Saturday, January 03, 2026

Understanding and Responding to Sexuality Issues: A Brief Bibliography

(University of Michigan)


(I am re-posting this, to keep it in play.)

I was against the legalization of same-sex marriage for two reasons, one religious, the other non-religious (sociological and legal).

 As regards the religious reason, I do not expect non-religious people to agree with me. Of course not. Just as I don't turn to their irreligious worldviews to make sense of anything, neither do I expect them to partner with me. That's the way worldviews work. Everyone has one. They do not, at significant points, overlap.

If the non-religious person objects to my religious views, they question my worldview, not my reasoning. The irreligious person is a non-player in the intra-religious and intra-Christian dialogue.

 Regarding non-religious reasons, here is where the irreligious and religious can join in principled (we would hope) dialogue, rather than ad hominem stereotyping (sadly, some on both sides do this.). We can dialogue without name-calling, right?

 These are a few of the resources I have read and found helpful in understanding the issues. Note: I have read pro-gay books since reading Mel White's Stranger at the Gate in, I believe, the early 1980s. 

 The Intra-Worldview Discussion

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, by Robert Gagnon. This is probably the book to read, within this worldview, and from this perspective.

 Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, by Wesley Hill.

Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by Gpd's Grand Story, by Christopher Yuan.

 God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, by Matthew Vines.

Changing Our Mind, by David Gushee.

The Gospel of Inclusion, Brandan Robertson



In my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity I consider and respond to Martin's two books.

 Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality, by Michael Brown.


Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality, by Greg Johnson.










Sexual Identity and Faith: Helping Clients Find Congruence, by Yarhouse

 
In Hays's new book he changes his mind about gay marriage. The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story.

See Preston Sprinkle's excellent, thorough review of Hays's new book. 


See my friend Phillip Lee's website, His Way Out Ministries. 

See Justin Brierley's "Unbelievable" podcast - "God, Gay Christians and the Church," a dialogue between David Bennett and Brandan Robinson.

See my sermon "The Meaning of Marriage."



TRANSGENDERISM
Legal and Philosophical Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage

 Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, by Bradford Wilcox. 

 Debating Same-Sex Marriage, by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher.

 The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals, eds. Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain.  

 What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, by Sherif Gergis, Robert P. George, and Ran T. Anderson (forthcoming Oct. 16, 2012) 

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement (Famously banned by Amazon [see here]; while Amazon sells Hitler's Mein Kampf.)

I contacted Robert George re. this issue, and he graciously sent me the following links. He also graciously offered to field questions I have.

 From Prof. George:

 For a fuller account of my own views, here is the link to a more recent paper I wrote with two of my former students. (It is a free one-click download.)
“What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

 Kenji Yoshino of NYU published a critique on Slate, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217

 Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern published a critique on Balkinization, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2263

 Barry Deutsch published a critique on the Family Scholars Blog, to which there is a link in our reply, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2277

 Kenji Yoshino published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2295

 Andrew Koppelman published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

 Also, here is an essay in two parts (written with Patrick Lee and Gerard V. Bradley) on the link between procreation and marriage – a link we believe is badly misunderstood by many on both sides of the debate. Here are the links:

 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638 “Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Link”

 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637 “Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments”

 Prof. George also sent me:

 The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations: some Philosophical and Historical Observations, by John Finnis.

 Marriage: A Basic and Exigent Good, John Finnis.
Posted by at

Friday, January 02, 2026

Truth Excludes



(Downtown Monroe)

Former USC philosopher Dallas Willard writes:

 "There is a certain logical exclusiveness built into knowledge as such, and it must be respected... This is due to the fact that knowledge (not mere belief, commitment, sentiment, or tradition) involves truth. Truth by its very nature is exclusive in the following sense. If any belief is true, that by itself excludes the truth of any belief contrary or contradictory to it. And this “exclusion” is not a matter of what anyone wants or hopes to be true or false. For example, if “Sue’s dress is red” is true, then “Sue’s dress is white” and “Sue’s dress is not red” are false. It does not matter what anyone may think or want. It is simply a matter of the objective logical relations between the beliefs (or statements or “propositions”) involved."
- Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, pp. 170-171

 Truth marginalizes. Truth excludes.

You have a worldview, a set of beliefs through which you interpret reality and experience. Your worldview excludes masses of people. 

Here is an example. 

 When I was speaking in India, the hotel I stayed in had an altar in the lobby. Every morning a young Hindu priest, dressed in a white skirt, lit incense sticks on the altar, and offered prayers to the god of the hotel. This scene can be captured in the following statements:

 1. There is a god who watches over the hotel.
2. Appeasing this god with the burning of incense and other sacrifices helps ensure that the hotel will succeed financially.
3. Uttering prayers of worship to this god increases the probability that the god will show favor towards the hotel.
4. To not perform #s 1 and 2 may cause the god of the hotel to be angry, and bring harm or disaster to it.

 Take statement 1. If it is true, then I, who think it is false, am wrong. Such is the nature of truth. The Hindu priest knows something I do not. I am logically excluded from such knowledge.

 I think statement 1 is false. If I am right, then statements 2-4 are false, since there exists no "god of the hotel" to be appeased.

 It is not rude or impolite to talk like this. It is not disrespectful. Marginalization is epistemically unavoidable. Willard writes: 

 "It is not arrogant and unloving merely to believe that you are right about something and that others are wrong... There have, after all, been many people who were strongly convinced of the rightness of their beliefs, in religious and other matters, without being arrogant and unloving." (Ib., 170)

In embracing the truths of your worldview, you have excluded many. That's just the way truth works. 
Posted by at

Thursday, January 01, 2026

The Devil’s Plan to Ruin the Next Generation

 


The Devil’s Plan to Ruin the Next Generation

I've read much of what the brilliant and discerning social scientist Jonathan Haidt has written.

In a recent essay in The Free Press he writes:

Earlier this year, someone started a viral trend of asking ChatGPT this question: If you were the devil, how would you destroy the next generation, without them even knowing it?

Chat’s responses were profound and unsettling: “I wouldn’t come with violence. I’d come with convenience.” “I’d keep them busy. Always distracted.”

“I’d watch their minds rot slowly, sweetly, silently. And the best part is, they’d never know it was me. They’d call it freedom.”

As a social psychologist who has been trying since 2015 to figure out what on earth was happening to Gen Z, I was stunned. Why? Because what the AI proposed doing is pretty much what technology seems to be doing to children today. It seemed to be saying: If the devil wanted to destroy a generation, he could just give them all smartphones.

THE PLAN

1. Erode Attention and Presence

2. Confuse Identity and Purpose

3. Flood Them with Information, Starve Them of Wisdom

4. Replace Real Relationships with Simulacra

5. Normalize Hedonism, Pathologize Discipline

6. Undermine Trust Across Generations

7. Make Everything a Marketplace

Conclusion: Learning from the Red Team

Posted by at

Jesus Was a Minimalist

 



From my book...

THE GREAT INVASION

 APPENDIX 1

Jesus Was a Minimalist
Christianity. It's not complicated. It was never meant to be.

It is deep. "Deep" is not the same as "complicated."

Jesus spoke simply and spoke deep. He is going after every human heart. Change the human heart, and behavioral change will follow.
Jesus reduced all moral commands to one moral command.

Jesus was a theological minimalist. 
Jesus was a logical-binary thinker. He loved arguing via disjunctive syllogism.
  1. Either p or q.
  2. Not q.
  3. Therefore, p.
  1. You are either for me, or against me.
  2. You are against me.
  3. Therefore, you are not for me.
Using modus ponens, Jesus boils love down to this.
  1. If p, then q.
  2. Not q.
  3. Therefore, not p.
 
So…
  1. If you love me, you will keep my commands.
  2. I do not keep your commands.
  3. Therefore, I do not love you.[i]
The apostle Paul was a theological minimalist. For Paul, there was only one thing to know: Christ crucified and the power of the resurrection. Minimalist Theology is "One-Thing Theology."[ii] I resolve to know nothing but this.

Jesus' theological minimalism is seen in his simple (not simplistic) counsel for us to become like branches, connected to him who is like a Vine. Everything follows from this. 

Do I like complexity? My PhD (Northwestern University, 1986) is in Philosophical Theology. That should say it all. My studies have taught me many things, one of which is: If there is a God who created us and loves us as his children, and who desires to communicate to us, all of us, then it has to be simple.

I think Karl Barth understood this. In seminary I took a class on Barth's theology. We were assigned portions of Barth's Church Dogmatics to read. One of the assignments was to read a twenty-page footnote. The footnote was in a font half the size of the main text.
I see Barth's footnotes like nodules on a vein of a leaf attached to a twig connected to a branch attached to a limb that abides in a massive trunk whose roots go deep into the earth. What are those roots? Barth was once asked to summarize his theological writings. He said it all comes down to this. "Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so."[iii]

It all comes down to Jesus, and his death and resurrection, which are demonstrations of his love. 

This is not complicated.
It is simple.
It is not simplistic.
It is deep.
"Jesus loves us" is the abundant, lavish, fruit-bearing, fertile Minimum.
It is the Trunk, in which we as branches are called to abide.
From this, all blessings flow.
Christmas Day is the beginning of God’s great love story.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son…

[i] See “Jesus the Logician,” by Dallas Willard.
[ii] 1 Corinthians 2:2
[iii] See Roger Olson, “Did Karl Barth Really Say ‘Jesus loves Me, This I Know’”?
Posted by at

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

A Light Has Dawned - Happy New Year!

 
























Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)