Hirs, zirs and xyr.
My head has been in the sand. Apparently the search for gender-neutral pronouns has been going on for years. The University of Tennessee is all over it, though. And so is New York City. But it wasn't until I got around to reading this piece by don't-care-what-you-think Doug Wilson that I caught up with the pronoun-cements (ha ha) myself.
I confess, as a son of my age, I was wondering what would be the loving thing to do as a Christian and as a Church (not that I'm a Church, you understand, but I'm part of the Church). I mean, the Bible is clear about binary genders, but we also want to meet people where they are at. Already we've had to struggle with how to respond to gay couples claiming step-children by virtue of a homosexual or lesbian partnership, how to acknowledge the existence of the legal creation of "homosexual marriage" among people we know, and many more unbiblical social creations. Just how far should we go if these alternative pronouns actually become widely accepted in our society?
How far should we go accomodating this in the church?
Unfortunately, I am so short of time I will not be able to get to this review until next month at the earliest (though I guess anything could happen...).
For those who are interested in Denny Burk's defense of asexuality, it would be worthwhile reading Matthew 19:1-12 (specifically 11-12) and 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 (specifically 36-40 - though the whole chapter contains salient points). Pay attention to what it actually says, and ask whether those passages support asexuality or lack of sexual desire for the opposite sex as a gift from God, or whether that idea needs to be read into the text. Note: celibacy is not the same as asexuality.
Hope to be able to give my take soon.
You guys missed out. I tell you what! I had a great post for you all, but after losing it three times due to computer stupidity, this is all you get. Hopefully it gives you some idea of just some of what happened over December for our Advent.
When I listened to "Why Reparative Therapy is not an Evangelical Option", Heath Lambert's talk for the 2015 ETS debate about Reparative Therapy, I appreciated Heath's desire to honour Christ in counseling. His plea for Christians to not miss Christ for the reparative trees is something I can get whole-heartedly behind.
But, listening to his talk, I also wondered whether he should have changed the title from "Why Reparative Therapy is not an Evangelical Option" to, "Why Reparative Therapy needs Evangelical Revision".
Read on to find out why.
Well, I'm glad to say that Denny Burk and Heath Lambert finally said something more about their rejection of Reparative Therapy. After Heath put out a little article called, What's Wrong with Reparative Therapy?, Denny's consistent fall back was to merely link to the article. I was glad, then, when they set up a debate with the title, Reparative Therapy: Is It a Valid Approach to Helping Homosexuals? at the 2015 ETS. Apparently Robert Gagnon was the only person available to take up the challenge, but, as you can hear someone say in the background at the beginning of Denny's talk, "he served ably".
So, the debate (which you can purchase for US$9.77) was organised like this: