"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

12/19/06
Comments (15)

This Strange New World

“An Indian runner who won a silver medal in the women’s 800-meter run at the Asian Games earlier this month has failed a gender test and is likely to be stripped of her medal, news reports said Monday.” According to many news reports, Santhi Soudarajan, a 25 year-old runner, was made to take a gender test after completing her event and placing second. A panel typically composed of a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, and an internal medicine specialist discovered that she “does not possess the sexual characteristics of a woman.” You can read a report at FoxNews or most other media outlets.

A couple of years ago I wrote about how this strange society we live in no longer regards gender as something that is absolute, assigned by Creator or nature, but something that depends on the individual. A person with what has traditionally been considered male anatomy may still consider himself [herself?] female and, according to the politically correct rules of our society, we have no right to question this. When I wrote on this topic in the past I did so after reading a tragic article of a young man who hated who he was. At some point in his early teenage years he became convinced that he was actually a girl trapped in a boy’s body. He began to live like a girl; dressing in girl’s clothing and taking estrogen to try to combat his male hormones. As he grew older he began to become promiscuous, engaging in sexual behavior with boys, yet never revealing that he was actually male. Eventually some of the men with whom he had engaged in sexual acts became suspicious and began to think they had figured out his secret. They resolved to find out once and for all, so in a fit of rage tore off his clothes and learned that their behavior had been not only promiscuous, but homosexual. Enraged, they beat him to death and buried him in a shallow grave. One of them later confessed to the crime and they are now (justly) awaiting trial on charges of murder.

I said at the time that this is a perfect but shocking example of evidence that our society no longer believes in absolutes, for now even gender has become relative. The story I read in the newspaper was about a person who was born male - he had male anatomy, male chromosomes and grew up as a little boy - but at some point he allowed his mind to convince himself that he was female. Now common sense tells us that a human being who has male anatomy and male chromosomes in every cell of his body is male! But our confused, politically correct society seems to disagree. Just because every cell in his body cries out that he is male, we should not assume that he is, for his mind may tell him otherwise. And if a boy decides he is actually a girl, we certainly are not to judge her for that decision. We should assume that she is correct and give her full support.”

I mentioned the story of the Indian athlete to my wife today and said that this is undoubtedly only the first of many similar stories we will hear in the coming years. As it becomes increasingly incorrect for us to judge another person’s gender based solely or even primarily on anatomy, there will be increasing confusion about all kinds of issues. For example, should a person with male anatomy who has decided to adopt the identity of a woman use the men’s or women’s bathrooms at a restaurant or the men’s or women’s change room at a swimming pool? Should a male athlete who believes he is female compete against men or women? And really, as time progresses, how are events like the Olympics to differentiate between men and women any longer?

It occurred to me that one organization has already attempted to deal with some of these questions. The Gay Games are the rough equivalent of the Olympics but geared entirely towards people who are gay, transgendered, and so on. Admittedly they are not quite as serious as the Olympics for they are based on the values of “Participation, Inclusion, and Personal Best, and promote a supportive environment, free from bigotry, where participants achieve success by their own measure.” The fact is, though, that they have events where participants compete against people of their own gender. And so the Gay Games have adopted a Gender Policy. This policy states that participants will generally be required to compete in the grouping assigned on their birth certificate or passport. However, if this is not the group in which they can compete in the other group providing that they meet two conditions: “1. A letter from a medical practitioner is provided stating that the participant has been actively involved in hormone treatment for a minimum of two full years. 2. Proof of the participant living as the self-identified gender for a minimum of two years.” Persons who satisfy these criteria will be accredited by the Gay Games host organization in accordance with their chosen or self-identified gender in their chosen events.

This sounds ridiculous, does it not? Of course when the standard of success is personal best and success by one’s own measure, the importance of winning and losing is somewhat diminished. But when it comes to the Olympics we are dealing with athletes who have spent their whole lives training and preparing for one thing: to win. These people are driven to do their absolute best, but even better, to beat others.

A few years ago the International Olympic Committee enacted a policy similar to that of the Gay Games allowing transgender athletes to compete in the Olympics provided they met certain criteria such as completing genital reconstructive surgery and at least two years of hormonal therapy. They believe this will remove any advantage a formerly male athlete may have over his female competitors. Others are not so convinced and regard this decision as a complete travesty.

As far as I know, this issue has yet to rear its ugly head in actual Olympic events, even though the policy was in place during the 2004 Olympics. I am not aware of a case of a formerly male athlete (which is to say, of course, an athlete who is still male but is trying to remove all evidence thereof) competing against females in an Olympic event. But it will come. And our society, politically correct as it is, will have no easy answer to a male athlete who uses his superior strength to beat the competition even though he claims to be a woman. And in the same way our society has no answer to a man who wants to change with women at the pool or who wants to exercise in a women’s health club simply because he has decided to be a woman.

As Christians we must not minimize the differences between the genders, but learn to love and celebrate them. God made us in His image, both male and female. This is not a difference we should apologize for or choose to overlook. As Ligon Duncan taught at least year’s Shepherd’s Conference, it is glorious to celebrate the differences between men and women. When we say that the roles of men and women are interchangeable, (or when we say that the identify of men and women are interchangeable) we suppress a truth that God has built into this world. The differences between men and women are a critical aspect of what makes us image bearers of God. We bring Him honor and glory when we imitate Him, and when we seek to honor the image of God as it exists in us, and even when it exists in us differently as men and women.

This Strange New World

Comments (15) »


1. Scott
December 19, 2006
10:47 AM

Thanks for writing, Tim.

While I agree with you in that “absolute relativism” fails to provide a workable worldview, I fear that rendering ourselves dependent upon dichotomies and binary pairs could be dangerous as well.

Consider the case of intersexed individuals. The New York Times estimates that somewhere between 1/2000 and 1/4500 individuals are born with ambiguous features — roughly as common as cystic fibrosis. Until recently, doctors were forced to decide whether the baby is “male” or “female” and recommend “corrective” surgery to the parents, often consigning newborns to lives of confused hardship. Though doctors are encouraged to pursue alternatives today, I’m sure you can imagine the difficulty such a person would face.

This is a quote from an NYT article concerning a documentary a group of intersexed individuals produced: “Ten people directly address the camera. Nine tell stories of surgery and lives nearly wrecked. One man refers to himself as a monster. Another says she’s “damaged goods.” One person, however, did not have an operation, and she alone looks fit and confident, sitting with great posture and seeming at home in her body.”

You can read the full article here.

How would you propose we respond to issues that smudge the black-and-white lines we draw?


2. Nick
December 19, 2006
10:50 AM

For a Business Law class in College I had to participate as a lawyer in a mock trial dealing with a situation where are male was kicked out of the Olympics, or at least some kind of sports event, I can’t quite remember, because he was competing as a female; he ended winning whatever it was that he was taking part in, and it was later discovered that ‘she’ was really a he. After this his medal was taken away and he was not allowed to compete as a female. This was actually a true case and after when this man sued he won. I am actually sure, now that I think of it, that this was not the olympics. But in my little mock case I won, and I was against it.


3. Tim Challies
December 19, 2006
10:53 AM

“Consider the case of intersexed individuals.”

Actually, I meant to include a paragraph mentioning that this is a legitimate concern, though one not nearly as important as advocates of transgenderism would have us believe. Still, there are cases where gender as not as clear as maybe we’d like to believe. In fact, I heard of a case just recently where a boy went for surgery because of an undescended testicle. When they began surgery they found that he had an ovary and falopian tube in there. I can bet the threw them!


4. Nick
December 19, 2006
10:53 AM

“How would you propose we respond to issues that smudge the black-and-white lines we draw?”

I am not proposing an answer but what Tim was saying and what you are saying are completely different situations. While parallels may be drawn you can not treat them as equal situations.


