What does the Bible teach about gender and sexuality?
By / Sep 7

Welcome to the all-new ERLC Podcast! In this first series of our new format, we will explore the issues of gender and sexuality and discover what the Bible teaches us about these controversial, but important cultural topics. 

During this episode, you will hear from expert voices about:

  • What it means to be made in the image of God;
  • God’s good design for all people;
  • How the world was corrupted by the fall in Genesis 3; and
  • How to live out countercultural beliefs about these topics. 

While the format is new, our goal for the podcast remains the same. The ERLC seeks to help you think biblically about today’s cultural issues.

We’ve been listening to you to better understand the questions you’re facing and how the ERLC can help on matters related to gender and sexuality. 

On this updated format of the ERLC Podcast, we want to give you brief, informed, practical, and biblically-based answers to important cultural issues.

You are not the only one asking these questions. Just like you, we want to hold fast to the teachings of Scripture as we seek to raise our families, serve our churches, and love our neighbors in an ever-evolving and often challenging cultural landscape. 

We are glad you are here and look forward to walking alongside you as we challenge one another to think biblically and critically on matters of gender and sexuality so that we can live in the world, but not of it—all for the sake of the gospel.

Explainer: How bans on transgender athletes protect fairness in women’s sports
By / Aug 25

In recent years, there has been a growing debate surrounding the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. After a wave of initial support for making such accommodations, the tide is turning. A Gallup poll finds that a larger majority of Americans now (69%) than in 2021 (62%) say transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender. Likewise, fewer endorse transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their current gender identity—26%, down from 34%.

During this same time period, an increasing number of sports associations and states have recognized that bans on transgender athletes are necessary to protect the integrity and fairness of women’s sports. Here is what you should know about the issue.

What are bans on transgender athletes in sports?

Bans on transgender athletes in sports refer to policies that prevent people who identify as transgender from participating in sports that are consistent with their gender identity. The bans are most commonly applied to biological males who identify as transgender (transgender women). Few biological women who identify as transgender (transgender men) have sought access to competitions against male athletes. 

Why are such bans on transgender athletes necessary?

There are four primary reasons such bans are needed. 

To uphold biological reality.

God created male and female as distinct and complementary sexes. Biological differences between males and females are to be honored and cherished rather than used to gain an unfair advantage. By upholding biological reality, we can ensure that women’s sports remain a space for female athletes to compete on equal footing.

To ensure fair competition.

A key reason why such bans are needed is because biological differences between males and females can provide an unfair advantage in certain sports. Male puberty can result in physiological advantages such as increased muscle mass, bone density, and lung capacity, which can impact athletic performance. By allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports, it is argued that the level playing field for women is compromised. Maureen Collins, writing for Alliance Defending Freedom, has highlighted about a dozen examples of how women have been disadvantaged by competing against men.

To protect women’s opportunities.

Girls and women should have equal opportunities to excel in sports without facing unfair competition. Title IX, a federal law in the United States, was designed to ensure equal athletic opportunities for women. Allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports limits the opportunities available to women, as scholarships, records, and other achievements may be dominated by transgender athletes.

To preserve the integrity of women’s sports.

Maintaining separate categories for males and females is essential to preserve the integrity and essence of women’s sports. Women’s sports have historically provided a platform for female athletes to showcase their skills and achievements, and allowing transgender women to compete undermines this tradition.

Bans on transgender athletes in girls and women’s sports are necessary measures to protect the sanctity, fairness, and opportunities of women’s sports. Christians should uphold biological reality, protect women’s opportunities, and preserve the sanctity of women’s sports by supporting such bans.  

Where are such bans on transgender athletes currently in place?

As of August 2023, 23 states in the United States have enacted laws to ban transgender athletes from participating in sports aligned with their gender identity

These bans apply to both K-12 and collegiate level sports teams. The states with bans on transgender athlete participation in college sports include:

Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in enforcing bans on transgender athletes in West Virginia, affirming the constitutionality of such restrictions.

In April, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that would bar transgender women and girls from participating in athletic programs designated for women. The bill has no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate or being signed into law by President Biden. 

However, Biden’s Department of Education proposed a rule change that—while not allowing a blanket ban—would give universities and K-12 schools the discretion to limit the participation of transgender students if they conclude that including transgender athletes could undermine competitive fairness or potentially lead to sports-related injuries.

Which sports organizations ban biological males from competing against girls and women?

In 2022, the Union Cycliste Internationale, the governing body for cycling, announced a testosterone limit of 2.5 nmol/L for biologically male cyclists who want to compete with women.

Around that same time, FINA, the governing body for swimming, barred biological males from competing in women’s events.

World Rugby also has a complete ban on biological males competing in international women’s rugby “because of the size, force- and power-producing advantages conferred by testosterone during puberty and adolescence, and the resultant player welfare risks this creates.”

Earlier this year, World Athletics (WA), the governing body for track and field and other running competitions, implemented a policy that biological males who went through male puberty can no longer compete in women’s events at international competitions. WA also ruled that to compete as a woman, athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD), who have congenital conditions that cause atypical sex development, must have a testosterone level below 2.5 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) for at least 24 months before an international competition.

Southern Baptists engage AI with ‘eschatological hope’
By / Jun 19

“Southern Baptist messengers from around the country are back home after spending two days in New Orleans for their annual meeting last week. While there, they addressed topics such as America’s immigration crisis, the controversies surrounding so-called ‘gender transitions’ – and a biblical response to artificial intelligence.”

Read the full article here.

The ERLC upholds God’s design for sexuality in the public square
By / Dec 22

Marriage and the family unit were established by God at the very beginning of creation as the first institutions. Genesis 1 and 2 shows us how God fashioned man and woman in his image, brought them together as one flesh, and gave them the charge to be fruitful and multiply, or bear children. God works in many ways, but it’s through marriage and family that some of his greatest blessings abound to the world and bring about flourishing.

Because of the importance of these God-ordained institutions in preserving and prospering our society, the ERLC will continue to advocate for policies that maintain and protect these essential aspects of life together. God’s ways are for our good, whether or not our culture recognizes this to be true. While marriage and family will not be perfect in the midst of a fallen world, it’s our responsibility as Christians to continue to champion God’s design and see it upheld for the good of our neighbor. 

Sexual Ethics event

One of the ways the ERLC carried out this aspect of our mission this year was by devoting significant attention to sexual ethics. Specifically, we addressed this topic in the month of June because of its unavoidable cultural designation as “Pride Month.” 

Jason Thacker hosted an online event called, Discipling Your Church For a World in Sexual Crisis, which featured Andrew T. Walker, Dean Inserra, and Katie McCoy, and sought to equip churches and individuals to understand this current cultural moment and engage in these important discussions. In addition to this event, we featured much-needed resources on the topic of sexual ethics including:

House Passage of the Adoptee Citizenship Act

Another way we sought to promote the health of families was through legislation. Prior to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, the administrative steps required of families adopting internationally were unnecessarily burdensome. The process included applying for and moving through a lengthy naturalization process for their children, in addition to the lengthy and costly adoption process. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 granted automatic citizenship to all foreign-born children brought to the United States who had at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. Unfortunately, that act only applied to adoptees under the age of 18 when the bill was enacted, leaving an entire population of adopted children without full U.S. citizenship. The Adoptee Citizenship Act closes the loophole to provide immediate citizenship to these children already adopted by U.S. citizens yet left out of the previous bill.

The ERLC has supported the Adoptee Citizenship Act for years. We have been engaged with a broad coalition invested in child welfare to urge members of Congress to swiftly pass this bill and secure permanent citizenship for the thousands of impacted adoptees. In March of 2021, the ERLC wrote a coalition letter to the House of Representatives urging them to swiftly pass this vital piece of legislation. 

In February of 2022, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1953, the Adoptee Citizenship Act of 2021. An amended version of the bill passed the Senate, but the House disagreed with the Senate’s amendments and left the bill in limbo. The House’s bipartisan action on this bill is a promising first step, but we urge members of both houses of Congress to agree on legislative language and pass this crucial bill.

The Equality Act

One of the greatest legislative challenges the ERLC has engaged with is The Equality Act. In February 2021, the House passed The Equality Act (H.R. 5.)—a bill that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under federal civil rights law. The bill would curtail religious freedom protections, hinder the work of healthcare professionals and faith-based hospitals, undermine civil rights protections for women and girls, and ultimately steamroll the consciences of millions of Americans.

The Equality Act would also gut the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The removal of this act would force faith-based child welfare organizations to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs or be shut down by the state. The Equality Act would also force healthcare workers and pro-life healthcare providers to participate in and provide abortions. 

The ERLC has worked tirelessly to defeat this bill. We have partnered with a broad coalition of more than 85 faith-based nonprofits, religious entities, and institutions of higher education to highlight the dangers of H.R. 5. We have raised these concerns with members of Congress and the administration through coalition letters and countless meetings with members, administration officials, and their staff. We have also engaged in public advocacy against the bill by producing a suite of resources available on our website to inform Christians and the broader public about the pernicious threat of H.R. 5. 

We will continue to lead efforts to oppose the Equality Act and any similar legislation introduced this Congress. As we do so, we will advocate for a public square solution that protects and upholds the dignity of all people and their rights, while ensuring that religiously motivated individuals and institutions are free to live and act according to their deeply held convictions.

Advocacy against SOGI provisions

The ERLC has also spoken out against the Department of Education’s proposed changes to Title IX, which would expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI). These dangerous federal guidances would allow biological men to participate in collegiate women’s sports and would penalize institutions that fail to expand the definition of sex to include SOGI. The ERLC submitted public comments urging the department to alter this proposed rule. 

In addition, the ERLC has also spoken out against the Department of Health and Human Services’ addition of sexual orientation and gender identity language to multiple nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This rule would mandate gender-affirming care and would impede the work of healthcare professionals and faith-based hospitals. The ERLC submitted public comments to the HHS urging them to alter this proposed rule. 

In all of these challenges, the ERLC will continue to advocate for the recognition of God’s good design for biological sex and for the protection of religious liberty.

How to talk to young children about the good gift of gender
By / Nov 15

Only a short time ago, it would have been unthinkable that young children would be introduced to transgenderism. However, it is a reality today. Children are regularly in class with boys and girls who are identifying as the opposite sex, all while our larger cultural is doing its best to disciple our youngest neighbors to embrace the sexual revolution. Christian parents instinctively know this is wrong but are often at a loss when it comes to talking though these issues with their preschoolers and elementary-age kids. That’s why Marty Machowski, a father and pastor, has written God Made Boys and Girls. Below, he talks about this resource and why it will help moms and dads celebrate God’s good design for gender and sexuality in an age-appropriate way.  

Champ Thornton: At what age do parents need to start having conversations with their kids about gender? 

Marty Machowski: When you consider that some public schools are reading books like I Am Jazz, which promotes a pro-transgender understanding of gender to young children, as well as the larger cultural message of the sexual revolution, you realize how important it is to build a biblical understanding of gender and sexuality in children from a very young age.

CT: How does a parent make the determination of what is age appropriate for their child and what is too much to share?

MM: As a parent, I wanted to be the one to introduce teaching on intimate topics with my children. I set out with a guideline that I would teach God’s plan for sex in marriage to my children when they were 10 years old. Then, when they turned 13, I would teach them how the world twists sexuality, and I’d talk about LGBTQ topics. But I had to adjust that timeline downward when my children were exposed to those ideas at a younger age. 

I didn’t have to teach my children about the idea of gender fluidity before they were 10 years old because it wasn’t such a promoted issue 10 years ago. But today, I would begin teaching my children biblical identity in gender and sexuality in purposeful conversation from about 3 years old by affirming God made my son a boy or my daughter a girl.

CT: Should parents start the conversation by reading God Made Boys and Girls to their children or wait until the topic of gender comes up naturally?

MM: I wrote God Made Boys and Girls to build a foundation of truth—that our gender and sexuality is a gift from God that cannot change—without having to talke about more mature issues like sex-reassignment surgery. So parents can feel comfortable using God Made Boys and Girls with their youngest children even before the issue of gender comes up. 

CT: God Made Boys and Girls addresses several common gender stereotypes. What are some examples you use, and how do you explain that we should avoid false gender stereotypes?

MM: If you look on the front cover, you’ll notice that the boy is reading while the girl is climbing the tree. When I grew up, the phrase “girls don’t climb trees” was a common gender stereotype. Back then, about the worst thing that could happen was a girl could be called a “tomboy.” While that is an unkind label, the girl in question wouldn’t have been given an option to start hormone therapy so that she could “become a boy.” Girls who loved to climb trees grew up to lead normal lives as girls—just the way God made them to be.

We should avoid gender stereotypes because they are unkind and unbiblical. Additionally, at the present time—with gender fluid philosophy so prominent in our culture—children are at a far higher risk of becoming confused about their gender identity. The biblical truth is that while God assigns certain traits and roles to women and not men, such as motherhood, God does not define femininity by the likes, dislikes, hobbies, or job preferences of a woman. The same is true for men. God calls men to be husbands and fathers, but doesn’t define masculinity by hobbies, interests, or occupation. 

CT: How do you explain the difference between boys and girls? Are preschoolers able to understand the science at that age?

MM: I included the science behind gender in God Made Boys and Girls to ensure my argument would not be dismissed by those who believe differently. Even basic genetics is over a preschooler’s head. But, I have always advocated that we teach our children information that is a step ahead of their full comprehension. That way, as soon as they are mature enough to comprehend, they have the information at their disposal.  

CT: What should a parent explain to their child if they come home talking about a classmate who is saying they are no longer a boy or no longer a girl?

MM: One of the ways I hope parents use God Made Boys and Girls is as a reference when questions or concerns arise. So, if your daughter comes home and tells you that there is a boy in her class that is saying he is a girl, you can pull out my book and read through it. 

Then I think we’ve got to lovingly explain that some people get confused about their gender because of the Fall. Then we want to emphasize two unchanging truths. First, that God gives us our gender and biological sex as a gift. Second, that God codes every cell in our body, boy or girl, and there is no way to change that code. So a scientist can tell if you are a boy or girl just by testing one strand of your hair or one drop of your blood.

CT: Can you tell us more about the section at the back of the book written specifically for parents and caregivers?

MM: I knew when I wrote God Made Boys and Girls that I could not include all the information a parent might want or need in a story for preschoolers. So, I included much more detailed information for parents in the back of the book. It is my hope that it can equip parents with the information they need as their children get older and ask more mature questions.

CT: God Made Boys and Girls is a part of the God Made Me series from New Growth Press. Can you share a little bit about the other important topics the series addresses?

MM: The God Made Me series is designed to help parents have important but sensitive conversations with their children. Most parents feel equipped to teach their children how to tie their shoes or put on their own clothes, but when it comes to teaching on topics like “good touch/ bad touch,” or racial diversity, parents can feel lost for words. 

The God Made Me series provides the help parents need to teach children on those topics. God Made All of Me teaches children how others should appropriately treat their body. God Made Me and You covers the topic of ethnic diversity, and God Made Me Unique helps parents teach their children that God creates every person in the image of God, and each individual has tremendous value, regardless of his or her appearance or abilities. 

CT: If you could offer parents just one piece of advice as they start the conversation about gender and sexuality with their kids, what would it be?

MM: If your child begins to show signs of gender confusion, don’t panic. For example, if you have a little boy who asks if he can wear a dress today to be like his sisters, don’t freak out. The vast majority of children who are confused grow out of their confusion and can be effectively steered in the right direction by affirming their gender.

Affirming your child’s gender from a young age can serve to build their confidence in the gender gift they have received from God. So, when your son helps his sister, affirm the manhood he demonstrated in his care. When your little girl helps you care for her little sister, tell her she is going to be an amazing mommy one day, and tell her that God has made her to be such a wonderful woman. 

Why do Christians address sexuality and gender issues all the time?
By / Oct 17

A common refrain among many outside the church is that Christians seem obsessed with talking about sexuality and gender issues. Often, this is mocked or simply dismissed as Christians just seeking to enforce their personal views on other people or to impose our beliefs through government action. Many argue that society would be better off if Christians just kept to themselves and let people have their personal, private fun since it doesn’t hurt anyone. It is thought that the Christian sexual ethic is not only retrograde and backward, but also deeply harmful and inherently hateful since it limits moral autonomy, the golden calf that rules our day. The idea goes that we all must respect one another’s private decisions and honor the autonomy of the individual to decide what is right and good for themselves.

The infamous moral philosopher Peter Singer highlights this idea in the introduction to his work, Practical Ethics, by highlighting how most people assume that Christians are obsessed with sexuality to the neglect of other aspects of ethics. He states that there was a time in our history when if someone saw a newspaper headline reading “RELIGIOUS LEADER ATTACKS DECLINING MORAL STANDARDS,” they would naturally understand this was simply decrying (yet again) promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, and more. Singer rightfully decries this simplistic understand of ethics, but then goes to on lambast religious-based sexual ethics as simply “nasty puritanical prohibitions” designed to keep people from having fun.

Yet, this focus on sexuality isn’t simply limited to Christians; these ideas are at the forefront of cultural debate today and have been for several decades with the meteroric rise of the sexual revolution. This monumental shift in society is rooted in modern conceptions of the individual that reject our created nature and believe that one’s sexual desires and proclivities are to be seen as absolutely central to one’s personal identity. Not only that, but they should be freely expressed and affirmed by all, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. 

Given the widespread cultural fixation on sexuality and gender, it is no surprise that the church would focus on these crucial aspects of both personal and social ethics. But we must not believe that the Christian sexual ethic is simply a response to cultural movements. Instead, as humans, it is rooted in the very nature given to us by God. In an age where we often seek to create our own meanings and moral truths, Christians must remember that the biblical sexual ethic isn’t about limiting one’s pleasure but aligning our desires with our God-given nature for our ultimate good.

An inflamed and sexualized society

We are inundated with conflicting messages about sexuality and deep confusion over the nature of sexual ethics, whether it’s providing (and protecting) gender-affirming care and surgeries for youth or the deeply entrenched nature of pornography. One of the main aspects of this cultural divide is seen in the recent calls to push for the complete normalization of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, especially among children and young adults. For example, this past summer we saw companies like Disney make sexuality and gender issues a primary emphasis in their entertainment offerings for children. This push can also be seen in the Biden administration’s recent National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality that is designed to help normalize these lifestyles throughout all domestic and foreign policy.

But these moves are just one element of a larger movement throughout our culture to encourage and support the radical moral autonomy of the sexual revolution. While particular instances like that of Disney made national headlines, many schools, communities, churches, and even hospitals have bought into and promoted the harmful lie that we are able to simply determine our sexuality and gender based on personal feelings and decisions rather than seek to bring the mind into alignment with the biological realities of our creation. As these discussions and debates continue, what does the Christian ethic bring to this conversation? And how can we proclaim truth while also caring for those struggling and left in the wake of broken promises and false hopes for peace?

The root of our sexual rebellion

According to Romans 1:25, all of us in our sin and rebellion—no matter our sexual temptations or desires—have ”exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” While not all people believe in God, Paul makes it clear that we all know that there is a God, even if we suppress that truth in our unrighteousness and desire to be like God ourselves (Rom. 1:19-23). This desire to be God and to have the power to decide what is right and good for ourselves is the very root of our rebellion (Gen. 3).

Many will speak of the root of the sexual revolution as the turmoil of the 1960s, various Supreme Court decisions on no-fault divorce, contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage, or even the rise of modern philosophy with figures like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others. While these factors have undoubtedly shaped beliefs about sexual ethics today and aided the progression of the sexual revolution, the core of our problem goes much further back. All rebellion and sin began at the Fall of humanity (Gen. 3), and the nature of this fall reveals a deep truth about human nature and the great lie we are apt to embrace. 

Leading up to the Fall, the serpent tempted Eve by causing her to doubt how God created her. The beginning of Genesis goes to painstaking lengths to show that God created man and woman utterly unique from the rest of creation, stating how God made humanity in “our image, after our likeness”—a reflection of the Triune nature of God. Yet, in Genesis 3, the serpent asks, “Did God actually say?” and then quickly stirs up confusion about how God made Eve in his very image. The serpent said, “You will not surely die (if you eat of the fruit). For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This original disinformation and an outright lie was not just tempting Eve to question God’s commands but to reject her God-given nature. She was already like God because she was made in his image. 

One of the ways we try to be like God is by asserting authority over our sexuality. However, part of our God-given nature is the reality of being made distinctly male and female. Our sexuality is rooted in our created nature. But in our sin, we seek to reinterpret or alter God’s good design. This isn’t simply limited to those outside the church or even to those struggling with gender disphoria or same-sex attraction. All of us apart from Christ seek to rebel against God’s good design for our sexuality. Many of us go to great lengths to craft our own identities and reject the one given to us by our Creator. 

While the culture around us pushes to normalize rebellious, sinful, and harmful ideologies, Christians must seek to retrieve a deeply biblical sense of sexual ethics, rooted both in Scripture and in the evident ways that God has created us. This idea is commonly referred to as natural law ethics and is a foundational element of the Christian ethic upon which the commands of God as revealed in Scripture and the virtues we are to exhibit as Christians are built. This approach reminds us that the Christian ethic must be deeply rooted in the Bible, but is also revealed in part through how God made us in his image as humans—both male and female.

Even though it is common to hear that the Christian sexual ethic is backward, oppressive, and out of date, we must respond by boldly and gracefully speaking the truth, remembering how God rescued us out of our rebellion. Despite the opposition we might (and will) face, we can take comfort in the fact that God has made his attributes clearly known in creation and that our hope is not placed in temporal cultural gains. As we proclaim and live out the Christian sexual ethic to which creation itself testifies, a broken society will witness how our God enables us to live in joy and true freedom as we point to the gospel of reconciliation and redemption. 

Combatting confusion in society’s language about gender and sexuality
By / Oct 12

Although terms like “transgender” and “gender identity” are increasingly used in the public square, many Christians are still unaware of what they mean or how broad the scope is in which they are being used. To help provide some clarification and context, I’ve provided definitions for 31 terms commonly used by the gender identity movement. This glossary is designed to help you better understand the radical and ever-expanding language used to describe elements of the sexual (and gender) revolution. In order to effectively minister to those in our communities, it is helpful to grasp the terms used by the wider culture. Our goal is to understand so that we might proclaim God’s good design reflected in the biblical sexual ethic that brings flourishing and the gospel that brings hope and reconciliation.

This is not an exhaustive list by any means — Facebook alone allows you to choose from more than 70 gender options. Even though many in the LGBTQ+ community are united around certain terms and language, it is important to note that this is an incredibly diverse community that is not always in agreement with one another and their lifestyle choices.

Ally — A term for a person who supports members of the LGBTQ+ community and who advocates for them to others. 

Androphilia — A term used to refer to sexual attraction to men or masculinity that can be used as an alternative to a gender binary heterosexual or homosexual orientation. (See also: gynephilia.)

Bigender — A person who has two gender identities or expressions, either at the same time, at different times, or in different social situations. (See also: genderfluid.)

Bisexual — A person who is attracted to two sexes or two genders, but not necessarily simultaneously or equally. Although the term used to be defined as a person who is attracted to both genders or both sexes, that has been replaced by the number two (2) since the LGBT community believes there are not only two sexes or two genders but multiple gender identities. Within the LGBTQ+ community, a person who is sexually attracted to more than two biological sexes or gender identities is often referred to as pansexual or omnisexual.

Butch — A term used by the LGBTQ+ community to refer to masculine gender expression or gender identity. A nonbinary butch is a person who holds a nonbinary gender identity and a butch gender expression, or claiming butch as an identity outside of the gender binary. (See also: femme.)

Cisgender — A term used by many in the LGBTQ+ community and their allies to refer to people who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity. Cisgender is often used within the LGBTQ+ community to refer to people who are not transgender. (In general, Christians should avoid using this term since it implies that cisgender and transgender are equally normative, i.e., the opposite of “heteronormative.”)

Femme — A term used by the LGBTQ+ community to refer to feminine gender expression or gender identity. A nonbinary femme is a person who holds a nonbinary gender identity and a femme gender expression, or claiming femme as an identity outside of the gender binary. (See also: butch.)

Gay — Until the mid-20th century, the term gay was originally used to refer to feelings of being “carefree,” “happy,” or “bright and showy,” though it also added, in the late 17th century, the meaning “addicted to pleasures and dissipations” implying a that a person was uninhibited by moral constraints. In the 1960s, the term began to be used in reference to people attracted to members of the same sex who often found the term “homosexual” to be too clinical or critical. Currently, the term “gay” is used to refer to men attracted to people who identify as men, though it is also used colloquially as an umbrella term to include all LGBTQ+ people. (The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation considers the term “homosexual” to be offensive and recommends that journalists use the term “gay.”)

Gender dysphoria — A term that refers to the psychological condition of experiencing discomfort between one’s gender identity and biological sex. 

Gender expression — A term for the manner in which one chooses to express or show their gender identity. This can be through clothing choices, appearance, or mannerisms. The term assumes a spectrum of expression between more or less masculine/feminine activities and actions.

Gender identity — A term used to refer to an individual’s personal sense of identity as masculine or feminine, or some combination of each. The LGBTQ+ community and their allies (e.g., the Biden administration) consider gender to be a trait that exists along a continuum and is not inherently rooted in biology or physical expressions.

Genderfluid — A term used for people who prefer to be flexible about their gender identity. They may fluctuate between genders (a man one minute, a woman the next, a third sex later in the day) or express multiple gender identities at the same time.

Genderqueer — An umbrella term for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍. Sometimes referred to as non-binary, gender-expansive, pangender, polygender. (See also: Bigender, Trigender.)

Gynephilia — A term used to refer to sexual attraction to women or femininity that can be used as an alternative to a gender binary homosexual or heterosexual orientation.

Heteronormative — Popularized in the early 1990s in Queer Theory, the term refers to lifestyle norms that hold that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) based on biology with natural roles in life that may or may not be socially constructed. Heternomativity presumes that heterosexual behavior is the norm for sexual practices and that sexual and marital relations are only fitting between a man and a woman. (The Christian worldview is “heteronormative.” The Bible clearly presents gender and heterosexual sex within the bounds of marriage as part of the goodness of God’s created order.)

Homophobia — A term to describe a range of negative actions (ranging from fear or discomfort to violence) toward LGBTQ individuals. There are similar terms for other groups within the LGBTQ community (i.e. biphobia and transphobia). The “phobia” language is key to the Sexual Revolution as it aids the psychological understanding of the self over that of biological realities since it attached moral stigma to those who do ascend to the tenets of expressive individualism.

Intergender — A term for people who have a gender identity in the middle between the binary genders of female and male, and may be a mix of both.

Intersectionality — A term from the work of Kimberle WIlliams Crenshaw which argues that various social identities (race, class, sexuality, gender, disability, etc.) overlap to create new intersecting identities of discrimination and disadvantage based largely on power dynamics (i.e. An African American woman is disadvantaged because she is a woman and because she is African American).

Intersex — Intersex is a general term for a variety of physical conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. The variations in sex characteristics may include chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female. Intersex is a rare physical condition while transgender is a psychological condition. The vast majority of people with intersex conditions identify as male or female rather than transgender or transsexual. (The term “hermaphrodite” is now considered outdated, inaccurate, and offensive as a reference to people who are intersex.)

Lesbian – The term most widely used in the English language to describe sexual and romantic attraction between people who identify as females. The word is derived from the name of the Greek island of Lesbos, home to Sappho (6th-century BC), a female poet that proclaimed her love for girls. The term “gay and lesbian” became more popular in 1970s as a way of acknowledging the two broad sexual-political communities that were part of the gay liberation movement.

LGBTQ+ — An initialism that collectively refers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and Queer communities (the “+” refers to all the other categories included below which may be added to the initialism and represent non-heterosexual behavior or identity). In use since the 1990s, the term is an adaptation of the initialism LGB, which itself started replacing the phrase gay community beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s. The initialism has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of sexuality and gender identity-based community centers and media in the United States. Along with LGBTQ, other letters are sometimes added. Other variants include: An extra Q for “questioning”; “U” for “unsure”; “C” for  “curious”; an “I” for “intersex” another  “T” for  “transsexual” or  “transvestite”; another  “T”, “TS”, or “2” for “Two‐Spirit” persons; an “A” or “SA” for “straight allies”; or an “A” for “asexual”; “P” for “pansexual” or “polyamorous”; “H” for “HIV-affected”; and “O” for “other.”

Man/Woman — In LGBTQ+ parlance, terms that refer to a person’s chosen gender identity, regardless of biological characteristics.

Non-binary — See “genderqueer.”

Polyamory — A term which describes the act of existing in multiple consenting relationships at one time. This may include relationships such as a “throuple” in which three individuals are in a relationship together, or “open relationships” in which individuals have ongoing relationships apart from their primary partner.

Preferred Pronouns — A term for the pronouns that someone desires others to use when interacting with them. These may not coincide with their biological sex, and may be more expansive than just one set (i.e. A person may prefer to use “she/her pronouns” as well as “they/them”). Preferred pronouns can also shift over time and depending on circumstances.

Queer — An umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary. The term is still controversial, even within the LGBTQ community, because it was once used as a homosexual slur until it was re-appropriated in the 1990s. The range of what “queer” includes varies, though in addition to referring to LGBT-identifying people, it can also encompass: pansexual, pomosexual, intersexual, genderqueer, asexual, and autosexual people, and even gender normative heterosexuals whose sexual orientations or activities place them outside the heterosexual-defined mainstream, e.g., BDSM practitioners, or polyamorous persons. (In academia, the term “queer” and its verbal use, “queering,” indicate the study of literature, academic fields, and other social and cultural areas from a non-heteronormative perspective.)

Sex — The term refers to the biological characteristics and realties of an individual as revealed in chromosomes and physical traits such as reproductive/sexual anatomy (e.g., male or female).  (See also: Intersex). 

Sexual Orientation — A term for the emotional, romantic, or sexual feelings one has to another person, often defined by the gender of the person attracted and the gender of the person to whom they are attracted. Though gender plays a part in sexual orientation, it is not the same as gender identity. 

SOGI — An initialism that refers to “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” It is commonly used to refer to laws which would protect those identities from certain forms of discrimination under the law. 

Third gender — A concept in which individuals are categorized, either by themselves or by society, as neither man nor woman (though not necessarily intersex). Sometimes also called “third sex” or othergender. (See also: Queer.)

Transition — A term for the process a transgender individual goes through to fully identify with their gender identity. There are various levels which can include social practices such as changing clothes or choosing new names/pronouns, hormonal therapies to prevent puberty or using hormone replacement therapy to replicate puberty of the opposite gender (i.e. a biological female who takes testosterone and sees a change in physical characteristics such as facial hair or a deepening of the voice). It may also include radical surgeries to change reproductive organs to align with gender identity (i.e. removal of breasts for trans men). 

Transgenderism — An umbrella term for the state or condition of identifying or expressing a gender identity that does not match a person’s physical/genetic sex. Transgender is independent of sexual orientation, and those who self-identify as transgender may consider themselves to be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual. Approximately 700,000 individuals in the United States identify as transgender.

Trans man — A transgender person who was born a female but claims the gender identity of a man (i.e., a biological female who identifies as a man).

Transsexual — A narrower (and outdated) term used to refer to individuals who have undergone some form of medical intervention to transition to another gender, whether that is through hormonal therapies or sex reassignment surgery. 

Trans woman — A transgender person who was born a male but who claims the gender identity of a woman (i.e., a biological male who identifies as a woman).

Transvestite — A person who cross-dresses, or dresses in clothes of the opposite sex, though they may not identify with or want to be the opposite gender. (All transexuals are transgender, but transvestites do not necessarily fall into either of the other categories.)

Trigender — A term for a non-binary (i.e., genderqueer) gender identity in which one shifts between or among the behaviors of three genders. These genders may include male, female, and third gender (e.g., genderless, non-gender, polygender, etc.).

Two-spirit – A term used by some Native American LGBT activists for people who possess qualities of both binary genders.

Ze – A gender-neutral pronoun used to replace he/she. (Sometimes spelled as Xe.)

A version of this article was originally published at The Gospel Coalition and has been updated to reflect current terminology used in the LGBTQ+ movement and wider culture.

A biblical resource for pastors on gender and sexuality 
By / Oct 11

We live in an age experiencing the disastrous effects of the sexual revolution. Confusion over basic concepts such as man, woman, and marriage are but the latest divergence between a culture committed to radical individual autonomy and a church committed to Scripture’s teaching. Local congregations daily face questions of gender dysphoria, same-sex unions, and on basic concepts of what it means to be a man or woman. The ERLC seeks to come alongside and assist pastors and ministry leaders to answer those questions in light of Scripture’s clear teachings with resources like these and future projects.

Below, we have given a basic theological framework from God’s Word for approaching questions of gender and biological sex. Additionally, there are some practical guidelines for churches to consider in updating their bylaws to ensure that they are afforded as much protection as possible under the law. It is our hope that at both the theological and practical level this resource will be helpful to you as you serve your congregation. 

A theological framework of sex and gender

God created you. At its most basic level, the fact that we are created by God means that we are limited by the design that God has given us (Gen. 1). Recognizing that we are created by God means accepting that we do not have absolute control over our bodies and how they are to be used (Is. 29:16). They are to be used in accordance with God’s design and purpose. When we attempt to usurp God’s design, we repeat the sin of Adam and Eve who desired to be more than just “like God” but rather to become God (Gen. 3:5). Remembering that we are created and therefore finite grounds our theology of the body and gender (1 Pet. 1:24). 

God created you with a body. Contrary to popular understanding, our bodies are inseparable from who we are. We are not souls trapped in a body (1 Cor. 6:12-20). The Christian church has long understood and upheld the worth of the body, looking at both the creation account of Genesis where God declares the world good and the Incarnation of Christ where a perfect and holy God took on flesh and blood (John 1). As Christians, we must not fall for the lie of culture that our bodies are to be changed to meet our self-perception (2 Cor. 10:5).

God created humans male and female. In the opening pages of Genesis, the author tells us that humanity was created in God’s image and created male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). We often focus on the former, but the latter declaration is just as important. The author’s description is an acknowledgement of distinction and difference between the two. Men are not women, and women are not men. Yet, we should not overplay these differences in an unbiblical way because, as the next chapter reminds us, there is nothing more like man than woman (Gen. 2). Still, those differences are there and part of God’s design. Neither is more important or carries more of the image of God, and both are necessary to fulfill the command given to steward creation and multiply. As Christians, we recognize the ways that God has designed both men and women as distinct, yet equal expressions of humanity. 

God created male and female to complement one another. The opening pages of Scripture remind us that we are made in God’s image, and that men and women are to complement one another (Gen. 1:26-27). At its most basic level, this complementarity is revealed in biology: both man and woman are needed for sexual reproduction. It also reveals itself in a range of social and relational aspects (Eph. 5:21-33). At its core, complementarity glorifies God and is a reminder that we are created, finite beings who are unable to live in existence without others (Gen. 2:18). Though our current context seeks to blur the distinctions between men and women to the point that they are interchangeable, Christians recognize that each gender has something that is distinct and special. Neither can exist without the other (1 Cor. 11:11-12). 

The Fall affects how we perceive our bodies. The effects of sin have broken every part of creation. This includes our own self-perception and understanding (1 Pet. 1:14). The presence of disorders such as gender dysphoria (when a person’s perception of a mismatch between their gender and their body causes distress) is one example of the way sin has warped our understanding. Christians must recognize that sin is able to powerfully deceive, even to the point of thinking that bodily mutilation is the way toward happiness (Eph. 4:22). In contrast, Christians must offer a word of hope and a reminder that our bodies are good gifts given to us by God, not obstacles to be overcome. 

God meets those broken by the sexual revolution with compassion and grace. We are repeatedly reminded that God has compassion for those who have been broken by sin. The pages of Scripture are filled with the story of a God who cares for those who have been deceived, abused, and mistreated by society and culture (Jonn 4; John 11). Christians must recognize that the sexual revolution has been built upon empty promises. Many people have been (and will be) left hurt, confused, and at the end of their rope, looking for hope and answers: those who were deceived to think that casual sex was meaningless, our bodies could be changed as we saw fit, and that their gender was unimportant to who they were. The response of the church is to be the same as the response of Christ: “a bruised reed he will not break” (Matt. 12:20). We offer the same grace and compassion given to us and seek to restore those who have been broken by the lies of sin. 

COMING SOON: Downloadable, printable version of “A Theological Framework of Sex and Gender” for use in your church or ministry.

The importance of bylaws 

The ERLC worked with Alliance Defending Freedom to create a resource guide for churches to update their bylaws in light of challenges related to sexual orientation and gender identity lawsuits. Below are the five areas where churches can provide clear frameworks outlining their faith and religious convictions to protect themselves so that they can continue in ministry that is faithful to God’s Word and brings about gospel transformation. You can read the entire guide here.

