Gender ideology denies the goodness of the male-female binary and praises all deviations from that binary. This way of thinking implies that intersex conditions are not a terrible affliction to be borne, but actually a blessing to be desired. 

The term “intersex” describes a small percentage of people who are affected by a congenital disorder of sexual development. These congenital disorders give rise to ambiguous sexual traits, causing real difficulty in determining whether an intersex person is male or female, and therefore in deciding what name to give them, what appearance they should adopt, and whether surgery to reconstruct their genitalia is warranted—and, if so, which genitalia to “give” them. There are some cases where, as an intersex child has grown up, he or she has regretted or disagreed with the decisions made in infancy by parents and doctors. These cases are cause for caution and thoughtfulness about how to proceed when a child is born in this condition.[1]
Intersex and Gender Ideology
The intersex phenomenon plays an important role in today’s discussions about sex. Viewed through the lens of gender ideology, people with an intersex condition are understood as a “sexual minority” whose non-conformity puts them at a disadvantage relative to others in society. Their distress is often categorized alongside the various kinds of gender dysphoria that are frequently reported by trans people. In this way, intersex conditions are used to discredit the male-female binary as a foundation for sexual behavior.
This way of thinking about intersex conditions is false in at least two important ways. First, intersex conditions are not evidence that the gender binary is merely a social construct, for the simple reason that they are disorders. People with intersex conditions do not have fully functioning reproductive systems. The terrible trouble that comes with these disorders powerfully confirms the biological normalcy of the male-female binary.
Second, intersex conditions are not evidence that gender dysphoria should be prioritized over biological structures as a criteria for how to treat people. People with intersex conditions certainly do experience grave distress about their sex. Their conditions require parents and doctors to make difficult decisions about how to treat them, and what name and identity to give them. These decisions may be incorrect, and therefore the source of profound distress years later. Such distress is not the same, though, as gender dysphoria reported by unambiguous biological males or females who wish to change their gender. In fact, the two are almost opposites: an intersex condition is a physical problem that causes psychological distress; gender dysphoria is a psychological distress being used to justify destructive hormonal and surgical interventions.
This does not mean that our biology is meaningless, though; it is just that sometimes our biology’s meaning is tragically obscured.
Eunuchs From Birth
It is important to see the deeper problem with gender ideology that leads to such serious confusions. Gender ideology denies the goodness of the male-female binary and praises all deviations from that binary. This way of thinking implies that intersex conditions are not a terrible affliction to be borne, but actually a blessing to be desired. They are so much to be desired, in fact, that people with healthy and normal sex characteristics may wish to undergo hormonal and surgical interventions that will cause some of the same problems experienced by people with intersex conditions.
Jesus provides a kinder and more truthful way to think about intersex conditions in his teaching on eunuchs in Matthew 19:10-12:
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Christians, connected to the true Vine, can show the better way, loving our neighbors (even when we are hated) and loving truth. In a world starving for the right values, God gives our lives true value.  The world is valuable because God created it and Christ died to save it. May God grant us the courage to live like this is true.  

A recent survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal and The University of Chicago found that Americans are, in huge numbers, pulling back from the values that once defined them. Over the last 25 years, the percentage of Americans who described “Patriotism” as either “important” or “very important” fell from 70% to 38%. Those who valued “Religion” fell from 62% to 39%, “Having Children” from 59% to 30%, and “Community Involvement” from 47% to 27%. Even the percentage of Americans valuing “Tolerance for Others” dropped from 80% to just 58%.  Only one value out of ten listed increased: “Money,” from 31% to 43%.  
Bill McInturff is an expert involved with previous iterations of this survey. He told The Wall Street Journal, “Perhaps the toll of our political division, Covid and the lowest economic confidence in decades is having a startling effect on our core values.’’  While economic affairs affect what people consider to be important, this is reversing the proverbial cart and horse. Corrupt societies can be prosperous, but only for a time. Eventually, low trust, rampant injustice, and civic division have consequences. Throughout history, economic crisis has not created a moral vacuum: It reveals it. 
If there is no moral design to reality, or for humanity in particular, what people value is inconsequential. In such a world, there is nothing to be pursued outside of individual expression, which is assumed to lead to happiness and human flourishing. Who cares if people do not value communities, countries, or tolerance? It is the inherent determination of individuals, the pursuit of what they want the most, that will inevitably guide them. We can only follow our own impulses and desires.  
Read More
Related Posts:

Ultimately, evangelism is our only hope.  A Christian nation must come from the bottom up (the hearts of a converted people), not from the top down (political legislation).  Neither will it come from heavy-weight books.  America must be discipled again with the gospel before we can begin to think about being a Christian nation. Jesus commanded us to disciple the nations (and not just a few elect from among the nations), and that includes America. Here is where we must begin. 

The debate is hot as I predicted (Christian Nationalism – Dump the Term While We Still Can).  Dr. Steven Wolfe has led the way with his book titled The Case for Christian Nationalism.  Most critical reviews of his book have been hard-hitting (The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism by Kevin DeYoung).  I do not think the popularity of the book will survive.  I hope Dr. Wolfe does.
The phrase Christian Nationalism sounds like a political movement.  I suppose this is one reason I do not use the term. I prefer the term Christian Nation which is much more rooted in the Bible. The title “A Case for a Christian Nation” would have been more to my liking.
As I view the landscape of the culture behind the book, and the cultures behind the critical reviews, it appears to me that there are some fundamental issues missing in the whole discussion.  Maybe it is my training in mathematics, but from all that I have read, I do not think those on either side are asking the right questions.
Let us deal with two main issues that are missing in this whole discussion.
The Definition of a Nation
Before the rise of modern America, defining a nation was not a difficult task.  I think we have made things too complex.  Maybe, because we live in America, we have become unable to define a traditional nation. The Bible assumes that we know what a nation is because it commands us to disciple them.  Biblically, a nation was defined by four components – language, borders, religion, and common ancestry.
First, In Acts 2:6, on the day of Pentecost, each nation could be identified by a distinct language.  Secondly, in Acts 17:26, Paul tells those on Mars Hill that God has determined the “times and boundaries” of the nations.
Thirdly, all nations have a god or a religion that determines their civil laws and culture.  As Rushdoony said years ago, the source of law in any nation is the god of that nation.  National customs and traditions are often the application of the religion of a particular nation.  For example, Christmas is still a national holiday in secular America.  In a post-Christian society, I suppose it is a holiday just too good to give up. My wife and I are the only ones on our street that go to church, but nearly everyone has their house decorated for Christmas.
Lastly, the word “nation” is derived from the same word from which we get the word “nativity.”  It is the root word for birth.  Nations or countries in history, before America was born, were formed from people with common ancestors like the nation of Edom, the nation of Ammon, or the nation of Moab; or from a common region of people who shared common traits, like the land of the giants (Anakim).  In the time of Christ, Rome was an empire, but Israel was a nation. The recent world wars were fought by nations mostly defined by these four markers, perhaps except for America.  Sadly, the mere historical recognition of this attribute today harbors the risk being called a racist.
Although originally the United States consisted of white Europeans, we have decided that we can dispense with the ancestor marker and create a land mixed with different ethnicities and nationalities. This is often justified by an appeal to the universality of the gospel.  The universality of the gospel may be ideal for the church community, but in my opinion, the universality of the gospel cannot hold together a multi-ethic nation unless that nation is first a Christian nation.
America is still an experiment in process, and the last chapter of our history has yet to be written.  We are becoming an Empire that holds subservient nations (ethnic groups) together by the force of law.  Today, we define our nation by an idea (democracy will keep us together) rather than by the four attributes previously mentioned.  Whether we can defy these four historical makers, we will see.  Right now, with the rise of CRT, BLM, Wokism, and open borders, our future looks dim.
Was America Ever Christian?
To answer this question, we must go back and define some concepts (my mathematics background again). There are three markers in the United States that could be used to consider whether we were ever a Christian nation.  I call them social, command, and legal.
First, socially America was indeed a Christian nation at her beginnings.  Christian values permeated our people and our institutions. This is generally considered beyond debate.  We do not need a new book pleading for something we want to be (a Christian nation), when we have plenty of history of what we once were (a Christian nation).
I remember not long ago when marriage was only between a man and a woman, abortion was illegal, and locally owned businesses were closed on Sunday and Wednesday evenings (for church prayer meetings).  Church steeples still cover the landscape of our nation.  These were a just a few of the many attributes that made us a Christian nation. Thus, from a social perspective America was originally a Christian nation. With the rise of Neo-Marxism coming out of our universities and the decline of the church, the Christian social fabric of our nation is dying.
Secondly, I use the word command to describe the structure of the American governmental system.  Most state constitutions originally had a religious test in order to hold office which included oaths to the Triune God or to the Bible.  When America was defined as a confederation of states with civil power posited in those states, America was a Christian nation.
The States were the loci of power. The States could command their people in accordance with their own constitutions and Christian principles. It is interesting to note that the State of Tennessee today codifies in its Constitution that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.   However, in essence, this is null and void because state constitutions are basically irrelevant in the present system of civil government where the power of command is now lodged at the federal level.
As a result of the Civil War, the pivot point of the command component shifted from the States to Washington, D.C. With this shift, America ceased to be a Christian Nation.  Thus, if we use the command component as a baseline, and the fact that at one time America consisted of nation-states, we can conclude that America was originally a Christian nation. With this change in the command component, we are no longer a Christian nation.
Thirdly, from a legal perspective, since the loci of command has shifted to the federal government, the United States Constitution is now the dominant legal document.  It is the final reference point for all legal matters, as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Originally, from a legal perspective, America as a confederation of states was a Christian nation.  Not so now.
It is my view that the United States Constitution was never a Christian document.  We must realize that our founding forefathers had clay feet just like us.  I believe George Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Convention) was a Christian man, but I think his commitment to the Masonic Lodge (with its unitarian god) was greater than his commitment to the Church.  Ben Franklin, a prominent presence at the Convention, was a deist in addition to being a Mason.
James Madison (not a Mason) studied under Rev. John Witherspoon at what is now Princeton University, but he graduated with a commitment to the perspective of Scottish Realism and Natural Law (learned from Witherspoon).  Religion was good for civil order, but Christian denominations served America best by fighting with each other.  In his mind, this would keep them from establishing a national church.
Christianity so permeated society in early America that our founders could not foresee what would be happening in a little over 200 years.  In predicting the long-term consequences of present actions, we all have our blind spots.
I believe this decision to become legally a secular nation on the federal level during the Constitution Convention was deliberate. There was a real disconnect between the lawyers at the Convention and the clergy in their pulpits.  There was no reference to the Triune God of the Bible or his law in the Constitution.  No religious test was allowed on the national level as it was required on the state level in most states.
Luther Martin, a delegate to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention from the State of Maryland, said of the debate on this issue:
“The part of the system, which provides that no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the Convention, and without much debate.  However, there were some members so unfashionable (like Mr. Martin) as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments, would be welcome security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” 
Some argue that a religious test was not needed because the Constitution was intended as a procedural manual only (Rushdoony).  Others argue that since the states had religious tests then none was needed in the U. S. Constitution (DeMar).  Some, like myself, reject both these arguments.  I think those who authored the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing.  They were creating a secular national government based on what they conceived as Natural Law.  Thus, welcome to modern America, the product of a secular United States Constitution.
A religious test in the United States Constitution would have made America legally a Christian nation on a national level, but our forefathers chose a different structure.  With the rise of power in the hands of the federal government supplanting the state governments, America legally forfeited its status as a Christian nation.  Legally, the God of the Bible no longer exists, and if he does exist, he is no longer relevant.
One Christian clergyman saw it all very clearly in his own day. In 1788 the Rev. Henry Abbot was a member of the North Carolina State Convention which was called to ratify the proposed United States Constitution.  Representing his constituents, he spoke to the body of delegates and prophetically said:
“The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there is no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.”
His constituents saw the issues very clearly. Prophets indeed! The United States Congress in our own time has members who are homosexuals, transgenders, and Muslims.  They are voting on laws to regulate Christian thought and action. Since there is no religious test, the concept of positive law (the law is what I say it is) has replaced biblical law in both judicial and legislative processes.  This does not bode well for our nation.
Conclusion
Foundational definitions matter.  This is what is missing in the current discussion on topics like Christian Nationalism.  One thing is for certain, from what I call the social, command, and legal perspectives, America is no longer a Christian nation. The alarm is now being heard very clearly. Christians are dealing with grief, and are scrambling to do something about it.  Some like Dr. Wolfe are writing books. Some, reluctantly, are adopting his terms.  Others are attacking the writers of such books without offering foundational definitions.  
Yes, ultimately, evangelism is our only hope.  A Christian nation must come from the bottom up (the hearts of a converted people), not from the top down (political legislation).  Neither will it come from heavy-weight books.  America must be discipled again with the gospel before we can begin to think about being a Christian nation. Jesus commanded us to disciple the nations (and not just a few elect from among the nations), and that includes America. Here is where we must begin.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

Related Posts: