves when they’re older.

    In the story, the mother made the fair point about how we do have ways how we stereotype little boys and little girls that aren’t always helpful. Many raise girls to be prissy and “girlie,” while boys are raised to be tough and to not cry. These aren’t necessary aspects of masculinity and femininity, on that point, I agree. However to combat those stereotypes, we don’t need to raise children without gender. There are other, healthier approaches.

    It’s absolutely unnecessary for a person to take an otherwise normal, healthy baby and to then introduce confusion into their child’s life. Is letting a person “decide” their gender so important?

    I hear people talk about how complicated gender is.

    For the vast majority of people, it’s pretty simple. And so I return to my question, why introduce confusion? Why introduce additional complexity?

    I know to some this seems progressive and enlightened.

    It’s unwise.

    I saw a video a few years ago of a British woman who was doing this with her son. It’s heartbreaking.

    If your approach to parenting is doing something that society has historically not done and which contradicts the wisdom of human experience: it’s wrong. Raising a child is not the time to try new experiments.

    The idea that you can raise a kid without gender and then let them decide their gender is self-defeating.

    The idea that you can take a baby boy or girl and raise this child neutral of gender, and later let them decide their gender, it’ll be in the context of them having been raised as unaware to their gender. When they decide which gender they want to be, it’ll be from a context of not having been raised according to a particular gender. It’s not like you’ll decide you want to be a boy and instantly know how to do it. You weren’t shown! You weren’t taught! You were intentionally kept in the dark.

    Part of the justification that I’ve seen is that this helps a child to embrace their identity. I would argue that it actually raises a child ignorant of an important aspect of their identity. This style of parenting takes away the foundation of manhood and womanhood.

    And for what purpose?

    According to a 2016 study by the Williams Institute, transgendered people make up just over one half of one percent of the American population. And the transgender life is not an easy one. Tragically, the rate of attempted suicides within that community is 40% according to The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey.

    With the Massachusetts family, the mother is an engineer and talks of the gender stereotypes in her field, how it is often male-dominated. That’s probably true. But how does it help that to raise boys as if they’re not?

    Gender comes from God. It’s fundamental to his creation of humanity. God made men and women and we are both created in his image. We should celebrate masculinity and femininity. Men and women compliment each other.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

    Connect with me!
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Instagram

     

     

  • SCOTUS gay marriage decision: 3 years later

    White_House_rainbow_colors_to_celebrate_June_2015_SCOTUS_same-sex_marriage_ruling.jpegIt was only three years ago today that the Supreme Court which guaranteed the right to marry for same-sex couples.

    It feels a lot longer ago than three years.
    It’s amazing how fast it all happened.
    Many years ago, the argument for recognizing the legal validity of same-sex marriages and unions was the “what if two people are in a loving relationship for many years and one is in the hospital. Their partner can’t visit them?”
    We’re so far beyond that now.
    A celebrity says something critical of same-sex marriage and there’s a backlash, efforts to boycott and essentially destroy the person.
    Tolerance has been traded for tyranny.
    The conversation has been crushed on this issue.

    State after state after state voted against it. 32 of 33 states where this was voted on, voted no. In 13 of those states, the vote wasn’t even close, with more than 70 percent of people voting to ultimately preserve the traditional American definition of a marriage.

    And now, it’s a fundamental right. And now, if a business owner doesn’t want to support it, he’s a hateful and bigoted. The public arena does not tolerate dissent, it doesn’t tolerate having any moral opinion on the matter other than enthusiastic support and affirmation.

    America has changed the definition of love, promoting the idea that you cannot love a person and simultaneously disagree with an aspect of his or her life. But love is not purely about affirmation. Everyone knows that. We see people do things all the time where we disagree with them but still love them.
    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
    -1 Corinthians 13:4-7
    We flourish when we live in accordance with Godly wisdom. God’s ways are better than our ways. True joy and purpose is found in living for God, desiring to honor and follow God. Based on the Bible, it is my firm conviction that same-sex relationships are fundamentally inconsistent with this and are sinful.

    Love is meant to be unconditional. Love doesn’t mean to always love everything someone does but it means to love a person where they are today. Love is loving a person even if they never do live in agreement with what we think is moral or right.

    Love is also ultimately wanting the best for someone.
    In Evangelical circles, there have sadly been many examples of unloving treatment towards the LGBT community. This is tragic. Culturally, we’ve been losing the public discussion on LGBT issues.
    Part of the mistake that we make is we start at the wrong place. The Church shouldn’t be trying to save people to heterosexuality. We need to build relationships and spread the gospel. It is God who transforms souls and lives.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • The Christian law school that wasn’t: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Trinity Western University

    Flag_of_Canada_(Pantone).svg.png
    Today the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Trinity Western University, a Christian liberal arts college which has been trying to establish a law school.
    From the legal brief:

    The Law Societies of British Columbia and Ontario had the power to deny approval to a proposed law school that would have required students to follow a religiously-based code of conduct restricting sexual behaviour, the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Students and faculty at TWU are required to follow a code of conduct. Among other things, this code of conduct forbids any sexual relations except for in a marriage between a man and a woman.