Statement of Faith (p.5): The Statement of Faith should serve as an encapsulation of the foundational theology of the church or organization. In addition to the usual topic of salvation, doctrine of sin, or church polity, a statement of faith should include the position of the church related to matters of gender, sexuality, and marriage. Because these issues now regularly confront churches, it is imperative that churches and religious organizations clearly put forth their belief in marriage’s foundational role in society, that it is rightly restricted only to one man and one woman, and that gender identity flows from and is inextricably connected to biological sex. 

Religious Employment Criteria (p. 11): Churches and religious organizations should strongly consider creating a religious employment requirement for all employees so as to avail themselves of the full weight of First Amendment jurisprudence. Under the “ministerial exception” churches and religious institutions are able to take religious belief into consideration when hiring and firing without penalty under non-discrimination laws. By clearly defining roles according to their contribution to the organization’s religious mission, and having employees sign the statement of faith, they can protect themselves from legal challenges.  

Facility Use Policy (p. 14): A fear of many churches is that they may be required to grant use of their facilities to couples who may wish to use them for a wedding ceremony the church would not sanction or other events. In general, churches are free to grant access to their facilities as they wish because they are private property. However, they can further protect themselves by creating a clearly defined facility use policy that identifies the religious nature of the building and restricts use of the facility to those who act in accordance to your beliefs. 

Formal Membership Policy (p. 16): While many churches have an informal process of affirming or recognizing church membership, their legal protections are increased by formalizing the process. In ideal circumstances, their written process should cover the procedures for becoming a member, procedures for church discipline, and procedures for disfellowshipping or excommunicating a member. Each of these helps to provide a legal framework protecting the church and providing clarity to members of the expectations of membership and the processes that can be expected in times of discipline. This can be especially helpful if a member objects to the church’s implementation of disciplinary measures. 

Marriage Policy (p.18): In addition to the statement of faith which clearly outlines the church’s theology of marriage, churches should create a marriage policy which outlines the parameters under which pastors, ministers, or staff will solemnize a marriage. This marriage policy may include not only a statement on belief of marriage as between a biological man and woman, but also another statement on the use of the facility for marriage ceremonies. Additionally, churches may consider adding a provision that only members will be able to use the facilities to provide a further layer of protection if the church has a requirement that members affirm the church’s statement of faith. 

COMING SOON: Downloadable, printable version of “The Importance of Bylaws” for use in your church or ministry.

Resources

Articles

Books

Podcasts and Videos

CP giving tops $200 million, the HHS transgender rule, and DACA review
By / Oct 8

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss the incredible gift of the Cooperative Program topping $200 million. They also talk about the HHS transgender rule that would threaten religious liberty and discuss DACA being sent back to a lower court for review. 

ERLC Content

Culture

  • BP: National CP giving tops $200 million for first time since 2008
  • BP: HHS transgender rule threatens doctors’ religious liberty, ERLC letter says
  • NBC News: Appeals court sends DACA case back to lower court to review new Biden rule, temporarily protecting Dreamers
  • Aaron Judge hits 62nd home run. 

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Dobbs Resource Page | The release of the Dobbs decision marks a true turning point in the pro-life movement, a moment that Christians, advocates and many others have worked toward tirelessly for 50 years. Let us rejoice that we live in a nation where past injustices can still be corrected, as we also roll our sleeves up to save preborn lives, serve vulnerable mothers, and support families in our communities. To get more resources on this case, visit ERLC.com/Dobbs.
  • Sexual Ethics Resource Page | Do you ever feel overwhelmed by the constant stream of entertainment and messages that challenge the Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics? It often feels like we’re walking through uncharted terrority. But no matter what we face in our ever-shifting culture, God’s design for human sexuality has never changed. The ERLC’s new sexual ethics resource page is full of helpful articles, videos, and explainers that will equip you to navigate these important issues with truth and grace. Get these free resources at ERLC.com/sexualethics.

The disastrous moral harm of California’s transgender ‘refuge’ bill
By / Oct 6

On Sept. 28, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a controversial new bill designed to promote California as a place of “refuge” and sanctuary for those seeking gender-affirming care. This is in response to how many states have sought to ban these types of medical treatments for youth and to punish medical providers and/or parents who allow it. After signing the bill into law, Newsom touted the openness and inclusivity of Calfornia as he decried the 22 Republican-led states who are currently seeking to block gender-affirming care for youth and children as demonizing and promoting hate toward transgender youth.

This type of bill coming from one of the most populous and influential states in the union is deeply concerning and immoral, as it will lead to irreparable harm for children, youth, and their families. What’s being promoted is a false view of the self under the auspices of moral autonomy and freedom — especially toward children and youth — that is at odds with basic biological and moral realities.

What is State Bil 107?

According to Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who led the effort, State Bill 107 was designed to reaffirm California as “a leader in protecting the civil rights and basic dignity of LGBTQ people and will help trans kids and their parents have a safe place to go if they are threatened with prosecution or criminalization for being who they are and seeking the care they need.” The authors frame it as a response to mental health issues and suicide among transgender youth. The bill had 12 co-authors from across the California General Assembly and the State Senate and was also co-sponsored by Equality California, Planned Parenthood, TransFamily Support Services, and Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis.

Essentially, SB 107 blocks out-of-state attempts to penalize families who may come to California for gender-affirming treatment and care or who have already sought services from any legal consequences for their decisions. According to Wiener’s office, the bill has three main components:

  1. It prohibits the enforcement of a law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from their parent or guardian based on the parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming healthcare.
  1. It bars compliance in California with any out-of-state subpoena seeking health or other related information about people who come to California to receive gender-affirming care, if the subpoena relates to efforts to criminalize individuals or remove children from their homes for having received gender-affirming care.
  1. It prohibits law enforcement participation in the arrest or extradition of an individual that criminalizes allowing a person to receive or provide gender-affirming healthcare where that conduct is lawful in California and to the fullest extent permitted by federal law. It declares that it is California’s public policy that any out-of-state criminal arrest warrant for someone based on violating another state’s law against receiving gender-affirming care is the lowest priority for law enforcement in California.

Of note, the bill is centered around the autonomy of youth and children, as well as their parents, to seek gender-affirming care which includes hormone treatments, gender reassignment surgeries, and other types of care which affirm the choice of the individual to bodily and gender autonomy. SB 107 also adds a layer of data and medical privacy for individuals since it bars California from cooperating with out-of-state subpoenas if the subpoena is intended to bring charges against an individual seeking these types of treatments. This is similar to recent bills passed about data protection in light of renewed questions surrounding privacy as it relates to illegal abortion procedures. One important aspect of this bill is that a severability clause was added which ensures that if a court strikes down parts of the bill as unconstitutional, then the rest will remain enforceable. 

In remarks made upon the signing of the bill by Gov. Newsom, Wiener said “With SB 107 signed into law, California is forcefully pushing back against the anti-LGBTQ hatred spreading across parts of our nation. The rainbow wave is real, and it’s coming.” The bill has led to 19 other similar ‘refuge’ bills across states all designed to provide greater access to gender-affirming care and provide safe haven for those seeking these services. The bill will take effect on Jan. 1, 2023.

What is behind this bill?

While the stated aims of the bill are to provide a refuge from states who have banned or limited access to gender-affirming services and gender transition care, SB 107 is the latest push to normalize these types of services and offerings nationwide for those who identify as transgender and to codify various civil protections for the LGBTQ+ community. Given the size and influence of California, these types of bills will not stay isolated to the state. Oher states will use this as model legislation, as has happened with a host of other issues such as digital privacy and abortion.

This bill is also framed in light of a growing chorus of concern over the state of personal privacy and moral autonomy after the Dobbs decision issued earlier this summer by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the decision itself was limited to abortion in the majority opinion, some have sought to use this decision to push for a host of bills codifying rights to contraception and same-sex marriage. As I have argued previously, abortion as personal autonomy is the linchpin to the entire sexual revolution which is rooted in a false sense of radical individualism and moral autonomy.

This gender-affirming care bill comes on the heals of another highly controversial and politicized package of bills signed into law on Sept. 26, which promotes California as a similar type of sanctuary state and safe haven for abortions. The state also launched a website providing information about abortion services — including detailed information for out-of-state residents on how to obtain an abortion in Calfornia. The website declares that all people have a legal right to an abortion, regardless of what may be legal in their state of residence.

Newsom, who is up for reelection in November, has recently been behind a mass billboard campaign across California, and even in other states that seek to limit access to abortion, promoting abortion tourism to the state. The campaign promotes the message “Need an abortion? California is ready to help,” and goes as far to cite a Scripture reference about loving our neighbor as yourself in support of abortion. This campaign has also been expanded by Planned Parenthood to include transit hubs in California, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, and Maryland with the message promoting the state’s pro-abortion policies. 

What about parental rights?

One of the most controversial aspects of this bill, outside of promoting radical gender transition surgeries and treatments for youth and children, centers on the role of parents and doctors in these types of life-altering and often irreversible decisions. These treatments can include hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and surgeries that forever alter one’s body. Surgeries could include facial reconstruction, chest (top) surgeries in which healthy breast tissue is removed or augmentation/enhancements are made, and even genital (bottom) surgery where genitalia are transformed and reconstructed. Other care can include voice therapy and gender-affirming counseling.

In a letter on Sept. 29 to the state senate, Newsom wrote, “In California we believe in equality and acceptance. We believe that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted for getting the care they need—including gender-affirming care. Parents know what’s best for their kids, and they should be able to make decisions around the health of their children without fear. We must take a stand for parental choice.” Interestingly, some aspects of SB 107 do not seem to align with Newsom’s own words about how parents know what is best for their kids. The bill raises a host of concerns about what happens when a parent or parents choose not to allow their child or youth to seek such care. As others have noted, this bill goes as far as to allow children this level of autonomy and rights even without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

How should Christians think about these issues?

Given the enormous consequences of this bill and its far-reaching promotion of moral autonomy and the rights of youth over that of their parents, there is much to be concerned about here. This bill may face significant battles in the courts over multiple provisions including parental rights, which is why the severability clause was added last minute before its passage. In response to this push, Christians must be wise and discerning as these false visions of reality are being promoted as common-sense measures in line with our contemporary culture’s fixation on defining our own realities and moral autonomy.

First, Christians should be sober minded about these situations. Part of a Christian vision of society includes upholding basic goods and God’s design for men, women, and families. God not only created us male and female in line with biological realities, but also designed the family unit as a basic building block of society. The family and the individual are pre-political, meaning that governments should seek to honor God’s design for marriage and sexuality given that they are rooted in the very nature of what it means to be human.

This type of bill seeks to put the family in the crosshairs of the sexual revolution by prioritizing the autonomy of youth and children over that of their parents. Parents, by nature, are to protect, care for, and seek the best for their children regardless of what the state may promote. The family is tasked by God with this grave responsibility and to give an account for how they raise their children into mature and wise adults. Youth and children are simply ill-equipped to make these life-altering decisions, and any provision that severs the unity of the family should be immediately called into question and subsequently rejected.

Second, Christians must speak into these matters. Many proponents of this bill will argue that it is simply not the role of others (specifically including the church) to speak into private issues of individuals and families, especially in regards to questions of sexuality and gender. This cuts to the core of the argument driving these bills since humans were not created to live self-determined and autonomous lives. Not only is true moral autonomy impossible, but we often fail to know what is truly best for us in many situations, especially when dealing with high-stakes gender-affirming care. 

Truth is not a matter of mere opinion or preference, but it is established by God and is to be discovered and cherished by all. Christians must resolutely promote the good of others (Matt. 22:37-39), and this means directly speaking to the realities of being made male and female (Gen. 1:27) and the grave threats to God’s design for marriage and sexuality encountered in our culture today. We must do so with lavish grace to those struggling with a host of sexuality issues, including gender-dysphoria.

Christians must remember it is not loving to speak a lie or affirm something that is simply not true, no matter the cultural pressure to do otherwise. But we also must do so remembering that those caught in these lies are made in the very image of God (Gen. 1:26) and deserve our love and care. Many of us know and deeply care for those in our communities and families who are walking through these types of issues. Regardless of one’s sexual brokenness, there is hope in the name of Jesus for radical transformation, just as there is for all who sin (Rom. 3:23). 

True dignity, value, and worth are not found in our sexual identities or expressions but in how God has made us. These truths directly counter the lies of the sexual revolution as well as the rampant ideal of moral autonomy which is fixated on the individual as reigning supreme. May the Church be known for speaking the truth, loving God, and loving those left in the wake of the sexual revolution’s failed promises and who have been harmed by this type of disatrous policy in Calfornia.