Ephesians, The big picture

Before you ever begin a detailed verse by verse study in any book of the Bible, it's important that you first get a handle on the historic and cultural context of said book. In other words, before you go scuba diving in a particular book, it's first necessary to do a fly over in order to take in the big picture (i.e., get a feel for what took place; historically, politically, socially, culturally and geographically). When I do the contextual study of a particular book, I ask the same key questions:

1. To whom was it written?
2. By whom was it written?
3. When was it written?
4. Where was it written?
5. What was the purpose for writing it?
6. What is the theme of this book?
7. Around what circumstances/occasion was it written?

Now, there may be other questions, but these are the main ones that I use. As we tackle these questions it's important for you to know that you will not find the answers to all these questions in the actual text of Scripture. You will have to go outside of Scripture and use other resources to glean this information. I suggest that you get your hands on some good Bible introductions, handbooks, commentaries, atlases, etc. Listen men, without this big picture background work, you will have a much more difficult time understanding the details of a given book. Another reason why I'm focusing on the Book of Ephesians is to demonstrate the importance of book studies versus topical studies. If you have a teaching ministry to God's people there is no better approach than verse by verse book studies. Your people will rise up and call you blessed because they're learning the Word of God. Dr David Howard makes the following point concerning the importance of book studies, " I recommend that pastors practice expository preaching through books of the Bible (or portions of books, if the books are extraordinarily lengthy) as their primary approach to preaching. With this approach, preachers and congregations can be immersed in the overall message of a book in its context, along the lines suggested above, and not just isolated verses or passages".

Now, looking at the book of Ephesians, let's get a big picture:

I. To whom was Ephesians written? Ephesians was written according to verse 1 of chapter 1, "To the Body of Christ (i.e., Saints) in Ephesus".

II. By whom was Ephesians written? Both internal and external evidence point to the Apostle Paul as the author of this epistle.

III. Where was it written? Paul clearly wrote as a prisoner in Rome (cf. Ephesians 3:1, 4:1, 6:20).

IV. When was it written? All external conservative evidence points to the date of A.D. 61 (Colossians and Philemon were written during the same year, possibly the same time).

V. The Purpose of Paul writing this letter? Kenneth Boa writes, "Ephesians was not written to correct specific errors in a local church, but to prevent problems in the church as a whole by encouraging the Body of Christ to mature in Him. It was also written to make believers more aware of their position in Christ because this is the basis for their practice on every level of life". I'm convinced that many of the problems that exist in the Body of Christ today are the result of:
1. Immaturity
2. Lack of understanding of our position in Christ which inevitably affects our practice in life.

VI. What is the theme of this letter? The theme of Ephesians revolves around who we are positionally in Christ. In this epistle Paul makes it clear that we (those in Christ) are the church, the body of Christ. The Church is NOT a denomination, nor an institution, nor a building on the corner. The church is a new community purchased by Christ to carry out the purposes of God in this world.

A word about the city of Ephesus. As I study Paul’s writings, I'm convinced that Paul loved the city. He loved the sites the sounds the hustle and bustle of urban living. Ephesus was a major seaport destination. Ephesus was a hub of entertainment, trade, politics, education as well as religion. The famed Temple of Diana, one of the seven wonders of the Ancient world was housed in Ephesus. This was a very strategic city and Paul knew that. Of course as you know city living brings city problems and Ephesus had her share of problems.

I won't go much further than this brief introduction. Next time we'll put on our scuba gear and dive into the text.

But before I close allow me to summarize some lessons learned from our intro:

1. Context is King. A Historical, cultural background study is necessary for effective Bible study.
2. The Bible was given not to denominations nor to institutions. The Bible was given to the Church, the people of God (the body of Christ).
3. The Bible was not given to make us smarter, but mature.
4. Strategy plays a part in ministry. Someone has well said, "If you aim at nothing, you will surely hit it"

Soli Deo Gloria

Charleston S.C in Biblical perspective (Hebrews 9:27)

