Written by Christopher F. Rufo |
Tuesday, September 5, 2023
If biology, human nature, and traditional ethics are seen as impediments, rather than as guides, then rational restraints no longer remain on what can be done; the only real limitation is the imagination. And the human mind, untethered from moral limits, can conjure up nightmares. The surgeon, armed with a scalpel and a genital-nullification robot, becomes the new arbiter of human nature.

The debate about transgender medicine is shifting. Legislators in 20 states have recently passed bills to restrict transgender medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgeries, for minors. And the tide of public opinion appears to be moving against “gender-affirming care,” a euphemism for child sex-change procedures not supported by the evidence and that often cause devastating consequences. Preventing such procedures for patients under age 18 has to be the baseline.
But opponents of gender medicine should not celebrate prematurely—the battle is far from won. And while restrictions on such procedures for minors are essential, more scrutiny should be focused on a lesser-known practice: “non-binary” surgeries for adults.
Curtis Crane is one of the doctors leading this movement. Crane is a University of Iowa and Dartmouth College-trained urologist and plastic surgeon who specializes in transgender medical interventions, including experimental non-binary surgeries. 
In 2015, Crane received a flurry of publicity as an innovator in vaginoplasty, which involves castrating and creating an artificial vagina for “male-to-female” patients, and phalloplasty, which involves creating and installing an artificial penis for “female-to-male” patients. He boasted of a one- to two-year waitlist and claimed to have one of the highest volumes of transgender surgeries in the United States.
Since then, business has boomed. Crane operates clinics in San Francisco, California, and Austin, Texas, employs a team of five doctors, and conducts procedures on more than 1,000 patients per year. As part of this caseload, his practice has veered into the disturbing new territory of non-binary surgery, which includes castration, eunuch, and nullification procedures, which Crane describes as the process of “removing all external genitalia to create a smooth transition from the abdomen to the groin.” Crane has also designed and performed hundreds of non-binary surgeries in which he fashions together both male and female genitalia for a single individual. That is, he creates an artificial penis for a woman, while retaining her vagina; or creates an artificial vagina for a man, while retaining his penis.
Crane recounted the story of performing his first non-binary genital surgery in a question-and-answer session for potential patients. “In the beginning of my practice, within the first year, I’d say, I had a trans man come to me, and he wanted a phalloplasty, but he wanted to keep his vagina,” Crane recalled.
Read More 
Related Posts:

We must be prepared to contend for God as our Creator and all that it entails. We are not cosmic accidents that must build our own meaning in life; we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We are wonderfully made because of the special attention that the Creator placed in making humanity. We are fearfully made because of the responsibility and accountability that He has also placed upon us. Neither are we the products of an impersonal god. Our greatest hope is not to align ourselves more fully with the universe but to know our Creator and be known by Him. Such a task is rightly both wonderful and fearful.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:1-3 ESV

