Author: Evan Lenow

Christ-follower, husband, father, ethics professor

When a Man Is Not Really a Man

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

No MenWomen have been giving birth to children since the beginning of the world. Men, however, have apparently figured out how to accomplish this feat only recently. In fact, it seems quite popular these days for media outlets to plaster across their pages a headline that includes some version of “Man Gives Birth.”

The latest account of this comes out of Germany via UK’s The Telegraph. The headline reads, “Transgender man gives birth in Germany.” Below the headline, the paper adds this description: “A transgender man has given birth to his first child in Germany and wants to be registered as the baby’s father.”

To the typical reader, such a headline and description sounds ludicrous. How can a man—even one who is described as a transgender man—give birth to a child? Isn’t childbirth a biological impossibility for a man?

Here is the rest of the story. The Telegraph reports:

Although the birth took place on March 18 of this year the news has only just come to light. The baby was born at home, in the Neukoellin district of Berlin, attended only by a midwife.

The father had insisted on a home birth to avoid being listed as the mother on hospital documents—a German legal requirement.

Although the father has been taking hormone replacement therapies for years he elected to retain the reproductive organs of a woman.

Because he physically gave birth to the child the unidentified man is seen as the mother, however by law he is recognised as a man.

The reality in this situation is that the person who gave birth to the child is physiologically a woman who happens to self-identify as a man. She has been taking hormone treatments (testosterone) in order to develop some traits of a man (e.g., facial hair, deeper voice, etc.), but she is still biologically female. In fact, she most likely had to stop the hormone treatments to get pregnant and give birth.

So what should we think of this?

This news report is evidence that our culture is attempting to strip words of meaning. The term “man” has always included biological and genetic markers distinguishing it from “woman.” One of the clearest markers is that men do not have the biological capacity to bear children. In this case, however, the mother wants to be officially recognized as the father.

In his book, On the Meaning of Sex, J. Budziszewski proposes definitions of womanhood and manhood with respect to identifying what makes each unique. Regarding the term “woman” he writes:

We can say that a woman is a human being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers. The broad category here is human beings; an essential characteristic that distinguishes some human beings from others is the potentiality for motherhood.

Budziszewski explains that potentiality for motherhood is more than the biological possibility of giving birth, but it certainly includes the biological. Even when a woman is physically incapable of bearing a child, it does not negate the potentiality of motherhood.

In addition, he offers a definition of manhood that is more than just a negation of the definition of woman. He states:

These few paragraphs about womanhood may have given the impression that men are to be defined negatively. Someone reading them might suppose that if a woman is a human being of that sex whose members have the potentiality for motherhood, then a man is simply a human being of the sex whose members lack the potentiality for motherhood—making the man a sort of incomplete woman. On the contrary! A man, like a woman, is correctly defined only when he is positively defined. He is a human being of the sex whose members have a different potentiality than women do: the potentiality for fatherhood.

In the same respect as before, Budziszewski considers fatherhood to be broader than merely the potential to sire children. It also includes the way a father relates to children, cares for and protects his family, and relates to women. Budziszewski laments that men have been taught not to be men by false and deluded teachers in the culture. He concludes his description of true manhood by noting:

Unlike the achievement of biological maturity, the achievement of manhood is hard work, labor that requires a firm hand with the desires and devices of the heart. Alas that the carving and shaping of these impulses is so unfashionable. . . . The truth is that not to endure being carved and shaped well is unnatural, and a source of numberless miseries. The best instance of an oak is not a gaudily decorated acorn, but a tree; in the same way, the best instance of a human male is not a glorified, walking packet of urges, but a man who, for the sake of the highest and greatest goods, commands himself, strengthens his brothers, and defends his sisters, regarding even the meanest of women as a lady.

According to biological descriptions and on the basis of a fuller vision of manhood, this “man” in Germany who gave birth is not really a man. She is a woman who sees manhood as a self-identified packet of urges as desires.

Words have meaning. Manhood means something, and this woman in Germany is attempting to remove that meaning.

God established the differences between man and woman at creation. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:17). God intended differences between male and female from the beginning. These include biological, genetic, emotional, and other differences. The terms “man” and “woman,” or “male” and female,” are not interchangeable because someone feels like he or she wants to be the other.

In the face of stories like this one, we need to stand up for the real meaning of manhood.

_________________________

Jocelyn Spottiswoode, “Transgender man gives birth in Germany,” The Telegraph, September 11, 2013.

J. Budziszewski, On the Meaning of Sex (Wilmington: ISI, 2012).

Juggling the Politics of a Justice: Ginsburg Officiates Same-Sex Wedding

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

We rarely see Supreme Court justices wade into the waters of political controversy outside the opinions issued from the hallowed halls of the nation’s highest court. The reason for staying away from controversy is that justices who delve into political issues in the public square but away from the bench may find themselves under fire for politicizing the office that is supposed to be free of politics.

Over the weekend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first member of the Supreme Court to officiate a same-sex wedding ceremony. The ceremony took place at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts between Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, and John Roberts, an economist with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Ginsburg admitted back in the spring that she had never been asked to officiate a same-sex wedding ceremony, most likely because members of the gay-rights movement did not want to jeopardize potential cases. However, since the historic rulings of June 26 on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, Ginsburg has already agreed to perform another one.

Ginsburg was in the majority on both of the recent Supreme Court decisions related to same-sex marriage. In those cases, the Court struck down section 3 of DOMA, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits, and declared the private citizens of California did not have standing to argue their case before the Court, effectively upholding the decision of the California Supreme Court that ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Should we be surprised that Justice Ginsburg has jumped into the deep political waters of same-sex marriage? Not really.

Ginsburg is the senior liberal justice on the Court, and it came as no surprise that she supported same-sex marriage in the recent decisions. In fact, The Washington Post reported:

Ginsburg said she thought she and her colleagues had not been asked previously to conduct a same-sex ceremony for fear it might compromise their ability to hear the issue when it came before the court. But once the cases had been decided, Ginsburg seemed eager for the opportunity.

Her agreement to perform a second ceremony in September was communicated to the individuals in a letter dated June 26, the date of the Court’s decisions.

Should we be disappointed that Justice Ginsburg has agreed to perform these ceremonies? Certainly.

Ginsburg’s decision to officiate these ceremonies raises questions regarding future cases related to same-sex marriage. One would be naïve to think that no other cases will reach the high court in the coming years. Even though Ginsburg turned 80 this year, she has clearly communicated that she has no plans to retire anytime soon.

When asked about performing the ceremony, Ginsburg stated:

I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship.

In this statement, Ginsburg has offered her personal definition of marriage that most certainly impacts her legal opinions on same-sex marriage. The only two qualifications for marriage, according to Ginsburg, are that people should “love each other” and “want to live together.” Notice that she places no limits on the number, gender, or consanguinity of the people—they simply need love and a desire to live together. As other cases make their way to the Supreme Court, specifically the “Sister Wives” lawsuit still pending in federal court in Utah, this definition of marriage is likely to play a key role in Ginsburg’s decisions.

Ginsburg’s definition is essentially what Girgis, Anderson, and George have called the revisionist definition of marriage in their book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Ultimately, these authors find that the revisionist definition is incoherent because the state only has an interest in regulating certain relationships that are sexual and monogamous. The revisionist definition requires neither.

At the end of the day, this is another example of the culture’s march toward a redefinition of marriage. This time it came from the actions and words of a justice outside the walls of the Supreme Court. May we continue to be diligent to make the case for God’s design for marriage—one man and one woman for a lifetime.

_________________________

Robert Barnes, “Ginsburg will be first justice to officiate at same-sex wedding,” The Washington Post, August 30, 2013.

Brett Zongker, “Justice Ginsburg to officiate at same-sex wedding,” Associated Press, August 30, 2013.

Jim Dalrymple, II, “After 6 months, no ruling on ‘Sister Wives’ polygamy lawsuit,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 2013.

Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter, 2012), 15–21.

Where Are All the Children? The Shrinking of Deutschland

~ Evan Lenow ~ 3 Comments

It is no secret that the European economy is struggling. In the face of failing banks and bankrupt governments, however, the European Union has always looked to Germany as the lone economic bright spot in the continental economy. But can Germany sustain its economic prominence? According to a recent article in The New York Times, the answer is “No.”

The problem for Germany (and most other European nations) is that fertility rates have been so low that their populations are aging and shrinking. As populations shrink, there are not enough productive workers to maintain economic growth. Therefore, economies begin to falter.

The Times describes the situation in Germany this way:

There is perhaps nowhere better than the German countryside to see the dawning impact of Europe’s plunge in fertility rates over the decades, a problem that has frightening implications for the economy and the psyche of the Continent. In some areas, there are now abundant overgrown yards, boarded-up windows and concerns about sewage systems too empty to work properly. The work force is rapidly graying, and assembly lines are being redesigned to minimize bending and lifting.

Germany has already lost 1.5 million in population according to a recent census and expects to lose another 19% (approximately 16 million) over the next 45 years. According to the Times, this attrition can almost exclusively be attributed to the low birthrate in Germany—around 1.43 children per woman. Most demographers identify a “replacement fertility rate” at 2.1 children per woman. This replacement rate is just enough to keep a population size stable.

For Germany and the rest of the European Union, the shrinking population and falling fertility rate spells economic doom for the Continent. As subsequent generations become smaller and smaller, the economic promises made to previous generations (e.g., pensions, social services, socialized medicine) become impossible to keep. Most of these social programs require more than one worker for every recipient to ensure the tax base is large enough to support the programs. Since people are retiring earlier and living longer, the number of recipients is outpacing the number of workers at an unprecedented rate.

The German government has made a few attempts to correct this problem. First, they have invested $265 billion per year in family subsidies to encourage people to have more children, but they have seen few results. Second, they are gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. The Times reports:

Another way to adjust to the population decline is to get older workers to postpone retirement. The German government is raising the retirement age incrementally to 67 from 65, and companies have moved fast to adapt. The share of people ages 55 to 64 in the work force had risen to 61.5 percent in 2012, from 38.9 percent in 2002.

Volkswagen has redesigned its assembly line to ease the bending and overhead work that put excessive strain on workers’ bodies. About three years ago, they began using reclining swivel seats that provide back support even for hard-to-reach spots in the automobiles they are building, and the installation of heavy parts like wheels and front ends is now often fully automated.

Ultimately, the problem we see in Germany—and across most of the developed world—related to falling fertility rates is a values issue. In the article, the authors state that “the solution lies in remaking values, customs and attitudes in a country.”

For the authors, the values that need to be remade relate to immigration and the acceptance of working mothers. However, the values problem is much deeper than that. The value that truly needs remaking is the way a culture views children. The German culture, and that of most Western countries, is to see children as burdens and consumers rather than producers. The reality is that we all go through stages of consuming and producing. And an economy needs both.

From a biblical standpoint, children are a blessing rather than a burden. In Psalm 127:3–5, Solomon writes:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They will not be ashamed
When they speak with their enemies in the gate.

Certainly children consume more than they produce in their early years. However, as they grow and mature, they become producers and strengthen the family and social economy through their prime years until their production decreases at the latter stages of life. This is a natural progression.

The problem is that most people only consider the early stage of life when thinking about children. They are short-sighted, seeing only the consumption and not the production later in life. The other perspective that is often missed is the role of children and parents as the parent age. These children then become the care-takers of aging parents. Without these children, the elderly are left without the comfort and care of their children at the end of life.

Solomon’s wisdom speaks to more than just the perspective on children when they are young. At the end of life, these “arrows in the hand of a warrior” circle back to care for aging parents just as the parents cared for them as children. They are a blessing early in life and a blessing later in life.

We must not lose sight of the value of children from both biblical and economic perspectives.

_________________________

Suzanne Daley and Nicholas Kulish, “Germany Fights Population Drop,” The New York Times, August 13, 2013.

The Prince and the Golfer

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments
*Co-authored with Waylan Owens.

Hunter Mahan and Prince William. Not two names you would put together naturally. But the two have caused a stir in the name of fatherhood by their respective decisions that place family ahead of their other responsibilities.

We applaud the commitment to family exhibited by Mahan and the prince, and we think it will be helpful to look a little more closely at what the two men did and what all this means.

First, Prince William announced that he was taking two weeks of paternity leave, an option provided in Britain by the government that comes with a $210 per week stipend. We doubt William was after the money, so it is obvious that he wanted to be with his wife and child.

Then, Hunter Mahan learned that his wife was about to give birth to their new daughter, Zoe, and went to her side. That is not so unusual, except that Mahan was firmly in the lead, halfway to a $1,000,000 payday in the RBC Canadian Open golf tournament. “Would you give up $1,000,000 to see your baby born?” has been the question of the day for sportscasters and news anchors alike.

A poll by NJ.com asked the question, “Do you applaud Hunter Mahan for leaving golf tournament for baby’s birth?” At the time of this writing, an astounding 92% had responded yes.

So how do we view all of this as Christians? Is it “great news” of a world returning to its moral, family underpinnings? Or is there something more to these stories?

Embracing Fatherhood

The first observation we can make is that both men seem to have embraced the idea of fatherhood fully. In a day where more than 40% of all children in the United States are born out-of-wedlock, most of whom do not have fathers in their lives, we can rejoice that Prince William and Mahan have accepted their responsibilities as husbands and fathers for rearing their children in the context of marriage.

Scripture is replete with references to a father instructing his children. Six of the first seven chapters of Proverbs begin with Solomon telling his son to listen to his words (Prov 1:8; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; 7:1). He then proceeds to give specific instructions to his son about pursuing wisdom and avoiding folly. The contrast between these two paths is then highlighted in 10:1 where Solomon says, “A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother.”

While simply being present at the birth of a child does not insure that one will instruct his child faithfully to pursue wisdom, it does offer an initial indication that a father is taking an interest in the development of his child at the earliest stages.

Family Over Profession

Our second observation is that they appear to have placed family over professional success. While William’s actions do not bring any detriment to his future as king of England, Mahan certainly suffered the loss of potential earnings and ranking in his career.

Many men find their identity primarily in what they do. When asked to describe ourselves, many of us start with our profession and may even include some of our accomplishments. However, the role of husband and father is even more important than a career. For Mahan specifically, he sacrificed the advancement of his career to care for his family.

In Psalm 128, the blessings of the Lord are defined in terms of family. The psalmist writes, “How blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways. … Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house, your children like olive plants around your table. Behold, for thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord” (Ps 128:1, 3–4).

Sacrificial Love

A third observation must be made. While a prince took a brief maternity leave, he did not leave his wealth and luxury behind. We have a King who did. Jesus left it all behind in Heaven to live with us, not for a few weeks, but unto his own death. He did not turn away from his family. Rather he died for his family. And even now, he is working to prepare a place to “receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also,” for all eternity. (John 14:1-3)

Two unusual allies, a prince and a golfer, have turned the world’s focus toward a man’s responsibility to support his family by his presence and engagement without suggesting that a man should shirk his obligation to support his family by his hard work and ingenuity. We join in calling all fathers to note and to honor their examples. And we call all people to note that Jesus beat them to it, that he is with his children always, that he works on his family’s behalf, and that soon his children will be with him forever.

_________________________

Follow Waylan Owens on Twitter @WaylanOwens and check out his blog at http://waylanandbetsyowens.com/.

God’s Plan for Marriage: How to Respond to Cohabitation in the Church

~ Evan Lenow ~ 9 Comments

Many of us would like to think that the church is immune to the growing trend of cohabitation prior to, or instead of, marriage. Unfortunately, this cultural trend has crept into the pews as fewer church members recognize cohabitation as a violation of biblical sexual ethics.

Scripture is clear in its condemnation of fornication (a KJV-style word for a pre-marital sexual relationship). Fornication and fornicators (as well as adulterers) are described as evil, subject to judgment, and not heirs of the kingdom of God (Matt 15:19; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4).

Beyond the clear scriptural statements regarding fornication, cohabitation also presents another breach of biblical ethics. God established the sexual relationship between a man and a woman in Genesis 2 as a sign of the covenant of marriage. Just like the rainbow serves as a tangible reminder of God’s covenant with Noah that He will not destroy the earth by flood again, the sexual relationship between a husband and wife demonstrates the exclusive, permanent union of marriage. It is so intimate that Gen 2:24 says the man and woman “shall become one flesh.” Those who cohabit participate in the “pleasures” of the relationship without the covenantal commitment. This stands in direct violation of God’s plan for marriage that he established in Genesis 2 prior to the Fall.

So how do we address the issue of cohabitation in the church? First, remember that cohabitation is not the unpardonable sin. After Paul gives a vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 that says certain people, including fornicators and adulterers, will not inherit the kingdom of God, he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).

We need to work with cohabiting Christian couples to help them confess and repent of this sin. Ideally, this confession and repentance should have a public element to it within the church. This does not necessarily mean that they air their dirty laundry before the church on Sunday morning, but it should at least include their families and those in their circle of influence who are aware of the situation. Depending on the church, it may also include the entire church body.

Second, we need to help these couples separate from their sinful lifestyle. Many couples use cohabitation as a “test drive” for marriage, but it is actually a recipe for disaster. If a cohabiting couple is heading toward marriage, then we need to encourage them to change their living arrangements. If it means a woman moves back home with her parents, or a man moves in with some friends for a period of a few months, then so be it. If the couple is not willing to do this for the remainder of the time leading up to the marriage, then they are not interested in honoring God with their marriage.

We simply cannot turn a blind eye to the issue of cohabitation. The biblical covenant of marriage is too important to God’s design for mankind to adopt the world’s preferences for pleasure without commitment.

_________________________

This article was originally published in The Alabama Baptist, August 8, 2013, as part of their Faith & Family series. You can find the original article here.