5. Garret
December 19, 2006
11:00 AM

There is so much discussion in the Church today regarding homosexuality. And I think there is little disagreement as to where most believers in Christ stand with this issue.

I wonder if we spend too much time speaking out against the trend toward total acceptance, but not enough time discussing how Christians ought to behave toward homosexuals - both those who are professing believers and particularly those who are not.

Certainly, there needs to be some discussion as to how we look upon homosexuals who do not profess belief in Christ and how we should treat them.

The bottom line is, as foul as homosexuality is, we still need to view homosexuals as sinners in need of Christ - no different than we were before we were born again of the Holy Spirit. Remember, our righteousness is as filthy rags in Gods sight - so we were no less foul when Christ died for us.

It’s so easy to gravitate toward self-righteous indignation and condemnation when we step into the homosexual landscape. When dealing with the people of this community, we must remind ourselves that we are sinners by nature saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that having nothing to do with our own will or righteousness.

It’s tough, I know. I’ve been guilty of looking upon the gay community with disdain, secretly wishing God would come in judgement against them.

We can’t change them by judging them, nor can we change the course of politics and society by crying out in protest. We must, (gulp!) love them and gently show them the love of Christ - one sinner’s heart at a time. When people experience the love of Christ, and are forever changed, everything else will take care of itself as the Holy Spirit sanctifies.


6. John
December 19, 2006
11:16 AM

I have a hard time mustering “self-righteous indignation” toward homosexuals. Who am I kidding? I struggle with (heterosexual) lust, which is a sin; but for the grace of God I could have been oriented the other way. Gays are sinners in need of grace, just like anyone else.

That all being said, to return to the topic at hand, intersexuals who are born with ambiguous sex characteristics are somewhat different from transexuals who feel compelled to choose a sex other than the one with which they are clearly physically identified.


7. Mark
December 19, 2006
11:27 AM

Can’t we just say he/she was cheating? THis seems more like an honesty issue on the part of the athlete, than a moral relativism issue (although there is that as well). The athlete should have disclosed that he/she was transgender to the authority over the competition. That would have allowed them to make a judgment instead of having to deal with what most would consider cheating.

If you are a female athlete (or male for that matter), and a high level of testosterone is found in your blood, then you are considered a cheat.

I guess what I really am interested in is this article about complimentarianism, moral relativism, or homosexuality, or are you saying that they are all part of the smae slippery slope? Could you expand?


8. SolShine7
December 19, 2006
2:52 PM

I think your title says it perfectly. Indeed, this is world grows stranger by the minute.


9. dprocket
December 19, 2006
6:25 PM

Tim - interesting, yet weird post. To merge comments on two separate topics: this is exactly the reason that I am strongly considering homeschooling my children. It’s not that I am afraid of what my kids will encounter from other kids and what they will see. I am concerned about what they will be taught by those in authority over them. In fact, it is to the point that we are not able to anticipate the way that our children will be mislead. 15 years ago, could you have imagined that the question of whether a 3rd grade student was “really a girl” or “really a boy” and that the debate would include what the student actually “felt” rather than what was fact? I can not imagine this. THis is a very deep-rooted problem and it is impossible for us to anticpate the ways in which our children will be attacked. Let’s face it, hundreds of thousands of people are being duped today by false teachers who even “look” Christian. I won’t name names, but most people here know who they are.

Just a few thoughts….


10. Steve
December 19, 2006
6:57 PM

I have had to go over this kind of thing with many folks, over the years. I find myself deeply frustrated that society considers it has the ability, much less, the right to decide what is and is not correct, acceptable, and so on and so forth.

Especially when the “rules” of such determinations are based on nothing more than peoples feelings at the time; not emperical evidence, or the firm foundation of reason. Even when I specifically remove God and His statutes from the equation, (in an attempt to see things from the other side.) it still comes out as foolishness. That is a deep and horrible condemnation of it, when you consider that I am the shiniest apple on the tree; yet I can see the stupidity rampant in what people consider politically correct. There: I have griped my gripe.

