Nancy Pearcey: The Christian message starts with creation, that we have very high dignity and high value ’cause we’re made in God’s image, and that should be our starting point, even on these sexuality issues, that God created sexuality, and it’s therefore good.
John Fuller: That’s professor and author Nancy Pearcey, and she has insights about how devaluing our bodies is, uh, a really hidden force behind so many of the cultural issues we see today. This is Focus on the Family with Jim Daly, and thanks for joining us. I’m John Fuller, and this program isn’t gonna be suitable for younger listeners as we discuss, uh, some pretty serious topics.
Jim Daly: You know, so much of our life, John, is, uh, the behaviors that we adopt are things that we typically catch as opposed to being taught.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: You know, caught, overtaught-
John: Yeah.
Jim: … that’s what we talk about. We talk a lot about that when it comes to parenting. You know, your kids are gonna watch you more than they’re going to listen to you.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: And it’s so important for us, as Christians, to model the Christian faith well, and also speak of it well.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: And, uh, today, we’re gonna concentrate on the aspect of the body and our sexuality, that we don’t typically think in that context, you know, “What are our children catching? What is culture catch?”
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Look at how we are inundated with messages when it comes to our body, um, our sexual-
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: … uh, appetites, et cetera.
John: Yeah.
Jim: And we, as Christians, need to be equipped to share a message of hope with a culture that is desperately in need of healing and a biblical understanding of what God has created.
John: Mm-hmm. Yeah. It feels like we’re just kind of floating out there in the sea, pushed along by the currents, but our guest believes that there is a solid foundation of truth as, uh, as God tells us all about our bodies, and, uh, Nancy Pearcey has done research. She’s, as I said, a professor and a scholar in residence at Houston Christian University. She’s written a number of books, some with, uh, the late, great Charles Colson-
Jim: (laughs) The late great.
John: And, uh, the book that forms the foundation of our conversation today is Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality. And you can learn more about Nancy and this great book. Uh, we’ve got the details for you at focusonthefamily.com/broadcast.
Jim: Nancy, welcome back. It’s been a number of years, but it’s so good to have you back here at Focus on the Family.
Nancy: Thank you. It’s good to be here.
Jim: Now, you’re teaching. That’s extraordinary. I love that. And you’re teaching at a university there, uh, Houston Christian. So you see a lot of young people coming under your radar. Uh, do you think things … You know, we always talk about the snow is deeper. We went to school uphill both ways-
Nancy: (laughs)
Jim: … back when we were kids. Are you seeing a real big shift in young people today from 20, 30 years ago? What do you think? What are your observations telling you?
Nancy: Well, first of all, the pandemic made a big difference.
Jim: Hmm.
Nancy: College students are coming in with high school level skills.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: They’ve definitely lost a lot during the pandemic.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And we’re having to reteach, you know, a lot of things that high school teachers have to teach them until the study skills and school skills, we’re having to teach them. So that’s one big thing. But the second thing is, you know, my book, Love Thy Body is about the sexuality issues of abortion and homosexuality, transgenderism. And yes, every one of these students is coming in with friends and family members, or maybe themselves-
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: … having problems in these areas.
Jim: Let me ask you this, uh, just for the critic who heard John give the title, Love Thy Body. What are you talking about, Nancy? You’re making an idol out of our bodies? That’s not at all what you’re talking about when you say, “Love thy body.” Just generically, theologically, what are you saying?
Nancy: Yeah. Most people don’t realize that the sexual issues that I deal with all have to do with the body, that the, uh … Let’s start with, uh, the secular worldview, since we just said our children need to know that. Many people don’t realize that the point of issue in the secular ideologies is the body. Let’s take the most obvious example, is transgenderism, because transgender activists argue explicitly that your gender identity has nothing to do with your body. You know, uh, it has nothing to do with your biological sex. BB- The BBC did a documentary, uh, called Transgender Kids, and they said, “At the heart of the debate is the idea that your mind can be at war with your body.”
Jim: Right.
Nancy: At war. And BBC also did a, a program for teenagers, and it featured a young teenage girl, who identified as non-binary. And she said, “It doesn’t matter what meat skeleton you’ve been born in, it’s your feelings that defined you.”
Jim: Uh, right.
Nancy: So the body has been demoted to a meat skeleton.
John: Hmm.
Jim: Yeah, which we’re going to dig into that. And I … It’s fascinating, as I went through the material, read the book, and you know, i-it’s something again, that we don’t spend a lot of time thinking about, this separation of soul, spirit from the body, and the way the world attacks the body. And it’s fascinating, we’re gonna get there. But I wanna first, uh, give people a taste of who you are. Uh-
John: Hmm.
Jim: You were, I think, a self-described hippie.
Nancy: (laughs)
Jim: (laughs)
Nancy: Yes. (laughs)
Jim: Uh, and-and you were kind of, you know, in that cultural groove. I’m really-
John: Ooh. (laughs)
Jim: … using the terms, aren’t I? And, uh, you know … But then, you had some epiphanies along the way. Just give us a quick thumbnail of who you are and your background, and how you got to faith in Christ.
Nancy: Yeah, I love telling my conversion story. Uh, it’s like the older I get, the more thankful I am that God got hold of me. (laughs).
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: (laughs) But I was raised in a Lutheran home. Um, it was Scandinavian Lutheran. And I don’t know if you know, but it was a state church there. So all Scandinavians are Lutheran. (laughs)
Jim: (laughs) Okay.
Nancy: It’s an ethnic thing, like all Irish are Catholic.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: And so there wasn’t a lot of personal conviction. And when I was in high school, I started asking questions. Um, I’m in public high school, all my textbooks are secular, all my teachers are secular, and I just started asking, “Um, how do we know Christianity’s true?”
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And, uh, I didn’t get any answers. I asked a, a Christian college professor. Actually, I’m gonna tell you. It’s my dad. (laughs)
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: I don’t always say this, but it was my father. He was a university professor. And, uh, so I asked him point-blank, “Why are you a Christian?” He said, “Works for me.”
Jim: Okay.
Nancy: I said, “Really?”
Jim: (laughs).
Nancy: “That’s it?” (laughs).
Jim: Hmm.
Nancy: And I had a ta- chance to talk to a seminary dean, who was my uncle. (laughs) And all he said was, “Don’t worry. We all have doubts sometimes.”
Jim: Hmm.
Nancy: As it was a psychological phase, and you would outgrow it. And so when I didn’t get any answers, I finally decided, about halfway through high school, I said, “Well, if you don’t have good reasons for something, you shouldn’t say you believe it, you know, whether it’s Christianity or anything else,” and I certainly am not getting any good (laughs) reasons. And so I very consciously walked away from my Christian upbringing and decided it was up to me to find truth.
Jim: Let me ask you, you know, for those listening that may not know the Lord, they don’t have a relationship with Christ, but they’re tipping in, they’re listening to Focus.
John: Hmm.
Jim: We do survey work. We know you’re there, and that’s great. We want you there on YouTube or listening through a broadcast, et cetera, podcast.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Speak to what was inside of you. What was the appetite? I mean, I recognize it ’cause I had a very similar journey, but wu- why were you seeking truth? Why was it important to you? Why weren’t you your father, “Works for me”? What was different?
Nancy: Well, uh, uh, I wanted to be honest.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: If there was no God, then I wanted to live in line with that. In other words, if there was no God, it struck me pretty quickly that then, there’s no meaning or purpose to life. Right. We’re just, “Life is just a cosmic accident-”
Jim: Right.
Nancy: “… on a rock flying through empty space.”
Jim: That’s very logical.
Nancy: And if there’s no God, there’s no foundation for ethics. You know, there’s just true for me, true for you. And if there’s no (laughs) God, I even realized there’s no foundation for truth. Like if all I have is my puny brain (laughs) and the vast scope of time and space, what makes me think I could have some sort of universal-
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: … transcendent truth? Ridiculous. Uh, that’s how I thought of it as a (laughs) sixteen-year-old. Ridiculous. So I was very quickly, you know, relativist, skeptic, and even a determinist, because in my science classes, I was taught were just complex biochemical machines anyway, with no free will. So I had absorbed all of these secularisms by the time I graduated from high school. And I had, I had no interest in (laughs) going back to Christianity, but I went, I went to Europe. We had lived in Europe when I was a child, and so I saved my money all through high school, ’cause I wanted to go back.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And that’s how I ended up in, uh, s- sort of stumbling across L’Abri, which is in-
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: … Switzerland. And L’Abri is the ministry of Francis Schaeffer. L’Abri is French for the shelter. And Schaeffer was known for his apologetics ministry. And that’s the first time I ever heard any Christian apologetics. You know, apologetics just means arguments for the existence of God. I had never heard anyone make a case that there were good reasons, and evidence, and arguments, and logic, uh, you know, to support Christianity, and that it could hold its own against the secularisms that I had absorbed by-
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: … that time. So I was blown away. I was, uh … I was shocked. I had no idea.
Jim: So that gave you the appetite. I mean, obviously, that’s when you dug in and said, “Okay.”
Nancy: Well-
Jim: “Is God real?”
Nancy: Well-
Jim: I mean, that kind of is the core question.
Nancy: Uh, well, actually, at first, I left. (laughs).
John: Oh.
Jim: Irritated?
Nancy: (laughs) I stayed a month. No, I … No, it was the opposite. It was so appealing. I had never met intellectually engaged Christians. I never met Christians who could talk to me on my level, ’cause I was so involved. I did not start studying philosophy as an academic interest. I started studying it because I thought, “Well, isn’t that their job, to …” Uh, you know, the philosopher’s job is to ask questions like, “What is truth?,” and, “How do we know it?”
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: “And is there a foundation for ethics? Uh, in the public high school I attended, I literally started walking down the hallway to the library and pulling books off the philosophy shelf.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: Since I couldn’t get any adult in my life to talk to me about this, I thought, “Well, maybe these dead white guys (laughs) can help me out.” And so that’s why I started studying philosophy.
Jim: Well, I just, I appreciate that appetite and that hunger, and I think that is a true pathway. I mean, I think the Lord puts that hunger in all of us that are really seeking truth, and that to me is the differentiator between a blind, spiritually blind person.
John: Hmm.
Jim: And they can be in the church-
Nancy: Yes.
Jim: … versus somebody who really wants to know. Let, let’s go back to my comment about the caught and taught, how sexuality, uh, in addition to all the kind of the virtues and the values that … Especially when, uh, a Christian family, what we’re trying to do to demonstrate the faith to our kids, et cetera. Speak to that idea that, on the sexual side, these things are also caught more than taught. You know, most of us, at least when I went through high school, I think I was a freshman, you had to take a human sexuality class. It was very anatomical. It was very, you know, biological and function. Wu- we didn’t talk about the spirit, the soul, or anything like that. It’s just the function of reproduction, and they think that’s enough. And then, of course, mom and dad are supposed to have that talk with you, and I didn’t get that either. But speak to the caught versus taught, how the culture is telling us what sexuality is all about.
Nancy: Well, yeah, let- let me say that, you know, when you talk about schools, teaching just the biological side, now, they don’t. (laughs) Now, schools are teaching transgenderism and homosexuality and-
Jim: Well, teaching or affirming.
Nancy: … it’s all about gender. Uh, it is in the cla-
Jim: Both.
Nancy: It’s in the classrooms too.
Jim: Yeah. I mean, they’re affirming it.
Nancy: Uh, uh, uh, there was a, a news story, not long ago, of a first-grader, who came home and said, “Mommy, my teacher says, ‘Just ’cause you have boy parts doesn’t mean you’re a boy, just ’cause you have girl parts doesn’t mean you’re a girl.'” So she said to her mom, “What am I? Please take me to a doctor so we can find out what I am.”
Jim: Yeah.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And the reason I know about it is because it was the news, because the parents were taking the school to court and suing them for emotional distress. But that’s what’s happening in the schools now. Don’t think of it as just, “Oh, they’re actually teaching reproduction.” (laughs) The vast majority now- of it now is gender identity and sexual orientation.
Jim: In that context in the book, you, uh, made a statement about, uh, spirit good, body bad, and we need to unpack that to better understand the war against the body because of the fruit that delivers to the secularists, so this dividing of the body being bad and the person being good.
Nancy: Yeah. You know, C. S. Lewis had a great answer to that. He said, “There’s no use being more spiritual than God.” God invented matter. He likes it. And so the whole … That kind of encapsulates my book, (laughs) you know, that as Christians, we should have a high view of the body because it’s a handiwork of God. And we are known … Let’s face it, we’re known for having a negative approach, “Don’t do it, it’s a sin, it’s against the Bible, and there’s something wrong with you.” And so my whole book is about how we can train ourselves to use more positive language, starting with creation, you know, that God created the body, God created sexuality, and it is therefore intrinsically good. Genesis says over and over again, “And God saw that it was good.” And after the creation of man and woman, it says, “Very good.”
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And so I, I train people to use the language of honoring my body. The reason this Christian, uh, sex ethic, uh, honors the body, we … It, uh, shows us how to live in harmony with our body, it shows us how to live in tune with who God created us to be, and I have found that this is the most difficult thing for Christians to get their mind around, is just start with positive language, in other words, starting with the language of creation. You might put it this way, most of our messages start with a fall.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: “You’re a sinner. You need to get saved,” you know, the sort of classic revivalist message. And that’s true, but if that’s our main focus, young pe- Especially young people, they come to me in my classrooms (laughs), and say that in the churches they were taught, they were worthless, that they were nothing, that they were corrupt, you know, that they’re naturally evil. Well, that’s starting with a fall. The Christian message starts with creation, that we have very high dignity and high value ’cause we’re made in God’s image.
John: Hmm.
Nancy: And that should be our starting point, even on these sexuality issues, that God created sexuality, and it’s therefore good.
Jim: Hmm.
John: Mm-hmm. This is Focus on the Family with Jim Daly, and our guest today is Nancy Pearcey. We’re talking about some of the concepts in her terrific book called Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality. And, uh, we’ll encourage you to get a copy of it from us here at the ministry, uh, when you stop by focusonthefamily.com/broadcast.
Jim: Nancy, this concept of devaluing the body, I think this is so important. So we’re … You know, this is what we’re talking about today from your book, Love Thy Body. Um, uh, being a professor of college students, uh, a good description or illustration of this, I think, I didn’t experience this as a teenager myself or a 20-something, but this idea of the hookup culture, where they’re actually devaluing the body as a mechanism and having to protect their emotional side just to do a sexual act. Very biological in its nature, pleasurable, but, uh, wu- how do you see the hookup culture, even as a professor at a university? I’m sure it’s happening.
Nancy: Yes. Uh, even the hookup culture represents, uh, the split between the body and the person. Young people know the script, even if they don’t like it much. Um, I, I quote in my book a college student named Alicia, who said, “Hookups are very scripted. You learn to turn everything off except your body, and you make yourself emotionally invulnerable.”
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And there’s another college student I quote named Naomi, who said, “The mistake people make is they assume that there’s two very distinct elements in a relationship, one emotional, and one sexual, and they pretend like they are clean lines between them.” And so young people understand that the hookup culture is asking them to engage purely physically, you know, cut off from the whole person, cut off from any hint of love or commitment. You’re supposed to be able to walk away from it as if it hadn’t happened. So that’s the worldview at the heart of the hookup culture. We think of it usually as, you know, “Let’s have some rules that we give young people.” No, they need to realize it’s driven by a worldview that says, “Your body is meaningless, and that sex itself is, as a meaningless as- act.” No wonder it’s creating a trail of wounded people-
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: … because they’re trying to live out a secular ethic that does not fit who they really are.
Jim: Wow. I mean, that’s a powerful statement, but, uh, let me continue with this. You had, uh, in the book a counselor, I think at UCLA, hu- hu- who was barred from telling her students about the dangers of casual sex. Think of that-
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: … that, you know, they holler into the academic review panel and say, “You can’t talk to students about the dangers of unprotected sex. What are you doing?” That sounds ridiculous.
Nancy: Do you realize she wrote this book anonymously, because she was afraid she would lose her job.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Because that was the theme?
Nancy: The theme of her book was we are teaching young pe- We’re encouraging young people to engage in the hookup culture. You know, on our college campuses, we have these sex weeks, where they bring in, you know, Planned Parenthood. They bring in, uh, sex toys, they bring in prostitutes. (laughs) You know, they teach the message that anything goes, and there’s no consequences.
Jim: Wow.
Nancy: And she said, “I have students coming into my office all the time who are devastated by the, by the hookup culture.”
Jim: Uh.
Nancy: And she gave one example. For exam- Um, uh, a girl who’d had her first sexual encounter, with a boy who promptly dropped her afterwards. And she was devastated. And she said, “Why is it sh- Why is it that the schools don’t teach us that casual sexual encounters are not healthy, and that they’re emotionally destructive?” So she wrote a whole book on it, on how she was not allowed to even tell her students that the hookup culture could be emotionally destructive, and she wrote it anonymously.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: Now, she’s come out … By the way, she’s come out now, uh, wu- It’s Miriam Grossman. Uh, she’s written a book on transgenderism now, so she’s using her name, but she had to leave UCLA (laughs), uh, to go public with her name. (laughs).
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Uh, because she’s raising concerns about all of this.
Nancy: Mm-hmm.
Jim: That’s fair. Let, let’s cover that abortion side of this, this devaluing of the human body. Uh, in abortion, uh, as within hookup culture, it, it’s kind of a similar theme, right? And this is where we, as Christians, need to connect the dots here, and how this deconstruction of loving thy body, the title of your book, how they can take advantage of that division. So, uh, uh, how does it fit with a woman’s ability to rationalize the killing of her pre-born baby?
Nancy: Yes. Uh, today, it is being applied to the woman. Uh, in other words, the, the relationship between mother and child is not treated as some natural, organic, intrinsic relationship. It’s treated as there are actually ethicists, bioethicists to treat the fetus as like an intruder on the woman’s property.
Jim: A disease.
Nancy: Uh, a disease, um, a parasite. You’ll hear that language-
Jim: Something that needs medical attention.
Nancy: Or, or the mo- The most recent-
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: … is property rights. A woman has property rights to her body, and the fetus is an intruder, trespassing-
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: … on her property-
Jim: Yeah, wow.
Nancy: … and therefore, she has the right to kill it. But actually, it first became … The body-person dualism was first applied to the fetus, actually. Um, um, people like Peter Singer at Princeton, where some of the early people writing on this, and they said, “Professional bioethicists agree that life begins at conception.” You know, maybe ordinary people don’t realize that yet, but professional bioethicists know that the science is just too strong to deny it. The evidence from DNA and genetics-
Jim: Right. It all starts within moments.
Nancy: The fetus is obviously human, you know, from fertilization, from conception, and they will say that now openly. So how do they get around that if they wanna support abortion? They’ll say, “Well, the fetus is human, biologically, genetically, physiologically, but it’s not a person until sometime later.”
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Yeah, personhood.
Nancy: And personhood.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: Person- It’s actually called personhood theory. And that means that you’re not a person until you have developed certain, uh, mental abilities, cognitive functioning, self-determination-
John: Hmm.
Nancy: … autonomy, whatever. And so if you can be a human, but not a person until sometime later, then clearly these are two different things. So personhood theory was actually first applied to abortion. And, uh, the idea being that if you’re merely human, in quotes, (laughs) merely human, you have no human rights. Uh, you know, the fetus is human, but it can be killed for any reason or no reason.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: It can be tinkered with genetically, it can be used for research and experiments, it can be picked through for body parts to sell like Planned Parenthood does, and then thrown out with the other medical waste.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And that’s the language used in medical journals. The fetus is medical waste. And so what it means is being human is no longer enough for human rights. And so this has dramatic consequences all across the board. Um, and, of course, what’s the main problem with that theory? Well, if you separate personhood from being biologically human, then what you base it on.
John: Yeah. What are the standards?
Jim: Oh, exactly.
John: Yeah.
Nancy: It becomes arbitrary, subjective. Every bioethicist draws a line at a different place. You don’t find any of them agreeing.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: Because it is subjective. It’s-
Jim: Right.
Nancy: It’s that they-
Jim: You have viability, you have birth, you have even some that are saying that a child could be terminated if the mother doesn’t wanna keep that child.
Nancy: Okay.
Jim: I mean, that sounds absurd, infanticide.
Nancy: Oh.
Jim: But, but they are talking-
Nancy: (laughs).
Jim: … about it now.
Nancy: Uh, exactly. I do- Uh, I think most ordinary people would say sometime before birth, but yes, you have people now saying after birth. You know, Crick and Watson, who are kind of household names for the … Because they discovered DNA-
Jim: The DNA.
Nancy: … both of them have publicly said that we should give the, uh, newborn three days of genetic testing, and only if it passes the test does it qualify for the right to life.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: You know, Nancy, I … You, you know, it takes my breath away because you think about these are the smart people in the culture, these are the professors, these are the intelligentsia, the academics. How are they so blinded spiritually to not see what this plainly is, which is the taking of innocent human life?
Nancy: Well, let me quote you Peter Singer at Princeton. He says, right on his page, uh, his website, he says, “Even three years of age is a gray area.”
Jim: A gray area.
Nancy: A gray area.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: In other words-
Jim: That is amazing.
Nancy: … “How much cognitive function does a toddler have?” So that’s what we’re up against today, is that personhood is so subjective, that maybe even three-year-olds are not persons.
John: Oh my goodness.
Jim: You know, uh, Nancy, let’s end today … And again, we’ll come back next time, but let’s end today on that description that you gave at the very beginning about the gospel, the creation message, why the fact that we’re created in His image, male and female, is so critical to the holistic aspect of the Christian faith, and what we believe God intended for us.
Nancy: Yeah. You know, sometimes people talk about the Christian worldview is like a drama in three acts, creation, fall, redemption. And you want to have all three acts there. Uh, creation means everything was created good, you know, God is good God, and therefore, what He creates is good. And our concepts of human dignity rest on the creation. That’s why, you know, uh, as opposed to the secular world, why we uphold a high view of human dignity. The fall is real, so Christians are very realistic about sin and evil. We’re not Pollyannaish, you know? (laughs)
Jim: Right.
Nancy: We’re very realistic about that. And redemption means there’s hope. You know, uh, not only that there will be a final redemption, but that God is working today, redemptively in our lives, that we can see real healing. Francis Schaeffer, since we quoted him, used to say, “As Christians, we should expect substantial healing.” Not full healing, this side of heaven, but we should expect substantial healing. And so what happens is Christians start in the middle of the story. We start with the fall, right? (laughs) We start with, uh, what, what if …
Jim: Right.
Nancy: I just got a call from a youth pastor, who said, “I didn’t know how to do anything except say these things are bad,” you know what, sexuality, you know, the hookup culture, homosexuality, transgenderism, all these things. I didn’t know how to say anything except, “Don’t do it. It’s bad. It’s against the Bible.” And he said, “Your book gave me the language to say God created the body, it’s good.” And to start … We have to start our message with creation. It’s not just that the, uh, Christian worldview has these three acts, but we need to start our message with creation, and then we communicate to people the high view of the human person-
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: … that is scriptural.
Jim: Well, this is so good, Nancy, and what a, uh, place to stop.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: And we’ll pick it up again next time, continue our discussion to give, uh, people more empowerment when it comes to God’s plan for their lives. You know, there’s a reason, it’s body, soul, and spirit-
Nancy: Yeah.
Jim: You know, right? That’s how God created us. Not just one of the three or two of the three, it’s three of the three, and He has a prescription for us to live by that brings us shalom, His peace. And I’m so grateful to you for the hard work, the hard thought process of putting Love Thy Body together. I mean, you are a deep thinker, and I so appreciate the journey that you described, that God brought you on-
Nancy: Thank you.
Jim: … uh, to bring you to this point-
Nancy: Yeah.
Jim: … and all your great work over the years. Thank you for being with us. And, uh, man, I’m telling you, I’m gonna be sharing this with my two 20-something sons to read through together and really provide them the tools necessary to understand the battle, the spiritual battle-
John: Hmm.
Jim: … that we are all under when it comes to the attack on the body, the attack on wo- women. And we, as the Christian community, need to identify and live to, uh, empower men and women, boys and girls, to live up to their created expectation. And I would love to get this into your hands if you can send us a gift of any amount. Monthly is great. It helps us be part of the ministry over the long run or a one-time gift. We’ll send you Nancy’s book as our way of saying thank you for being part of the ministry.
John: Yeah, donate today and get a copy of this book, Love Thy Body when you call 800, the letter A, and the word FAMILY, 800-232-6459, or you can donate and, uh, get the book at focusonthefamily.com/broadcast. And for our radio listeners, let me encourage you to stop by our website, or get the app, or watch on YouTube for additional content that we just couldn’t include in today’s show. And by the way, if you’re in Colorado Springs this summer, come visit us at our Welcome Center. It is a terrific family-friendly space, where you can grab a bite to eat, relax, let the kids blow off a little bit of steam, and shop in our great bookstore. We’d love to see you there, and we’ve got details online. On behalf of the entire team, thanks for joining us today for Focus on the Family with Jim Daly. I’m John Fuller, inviting you back as we once again help you and your family thrive in Christ.
Day Two
Nancy Pearcey: The kids who are gender non-conforming, the ones who don’t quite fit and who know they don’t, and who are feeling gender-distressed because of it, they are being targeted.
John Fuller: That’s professor, author, and speaker Nancy Pearcey, sharing her perspective that devaluing the body has wreaked havoc in our culture. This is Focus on the Family with Jim Daly, and thanks for joining us. I’m John Fuller. And this episode is once again going to address some mature themes. And so, probably, not advisable for younger listeners.
Jim Daly: That’s always a good warning, John. Uh, we had a fascinating discussion with Nancy last time about the hidden philosophy that has caused so much heartache and confusion in our culture today. And we talked about how separating, uh, from our bodies, kind of, that understanding that the soul and the spirit are over here and the body, well, that’s up for grabs. And it plays out in different ways in the culture. And Nancy did a beautiful job describing that, when it comes to the transgendered issue, the homosexual issue, and even the hookup culture, you know, that I can separate my emotions from my body and the experience of my body, all destructive things that aren’t what God intends for us being made in His image, male and female. And today, we’re gonna continue that discussion, go a little deeper. If you missed the discussion last time, uh, go to the website or get the app.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: And you can listen to the full content of that discussion. And again, we’ll pick up today and go a little deeper.
John: Yeah. Nancy Pearcey, as I said, is back with us. Uh, she’s a professor of apologetics and a scholar in residence at Houston Christian University. She’s written, uh, a number of great books. And the one that forms the foundation for our discussion today is called Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality. Get a copy of the book from us here. Uh, call 800-A-FAMILY, or stop by focusonthefamily.com/broadcast.
Jim: Nancy, welcome back. Always good to have you.
Nancy: Thank you. Good to be here.
Jim: I so admire your work over the years. You know, we haven’t had you here often, but I watch and I read, uh, what you put out in articles and, of course, the books that you’ve written, your association with, uh, a wonderful mutual friend, uh, the late Chuck Colson, who was such a deep thinker. I remember having lunch with Chuck Colson. It was so good. And he was talking about the classic literature, as he always did. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. And, you know, I was tracking with him. I’d read some of those. But he looked at me and said, “You’re just like a regular guy, aren’t you?” (laughing) I said, “Yes, I am.” He goes, “Stay that way.” (laughing) But I am always intrigued because I think it’s so important for us to understand, as best as we can, a biblical context for the, the world around us. In fact, we’re partnering with, uh, the Colson Center on a new documentary film called Truth Rising. It’s coming out in September. And this is exactly the kind of thing the film addresses, a biblical worldview and its impact on the culture. Uh, because understanding God’s truth about our bodies, our sexuality, the creation, the fall and redemption, and sharing it with our neighbors is how we fix what’s broken in the world. You don’t have to be an intellectual. I would put you in that class along with Chuck Olson.
But this is for everybody to understand, and it’s so wonderful when we have great, deep Christian thinkers who can observe what’s happening and give it some context for the rest of us in the church. So, I’m very grateful to you for that. Thank you.
Nancy: Well, thank you.
Jim: It’s good to have you here in that context. Let me ask you, as the author, let’s go right to that, this concept that we talked about last time. Uh, just refresh the thesis, if you will, that what you see is a separation of those contexts of how God created us, the body over here, spirit and soul over here, and how that is wreaking havoc, as John said, through the culture today, and how the LGBT movement is using it, how the abortion rights movement has been using this to, kind of, separate the body from the rest of God’s creation.
Nancy: You know, I think I’ll start with, um, a quote from a book. I think it was the first book to come out on an academic level defending transgenderism.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And of course, I have to, like you said, I have to read those guys, because what the academics say is what filters down to ordinary people. And…
John: They tend to be trend-setters.
Nancy: Yes.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: It will filter down. Uh, Plato said, uh, philosophers should rule the world. And they do about 200 years after they die.
Jim: Yeah, that’s really true.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And so, that’s why it’s good to know secular worldviews, because our children are picking up secular worldviews. Whether they’re in public school or in Christian school or home school, they are picking up, they’re absorbing secular ideas. And so, we need to train them in how to have a critical grid. But he- here was an academic Princeton University professor writing a book defending transgenderism. And to my surprise, she first started by acknowledging that transgenderism involves inner division, inner conflict, self-estrangement, self-alienation, you know, because your gender is separate from your biology. But then she said, “That doesn’t matter, and here’s why.” She said, “Because what…” This is a direct quote. “What the body tells us is nothing. It has no meaning at all.”
Jim: Wow.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: So, that’s the heart of what’s being taught all the way down to first graders today.
Jim: Well, think of the juxtaposition of that with Paul, saying God’s nature is clearly in front of you. I mean, I would suggest Paul is saying the opposite.
Nancy: He’s saying the opposite.
Jim: That by observing nature, you see God.
Nancy: And it’s evident to observation that living things are structured for a purpose.
Jim: Yeah, right.
Nancy: That eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, wings are for flying, fins are for swimming. In fact, the development of the entire organism is driven by an inbuilt plan or blueprint, DNA. And so, science is on our side when we say our bodies do have a purpose. We are meant to take our identity from our body. We are meant to live in tune with our biological identity. And that the, the sticking point, you know, that we… the thing that we can critique the non-Christian worldview on is that all of these secular worldviews deny the body, denigrate the body. They have a low view of the body. And if your body is meaningless, that’s a big part of who you are. No wonder young people are becoming more and more depressed.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: They’re being told that their body is not, and, you know, has no higher purpose or dignity.
Jim: Yeah. And, uh, again, one of the things we wanna do here at Focus is to equip the listeners to be able to have these discussions with people. Uh, the secularists, the atheists, the non-God-oriented folks have just been so aggressive getting out there. And the church, generally, has just, uh, somehow, like, confused courtesy and kindness with tolerance. And we just, kind of, back up and we don’t confront that. And you don’t have to be mean-spirited to confront these things. Confronting something means speak the truth to it and hopefully be equipped. So, that’s, that’s why we’re talking with you about these concepts.
Nancy: Well, it’s a lot easier to tell people the Christian worldview. If you can say it in a positive way, you know, if you can say, “Well, well, the Christian ethic is based on honoring your body.”
Jim: Right.
Nancy: “Living in tune with your body.” You know, let me give you…
Jim: That sounds so positive.
Nancy: Here’s my… one of my favorite quotes was from a young woman who lived as a lesbian for many years and then became a Christian. And today, she’s married to a man. You have to say that.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: Married to a man and has two kids. And she said, “The turning point came when I, I came to trust that God had made me female for a reason, and I wanted to,” this is a direct quote, “I wanted to honor my body by living in accord with the Creator’s design.”
Jim: Right.
Nancy: Okay. That’s the positive language. That’s how we present it-
Jim: Well…
Nancy: … to our kids and to our secular neighbors.
Jim: And really, from a Christian perspective, that’s an honest person. Let, let’s move to the NPR interview because, uh, this gets back to the book content (laughs). And we’re finally back on track. But NPR, you had an exchange with them. They were going… they did an interview with you until they asked a question, you gave an answer that they… it felt like they couldn’t handle. But what, what was that exchange about?
Nancy: Yeah. So, it was an NPR program, um, in San Francisco, which I thought could be challenging, anyway (laughs).
Jim: Right.
Nancy: Um, but it was a pre-interview where the, the producer, you know, kind of, feels you out. And he asked me about my views on abortion. And he himself commented that most people think abortion is okay until the fetus becomes a person. And I said, “Well, that’s, that’s a lot of philosophical baggage in that phrase, because you’re assuming that the body, you know, the fetus can be biologically human but not a person.” I said, “That’s a very fragmented view of the human being, a very fractured view, that you could somehow divide-”
Jim: Right.
Nancy: “… the, the person and the body.” Um, I said, “The, the pro-life view is holistic because what we’re saying is the body participates in the dignity and value of the whole person.” And he didn’t have an answer. I mean, there’s silence (laughs). So, then I continued, I said, “The pro-choice view is exclusive. It says some people don’t measure up.”
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: “They don’t make the cut. They don’t qualify for the status of personhood.” I said, the pro-life view is inclusive. You know, as long as you’re a member of the human race, you’re in. You count.
Jim: You have dignity. Mm-hmm.
Nancy: You have the full dignity of a… uh, philosophers, put it this way. You’re part of the moral community.
Jim: Hmm.
Nancy: Means the people who we have a moral commitment to…
Jim: Yeah. Isn’t that the contradiction for those people that believe they’re the all-inclusive people?
Nancy: Yes.
Jim: That they’re not. And, and how… I mean, that’s difficult. How do you peel those blinders off to say, “You’re thinking you’re inclusive, but you’re actually exclusive.”
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: I was using liberal buzzwords, you know, like, “holistic.”
Jim: Right.
Nancy: And “inclusive.” And, uh, by the way, the, the end of that story is, a few days later, I got a phone call saying, “Well, we’ve, uh, decided to cancel that program.”
Jim: Yeah. There, there’s a little manipulation.
John: Mm-hmm. Yeah (laughs).
Jim: “We don’t want somebody who has a deep thought on this (laughing) from the other side.” You tell a story also in the book of Martin Pistorius. What was significant about his story? And how did that undergird this dignity concept?
Nancy: He had an unusual, uh, case where it’s called locked-in syndrome. And that’s where your brain can be perfectly alert and alive, but you can’t move your body.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And so, he, he had a coma, and then his brain came alive, but he couldn’t move his body. And so, people thought he was a vegetable. Uh, his parents were advised to just put him away in an institution and forget about him, but his father refused. His father got him up every day and bathed him and fed him and took him to a daycare center, you know, for disabled people. And then his… and his mother, even in a moment of frustration, in his presence, actually said, “I wish you would just die.” And he heard it. Uh, they didn’t know his brain was completely alive and active.
Jim: Yeah, he just couldn’t communicate.
Nancy: He just couldn’t communicate. It’s locked down syndrome. Anyway, it was finally a very sensitive, uh, therapist noticed that he was making very, very slight eye movements and so on. So, she had him tested into their very… to their shock, his brain was completely normal.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And he has since recovered and, and has a job and is married and is, uh, is living a almost normal life.
Jim: Wow.
Nancy: But the point is, what if people said, “Oh, look, he has no, no normal functioning. He’s not a person.” You know, this is where abortion and euthanasia are related.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: Abortion says, “You’re not a person until you have a certain level of cognitive functioning.” Euthanasia says, “If you lose a certain level of cognitive functioning, a certain level of mental ability-”
Jim: You go below the line.
Nancy: “… you are no longer a person.”
John: Right, yeah.
Nancy: And, and, and this is what bioethicists actually argue. They’re, they were once a person, but now they are only a body, as one bioethicist put it.
Jim: Mm-hmm. Wow.
Nancy: And at that point, your treatment can be withheld. Your food and water can be discontinued. Your organs can be harvested, you know.
Jim: These things are all interlocked. And that’s what we need to understand as Christians.
Nancy: Mm-hmm.
Jim: And they are philosophically connected by those that oppose a Christian view.
Nancy: And, and legally. Um, you know, people say, “Well, why don’t you just let people believe whatever they want to believe?” Well, when the laws are changed, it affects everyone, you know.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: So, Roe v. Wade, the court essentially said, “Some humans are not persons,” you know. And who decides, then? Well, ultimately whoever has the most power.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: The state decides.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: Uh, marriage. People used to think that marriage is, you know, a pre-political right, that it’s natural that men and women come together and form families. But you know what the reasoning was in the, uh, Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the Obergefell decision, it argued that we need to acknowledge the personhood of same-sex people. And that means giving them… that means not paying attention to the biological connection, you know, you know, that sex (laughs)…
Jim: Discard the body.
Nancy: Yeah, discard the body, the biological correspondence.
Jim: So, it reinforced that issue.
Nancy: And that it’s just a matter of emotional connection.
Jim: Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Nancy: And then, uh, the Bostock decision was transgender decision 2020. Again, the court basically said, “Your personhood is what you choose. If you choose that you are a woman, if you choose you’re a man, then legally that’s what we recognize. We do not recognize…” You, your body is no longer legally recognized. They don’t care.
Jim: Wow, think of that.
John: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And then the final one was, uh, parenthood. Parenthood, I think, is a… the most, uh, influential. And that is, uh, Pavon decision 20- 2017, I think. I, I don’t remember exactly. It’s in the book. It was a decision, uh, about same-sex parents. So, in same-sex couples, at least one parent is not biologically related to the child.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: And so, that person’s name did not go on the birth certificate-
Jim: Hmm.
Nancy: … until this Supreme Court decision where they said, “Well, as long as you’re legally married, then you qualify as a parent.” So, now, you’re not a parent because you’re biologically related to your child. You are a parent if the state says you are.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: So, essentially, the state has redefined parenthood apart from biology.
Jim: Yeah. Wow. These are big, big things.
Nancy: So, all of these legal de-… all of these legal decisions rest on suffering the bo-… you know, saying the body, biology doesn’t matter.
John: Yeah.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
John: Yeah, and that’s the underlying message of this book by Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body. Uh, we have copies of it here at Focus on the Family. Uh, call 800-A-FAMILY or stop by focusonthefamily.com/broadcast.
Jim: Nancy, uh, again, these things are also interlinked. I wanna move to the biggest issue of the culture right now, it seems, is this issue of transgenderism.
Nancy: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Jim: And you have a story in the book with Brandon who, uh, had this issue, uh, of gender dysphoria. Describe his story and what you caught out of that.
Nancy: Yeah. I love to tell his story because it gives parents some sense of, practically, you know, what do we do? Um, so, Brandon was a young boy who, um, who clearly had gender dysphoria from a very young age. And actually, that…
Jim: And it exists.
Nancy: And, and that was the more traditional form of it, back when it was called transsexualism. It was almost purely male. And it was usually very young.
Jim: Huh.
Nancy: And so, he was the classic case. Before he was even walking, when he was still crawling his, uh, babysitter said to his mother, “He’s too good to be a boy,” by which she meant he was sweet, gentle, compliant, and the things we normally associate with girls. And when he was in preschool, when his mother picked him up, invariably, he was playing with the little girls and not the little boys.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: Already in elementary school, he was coming to his parents weeping and saying, “I don’t fit anywhere.” You know, the boys like sports and video games. Girls like emotions and relationships. And he said, “I like what girls like. You know, I’m interested in the things girls are. God should have made me a girl.” And this is… it’s very painful. Um, he, by the time he was in his early teens, he was looking on the internet for a sex reassignment surgery.
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: So, what did his parents do? First of all, they made sure he knew that they loved him just the way he was. He… they did not try to change him. I have a friend who was a former homosexual, and he said, “I… when I was young, I liked music and art. And my father was baffled and kept trying to toughen me up by pushing me into sports and other more traditionally masculine activities.” But Brandon’s parents didn’t do that. They said, “It’s perfectly okay to be a gentle, sensitive, emotional boy. It does not mean you’re really a girl.” Uh, well, his parents’ favorite line, which they said over and over again was, “It’s not you that’s wrong. It’s the stereotypes that are wrong.”
Jim: Hmm.
Nancy: They took him through the gifts of the spirit. Prophecy and teaching are not masculine, as we might expect. And mercy and service are not feminine. You know, the text says that the Holy Spirit distributes them to individuals as He wills. And the fruit of the Spirit is not divided into pink boxes and blue boxes, either. Brandon had a difficult time. You know, 80 to 90% depending on the study of kids with gender dysphoria outgrow it in, in, uh, puberty.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: With the rush of hormones.
Jim: I mean, you need to say that… Uh, I mean, I’ve used that stat.
Nancy: Yeah.
Jim: 80% of gender-dysphoric preteen and teens will come, uh, to the correct gender assignment.
Nancy: They’ll…
Jim: By the time they’re 18, 19 years old…
Nancy: They’ll accept their natal sex (laughs).
Jim: Yeah, their natal sex.
Nancy: But-
Jim: I mean, that’s a big statement.
Nancy: It is.
Jim: Because that’s where the politics of this gets really messy, because now you’re recruiting these kids that would have normally grown out of their gender dysphoria, 80%. And we’re trapping…
Nancy: 80, 80 to 90, some of them…
Jim: And we’re trapping them in.
Nancy: Mm-hmm.
John: Recognizing that 10 to, uh, 20% might have a truly lifelong issue. But man, do you wanna trap 80% of the kids for 20% of the issue?
Nancy: Well, Brandon did not change (laughs).
Jim: Right. Okay.
Nancy: He, he, he was a tougher case. But it, it… he went into about his mid-20s. And then he finally concluded that… here’s how he put it. He said, “Surgery would not give me what I want. It would not make me a girl.”
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: There’s a very famous TED Talk by cardiologist. And the famous line from it is, “Every cell has a sex. Every cell has a DNA that’s either masculine or feminine.”
Jim: XX, XY.
Nancy: Obviously, you cannot change every cell on your body. Although, the way Brandon put it was, um, a person is not a computer disk that you can erase and start over again (laughs).
Jim: Yeah. You know, Nancy, so much, and I’ve been thinking about this and writing about it myself, but so much of what we’re talking about seems to be, uh, spiritual warfare toward women, specifically. And when you look at transgenderism, particularly, I’m thinking of that court case in California recently, where a, a biological male who claimed to be a female was moved from a male prison to a female prison. And this person was in prison, originally, for sexual assault. And so, when they moved him to a female prison, he was sexually abusing his prison cellmate, a woman.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: And she was complaining to the guards that they needed to help her to get her to safety because she was being sexually abused. And they said, “If you’re not careful, we’re gonna slap hate crimes on top of your other crimes.”
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Think of this poor woman, you know, who is serving her time. Whatever she did, I don’t even know. But this fact that they were putting her in harm’s way, the emotional trauma of that. And that, really, to me, illustrates this war against women, particularly, in this area of, um, gender dysphoria. So, I guess the question is, how does abolishing biological sex harm women, even in your illustrations, and then ultimately all of us when it comes to universal human rights?
Nancy: Yes. Well, fortunately, some feminists have picked up on this issue because they recognize that, if you cannot define what a woman is, then you cannot give them legal protection. You know, you cannot legally protect a category of people if you cannot define that category.
Jim: Mm-hmm. And that’s what they’re tripping on. It’s getting nonsensical.
Nancy: And, and, you know, unfortunately, a lot of feminists do go along with the transgender. If, if you call something a right, they’ll say, “Oh, we’re for it.” But there are… uh, they’re sometimes called gender-critical feminists who are, who are pointing out that the law is essentially being changed in such a way that you cannot defend women’s rights. I’m actually on a… in a group. It’s called Hands Across the Isle. And we have a public presence, but we also have a private presence so that we can talk to each other. And it’s a group of conservative Christian women and very radical liberal socialists, many of them lesbian women.
Jim: Okay.
Nancy: And we’re, and we’re coming together behind the scenes and, and writing, uh, sample legislation, writing op-ed pieces, and working together on this trans issue because they recognize that women’s rights are at stake. You know, they’ve been called TERFs. Have you heard that term?
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: T-E-R-Fs.
Jim: Tell me what it is.
Nancy: Uh, trans-exclusionary radical feminists, T-E-R-F.
Jim: Okay.
Nancy: It’s meant as a slur.
Jim: Trans-exclusionary, right?
Nancy: Yeah (laughs).
Jim: Okay.
Nancy: Um, but yeah, these are the feminists who have re- recognized that they’ve been fighting for women’s rights all their lives, and now they can’t even say the word “woman.” (laughs) Uh…
Jim: Mm-hmm. Well, And that’s, kind of, the pretzel I’m talking about. Um, is this a spiritual observation that, kind of, the logic of those that aren’t coming from a God-created perspective, is it starting to fall in on itself? Are we seeing the implosion of worldly secular views that are beginning to make no sense because of the infighting between the L, the G, the T, the B? I mean, uh, you know, the- there’s this division now created in the philosophy?
Nancy: Well, the cool thing is that, now, we have the growing numbers of detransitioners.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: And this is great because they can tell us they’ve been there and back. And many of them say, “I had emotional, psychological issues that were not dealt with. I was, you know, fast-tracked into transitioning.” And they’re now coming back. They’re suing the clinics.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: And, and as you know, um, about 25 states now have actually passed laws against medical interventions, puberty blockers, uh, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for minors. 25 states, so…
Jim: Well, and in part because Europe has recognized-
Nancy: Yes.
Jim: … that it does more harm than good. And I certainly applaud Europe for looking at the data.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Right? Let’s give them a hand clap for looking at it and saying, “Okay, we’re going to stop intervening.”
Nancy: Yeah. And it’s partly because they allowed it earlier, so they’ve seen it for a longer time.
Jim: Correct.
Nancy: And so, they’ve, they’ve seen it this time.
Jim: But we are not coming to that same conclusion in the U.S., which again, now, kind of, works against science.
Nancy: Sweden had the longest study.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: And they found that young people who transitioned did not do better, that their suicide rates were actually higher.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: But detransitioners, let me give you one story. So, there’s a, a girl who, uh, I read her interview. She had transitioned to a boy identity at age 11. Has lived, lived as a trans-boy for three years, and then, at age, 14 reclaimed identity as a girl. And here’s what she said. “The turning point came when I realized,” direct quote, “it’s not conversion therapy to learn to love your body.”
Jim: Huh.
John: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: And I thought, “Even the secular people are seeing this.” Because this was on a very secular liberal website.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: And even secular people are beginning to say that… you’ll, you’ll see them calling it, uh, “Transgender ideology is body hatred.” Or, they’ll say, “Transgender ideology is biology denial.”
Jim: Mm-hmm.
Nancy: You know, here’s the application. If you’re dealing with these children in your family, in your church, in your classroom, they are very emotionally fragile kids.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: And so, they do need to be treated with gentleness and care. And frankly, I think that, as Christians, another practical rule is we need to be going out of our way to find these kids because they are being targeted. You know, the kids who are gender-nonconforming, the ones who don’t quite fit and who know they don’t, and who are feeling gender-distressed because of it. They are being targeted. I, I have a niece who, uh, was homeschooled until about fifth grade. And then when she went to public school, the kid said, “You’re gay. You’re lesbian.” She’s, “No, I’m not.” “Yes, you are.” (laughs)
Jim: Wait, yeah.
Nancy: In other words, she was a little bit more masculine in her presentation. And so, well, she wasn’t from a Christian family, so she finally decided maybe they were right. And now, she’s a lesbian. But it was… she was targeted by her classmates.
Jim: Right.
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Recruited.
Nancy: Recruited. And, and another niece, by the way, my brother’s daughter, same thing. She was 11. 11 years old. And she said, “The kids are constantly asking each other, ‘Are you gay? Are you trans? Because it’s cool now.'” Nobody wants to be a boring old heterosexual (laughs).
John: Mm-hmm.
Jim: Right.
Nancy: It’s cool. And you are… there are schools where at least 50% are nonbinary, because nonbinary is the safest one, right? There’s nothing to defend.
Jim: Yeah.
Nancy: That’s, that’s the most common, non-binary.
Jim: You know, this is the culture we’re living in. And Nancy, you’ve done a great job. We are at the end. But you’ve done a great job pulling this together, this thought that the body is consequential in our understanding of God’s creation of us. And it’s connected to every part, body, soul, and spirit. And the Lord intends for us, particularly as believers, uh, to love thy body and understand the creation of the body and what it’s meant for, and to the best of our ability, to be able to speak that message to a world that is, kind of, uh, disoriented now to this concept of your body being made in His image, male and female. And so, I’m so grateful to you for re-enlightening us and talking about these core themes, your experiences as a professor. Thank you for being with us.
Nancy: Oh, thank you. It’s been a joy.
Jim: It’s so good. And, uh, I hope this is intriguing enough and thoughtful enough that you want a copy of the book. And if you order that through Focus, not the big retailers, all the proceeds go right back into helping families, uh, that… we don’t pay those shareholders. Those dollars will go right back into helping families thrive in Christ. And so, help us be part of the ministry, make a gift of any amount, or make a monthly gift and a commitment that way. That’s how Jean and I support the ministry. Um, if you do that, we’ll send you a copy of Nancy’s book as our way of saying thank you for being part of the ministry.
John: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Donate generously as you can today, and, uh, request that book when you call 800, the letter A, and the word, FAMILY. 800-232-6459. Look further details and links to additional articles that really relate to this topic, uh, at the website, and you’ll find those links at focusonthefamily.com/broadcast. Thanks for joining us today for Focus on The Family with Jim Daly. I’m John Fuller inviting you back as we once again help you and your family thrive in Christ.