Whether you live in Charleston or not, everyone has been impacted by the tragedy that took place on Wednesday evening at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church. Nine people including the Pastor lost their lives in a senseless attack by 21 year old Dylann Roof. The responses to these killings shoot the gamut from anger to forgiveness, to debates as to whether churches should now “arm” the Ushers. My response as a follower of Christ is always to ask, “What does God’s word have to say about this”? And you know what? There is a word from the Lord. In the Book of Hebrews, chapter nine, verse 27, the writer states, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”. In order to make sense of this senseless tragedy, we MUST understand God’s perspective on death. Before we dig deeper, I must say that what you read may not bring you immediate comfort or encouragement. This exposition may not alleviate you anger and frustration. But what I hope happens is that you gain some clarity on what took place in Charleston.
Hebrews 9:27 uncovers for us four (4) important realities about death that we all need to know:

Reality #1
Death is certain (“And as it is appointed…..”)
The word “appointed” means, something that is reserved, certain, and destined. Therefore the writer declares that death (Physical death) is reserved, certain and mankind’s destiny. Folks there is no surer reality in life than physical death. Someone asked me, “Why do people have to die? The Bible is clear. The reason why mankind is subject to death is because of SIN. When Adam violated God’s righteous standard (Gen 2:15-17) the Bible states sin thereby entered the world of humanity followed by death (Rom 5:12). Because of sin, death is reserved, certain and destined for all humanity. Why did the 9 people in this Charleston South Carolina A.M.E church die, because they were black? Well their ethnicity may have been the Catalyst, but the true cause is because they like you and I were sinners and subject to the curse of sin, namely death.

Reality #2
Death is certain for all men (“…….for men…….”)
The word “men” here is a generic term which speaks of “ALL humanity”. Every Human being regardless of gender or age is subject to physical death. Friends, death is no respecter of persons, death is not racist, and death doesn’t play favorites. Everybody is going to die. But here’s the deal, there is not a set prescribed way that people are going to die. For example, everybody’s not’s going to die at 88 yrs. old peaceably in their bed. The Book of Hebrews, chapter 11 verses 36-38 states, “Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth”. This also includes churches.

Reality #3
Death is a onetime event (“…..once to die……”)
Folks, we must understand that based on this verse concepts like reincarnation are false. We don’t get several shots at this life, men and women are not born with 9 lives. In light of this fact we should take the Apostles Paul’s advice seriously, “make the most of your time” (Eph 5:16).

Reality #4
Death leads to certain judgment (“…….but after this the judgment”)
Physical death is NOT the end. When people die they don’t cease to exist. The Bible is clear, following death comes judgment. This is the divine judgment carried out by Christ. The Bible speaks of judgment for BOTH the believer and unbeliever when they die.

First, what happens when the believer dies?
a. His/her, soul/spirit goes to Heaven to be with Christ (2 Cor 5:8)
b. At the Rapture of the Church the believer’s soul/spirit is reunited with his/her resurrected body (1 Thess 4)
c. All believers are reunited with each other and the Lord in Heaven during the time of Tribulation on the earth (1 Thess 4; John 14:6). It’s in heaven that the believer’s works are judged in order to determine his/her degree of reward (2 Cor 5).
d. At Christ’s Second coming all the saints return from Heaven with Him to live and reign on the earth during His Millennial Kingdom reign (Rev 20:4-6).

Second, what happens when the Unbeliever dies?
a. His/her, soul/spirit goes to Hell where in conscious torment they await the Judgment of God (Luke 16:19-31); Rev 20:11).
b. After the Millennial reign of Christ, the Dead are brought before the “White throne” of judgment where their works will be judged, not to determine whether they go to heaven, but to determine their degree of punishment in the “Lake of Fire” (Rev 20:11ff).

When I think about the deaths of these folks in Charleston S.C. my hope is that each of these nine precious souls knew Christ as Lord and Savior, because if they did, they are more alive today than they ever have been in their entire lives. The plain truth is that many of us who name the name of Christ are not ready to die because we either have a non-existing or underdeveloped theology of death. Listen, when one knows the truth of God's word related to death, no matter what the circumstances we can and will experience the hope that's ours in Christ.

Amen.

"Sex Change" Surgery: What Bruce Jenner, Diane Sawyer, and You Should Know

by  Walt Heyer
within Culture

April 27th, 2015

The dark and troubling history of the contemporary transgender movement, with its enthusiastic approval of gender-reassignment surgery, has left a trail of misery in its wake.

Bruce Jenner and Diane Sawyer could benefit from a history lesson. I know, because I suffered through “sex change” surgery and lived as a woman for eight years. The surgery fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems.

The beginnings of the transgender movement have gotten lost today in the push for transgender rights, acceptance, and tolerance. If more people were aware of the dark and troubled history of sex-reassignment surgery, perhaps we wouldn’t be so quick to push people toward it.

The setting for the first transgender surgeries (mostly male-to-female) was in university-based clinics, starting in the 1950s and progressing through the 1960s and the 1970s. When the researchers tallied the results and found no objective proof that it was successful—and, in fact, evidence that it was harmful—the universities stopped offering sex-reassignment surgery.

Since then, private surgeons have stepped in to take their place. Without any scrutiny or accountability for their results, their practices have grown, leaving shame, regret, and suicide in their wake.

The Founding Fathers of the Transgender Movement

The transgender movement began as the brainchild of three men who shared a common bond: all three were pedophilia activists.

The story starts with the infamous Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a biologist and sexologist whose legacy endures today. Kinsey believed that all sex acts were legitimate—including pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, incest, adultery, prostitution, and group sex. He authorized despicable experiments on infants and toddlers to gather information to justify his view that children of any age enjoyed having sex. Kinsey advocated the normalization of pedophilia and lobbied against laws that would protect innocent children and punish sexual predators.

Transsexualism was added to Kinsey’s repertoire when he was presented with the case of an effeminate boy who wanted to become a girl. Kinsey consulted an acquaintance of his, an endocrinologist by the name of Dr. Harry Benjamin. Transvestites, men who dressed as women, were well-known. Kinsey and Benjamin saw this as an opportunity to change a transvestite physically, way beyond dress and make-up. Kinsey and Benjamin became professional collaborators in the first case of what Benjamin would later call “transsexualism.”

Benjamin asked several psychiatric doctors to evaluate the boy for possible surgical procedures to feminize his appearance. They couldn’t come to a consensus on the appropriateness of feminizing surgery. That didn’t stop Benjamin. On his own, he began offering female hormone therapy to the boy. The boy went to Germany for partial surgery, and Benjamin lost all contact with him, making any long-term follow-up impossible.

The Tragic Story of the Reimer Twins

The third co-founder of today’s transgender movement was psychologist Dr. John Money, a dedicated disciple of Kinsey and a member of a transsexual research team headed by Benjamin.

Money’s first transgender case came in 1967 when he was asked by a Canadian couple, the Reimers, to repair a botched circumcision on their two-year-old son, David. Without any medical justification, Money launched into an experiment to make a name for himself and advance his theories about gender, no matter what the consequences to the child. Money told the distraught parents that the best way to assure David’s happiness was to surgically change his genitalia from male to female and raise him as a girl. As many parents do, the Reimers followed their doctor’s orders, and David was replaced with Brenda. Money assured the parents that Brenda would adapt to being a girl and that she would never know the difference. He told them that they should keep it a secret, so they did—at least for a while.

Activist doctors like Dr. Money always look brilliant at first, especially if they control the information that the media report. Money played a skilled game of “catch me if you can,” reporting the success of the boy’s gender change to the medical and scientific community and building his reputation as a leading expert in the emerging field of gender change. It would be decades before the truth was revealed. In reality, David Reimer’s “adaptation” to being a girl was completely different from the glowing reports concocted by Money for journal articles. By age twelve, David was severely depressed and refused to return to see Money. In desperation, his parents broke their secrecy, and told him the truth of the gender reassignment. At age fourteen, David chose to undo the gender change and live as a boy.

In 2000, at the age of thirty-five, David and his twin brother finally exposed the sexual abuse Dr. Money had inflicted on them in the privacy of his office. The boys told how Dr. Money took naked photos of them when they were just seven years old. But pictures were not enough for Money. The pedophilic doctor also forced the boys to engage in incestuous sexual activities with each other.

The consequences of Money’s abuse were tragic for both boys. In 2003, only three years after going public about their tortured past, David’s twin brother, Brian, died from a self-inflicted overdose. A short while later, David also committed suicide. Money had finally been exposed as a fraud, but that didn’t help the grieving parents whose twin boys were now dead.

The exposure of Money’s fraudulent research results and tendencies came too late for people suffering from gender issues, too. Using surgery had become well-established by then, and no one cared that one of its founders was discredited.

Results from Johns Hopkins: Surgery Gives No Relief

Dr. Money became the co-founder of one of the first university-based gender clinics in the United States at Johns Hopkins University, where gender reassignment surgery was performed. After the clinic had been in operation for several years, Dr. Paul McHugh, the director of psychiatry and behavioral science at Hopkins, wanted more than Money’s assurances of success immediately following surgery. McHugh wanted more evidence. Long-term, were patients any better off after surgery?

McHugh assigned the task of evaluating outcomes to Dr. Jon Meyer, the chairman of the Hopkins gender clinic. Meyer selected fifty subjects from those treated at the Hopkins clinic, both those who had undergone gender reassignment surgery and those who had not had surgery. The results of this study completely refuted Money’s claims about the positive outcomes of sex-change surgery. The objective report showed no medical necessity for surgery.

On August 10, 1979, Dr. Meyer announced his results: “To say this type of surgery cures psychiatric disturbance is incorrect. We now have objective evidence that there is no real difference in the transsexual’s adjustments to life in terms of job, educational attainment, marital adjustment and social stability.”  He later told The New York Times: “My personal feeling is that the surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

Less than six months later, the Johns Hopkins gender clinic closed. Other university-affiliated gender clinics across the country followed suit, completely ceasing to perform gender reassignment surgery. No success was reported anywhere.

Results from Benjamin’s Colleague: Too Many Suicides

It was not just the Hopkins clinic reporting lack of outcomes from surgery. Around the same time, serious questions about the effectiveness of gender change came from Dr. Harry Benjamin’s partner, endocrinologist Charles Ihlenfeld.

Ihlenfeld worked with Benjamin for six years and administered sex hormones to 500 transsexuals. Ihlenfeld shocked Benjamin by publicly announcing that 80 percent of the people who want to change their gender shouldn’t do it. Ihlenfeld said: “There is too much unhappiness among people who have had the surgery…Too many end in suicide.” Ihlenfeld stopped administering hormones to patients experiencing gender dysphoria and switched specialties from endocrinology to psychiatry so he could offer such patients the kind of help he thought they really needed.

In the wake of the Hopkins study, the closure of the flagship Hopkins clinic, and the warning sounded by Ihlenfeld, advocates of sex change surgery needed a new strategy. Benjamin and Money looked to their friend, Paul Walker, PhD, a homosexual and transgender activist they knew shared their passion to provide hormones and surgery. A committee was formed to draft standards of care for transgenders that furthered their agenda, with Paul Walker at the helm. The committee included a psychiatrist, a pedophilia activist, two plastic surgeons, and a urologist, all of whom would financially benefit from keeping gender reassignment surgery available for anyone who wanted it. The “Harry Benjamin International Standards of Care” were published in 1979 and gave fresh life to gender surgery.

My Experience with Dr. Walker

I myself suffered greatly to come to terms with my gender. In 1981, I sought out Dr. Walker to ask him, the man who wrote the standards of care, for help. Walker said I was suffering from gender dysphoria. A mere two years after both the Hopkins study and the public statements of Ihlenfeld drew attention to the increased suicide risk associated with gender change, Walker, even though he was completely aware of both reports, signed my approval letter for hormones and surgery.

Under his guidance, I underwent gender reassignment surgery and lived for eight years as Laura Jensen, female. Eventually, I gathered the courage to admit that the surgery had fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems.The deception and lack of transparency I experienced in the 1980s still surround gender change surgery today. For the sake of others who struggle with gender dysphoria, I cannot remain silent.

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the facts that surgery never has been a medically necessary procedure for treating gender dysphoria and that taking cross-gender hormones can be harmful.  Modern transgender activists, the descendants of Kinsey, Benjamin, and John Money, keep alive the practice of medically unnecessary gender-change surgery by controlling the flow of published information and by squelching research and personal stories that tell of the regret, unhappiness, and suicide experienced by those who undergo such surgery. Negative outcomes are only acknowledged as a way to blame society for its transphobia.

Transgender clients who regret having taken this path are often full of shame and remorse. Those who regret their decision have few places to turn in a world of pro-transgender activism. For me, it took years to muster the courage to stand up and speak out about the regret.

I only wish Dr. Paul Walker had been required to tell me about both reports when I consulted him: the Hopkins study showing surgery did not alleviate severe psychological problems, and Ihlenfeld’s observation of the continuing transgender unhappiness and high incidence of suicide after hormones and surgery. This information might not have stopped me from making that disastrous decision—but at least I would have known the dangers and pain that lay ahead.

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker with a passion to help others who regret gender change. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about the incidence of regret and the tragic consequences suffered as a result. Heyer’s story can be read in novel form in Kid Dakota and The Secret at Grandma’s House and in his autobiography, A Transgender’s Faith. Heyer’s other books include Paper Genders and Gender, Lies and Suicide.

Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme

by  Paul McHugh
within Bioethics, Culture, Science

June 10th, 2015

The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways.

A rare issue of a few men—both homosexual and heterosexual men, including some who sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women—has spread to include women as well as men. Even young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. Over the last ten or fifteen years, this phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially. Now, almost everyone has heard of or met such a person.

Publicity, especially from early examples such as “Christine” Jorgenson, “Jan” Morris, and “Renee” Richards, has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice, leading to widespread cultural acceptance of the concept. And, that idea, quickly accepted in the 1980s, has since run through the American public like a revelation or “meme” affecting much of our thought about sex.

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, no one could predict who would swap this fact of their makeup, nor could one justifiably criticize such a decision.

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.

Olympic Athlete Turned "Pin-Up" Girl

This history may clarify some aspects of the latest high-profile transgender claimant. Bruce Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion, is turning away from his titular identity as one of the “world’s greatest male athletes.” Jenner announced recently that he “identifies as a woman” and, with medical and surgical help, is busy reconstructing his physique.

I have not met or examined Jenner, but his behavior resembles that of some of the transgender males we have studied over the years. These men wanted to display themselves in sexy ways, wearing provocative female garb. More often than not, while claiming to be a woman in a man’s body, they declared themselves to be “lesbians” (attracted to other women). The photograph of the posed, corseted, breast-boosted Bruce Jenner (a man in his mid-sixties, but flaunting himself as if a “pin-up” girl in her twenties or thirties) on the cover ofVanity Fair suggests that he may fit the behavioral mold that Ray Blanchard has dubbed an expression of “autogynephilia”—from gynephilia (attracted to women) and auto (in the form of oneself).

The Emperor’s New Clothes

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns.

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

How to Treat Gender Dysphoria

So how should we make sense of this matter today? As with any mental phenomenon, what’s crucial is noting its fundamental characteristic and then identifying the many ways in which that characteristic can manifest itself.

The central issue with all transgender subjects is one of assumption—the assumption that one’s sexual nature is misaligned with one’s biological sex. This problematic assumption comes about in several different ways, and these distinctions in its generation determine how to manage and treat it.

Based on the photographic evidence one might guess Bruce Jenner falls into the group of men who come to their disordered assumption through being sexually aroused by the image of themselves as women. He could have been treated for this misaligned arousal with psychotherapy and medication. Instead, he found his way to surgeons who worked him over as he wished. Others have already commented on his stereotypic caricature of women as decorative “babes” (“I look forward to wearing nail polish until it chips off,” he said to Diane Sawyer)—a view that understandably infuriates feminists—and his odd sense that only feelings, not facts, matter here.

For his sake, however, I do hope that he receives regular, attentive follow-up care, as his psychological serenity in the future is doubtful. Future men with similar feelings and intentions should be treated for those feelings rather than being encouraged to undergo bodily changes. Group therapies are now available for them.

Most young boys and girls who come seeking sex-reassignment are utterly different from Jenner. They have no erotic interest driving their quest. Rather, they come with psychosocial issues—conflicts over the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex—and presume that sex-reassignment will ease or resolve them.

The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counselors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.

Those with Gender Dysphoria Need Evidence-Based Care

There are several reasons for this absence of coherence in our mental health system. Important among them is the fact that both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama.

In two states, a doctor who would look into the psychological history of a transgendered boy or girl in search of a resolvable conflict could lose his or her license to practice medicine. By contrast, such a physician would not be penalized if he or she started such a patient on hormones that would block puberty and might stunt growth.

What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry.

A description of the believer (Jude 1)

                                          Jude 1

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Jude (aka, Judas) the half brother of our Lord Jesus who describes himself as a Slave of Christ (love that!) is writing to a group of believers who are under siege by false teachers. What I'd like to focus on is how Jude DESCRIBES the believers to whom he writes.

FIRST, he describes these believers as CALLED. The word "called" here is the word (Klay-toss) and means to summon, to invite, like to a party. In theology this is known as the "effectual" call. Properly defined, the effectual call is the, "Act of God the Father speaking through the proclamation of the gospel, in which He summons people to Himself in such a way that they respond in saving faith" (Grudem 693). Every person who is a Christian is so because AND ONLY because God invited you to be. No one gets to come to the Salvation party without an invitation. May I remind you again that the effectual call is not a call to service, rather a call to Salvation. Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."(John 6:44).

SECOND, he describes these believers as BELOVED. The word translated beloved is the word (Ah-gah- pah-oh). Generally speaking in Scripture, love is defined as a selfless commitment toward another. For example in John 3:16 the writer states that God LOVES the world... the writer does not mean that God has warm, romantic feelings for the world, BUT that He is selflessly committed to the world, so much so that He gave His Only son as a sacrifice for the world's sin. Now thats love. Every true believer is beloved of God. In other words, God is selflessly committed to every believer. Now lets dig alittle deeper. The word beloved here according to Greek grammar is what you call a perfect passive participle. This means that at some point in the Eternal past God made a commitment to you, AND that commitment will endure throughout all eternity. The passive element of the participle simply means that you had NOTHING, WHATSOEVER to do with God committing to you. God did not make an Eternal commitment to you because, "He saw the best in you". No!!!, His love for you is solely based on and within Himself (Eph 1:6, 9, 11, 14).

THIRD, he describes these believers as KEPT. The Greek word for kept is the word (Teh-reh-oh) and means, "to be guarded, to be secure, to retain in custody". Listen!!! God's people. In Christ YOU ARE secure. Jesus put it this way in John 6:39 "this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that all he has given Me I should lose nothing..." Again, Jesus states in John 10:28-30, " And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. My father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of my father's hand. I and my Father are one. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans chapter 8, that,"NOTHING can separate us from the love God which is in Christ our Lord". If you're living under the threat that you are in danger of losing your Salvation, May I assure you on the authority of Scripture that you have NOTHING to fear. He who began a good work in you WILL COMPLETE IT (Phil 1:6). Can I add this? The verb "kept" here is ALSO Passive and indicates that believers don't keep themselves. There's nothing that I can do or must do to secure my salvation. Good works don't secure me, good thoughts don't secure me, Tithing doesn't secure me, busyness in ministry doesn't secure me , religious ceremony doesn't secure me, Church membership doesn't secure me. IT'S ONLY Christ who secures us.

Listen, dont you ever forget this. You are loved by God and will be loved by God throughout All eternity. You are securely kept by God and will be throughout ALL eternity. You are a Child of God NOT because of ANYTHING in you or because of anything you've done but ONLY because He invited YOU to be one.

To the praise of the glory of His grace.

Todd

Who Does the Constitution Protect? by Dr. Frank Turek

Last week, one unelected judge, overturned the will of 1,317,178 North Carolinians when he declared North Carolina’s definition of marriage in violation of the United States constitution. Judge Max Cogburn, appointed by President Obama, said that the definition 61 percent of voters approved just two years ago violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment—the same rationale used by judges elsewhere to violate the expressed will of the people. This is beyond absurd.

It’s absurd rationally because everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn't.

These rulings are also absurd constitutionally. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1868 to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no one ever thought a court could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman? What planet are these judges ruling from?

Why do you think the Federal and State governments went through the arduous constitutional amendment process to give blacks and women the right to vote? Courts knew they couldn’t act as legislatures to fix the problem. Congress and State legislatures had to vote to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage. It’s the one institution best capable of creating and then raising children by encouraging their mothers and fathers to stay together. It’s the basis of a civilized society. We can’t build and maintain a civilization through homosexuality or by equating it to what moms and dads do. You may claim that’s bigotry, but it’s really just biology. (Sorry, I didn’t set up the facts of nature. I have noticed, however, that conservatives attempt to change their behavior to fit reality, while liberals attempt to change reality to fit their behavior.)

Anyone who wants to change laws should convince their fellow citizens to do so at the ballot box, not through unelected judges. Unfortunately, activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states! I don’t care where you stand on the marriage issue: when 23 people substitute their personal policy preferences to overrule those of 41 million Americans, we are no longer free or equal.

Of the approximately 30 states that now have same-sex marriage (it changes every day), only one state has done it through popular vote (Maine). The people of Maryland and Washington narrowly voted not to overrule the same-sex marriage provisions their legislatures had approved. Eight laws were changed by state legislatures without popular input. Activist judges overruled the people in the remaining states.

As unwise as I think changing the institution of marriage is, I can at least respect the process when it is done democratically. For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

What do you think would happen if some federal judge wrenched a passage of the Federal Constitution out of context and summarily struck down Maine’s law democratically decided law approving same-sex marriage? Do you think the people preaching “tolerance”—including their cheerleaders in the media—would tolerate such judicial abuse? The airwaves would be blasting howls of unfairness and calls for judicial impeachment. Yet when the same thing is done to strike down marriage laws based in biological reality—laws passed by millions of voters—liberals celebrate that those voters have been disenfranchised. Saying that one judge’s vote counts more than the votes of millions of Americans is an unequal way to advance “equality.”

“Oh, but the Constitution evolves,” some say. “We don’t have to look at what was intended in 1868.”

If that’s the case, then why have a constitution at all? If judges can make the law say anything they want, then how can we govern ourselves? We can’t. It also means that none of our rights are secure (including new-found “rights” to same-sex marriage). What’s to stop some rogue judge from taking away your freedom of speech or religion because the constitution has “evolved” in just the way his liberal mind desires?

Oops, that’s already happened, as many bakers, florists, photographers, and conscientious people in other businesses have discovered. If you don’t agree to celebrate same-sex marriages, you will be sued, fined, fired, and perhaps even jailed. All in the name of “tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”

And parents, don’t think you have the right to educate your children with certain moral values in public schools. Same-sex marriage ends your parental rights there as well.

What? You voted and your values won? Sorry, your votes don’t count. Some people get more “equal protection” than you do. A judge said so.

The truth is, nowhere does the Constitution say that the courts are the final word on what laws mean or what laws are valid. We have three co-equal branches of government. We also have a federal government that is constitutionally subordinate to state governments on most issues, including this issue of same-sex marriage (that’s one thing the Supreme Court got right in last year’s DOMA decision).

America needs a state governor who still believes in America—a governor willing to take a page from President Andrew Jackson who once rebuffed a Supreme Court decision against the state of Georgia by telling Chief Justice Marshall, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." He called the decision “stillborn.”

America needs an Andrew Jackson governor—a statesman who peacefully but firmly tells the court, “Your decision violates the Constitution and the rights of my citizens to govern themselves. It will not be enforced in this state. If you want to change our laws, then respect our people and our Constitution by convincing us to change our minds in the voting booth.”

While that may create a constitutional crisis, our Constitution is already in crisis! What can be lost that hasn’t ready been lost? We will not regain our right to self-government or maintain ordered liberty if we continue to cede all power to the judicial branch or to the federal government.

Are there any statesmen left in America?