By / Feb 15

NASHVILLE (BP) – The first season of the Ethics & Religious Liberty’s relaunched podcast primarily focuses on a highly requested topic, gender and sexuality.

Before launching the retooled podcast in the fall of 2023, the ERLC spent months conducting research and surveying Southern Baptists to learn which issues or questions were at the forefront for pastors and churches.

Lindsay Nicolet, ERLC editorial director and podcast host, said among the feedback received, “this set of issues (gender and sexuality) rises to the top.”

In a culture that has redefined marriage, thinks being male or female is something that can be changed and has no boundaries regarding sexuality, we want to equip you to be confident about what the Bible says and how to live that out.

Lindsay Nicolet

Read the full Baptist Press article here.

By / Jan 19

Within the scope of modern history, the year 1964 remains a seminal moment, due largely to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, which fundamentally transformed the societal landscape of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of civil rights legislation, sought to dismantle the entrenched structures of racial segregation and discrimination. The legislation also outlawed discrimination on other grounds other than race such as color, religion, sex, or national origin. But the language of the 1964 act, initially crafted to combat racial injustice, has been increasingly co-opted in the discourse surrounding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policies.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the culmination of a prolonged struggle for racial equality, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., whose receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize that same year symbolized global recognition of the moral legitimacy of the Civil Rights Movement. Over the next several decades after its passage, the law brought profound changes in American workplaces, schools, and public facilities, and served as a declaration of the intrinsic value and dignity of every individual.

Co-option of civil rights language by advocates of SOGI laws

SOGI is an initialism commonly used to refer to laws which would include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the law. For example, the SOGI legislation known as the Equality Act intends to expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” and would revise every title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add these categories as new protected classes in the federal code.

Such repurposing of civil rights terminology represents a significant deviation from the original purpose of the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, the ERLC believes this expansion of SOGI as a protected class represents the most significant threat to religious liberty ever considered in the United States Congress. Opposing the Equality Act has thus been among our topic public policy priorities since 2021.

SOGI laws discriminate against other groups

Including SOGI as protected classes would discriminate against everyone who holds the belief in distinct, complementary genders and that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral. Applying civil rights language to SOGI advocacy would thus lead to infringement on religious beliefs as individuals and organizations would be forced to act contrary to their religious convictions.

We believe the extension of Civil Rights Act language to encompass SOGI issues is a misappropriation, as it shifts the focus from addressing a legitimate historical grievance—race-based discrimination—to advocating for matters of individual preference, such as sexual orientation and gender identity. Biologically, SOGI issues differ from immutable realities such as race or sex. Theologically, SOGI issues are different from the morally neutral category of national origin because they are condemned by both general and special revelation.

Amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under federal civil rights law 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.

SOGI legislation would ignore the rights of women by effectively erasing the biological distinctions of male and female. Furthermore, girls’ and women’s sports would be forced to include biological men, setting an unfair and impossible standard. In all cases, women would be put in danger, potentially forced to share bathrooms, locker rooms, and other private spaces. 

Additionally, people of faith would have their religious freedom violated by being forced to affirm SOGI categories, directly violating their deeply held beliefs, or face consequences; whether it’s through their vocation as a healthcare worker who is forced to perform a gender-transition surgery, the leader of a Christian nonprofit organization that has to shut down because of refusing to adhere to SOGI categories, or the Christian couple denied a child in foster care because they will not affirm harmful gender ideologies.

Balancing rights and freedoms

A critical issue facing all levels of government—from local to federal— is finding a way to strike a balance between the rights of individuals identifying with various sexual orientations and gender identities and the religious freedoms of those holding traditional biblical views. The expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include SOGI is portrayed, in theory, as a reasonable and just accommodation. But in reality, SOGI laws have been used to overrule and marginalize the most fundamental rights of religious liberty. 

For instance, the legislation would explicitly curtail the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. As mentioned, a consequence of this action would be forcing faith-based child welfare organizations to either abandon their deeply held religious beliefs or be shut down. States such as Colorado have already used SOGI laws in this way—and at a time when multiple societal crises increase the need for children services. Additionally, doctors and nurses who object to gender reassignment surgeries for moral, religious, or scientific reasons would be forced to provide the procedure or risk losing their jobs.

“The truth is, the Equality Act is not just a bad bill; it’s a dangerous one,” said Josh Wester. “ It does not represent a good faith effort to protect LGBT Americans from discrimination. It is, in fact, an effort to codify into law the progressive orthodoxy of the sexual revolution and to legally silence those who dissent.”

Upholding the original spirit of the Civil Rights Act

As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we should honor its foundational aim by protecting it from misappropriation. Allowing the act’s language to be changed to include SOGI would be a betrayal of the original spirit of the legislation as it would curtail discrimination against sex and religion and undermine both antidiscrimination protections for women and religious freedoms for all Americans.

SOGI laws erode foundational constitutional freedoms in its pursuit of fleeting cultural ideas. We must protect and preserve the core values of the Civil Rights Act in order to safeguard religious freedoms for all Americans. That is why the ERLC will continue to oppose the Equality Act and similar SOGI legislation introduced in Congress. We will continue to advocate for a public square solution that protects and upholds the dignity of all people regardless of how they identify and the rights of all, while ensuring that religiously motivated individuals and institutions are free to live and act according to their deeply held convictions.

By / Jan 11

COLUMBUS, Ohio (BP) – The Ohio House of Representatives Jan. 10th overrode Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of a bill protecting youth under age 18 from gender transitions and limiting women’s sports teams to biological females.

The Ohio Senate is expected to concur Jan. 24 in overriding DeWine’s veto, Senate President Matt Huffman told Columbus NBC affiliate WCMH, allowing the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act and the Save Women’s Sports Act to take effect. Both measures were included in House Bill 68, passed in December. DeWine vetoed it Dec. 29.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) welcomed the override.

The Ohio House of Representatives’ vote to override Gov. DeWine’s veto is a step in the right direction to protect the most vulnerable among us. This vital legislation will protect children from life-changing medical and surgical interventions and protect the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports.

ERLC Vice President and Chief of Staff Miles Mullin

“The ERLC has long maintained the position that children must not be pawns in the sexual revolution, and we will continue to advocate against harmful gender-transition practices,” Mullin said. “And while we affirm the rights of parents in decision-making regarding their children, those rights cannot extend to decisions that harm children’s bodies.”

Read the full Baptist Press article here.

By / Dec 28

On this last episode in our gender and sexuality series in The ERLC Podcast, we’re going to focus more on how pastors can address gender and sexuality. We discuss how they can shepherd their people to better understand the biblical sexual ethic and how to apply that to their daily lives. 

On The ERLC Podcast, our goal is to help you think biblically about today’s cultural issues. Throughout this series, we’ve been seeking biblical answers and practical wisdom to apply to questions of gender and sexuality swirling around in our culture, our churches, and in our hearts. It’s been a joy to explore these issues with you and spur one another on to hold fast to Christ and love our neighbors.

Joining us on today’s podcast to share how pastors can address gender and sexuality is Dr. Bart Barber and Matt McCullough.

Bart is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Farmersville, Texas and president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Bart has a B.A. from Baylor University in their University Scholars program, an M.Div. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and a Ph.D. in Church History, also from Southwestern. 

You’ll also hear from Matt McCullough, pastor of Edgefield Church in Nashville, Tennessee. Before joining Edgefield, Matt helped to plant Trinity Church near Vanderbilt University and served as pastor there for 10 years. He completed a Ph.D. in American religious history. Matt and his wife are the parents of three boys.

As we discuss these important topics, you might have additional questions. We’d love to hear from you. Please e-mail us at [email protected] and let us know how you’re processing this conversation. 

The ERLC podcast is a production of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. It is produced by Jill Waggoner, Lindsay Nicolet, and Elizabeth Bristow. Technical production is provided by Owens Productions. It is edited and mixed by Mark Owens.

By / Dec 21

What is a path of wisdom for churches to follow with emotion-packed, divisive, yet meaningful topics of today that we do not think Scripture speaks to? What do we do when we don’t want to bind consciences on things that Scripture is not clear about, but we want to promote wisdom and biblical fidelity? In an era replete with complex social issues, Christians often encounter scenarios that Scripture does not explicitly address. Consider, for instance, issues that have become more common as transgenderism has become more prominent, such as pronoun usage and restroom choices. What should we think about such matters?

Four principles for wisdom and biblical fidelity

When Scripture seems silent, here are four principles we should consider applying in order to uphold both wisdom and biblical fidelity.

1. Understand the scope of Scripture

In thinking about how to navigate these issues, Christians must first turn to Scripture. But there are two primary pitfalls we need to avoid when considering whether Scripture addresses an issue. 

The first pitfall is to assume that Scripture always has something to say about every subject. This is what philosopher Roy Clouser calls the “encyclopedic assumption”: regarding the Bible as an encyclopedia in which we may look for an answer to any sort of question we may have. The problem with this approach, as Clouser points out, is that it ignores the Bible’s own central theme and purpose and tries to force the Bible to yield truths about matters which never crossed the minds of its authors.

The second pitfall is assuming that Scripture has nothing to say about a topic the Bible does not directly and specifically address. Therefore, we reason, we are free to “follow our conscience” in determining how to think about it. This approach ignores the fact that God’s Word is the foundation for all knowledge. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, equipping us for every good work. There is almost always something we can apply from Scripture to help us think about every issue we are called on to consider. 

This is especially true the closer the issue gets to the realm of the human heart. The Bible does not have much to say about the inner workings of an atom, so it does not directly address specific issues within the realm of physics. But the Bible does have a great deal to say about the inner workings of the human heart, and thus it does often have something to say about issues related to human conduct and behavior.  

2. Search for and apply relevant scriptural commands, whether directly or indirectly

If an issue proceeds from the heart, then we must consider whether Scripture has something to say about it directly or indirectly. The first place we should look is in scriptural commands, whether broad or narrow. 

Within the Bible we find two basic categories of commands: broad (or general) commands and narrow (or specific) commands. Broad/general commands typically apply to many situations, such as the command to love God first and then love our neighbor, and always apply in some way to all cultures and all contexts. In considering the issue of pronouns, we must first ask what behavior most exhibits our love for God? For instance, since Jesus is truth (John 14:6), we must use language—including pronouns—in a way that best expresses and reflects truth. We must also do that in a way that is most loving toward our neighbors. 

The other type of Scriptural commands are narrow or specific commands, those that relate to a particular circumstance, often in a culture that differs from our own. An example is Deuteronomy 22:8 which says, “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.” An application in our day might be to build a fence around your backyard pool so that a neighbor’s child doesn’t fall in and drown.

Narrow commands might not always apply to all cultures and all contexts. In some cases (as with the example above), there might be a parallel application. Narrow commands are similar to “case law” (i.e., law as established by the outcome of former cases) in that they give us paradigmatic examples for situations we might encounter.

In determining how a command applies, we must consider the reason for the command. If the reason for the command is a theological principle that is always true, then the rule will almost always apply today. As a general rule, if the Old Testament gives a moral command, it is still in effect unless later canceled, either explicitly or implicitly, in the New Testament.

3. Apply indirect commands analogically 

Sometimes it is rather obvious how a command in Scripture can be applied. But oftentimes, to determine whether an action or circumstance is similar to an action judged to be wrong in Scripture, we must use analogical reasoning. In his essay “The Place of Scripture in Christian Ethics,” James Gustafson states the commonly accepted method of scriptural analogy:

Those actions of persons and groups are to be judged morally wrong which are similar to actions that are judged to be wrong or against God’s will under similar circumstances in Scripture, or are discordant with actions judged to be right or in accord with God’s will in Scripture.

An example of how to use analogical reasoning might be to consider the relevance of Jesus’ commands regarding oaths (Matt. 5:33-37). The application extends beyond the issue of oaths into the realm of general truthfulness. As Tim Keller explained, Jesus is “saying if you think you can create levels of truthfulness, you’re wrong. He is saying that ‘every yes and every no must be as truthful as if you just swore it on a stack of Bibles on network television.’ Every yes and every no is observed, because God is the creator and is present with us.” 

As applied to pronouns, the question you might ask is whether you believe pronouns represent specific genders or are interchangeable terms? If you do not think they are interchangeable, then are you being untruthful if you use the pronoun “she” to refer to biological males or “he” for biological women.

Ultimately, the issue is not what pronouns you are using but what you are doing with those words—and your motive behind it. Are you using the words to communicate truth or to say what you do not truly believe? And are you using pronouns as weapons in a “culture war” (e.g., to mock or hurt a person who identifies as transgender), or are you attempting to avoid conflict or hurt someone’s feelings at the expense of speaking the truth?

4. In the absence of scriptural commands, apply Christian liberty thoughtfully

Those are difficult questions to address, which is why we are tempted to classify pronoun usage as an issue of Christian liberty. 

How does Christian liberty apply? In Romans 14:1-23, Paul addresses matters of conscience where Scripture is silent. He advises believers not to pass judgment on disputable matters but to act in love. This principle of Christian liberty applies to contemporary issues not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. 

The issue of pronoun usage might not be, as we’ve argued above, a true issue of Christian liberty, though, since Scripture does seem to address how we use language for the purposes of being truthful. However, the issue of individual restroom usage may be a better—albeit counterintuitive—example of an issue where Christian liberty should prevail.

The Bible does have something to say about how to go to the toilet (Deut. 23:12-14). But it does not say anything about the necessity of those individual facilities being gender-neutral. We could argue, of course, that such an explanation was not necessary because it is a matter of “common sense.” Yet appealing to a common-sense standard might violate the purpose of Christian liberty. 

There are, after all, numerous activities that some Christians have considered to be sinful because they violate the common-sense standard. The ingestion of harmful substances, such as tobacco, has been a frequent example through the past few centuries. However, this has not prevented other groups of believers (perhaps most famously, the Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon) from claiming it to be an issue of Christian liberty. 

Whether or not it is a matter of common sense, the best approach might be to consider bathroom usage to be (in a limited sense) a matter of Christian liberty. This is not to say that in considering it a matter of liberty that Christians must therefore allow anyone of any gender to use any restroom they choose. Indeed, that is not how Christian liberty works. What it means is that in the absence of clear direction from Scripture, Christians are allowed to adopt whatever customs and practices are deemed to be best and in keeping with the principle of love. 

Restroom usage can thus be approached as an issue of Christian liberty, with a focus on other relevant concerns such as safety, privacy, and respect for persons. These are some of the reasons why many churches with newer buildings have a “family-friendly” restroom. There is nothing in Scripture, of course, that requires a separate facility for families of young children to use. But concerns over privacy and respect have led some churches to choose that as a loving and respectful option. 

In the same way, churches can use their Christian liberty to allow visitors who identify as transgender to use gender-neutral facilities (such as single-room toilets that might not be available to everyone or family restrooms when they are not in use). But Christian liberty also gives churches the freedom to require that restroom usage conform to a person’s biological sex. Both are examples of how Christian liberty might look different within different circles of believers.

After choosing a side, we might think that one group is weaker in faith than the other. Yet, because they are fellow believers, we are still required to welcome them instead of quarreling over our different opinions, despising them, and passing judgment on them (Romans 14:1,3).  

(A third option, allowing transgender individuals to use the public restroom that aligns with their gender identity is likely to be the least loving option. Christian liberty should never be used in such a way that it becomes a stumbling block to other sincere Christians (Rom. 14:13). Allowing a biological man to enter a female-only space (i.e., a space where men who aren’t transgender would be forbidden from entering) would give the impression that biological sex is irrelevant to God and his people. It does not properly love the individual because it affirms their disordered identity.)

Embracing wisdom, love, and grace

As we face questions that Scripture does not explicitly address, we should be committed to walking in wisdom, love, and grace. Rather than simply assuming we are right and another group of Christians is wrong, we must first seek diligently to hear from God and apply his Word directly and analogically. If we become convinced that Scripture is silent on the issue, we then can view it as a matter of Christian liberty. But we must embrace all that entails and not use it as a license to do whatever our sinful nature (or our sinful culture) deems to be best. 

Adopting such an approach requires humility, patience, and a commitment to uphold the core truths of our faith while navigating the nuances of our ever-changing world. It’s an approach that is rarely easy and often controversial. But in doing so, we reflect Christ’s love and wisdom, and we offer the watching world a God-honoring response to the pressing issues of our times.

By / Dec 21

The end of 2023 has seen the largest Christian denominations in American struggling in the face of doctrinal shifts on sexuality. The UMC has lost one-fourth of its churches because of a refusal to uphold a biblical sexual ethic. Before the split, the UMC was the third largest Christian denomination in America, and second largest Protestant group. And the Roman Catholic Church—the largest Christian denomination in America—saw a seismic shift in its own practices earlier this week when Pope Francis announced that blessings for same-sex couples were now permitted.

The news was quickly met with scorn from conservatives with the church, and praise from the liberal wings. Indeed, the Rev. James Martin blessed a same-sex couple the day after the announcement, using the language of the Aaronic blessing (Num. 6:23b–26) because there is no standard language found in the published book of blessings for the couple.

What happened?

In the declaration On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings,” the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, the Vatican announced that a new rule was in effect allowing the blessing of same-sex couples. Officially, the declaration does not change the official doctrine of the church and does “not allo[w] any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion.” The declaration is forthright that “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.” 

The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. However, the declaration creates a new category where the same-sex couple could be blessed (though not in rituals, language, or garb which would appear to indicate the sacrament of marriage), without “officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.”

However, as others have noted, and the introduction to the declaration makes clear, this is a “real development from what has been said about blessings…” and marks a “specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings.” Whereas before, the strictly liturgical definition of blessing required “what is blessed be conformed to God’s will,” this more pastoral definition does not. Rather, it recognizes that those seeking the blessing may be engaged in activity or relationships which fall outside the Church’s official teaching, but it does not prohibit priests from performing the blessing in those circumstances because the request “expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God…” This is clearly a change and a permitting of what was formerly prohibited. 

Officially, the declaration allows for the blessing of same-sex couples, but not their union. The blessing must not be ritualized or occur in any way that would confuse people to think that it was a blessing of their union, similar to a blessing of a marriage. As part of that lack of ritualization, there should be no official blessing created or disseminated by official Church channels, instead preferring spontaneity on the part of those seeking the blessing and the priests who offer them.

Why does it matter?

It is no small thing for the largest Christian denomination to change its teaching on such an important topic as biblical sexuality, marriage, and the family, even if they protest it’s a slight modification. While officially the Catholic Church has not changed its definition of marriage, the altering of the activity causes massive shifts. If, as the Catholic Church claims, Lex orandi, Lex credenda (“the law of prayer is the law of what is believed”), then actions have a deep connection to the official teachings of the Church. The declaration does not prescribe rituals, because to do so would cause confusion and make the action look too similar to the blessing of a marriage. However, it allows for actions already occurring (as Rev. Martin said in his explanation, “It was really nice … to be able to do that publicly”) and brings them into the light as a good.

This points to what the declaration sees as the need for this pastoral enlargement of blessings. Namely, these arise out of a popular piety and practice, and to create rituals and solemn rites would both confuse the official Church teaching and would be a measure of “excessive control, depriving ministers of freedom and spontaneity in their pastoral accompaniment of people’s lives.” Spontaneity and freedom are to characterize these pious practices, not doctrine and established Church teaching. Further, a standard for seeking the blessing is itself problematic because there should not be “exhaustive moral analysis” placed on those who ask for the blessing.

As an evangelical, Protestant Christian, there is likely little surprise that I disagree with the Pope. Though arguably there are Protestants who uphold Catholic doctrine better than the current Pope. However, if pastoral practice is to have any meaning, then it must flow from clear doctrine. It is not shaped by the winds of culture and the climate of ideologies that trample Church teaching. Further, it cannot take what God has called evil and name it good. Any attempts to circumvent the official teaching by blessing a same-sex couple, but not the union (one wonders how this couple found themselves together apart from their union), are linguistic games more likely to push the Catholic Church toward a more inclusive stance, all while winking at official teaching. 

If the law of prayer means anything, it means that in the decades to come, the act of blessing couples will lead to a revision of the doctrine which says their union is outside God’s blessing. For now, the doctrine remains clear. Yet, what does doctrine matter when priests—by their actions—flout the dogma and act contrary to the teaching?

By / Dec 14

We began our gender and sexuality series by examining what the Bible teaches us about these important topics. And as we close out this series with two more episodes, we’re going to concentrate on the Church and how pastors and leaders can disciple their members to wrestle with and hold fast to God’s good design for us. Because gender confusion has disproportionately affected younger generations, we’ll spend a lot of time today focusing on discipling those at the forefront this ideological assault. 

As we discuss these important topics, you might have additional questions. We’d love to hear from you. Please e-mail us at [email protected] and let us know how you’re processing this conversation. 

Joining us on today’s episode are several of our former guests: Katie McCoy, the director of women’s ministry at Texas Baptists; Steven and Amy Castello from City on a Hill Church in Boston, where Steven is the lead pastor and Amy is the director for women’s discipleship and care; and Christopher Yuan, a professor and the creator of “The Holy Sexuality Project.”

You’ll also hear from Dr. Dub Oliver. Dr. Oliver is the president of Union University, a Southern Baptist college. He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in education from Baylor University, Master of Science degree in educational psychology, and a Doctor of Philosophy in educational administration from Texas A&M. Dr. Oliver and his wife, Susie, have one daughter and two grandchildren. 

The ERLC podcast is a production of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. It is produced by Jill Waggoner, Lindsay Nicolet, and Elizabeth Bristow. Technical production is provided by Owens Productions. It is edited and mixed by Mark Owens.

By / Nov 30

On our previous episode in our series on gender and sexuality, we looked at the family and how parents can approach these important topics with their children. Today, we’re turning our attention to an issue that has caused anxiety for some parents: gender and sexuality in schools and how to direct our children as they are confronted with teaching and examples that contradict what the Bible says. 

As we discuss these important topics, you might have additional questions. We’d love to hear from you. Please e-mail us at [email protected] and let us know how you’re processing this conversation. 

Joining us on today’s episode is Shaka Mitchell. Shaka serves as a Senior Fellow for the American Federation for Children. He is also an elder at his local church.  He has previously served as Associate Director of Policy and Planning at the D.C.-based Center for Education Reform and led outreach efforts at the Institute for Justice, a constitutional law firm based in Arlington, Virgina. He is an alumnus of Belmont University where he teaches as an adjunct faculty member. He earned his Juris Doctorate from the Wake Forest University School of Law. Shaka and his wife live in Nashville with their children and are active in several non-profit organizations.

The ERLC podcast is a production of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. It is produced by Jill Waggoner, Lindsay Nicolet, and Elizabeth Bristow. Technical production is provided by Owens Productions. It is edited and mixed by Mark Owens.

By / Nov 16

So far in our gender and sexuality series, we’ve learned what the Bible teaches about God’s design, we’ve traced the sexual revolution in our society, and we’ve heard a powerful testimony of honoring God in the midst of a struggle with sexual sin. Today, we’re going to discuss talking with our kids about gender and sexuality.

We’re going to hear some helpful advice for parents as they seek to teach their children a biblical view of sexuality.

As we discuss these important topics, you might have additional questions. We’d love to hear from you. Please e-mail us at [email protected] and let us know how you’re processing this conversation. 

On this episode, Steven and Amy Castello are going to help us think through some important aspects of teaching our kids God’s intent for gender and sexuality. Steven is the Lead Pastor and planter for City on a Hill Church in Boston, MA. He previously planted Immanuel Church in Birmingham, AL, before moving to Boston. Steven holds an undergraduate degree from Samford University and a M.Div from Birmingham Theological Seminary. 

Amy is the Director for Women’s Discipleship and Care for City on a Hill Church. She also serves as the Spouse Care Advocate for a non-profit in Boston called “For Greater Boston”. Amy has served in the local church, discipling and counseling women since 2009. 

Steven and Amy are parents to four daughters who are in middle school and high school. You’ll also hear briefly from our friend Katie McCoy who also joined us in episode 341 of this series, Society’s Spiraling Sexual Crisis.

The ERLC podcast is a production of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. It is produced by Jill Waggoner, Lindsay Nicolet, and Elizabeth Bristow. Technical production is provided by Owens Productions. It is edited and mixed by Mark Owens.

By / Nov 2

So far in this podcast series, we’ve learned what the Bible teaches about gender and sexuality, how the fall affects our perception of ourselves and God, and what role the sexual revolution played in where we are today as a culture. 

On today’s episode we are going to talk about how gender ideology deeply affects our personal lives. We will hear an incredible testimony from a man who has learned to honor God with his sexuality. We’re also going to hear how we can respond when someone we love struggles with sexual sin and gender confusion. Joining us on the podcast today for the first time is Christopher Yuan. You’ll also hear again from our friend Katie McCoy, the director of women’s ministry at Texas Baptists.   

Dr. Christopher Yuan is a writer, speaker, and the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a first-of-its-kind video series designed to help parents and grandparents empower their teens to understand, embrace, and celebrate biblical sexuality. Christopher graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 2005, received a master’s in biblical exegesis in 2007 and a doctorate of ministry in 2014. He has taught the Bible at Moody for over a decade.

We would love to hear from you about how you’re processing this conversation and what questions you’re facing related to issues of gender and sexuality. You can e-mail us at [email protected]

The ERLC podcast is a production of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. It is produced by Jill Waggoner, Lindsay Nicolet, and Elizabeth Bristow. Technical production is provided by Owens Productions. It is edited and mixed by Mark Owens.