Disregarding The Body – Podcast
The Crisis of our Time
Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art
Companion Posts
+++
Starting Again
I was born in the sixties. But I am not a child of the 60’s. My family was lower-middle class, and by the standards of the time, traditional in most every way. Dad was a minister. If he or mom had lived into their 90’s they would not have imagined the social changes we have witnessed in the last 20 years. It would be too easy to say the sexual revolution of the 60’s caused all this change, as some conservatives maintain. But the roots of this change go back much further than the swinging 60’s.
So I’m embarking with some misgivings on a survey of cultural history. There are deep intellectual and cultural traditions that have shaped our everyday lives. We’ve come to a point in the Western world where the statement “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” is comprehensible to many public leaders, at least in public. That phrase would be completely incomprehensible to my parent’s generation, in public or private, not to mention every preceding generation. It is still incomprehensible to many, if not most people today. But if you express your bewilderment in public, say at many workplaces in the Western world, increasingly the odds are you will be regarded as stupid, immoral or worse. You may be reprimanded for your irrational “phobia.” You might even have your career derailed. If you broadcast your view on a public forum, say Twitter, expect the Twitterati to pounce with the ferocity of a caged unfed Tiger. In certain parts of the world you may even be charged with a hate-crime for your expressed incredulity at the latest massive cultural shift. (See the following posts, here & here.)
As a 60’s poet might say, “The times they are a changin.”
The tectonic cultural shift in the last 20 years is quite breathtaking. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, we have gone from year 2000 where the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage to today where normalization of Transgenderism is fast approaching.
A long and winding road brought us to this point. I want to offer a thoughtful and hopefully generous exposition, from a Classic Christian point of view, of how we got here. As I go, I’ll be documenting some disturbing current events. (Read my next post). I hope that even those who disagree with Classic Christianity will find here a fair and readable assessment of our state of affairs. (post continues page 2)
Beyond Roe: The Real Revolution We Need
In his recent Public Discourse essay, Ryan T. Anderson argues that the deep crisis behind America’s abortion debate is not merely legal but cultural—rooted in a sexual ethic that separates pleasure from commitment, responsibility, and family. He contends that true pro-life work must go beyond legislation to challenge the assumptions of the sexual revolution, calling for a renewal of virtue, chastity, and the enduring ties of marriage and parenthood.
Consent plus condoms does not make people happy (or safe). No one on his deathbed looks back on his life and thinks of all his various and sundry orgasms. He does think of the love built up in a decades-long relationship with his spouse and in relationships with his children and grandchildren—something the sexual revolution simply can’t compete with.
Our primary task is not to persuade people of the humanity of the unborn—but to change how people conduct their sexual lives.
+++
Be Revolutionary
A Court Ruling and a Cultural Moment: Upholding God’s Design in a Time of Confusion
The recent Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti marks a significant, if limited, moment of clarity in a cultural fog. With a 6–3 decision, the Court upheld Tennessee’s law that prohibits puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors. The ruling doesn’t directly speak to the truth or falsehood of “gender identity”—it simply recognizes the state’s right to regulate medical interventions for children. But for those of us committed to a biblical worldview, this legal decision echoes a much older and deeper truth: we are not self-created.
As First Things rightly notes, this is a partial victory for common sense. But more than that—it is a moment to pause, give thanks, and speak clearly about what’s at stake.
Created Male and Female
From the opening pages of Scripture, we learn that our bodies are not accidents or raw material to be re-engineered at will. “So God created man in his own image… male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). This isn’t incidental to our faith—it’s foundational. God’s creation of two sexes is not a cultural artifact to be deconstructed; it is a good gift woven into the fabric of what it means to be human.
Modern ideologies that promote the notion of a disembodied self—where one’s identity can be detached from the body and reconstructed according to internal feelings—run counter to this truth. While compassion demands that we listen to those who suffer and struggle, it does not require us to affirm ideas that defy God’s design.
Loving Truth, Not Reinforcing Confusion
The great tragedy of today’s gender ideology is not just that it’s scientifically unsound or psychologically risky—it’s that it’s spiritually disorienting. It teaches children that their bodies are meaningless and malleable, that their identities are for them to create from scratch, and that truth bends to desire.
This is not love.
True love is never content to reinforce confusion. It does not affirm lies or encourage irreparable harm. As Christians, we are called to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15)—and that means calling a halt to medical experiments on children in the name of “gender affirmation.” The state of Tennessee, by passing this law, rightly chose to protect minors from irreversible decisions they are not mature enough to make. The Court, in turn, rightly deferred to the state’s authority.
But this isn’t a comprehensive victory. The ruling leaves unresolved the larger cultural question: what is a man? what is a woman?
The Role of Parents, Churches, and the State
Biblically, the family—not the state, not the medical establishment—bears primary responsibility for the formation of children (Deuteronomy 6:6–7; Ephesians 6:4). The Court’s decision, though narrowly reasoned, affirms the state’s right to reinforce that boundary, protecting children from misguided ideologies being enforced through medical coercion.
Still, the real work lies ahead. The Church must disciple parents, prepare young people for life in a confused world, and extend both truth and grace to those ensnared by deceptive ideologies. Laws can restrict harm; only the gospel can restore wholeness.
Hope Beyond the Culture War
We are not merely fighting for “traditional values” or a return to some idyllic past. We are bearing witness to a kingdom not of this world, but for this world. In Christ, we proclaim a vision of humanity that is far more than fluid identity. We are not cosmic accidents. We are creatures—embodied souls, male and female image bearers of God, called into a story of redemption, not reinvention.
The decision in Skrmetti gives us a window. It is a pause in the cultural storm, an opportunity for the Church to speak clearly and act faithfully. Let us use this time well—not to gloat, not to retreat, but to proclaim with confidence and compassion:
“You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:13–14)
Embrace, Don’t Affirm
Speaking for the Body: Medicine, Identity, and the Voice of the Flesh
What is medicine for?
This deceptively simple question sits at the heart of a fierce debate currently playing out in courts, clinics, and the conscience of a culture. A recent case—U.S. v. Skrmetti—confronts this head-on. The lawsuit challenges Tennessee’s law banning medical gender transition procedures for minors. But beneath the legal arguments lies a deeper philosophical fault line:
Is medicine the art of healing a disordered body, or the tool of sculpting a desired identity?
Two Models of Medicine
During oral arguments, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson asked provocative questions: If a teenage girl says, “I don’t want breasts,” is that enough to justify medical suppression of puberty?
That question exposes two competing visions of medicine:
- The Service Provider Model: The physician delivers treatments to match the patient’s internal sense of self.
- The Restorative Model: The physician diagnoses and treats real pathologies based on the body’s design and function.
If patient discomfort becomes the metric for medical intervention, anything can be labeled disease—including normal puberty.
Desire Is Not Diagnosis
In her article on Fairer Disputations, Leah Libresco Sargeant argues clearly: wanting something gone does not make it a disease.
A young girl may dislike her breasts due to dysphoria—or due to social pressure, trauma, or confusion. The physician’s job is to discern the difference. A culture that teaches self-avoidance should not be allowed to weaponize medicine against the body itself.
“A good doctor must attend to the body, not simply the feelings about it.” – Leah Libresco Sargeant
Feelings matter, but they are not the final diagnostic authority. Medicine must balance compassion with truth.
Listening to the Body’s Voice
Sargeant reflects personally on her own medical journey. As a teenager, signs of PCOS1PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) is a common hormonal disorder affecting women of reproductive age. It involves a combination of symptoms related to hormonal imbalance, metabolism, and ovarian function. were dismissed as normal. It wasn’t until later—after multiple miscarriages—that the condition was diagnosed.
Her body was speaking clearly. No one listened.
This isn’t just a case of delayed treatment. It’s a paradigm failure. Medicine did not fail to affirm her identity—it failed to honor her body’s reality. True healing requires both discernment and humility.
Medicine Must Be Rooted in Reality
When medicine drifts from diagnosis and healing into affirming personal desires, it risks becoming a mirror of cultural confusion rather than a defender of bodily truth.
We see this elsewhere:
- Athletes pushed toward surgeries or eating disorders.
- Cosmetic procedures driven by media-filtered ideals.
- Adolescents offered radical interventions in response to passing anguish.
The question isn’t just what someone wants—but why they want it. And whether medicine should say yes.
Final Word: Healing, Not Hacking
The body is not a blank canvas. It is not raw material for existential expression. It is a living testimony, created with meaning and wisdom. Our job—especially in medicine—is to listen, learn, and heal.
When medicine speaks for the body, it fulfills its sacred calling.
When it speaks against the body, it becomes something else entirely.
SOURCE: “Speaking for the Body” by Leah Libresco Sargeant on Fairer Disputations.
+++
Stay Human, Speak the Truth