When Bodies Don’t Matter: The Gnostic Temptation of Our Age

In recent years, I started to notice a common thread running through several major cultural flashpoints: homosexuality, transgenderism, AI, and Covid. At first glance, these topics seem disconnected. But the more I examined them, the more I saw a hidden connection—a way of thinking that undergirds them all. That underlying theme is an ancient Christian heresy: Gnosticism.

What Is Gnosticism?

Gnosticism teaches that salvation comes through secret knowledge (gnosis) and that the physical world is flawed or even evil. In this view, the true self is immaterial, and our bodies are little more than prisons. Early Christians rejected this heresy forcefully. The Apostle John, for instance, insisted that anyone who denies Jesus came in the flesh is not of God (2 John 7).

Today, Gnosticism hasn’t disappeared. It’s just morphed into new forms.

Gnosticism and the Sexual Revolution

Take homosexuality and transgenderism. The underlying belief here is that our bodies don’t matter—or at least, they shouldn’t have the final say in who we are. If someone’s desires conflict with their biology, then biology must yield. In transgenderism especially, the body is treated not just as irrelevant but as an obstacle to overcome. It’s a mindset that says, “What I feel on the inside is who I truly am—my body just hasn’t caught up yet.”

This isn’t a scientific outlook. Ironically, it clashes with Darwinian evolution, which says our physical traits exist for a reason. Our anatomy speaks to our purpose. Even noted biologist-atheist Richard Dawkins has made similar observations, emphasizing that male and female bodies evolved for reproduction, and that denying the biological basis of sex is anti-scientific. He certainly doesn’t frame this as a critique of Gnosticism—but the resonance is striking. 

Gnostic thinking rejects the biological basis entirely. It tells us that truth is found in the internal self, not the external form.

Virtual Reality, AI, and the Disembodied Future

This disembodied way of thinking also shows up in technology. Virtual reality is now marketed not just as entertainment but as an alternative to real life. Marc Andreessen, one of Silicon Valley’s top voices, once argued that those who value the physical world are simply enjoying their “reality privilege.” For most people, he claims, the digital world offers more meaning, more justice, and more joy. In a widely shared 2021 interview, Andreessen framed virtuality as a more equitable frontier than physical reality, arguing that investing in digital life is not only desirable but ethically necessary for those lacking “reality privilege.”

Mary Harrington, a feminist critic of transhumanism, connects this to the rise in trans identities. Kids who grow up immersed in virtual spaces—from Minecraft to Instagram—come to believe that the body is endlessly editable. If you can modify your online avatar, why not your real one?

She labels this phenomenon “Meat Lego Gnosticism”, vividly depicting a mindset where our bodies are deconstructed and reassembled, like LEGO blocks, at our own discretion rather than respected as integral, given wholes.

Artificial intelligence takes this logic even further. Some experts now openly ask whether unplugging an AI that claims to be conscious would be morally equivalent to killing a human. Why? Because if humans are just biological computers, then a silicon-based computer might be a person, too. Once again, embodiment is dismissed as unnecessary—or even oppressive.

Christianity Is Embodied

The problem is that this is profoundly anti-Christian. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible insists on the goodness of the body. Creation was called “very good.” Adam and Eve were given bodies with sexual differentiation and purpose. The Law regulated food, clothing, and ritual purity—bodily matters. Circumcision, anointing, sacrifices, baptisms—these are not incidental to the faith. They are expressions of it.

And then came the Incarnation. After creating bodies, and calling them good, God took on a body. He didn’t just give us ideas or a philosophy—He lived, suffered, bled, and died. He rose again with a body, and He gave us bodily sacraments: bread and wine, water and oil.

Christianity is not a disembodied information exchange. It is a flesh-and-blood, incarnational way of life. When we start treating livestreams as a sufficient replacement for church, or when we reduce Christian teaching to mere data transfer, we’re slipping into a Gnostic mindset.


Many in the tech world find the very idea that our nature has been given to us—rather than designed by us—to be a kind of offense. Yuval Harari, for example, boldly declares, “Organisms are algorithms,” and envisions a future where human life is no longer shaped by divine design but by human reengineering: “Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design—not the intelligent design of some God above the clouds, but our intelligent design.”

For the modern mind, it’s galling to be told that our identity, limits, and even our flesh have been handed to us. The Christian worldview says we are fearfully and wonderfully made; the new Gnosticism says we are merely constructed—and ought to be reconstructed at will.

Why It Matters Now

Covid accelerated this shift. We were suddenly told that human bodies were dangerous. The ideal became disembodied—stay home, go virtual, avoid touch. What shocked me most was how quickly many Christians accepted this. The body, once central to Christian worship and community, became an afterthought.

But this wasn’t a new temptation. Gnosticism has always haunted the Church. What’s new is how persuasive it’s become in the age of digital technology and identity politics.

When Christians start believing that the body is incidental to the faith—or to being human—we’re not just making a theological mistake. We’re surrendering to the spirit of the age. We’re forgetting that Jesus rose with a body, that the Church is a Body, and that salvation is not just for our souls but for our whole selves.

Embodied Discipleship

What does it mean, then, to resist the Gnostic pull? It means leaning into our createdness. It means honoring our bodies as gifts. It means worshipping in person when we can, serving one another physically, and refusing to reduce faith to a collection of doctrines floating in the cloud.

To be Christian is to be human in the fullest sense—mind, soul, and body. Our world doesn’t need more clever ideas. It needs the witness of embodied lives: people who live out truth in their flesh and bones, who love with their hands and feet, and who follow a Savior who did the same.

Gnosticism says salvation is found in escaping the body. The Gospel says it’s found in the Word made flesh.

And that makes all the difference.

+++

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

Fairness First: The Penn Title IX Case Is a Turning Point for Women’s Sports

Lia Thomas ‘winner’ and the women he competed against.


The U.S. Department of Education just ruled that the University of Pennsylvania violated Title IX — the landmark civil rights law that’s supposed to ensure equal opportunities for women in education and athletics.

Why? Because Penn allowed Lia Thomas, a male athlete who identifies as female, to compete on the women’s swim team. And according to the federal government’s own Office for Civil Rights (OCR), that decision denied actual women their legal rights under Title IX.

This is not a small thing. Title IX was put in place to make sure girls and women had the same opportunities as men in schools — especially in sports. For decades, it has leveled the playing field. But this case is a stark reminder that fairness is under attack, and female athletes are paying the price.

A Line in the Sand

Lia Thomas competed for three years on Penn’s men’s swim team, without much distinction. Then, after a gender transition, Thomas joined the women’s team — and started dominating. It was an immediate, obvious, and predictable outcome. Male bodies, even post-transition, retain biological advantages: greater lung capacity, muscle mass, bone density, and more. That’s just physiology. It doesn’t make someone a bad person — but it does make it unfair.

The OCR’s ruling affirms what so many people have been saying for years but have been afraid to say out loud: letting males compete in female sports isn’t inclusive — it’s unjust.

What Did the Government Find?

The Trump administration’s own Department of Education found that Penn’s actions violated Title IX by denying women “equal athletic opportunity” and “equal access to athletic benefits.” In plain English: women lost out. Whether it was roster spots, scholarships, facilities, or competitive success — they were pushed aside.

It took a federal investigation to confirm what every swimmer on that pool deck already knew.

What Happens Next?

Penn has been told to fix the mess. That means:

  • Acknowledging the violation.
  • Revisiting records and awards.
  • Issuing a public apology to the female athletes who were wronged.
  • Making sure it doesn’t happen again.

If the university doesn’t comply? The federal government could pull funding or take further legal action. The Trump administration has suspended approximately $175 million in federal funding to Penn and gave the university ten days to comply with a proposed resolution agreement. This agreement includes actions such as revoking Thomas’s Division I awards and issuing a public apology to affected female athletes.

This Is Bigger Than One School

This isn’t just about Penn. It’s about a nationwide trend where the rights of female athletes are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology. We’re told that inclusion means erasing the biological distinctions that make women’s sports necessary in the first place. That’s not inclusion — it’s erasure.

And here’s the thing: it’s not ‘transphobic’ to say women deserve a fair shot. It’s not hate to say that biology matters in sports. It’s just reality. If we can’t say that, then we’ve officially left the realm of reason.

Time to Reclaim Title IX

This case is a wake-up call. Title IX was designed to protect women — not to accommodate male athletes who identify as female. We don’t need to rewrite civil rights law. We need to enforce it.

So, hats off to the brave women who stood up and spoke out. And credit to the Office for Civil Rights for finally doing the right thing.

Now it’s time for schools across the country to pay attention. Because fairness in women’s sports isn’t negotiable — it’s the whole point.


Do we have eyes to see? And minds and hearts to know?

Lia Thomas

+++

Stay Human