Albert Einstein once wrote:
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past places such vast power in the hands of priests… The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.[1]
Although Einstein conceded the probable existence of an impersonal, transcendent deity, his emphasis upon striving only toward rational knowledge rather than “blind faith” is the materialistic philosophy that has governed modern thinking since the Enlightenment. Interestingly, Einstein did admit that not everything could be rationalized; indeed, he “considered the comprehensibility of the world to be a miracle, an eternal mystery, which atheist have no hope of explaining.”[2] Of course, if the world did come into existence purely by chance, then we have no reason whatsoever to expect it to be comprehensible and to adhere to laws of reason. Yet here it is. Somehow. Making every discovery, as Einstein says, a miracle.
Recognizing many of the inconsistencies of the materialistic worldview, it is increasingly popular to openly profess faith in the kind of impersonal deity that Einstein somewhat believed in. Taking a cue from Hinduism and Buddhism, that deity is often simply called the universe or perhaps Mother Earth, as environmentalism increasingly reveals its own religiosity. And its popularity can be seen in current trends such as the resurgence of manifesting on TikTok, which was an idea that became popular in the 2000s through The Secret. Sadly, the word of faith movement baptized manifesting and called it Christian.
Despite what some claim, there is no lack of faith today; rather, there is a great deal of it. of course, the real question is what kind of faith, and, more importantly, faith in what?
As we begin Hebrew’s magisterial chapter on faith, let us pray for the Spirit’s enlightenment to behold true faith, that by it we may behold our God.
What Is Faith? // Verse 1
So far in the sermon-letter called Hebrews, we have concluded the very great explanation at the heart of the epistle on the superior priesthood of Jesus. From that extended and essential teaching, the author gave us three commands: draw near to God, hold fast our confession, and stir up one another to love and good works. He then proceeded to stir us up first with a stern and sober warning followed by a rousing word of comfort and encouragement. In that word, the author sought to strengthen his readers for endurance in the faith by setting their eyes backward onto their previous faithfulness under affliction and forward onto the blessed hope of Christ’s return to “save those who eagerly wait for him” (9:28). Our previous text concluded with a citation from Habakkuk 2:3-4, which spoke of God’s righteous ones who live by faith and also those who shrink back in fear and are destroyed. The final verse rings like a coach’s speech before a big game: “But we are not those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls” (10:39).
That great rallying cry flows directly into chapter 11, which is one of the most beloved passages of Scripture. Often called the Hall of Faith, the author will take us through several examples of Old Testament saints who did not shrink back from the task that God set before them; rather, they had faith and preserved their souls. They each held fast to God’s great promise, even they did not receive those promises in their lifetimes. They drew near to God by faith and walked in obedience to Him, despite the unbelief of the world around them. Yet these great examples of persevering faith properly begin in verse 4. Here in these first three verses, the author establishes for us what faith is (v. 1), why it is vital (v. 2), and where it must begin (v. 3).
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
This first verse is often set forth as the biblical definition of faith, and it certainly is. However, we should take care to note that this is not an exhaustive definition of faith. The author is not giving us a dictionary definition; he is giving us a definition in motion with the flow of his argument. A more exhaustive definition of faith might be what we read in Question 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism:
Q. What is true faith?
A. It is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also an hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
The verse before certainly matches that definition, yet notice that the author of Hebrews clearly desires to emphasize that faith is what is not yet present or visible. Indeed, there are two clauses in this verse that both flow from the opening words ‘Now faith is…” Thus, we are meant to understand this verse as saying to us: “now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and faith is the conviction of things not seen.” The first is temporal faith, and the second is spatial faith.

Things hoped for are future realities that are not yet present. Things not seen are present realities that are invisible to us. Both require faith since they cannot be touched or seen, and the author has revealed to us that the promises of God fit into both categories.

The author has repeatedly emphasized the unseen reality of Christ’s present rule over all creation at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. Although Stephen and John were privileged to be given a supernatural vision of the reigning Christ, they are as exceptional as Enoch was with death, and none of us should expect to receive such a sight. Instead, it is a present reality that is as invisible to us as the angels that are undoubtedly worshiping alongside us this morning.
As the Heidelberg noted, the forgiveness of our sins must also be received by faith. Although there are outward fruits of having such a faith and baptism is a visible symbol of our forgiveness in Christ, our salvation fundamentally comes through hearing the word of the gospel and trusting truly in Christ’s once for all sacrifice to pay the debt of our sins. The gospel must be heard, not seen.
As we noted last week, the return of Christ is the most essential thing for which we hope. Faith is required to place our assurance in that glorious Day that will arrive at a time known only to God. Yet upon that Day, we also have a multitude of hopes attached. We have hope in the resurrection of our physical bodies yet in a glorified state that will be incapable of sinning any longer. We have hope in God’s judgment of the wicked, of His execution of vengeance upon all who continued in their rebellion against Him. We have hope in the creation of a new heavens and a new earth, in which God Himself will dwell forevermore in visible midst of His people. Indeed, we have hope in the beatific vision, that we will see our Lord face to face, and, in that sight, all sad things will come untrue.
Both future promises and present invisibilities require faith since they lie beyond the material realm. However, notice that the author’s point is most certainly not that faith is a blind leap into the dark. As Hughes writes, “True faith is neither brainless nor a sentimental feeling. It is a solid conviction resting on God’s words that makes the future present and the invisible seen.”[3] Indeed, faith is the instrument by which we latch ourselves onto truths that are larger than our own empirical experience. As Dennis Johnson notes:
Most translations present this verse as describing the subjective experience of faith as “assurance” and “conviction.” The Greek terms chosen by our author focus instead on the objective reality of faith and could perhaps be translated, “Faith is the reality [substance] of things hoped for, the evidence that proves things unseen” (cff. KJV, NKJV)… Here he has chosen “reality/substance” and paired it with a term that refers to a legal argument substantiated by evidence (elenchos; Job 13:6; 16:21; 23:7 LXX). Faith goes beyond our internal attitudes to put us in touch with realities that are “not seen” (because they are still future; 11:7; cf. Rom. 8:24).[4]
Read More
Related Posts:

The modern sexual revolution was responding to real problems. But its solution, Perry argues, has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It hasn’t delivered on its promises. Young people are having less (and less satisfying) sex than their parents or grandparents; divorce, abortion, sexual violence, and pornography have all shot up. And women have borne the brunt of it.

Louise Perry has written a feminist critique of the sexual revolution, and it’s brave, excoriating, and magnificent.
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution isn’t a Christian book. Perry’s critique is rooted in evolutionary biology, feminist passion, and empirical observation, not biblical interpretation or theology. (We could of course argue that feminist passion is ultimately a product of biblical interpretation and theology, but that discussion can wait for another day.) Her language will offend some readers. She mentions practices and depravities that most of us would prefer never to think about. The devastating consequences of sexual “liberation” on vulnerable young women, particularly through loveless sex (chap. 4), pornography (chap. 5), sexual violence (chap. 6) and prostitution (chap. 7) are unsparingly exposed through analysis and personal narratives that can be deeply uncomfortable to read.
But it’s an outstanding book nonetheless: courageous, punchy, compellingly argued, and well written. From the haunting epigrams on the opening page to the delightfully robust conclusion, Perry—a New Statesman columnist and campaigner against male sexual violence—mounts a full-on assault against the sexual free market, the denial of male-female difference, the exploitation of women, the trivialization of sex, and “the matricidal impulse in liberal feminism that cuts young women off from the ‘problematic’ older generation” (189–90). If you have the stomach for it—and if you don’t, you can always skip chapters 5 to 7—you would do well to read it.

Sexual Differences
Perhaps the best way of summarizing The Case Against the Sexual Revolution is through the chapter titles: “Sex Must Be Taken Seriously” (chap. 1), “Men and Women Are Different” (chap. 2), “Some Desires Are Bad” (chap. 3). It almost sounds like a preaching series based on the opening chapters of Genesis. The echoes of Christian anthropology continue throughout the book, as Perry engages the various ways in which sex is distorted and abused in our culture (chap. 4–7) and concludes with “Marriage is Good” (chap. 8) and “Listen to Your Mother” (conclusion). Yet the rationale for each of these statements is empirical, not exegetical, and draws on peer-reviewed research rather than biblical authority.
Sexually speaking, Perry explains, men and women have different interests. These interests are rooted in biology and are as old as the hills. Some relate to the basic facts of life: the male contribution to creating a child takes minutes and costs nothing, while for the female it takes months and could cost everything. Some emerge from psychological differences, such as the statistical reality that men have a much higher desire for sociosexuality, or sexual variety, than women. Some are simply a function of anatomy; the differences in strength and speed between the average man and the average woman mean that men pose an incalculably greater physical risk to women than vice versa.
Every society has to work out how to balance these interests, and no way of doing it is flawless. But, Perry argues, “Western sexual culture in the twenty-first century doesn’t properly balance these interests—instead, it promotes the interests of the Hugh Hefners of the world at the expense of the Marilyn Monroes” (10–11). Powerful men win. Vulnerable women lose.
Not All Desires Are Good
At the heart of this culture is the disenchantment of sex. Sex means nothing for the liberal feminists Perry is challenging; sexual intercourse is just a form of physical recreation, sex work is just a form of work, and any restrictions on either are nothing but outdated, patriarchal, Victorian prudery. Any way in which you want to express your sexuality is good, by definition: “A woman should be able to do anything she likes, whether that be selling sex or inviting consensual sexual violence, since all of her desires and choices must necessarily be good” (14).
But this, for Perry, is simply not true. Some desires are bad. “Liberal ideology flatters us by telling us that our desires are good and that we can find meaning in satisfying them, whatever the cost,” she explains. “But the lie of this flattery should be obvious to anyone who has ever realized after the fact that they were wrong to desire something, and hurt themselves, or hurt other people, in pursuing it” (20).

Related Posts: