The Vanishing Black Family—and Why Every American Should Care

What Delano Squires Teaches Us About Marriage, Fatherhood, and God’s First Institution


Audio

Last week, the New York State Legislature passed a bill replacing the words mother and father in portions of state law with the more clinical terms gestating parent and non-gestating parent.

Many people shrugged.

“It’s only language,” we’re told. “It’s simply an effort to make the law more inclusive.”

But language is never just language.

Words both reflect and shape the way a civilization understands reality. When a society no longer wishes to speak naturally of mothers and fathers, it is revealing something much deeper than a preference for inclusive terminology. It is signaling that the family itself has become negotiable.

That should concern every Christian.

According to Scripture, the first institution God established was neither government nor the marketplace. It was marriage. Before there were kings, legislatures, courts, schools, or welfare bureaucracies, there was husband, wife, and child. The family is not a social invention. It is part of the created order itself.

That is precisely why the family has become one of the primary battlegrounds of our age.

Today’s cultural revolution is not simply asking us to redefine marriage. It is asking us to redefine motherhood, fatherhood, womanhood, manhood, and ultimately what it means to be human. Once those foundations are removed, every other institution built upon them eventually begins to crack.

That is why I found myself deeply encouraged—and deeply sobered—while listening to a recent interview with Delano Squires discussing his outstanding new book, The Vanishing Black Family: How Welfare and Feminism Made Marriage Optional and Children Vulnerable.

Squires is Director of the DeVos Center for Human Flourishing at the Heritage Foundation, but those credentials are not what make his argument compelling. He writes first as a Christian, a Black husband, and the father of four children who loves his own community enough to tell it difficult truths. Before becoming widely known as a public intellectual, he spent years writing for Black and Married with Kids, a website devoted to promoting healthy marriages and intact families. Looking back with characteristic humor, he remarks that he eventually became the entire title himself: “I moved from just being black to eventually being black and married with kids.”

There is, however, nothing humorous about the burden of his book.

Squires argues that the greatest crisis confronting Black America today is not primarily economic. Nor is it fundamentally political. It is the gradual collapse of marriage and family formation. More importantly, he insists that the solutions proposed by our political class have often misunderstood the nature of the problem because they begin with economics rather than anthropology—with government rather than God.

As Christians, that observation should immediately sound familiar.

For decades we have been told that broken families are primarily the result of insufficient income, inadequate government spending, systemic inequities, or unequal opportunity. Certainly those realities matter. Poverty places enormous strain upon families. Economic instability makes marriage more difficult. Squires does not deny any of that.

But he insists those explanations do not reach deeply enough.

The crisis, he argues, is first spiritual and then cultural. Marriage is God’s institution before it is society’s institution. Consequently, when a culture loses its understanding of marriage, no amount of government spending can restore what has been lost.

That is a profoundly biblical insight.

It also places Squires at odds with many of today’s dominant cultural narratives.

Yet readers should resist the temptation to assume this is merely a book about the Black community.

It is certainly that. Squires writes unapologetically as a Black man who longs to see marriage restored among his own people. He offers pointed criticisms—not only of government policy, but also of many Black political leaders, progressive activists, and even segments of the contemporary Black Church that, in his judgment, have abandoned the biblical vision of marriage and family.

Like an Old Testament Hebrew prophet, His critique comes from within.

That is precisely why it deserves to be heard.

At the same time, Squires repeatedly reminds his audience that the collapse of the Black family is no longer uniquely a Black tragedy.

It has become an American tragedy.

The patterns that first appeared in Black America have steadily spread throughout nearly every segment of our society. What was once considered an alarming exception has increasingly become the national norm.

In that sense, the Black family became America’s canary in the coal mine.

(continue on next page)

The Body is Not the Problem

How Gender Ideology Rewrites Science—and Why Christians Must Resist It


When Every Outcome Proves the Theory

One of the hallmarks of genuine science is that it allows itself to be proven wrong.

A scientific hypothesis must make risky predictions. There must be conceivable evidence that would count against it. If every possible outcome is interpreted as confirmation, then what we’re dealing with is no longer science in the strict sense—it’s an ideology.

That is what struck me most while reading a recent analysis of new data on pediatric gender medicine in Oregon. (City Journal)

For years, advocates of the “gender-affirming” model assured the public that medical transition for minors was extraordinarily rare. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, we were told, were reserved for a tiny number of carefully screened adolescents suffering from severe and persistent gender dysphoria.

But new statewide insurance data from Oregon complicate that narrative. Among insured 17-year-olds, roughly one in 240 girls was taking testosterone, while approximately one in 630 boys was taking estrogen. Oregon is hardly representative of the entire country, but because it has one of the nation’s most supportive legal and insurance environments for pediatric transition, it offers a glimpse of what widespread implementation of the affirming model looks like.

As biologist Colin Wright observes:

“Trans activist Ari Drennen said on X that it ‘should not be shocking’ that 0.4 percent of 17-year-old girls in Oregon are chemically transitioning. But it is shocking. If one in 240 girls aged 17 in a state were receiving any other powerful intervention for a new psychiatric diagnosis that permanently deepened their voice, caused them to grow beards, altered their sexual function, and affected their fertility, no serious person would shrug and say, ‘Sounds about right.’”

That observation gets to the heart of the issue. Before these numbers emerged, advocates frequently pointed to the rarity of pediatric transition as evidence that the medical system was exercising extraordinary caution. Now that the numbers are substantially higher than many expected, the response has shifted. Rather than prompting a reconsideration of the underlying assumptions, the higher prevalence is presented as evidence that more young people are finally receiving the care they have long needed.

Notice what has happened.

If few children transition, the model is vindicated.

If many children transition, the model is also vindicated.

No imaginable outcome appears capable of counting as evidence against the underlying theory.

The Popper Test: Can the Theory Be Proven Wrong?

This is a textbook example of what philosopher of science Karl Popper meant by falsifiability. Popper argued that scientific theories distinguish themselves from ideological systems by exposing themselves to possible refutation. A theory that can explain every possible observation ultimately explains nothing at all.

History offers many examples.

Marxist economic theory frequently interpreted both prosperity and poverty as proof that capitalism was collapsing. If workers revolted, the theory was confirmed. If they did not revolt, that too confirmed the theory because they had supposedly developed “false consciousness.”

Likewise, some Freudian interpretations treated every patient response as confirmation of unconscious motives. Agreement proved the diagnosis. Denial also proved the diagnosis because it demonstrated repression.

In each case, the theory became insulated from correction.

Medicine must never operate this way.

Every medical intervention should be open to the possibility that it is less effective than originally believed—or even harmful. That is why medicine continually revises itself through systematic reviews, replication studies, and long-term follow-up. Indeed, several European health authorities have recently reassessed the evidence for pediatric gender medicine and concluded that the quality of evidence supporting routine medical interventions remains low, leading them to adopt a more cautious approach. (PMC)

When Science Becomes an Ideology

When an idea evolves so that every possible outcome becomes evidence in its favor, we should stop asking whether the evidence supports the theory and begin asking whether the theory has become unfalsifiable.

That question extends well beyond gender medicine.

It is one of the recurring temptations of every ideology.

The healthiest intellectual traditions—whether in science, medicine, theology, or politics—retain the humility to admit what evidence would cause them to reconsider their conclusions. They recognize that truth is not protected by making contrary evidence impossible, but by welcoming honest inquiry, even when it is inconvenient.

That is how knowledge advances.

And it is also how ideologies are exposed.

The Question Science Cannot Answer

This raises an even deeper question.

As Christians, we should insist on honest science. We should welcome rigorous studies, long-term follow-up, transparent data, and the willingness to revise conclusions when the evidence demands it. Christians have nothing to fear from truth because we believe all truth is God’s truth.

But our concern with pediatric gender medicine ultimately goes beyond questions of statistical outcomes.

Medicine is never merely about producing desired psychological states. It is about restoring health according to the nature of the human person.

That is where the current gender-affirming model departs most fundamentally from the Christian understanding of humanity.

The Christian View of the Human Person

Scripture teaches that our bodies are not accidental shells housing our “real selves.” They are gifts from God, intentionally created, received rather than constructed. We are embodied souls, not minds temporarily occupying disposable biological equipment. The body is not an obstacle to our identity but an essential part of it.

This is why the Christian tradition has always understood genuine healing as bringing the person into greater harmony with reality—not altering reality to conform to our perceptions.

The Body is Not the Problem

Of course, human beings experience profound psychological suffering. Christians should never minimize the real distress experienced by those with gender dysphoria. Compassion requires that we take such suffering seriously.

But compassion and affirmation are not the same thing.

When a normally functioning body is permanently altered in order to accommodate a person’s internal perception of himself or herself, medicine has crossed a profound philosophical boundary. The body is no longer treated as something to be understood and cared for; it becomes something to be reconstructed so that it conforms to the mind’s self-understanding.

That inversion should concern everyone. But for Christians, it represents a direct contradiction of biblical anthropology.

From Genesis onward, the human body is received as a gift before it is ever experienced as a project. Our sex is not an arbitrary biological fact to be overcome but part of the good created order. The Fall has certainly introduced disorder into every dimension of human life—including our desires, our perceptions, and our experience of our own bodies—but redemption never consists in rejecting creation. It consists in restoring our lives to harmony with the Creator.

This is why sex-rejection therapy can never be the Christian answer.

The problem is not that the body has told us a lie. The problem is that, like every other part of our fallen humanity, our minds, emotions, and self-perceptions can become disordered. Christian discipleship has always involved bringing our thoughts, desires, and identities into conformity with God’s created reality—not reshaping creation to validate every inward perception.

This is precisely why the Oregon data matter.

Not because higher or lower numbers would ever determine Christian ethics, but because they reveal how difficult it has become to question an ideology that increasingly treats the healthy body as the problem. When every outcome confirms the theory, honest inquiry becomes impossible. And when the body itself is regarded as an obstacle to personal authenticity, medicine loses sight of its proper end.

Christians should resist both errors.

We should reject ideological science that refuses correction by evidence.

But we should also reject any anthropology that asks us to believe that the path to human flourishing begins by rejecting the body God has given us.

The Christian Hope

The Christian hope has always pointed in the opposite direction. It is not escape from the body, but the redemption of the whole person. We do not await liberation from our created humanity; we await the resurrection of the body.

+++

The “Christian Nationalism” Charge and the Return of an Old Heresy


[Audio script] "We have to draw the connection here, between what we are seeing in these crisis pregnancy centers, what we are seeing in other..um..Christian Nationalist policy imposition on ability for Trans individuals to receive health-care and gender-affirming care.  We see what is happening in our schools with the so-called Parents Bill of Rights and all of the ways in which LBGTBQ issues, like book-banning, and other issues across healthcare, across all the issues that deeply impact North Carolinians.  This agenda is front and center, and the majority party in this moment, is the one that is, are the architects of those impacts.  So we have to tell the truth about the ways in which all of the issues we are dealing with in the General Assembly, across Education, Health-Care and beyond are all tied to this central agenda of Christian Nationalism."

Recently, I watched the above press conference held by several female ministers and clergy leaders at North Carolina’s legislative building in Raleigh. During the event, one pastor argued that crisis pregnancy centers1 A crisis pregnancy center (CPC) is a place for people facing an unexpected pregnancy to get counseling and support. Many CPCs offer free services such as: pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby supplies, parenting classes, counseling or referrals. However, most CPCs are Pro-Life organizations, which is apparently for these ministers, problematic., restrictions on so-called “gender-affirming care,” parental rights legislation, curriculum transparency, and book policies are all connected expressions of a broader “Christian Nationalist agenda” affecting North Carolinians.

That’s what they say.

I disagree.

But about one thing they are certainly correct: these issues are connected.

Why the “Trans Issue” Matters

Some of my progressive Christian friends ask why I consider the transgender issue so important. Here is one example of why. And it has nothing to do with “Christian Nationalism,” as these clerics insist.

Feebly following Jesus’ lead, I increasingly reserve my sharpest criticism for religious leaders—especially ministers who appear to have bypassed the very first article of the Christian creed: belief in God the Creator. And, no doubt, several other articles as well, including the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given what I know about the theological formation many ministers now receive in certain seminaries and divinity schools, it is an educated guess that some of these clergy do not actually believe the creeds they publicly recite every Sunday.

Just a hunch.

Yet they still claim to speak liberating “gospel truth” to power.

The False Gospel of Liberation from the Body

Now let me be clear: there is true freedom in Christ—from God our Creator. That is the freedom human beings were made for.

But part of the modern false-liberationist worldview—astonishingly embraced by some theologians, preachers, and denominations—is the idea that human beings can and should be liberated from their bodies, especially from the perceived “constraints” of bodily reality itself.

That is a lie.

In fact, it is a very old lie.

The Early Church Fathers regarded this way of thinking as a theological five-alarm fire. They fought vigorously to cast it into the Gehenna of theological discourse and history.

It was called Gnosticism. (You can read more about Gnosticism at this link.)

Unfortunately, despite their efforts, it always seems to be hangin’ ’round the house.

The New Gnosticism

Today’s Gnostics tell us that the body does not really matter—not ultimately, anyway.

They say it does not matter how sexual behavior is expressed, so long as it is called “love.”

They say that if a person possesses XY chromosomes, male reproductive anatomy, and produces the small gametes characteristic of the male sex—but internally identifies as female—then that person “really” is female in the truest sense.

And society, they insist, must affirm this inner identity above biological reality itself.

Not only affirm it, but increasingly enforce it—through language codes, institutional mandates, and legal pressures compelling others to participate in the fiction.

Bodies, after all, do not really matter, according to this new spiritualist vision.

Or, at least, not very much.

[Yoda voice: “Mary Baker Eddy disciples, they are.”]

And accordingly, they will support the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of minors in pursuit of these self-expressive and supposedly liberating ends.

All of this, mind you, is done in the name of compassion, liberation, and “gospel truth.”

Creation, Resurrection, and Reality

But as someone who believes in God the Creator—the One who raised the dead body of Jesus into new creation life—I fail to see the Ordo Amoris in any of this.

Ordo amoris is a Latin phrase meaning “the order of loves.” In Christian theology—especially in Augustine of Hippo and later thinkers—it refers to the proper ordering of our loves, desires, and affections according to God’s created design and moral reality.

The basic idea is this:

Sin is not merely loving bad things, but loving good things in the wrong order.

So, for example:

* Loving pleasure more than truth,
* Self more than God,
* Desire more than reality,
* Or autonomy more than creation itself,

would all represent a disordered ordo amoris.

By contrast, a rightly ordered life loves God our Creator first and then loves all other things—people, body, sex, family, nation, freedom, possessions—in their proper place and proportion.

I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially our leaders, will come to the same conclusion.

Christians cannot surrender the goodness of creation without eventually surrendering Christianity itself.

The biblical faith is not a religion of escape from the body. It is a religion of incarnation, resurrection, and new creation.

Non-Christians may continue drifting into this technologically assisted Gnosticism. But the Church must not.

We must remain firmly rooted in God’s created order and design, come what may.

Because societies built upon lies about human nature eventually collapse.

And denominations built upon those same lies eventually die as well.

+++

Love God First, Then Your Neighbor

Companion Post