    After the school was turned down by the two law societies, TWU appealed the decision, which worked its way up to the Supreme Court who ruled against them today.

    Quoting again from the legal brief:

    The “public interest” included promoting equality by ensuring equal access to the legal profession, supporting diversity within the bar, and preventing harm to LGBTQ law students. Neither Law Society was stopping someone from following his or her own religious beliefs (including following the covenant if s/he wanted to). They only prevented TWU from enforcing beliefs on other members of the law school community.

    That last sentence is striking to me. Part of the issue is that TWU would have been “enforcing beliefs on other members of the law school community.” It’s not doing that because people have choice on if they go to that school or not. No other law school in Canada has that policy.
    This is a loss for religious liberty in Canada.
    Why can’t a law student have an option (one option) to go to a law school with a university that has Christian values at the core of its mission?
    Traditional Christian values are often criticize for being intolerant.
    In Canada (and largely in the United States), there is this push for LGBT tolerance that is increasing becoming intolerant of views that disagree, especially Christians who disagree.
    If you don’t support what they’re doing, then don’t go to school there. But don’t take the option away entirely.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian baker

    1024px-Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_-_Roberts_Court_2017.jpg
    Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple who was getting married.

    This decision only scratches the surface of the issue. It does not give every Christian who works in a creative field (baking, photography, etc) permission to refuse services for a same-sex wedding.

    I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar but it appears to be on an inevitable crash course for another Supreme court decision. Is it a matter of individual liberty? Whereby a person reserves the right to refuse service? Or is it discrimination and the violation of law?

    People on both sides of this issue are very polarized. If private business owners do have the legal right to refuse service, some draw analogies to people refusing services to African Americans before passage of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.

    Persecution takes a variety of forms. There are absolutely people who seek to persecute Christians for their beliefs under the tyranny of law. With Jack Phillips, a couple attempted to force this man to comply. There have been numerous legal victories for the gay rights movement over the last few years. But some seek to crush any dissenters. There have been other businesses who have faced threats, backlash, and thousands of dollars in legal fees for standing by convictions.

    Today’s decision does not further enshrine religious liberty. It has more to do with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and their hostility towards Phillips than if Christians have a general liberty to refuse services in situations which conflict with their faith.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • California is NOT banning Bible sales

    900px-Flag_of_California.svg.png

    I’ve seen stories circulating about California banning the Bible. I’m also seeing some people sharing links from various websites (none of them are major news sites) talking about this ban.

    All of this is in relation to California Assembly Bill 2943, a bill which is related to “sexual orientation change efforts” also known as “conversion therapy,” which are therapeutic methods aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender based on psychological and/or spiritual interventions.

    Among the headlines I’m seeing:

    “Liberty counsel warning: California about to ban Bible sales”

    “One step closer to law: could a California bill ultimately lead to the banning of Bibles?”

    “Just in: liberal California lawmakers propose bill to ban sale of Bibles”

    “Developing: California pushes bill that appears to ban sale of Bibles.”

    There are cries of censorship, violating the first amendment. I’ve seen tweets that show the Nazis burning books.

    Since these therapies can be done as commercial business, consumer protection laws would therefore apply.

    From the bill:

    Courts, including in California, have recognized the practice of sexual orientation change efforts as a commercial service, andservice. Therefore, claims that sexual orientation change efforts are effective in changing an individual’s sexual orientation, may constitute unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices under state consumer protection laws. This bill intends to make clear that sexual orientation change efforts are an unlawful practice under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

    To say that this law is a ban on the Bible in the Great State of California is a falsehood. To anyone who disagrees with that, show me where it says that?

    It doesn’t.

    I feel like there are websites that are writing headlines which misrepresent the facts of this law, for the sake of people clicking on their links. One of the people who’s addressed the law is a man in California who’s running for governor. He’s furthering the myth about what this law does. That seems to be fear mongering.

    We need to be intellectually honest. California is not working on passing a law that bans sales of the Bible.

    I’ve already said the bill doesn’t explicitly set forth a ban. Where in the bill does it implicitly give the right to make a ban on Bible sales?

    I realize that there are some people in this country who are very hostile to Christianity and the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that they’re tyrannical to the point of wanting a ban. And even if a small fringe did want that, it wouldn’t work. This country is 75% Christian.

    Also, let’s say that this did happen. How do you ban the sale of Bibles in a state? People have smart phones where they can DOWNLOAD a Bible. People have Amazon where they can order the Bible from another state. There are independent book stores that sell used books. Even closed off countries with totalitarian rulers who try to actually ban Bibles struggle to do that.

    But that’s not what is happening.

    There are plenty of issues in this country related to religious liberty. California banning the Bible is not one of them.

    I do believe there can be people who really do seek counsel for SOCE. I do think that this bill could infringe upon what therapists and counselors are able to do in working with those clients. From that perspective, I do see how there could be an infringement of religious liberties. And that’s an issue. However that’s a different issue than banning Bible sales.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.