But in reality, I am willing to give due consideration that genetically abberant people are out there, who have feelings and even genetic evidence that supports their claims of “being in the wrong body.” Yet, I do not find that their difficulty justifies the alteration of their created bodies with “difficulty adjusting”, or others as ambigious, as a reason.

What they face is no more than that of a hetero male who, even though he is married, finds that he is drawn to other women. Is he genetically predisposed to that inclination? Yes! But the difference is, what decision based on his Godly expectations does he make? It is no different for gay or lesbians. Though they struggle with their inclinations, they too must choose to obey God, and not their desires. That is simply life.

To knuckle under and take the easy path of sin and screwing up what God has given us, because we do not like, or agree with it…well….that ‘is’ the society we live in today.
Thanks for this post Tim. It is not heard enough, or spoken enough.


11. Leslie
December 19, 2006
9:17 PM

I think the “great” state of New York is, or was, considering legislation that would make gender optional. That is, you get to pick what you want to be regardless of your “parts” and whether or not you’re changing them. Those liberals are taking “Pro-choice” too far!


12. Randy Hurst
December 19, 2006
9:46 PM

Sorry about the length of this comment, but it offers what I hope is a complementary perspective.

There are only tiny little bits of conscious control that any of us have over our own body’s functions and processes. Our conscience is a passenger in a chemical machine that tells us when it is hungry, and when to eliminate the waste, but it does almost everything else that it does without our conscious involvement. How many times did you tell your stomach to digest, your heart to beat, your lungs to breathe, your cells to cycle nutrition and oxygen and then divide today?

The rare areas where we can have influence are indeed scared.

Is Sin somewhere in the DNA? Is that how the sins of the fathers travel from generation to generation? It’s a given that there are socio-environmental influences in life, but it is also becoming clear that our common DNA holds secrets that we are just now beginning to understand. I would suggest that much more than facial features are locked away in the micro-spiral of life.

One of the most amazing revelations from DNA research is that we have 99% of our DNA in common with all other humans. We have less that 1% differentiating us from each other. How unfortunate that we make such a big deal about the 1%. We are more alike that we like to accept. As this fine blog points out we ALL belong to the depraved worldwide club, so we ought to be much more understanding of it’s Yuck on the other side of our own redemption.

Scientists have proven that sexual orientation is Chromosome derivative. Sexuality impacts and directs our lives in ways most of us are not even conscious. Much of it is a DNA given. I totally agree with Steve’s comment that the choices we make combating the Sin Nature, no matter how it manifests itself, is universal. All of that tiny bit of life that we get to influence boils down to how much we allow the Holy Other Spirit of our God to shape us into the Image of Christ.

As a prostate cancer survivor who has had the dubious privilege of having had hormone (testosterone) intervention therapy I can tell you that the sex drive (libido) is a chemically induced and manipulated part of your nature. Take away the male chemicals and you begin to see people as asexual. You have no choice. It quickly takes care of the lust bent, but also, unfortunately, takes away the Godly desire for your wife. Remembering how easy it is to cast stones on all those that are beyond our ability to empathize with; be careful to practice mercy on all the manifestations of the sexually Chemically Challenged as you call them to righteousness.


13. schizo
December 20, 2006
1:17 AM

Santhi, the runner has been featured in the MSM of India before this fiasco and guess what, she studied at a girls school, was brought up always considered to be female. And i cannot make the connection between the “sin” of homosexuality and the physiological state of being born with ambiguous genitalia. No one who is even mildly acknowledgeable about the social systems in India would accuse the player of either dishonesty or moral relativism. If you want to write about the increasing “strangeness” of our culture use a better researched and more relevant.
The society is becoming more strange i agree but its not because of people born with ambiguous genitalia.


14. Chris
December 20, 2006
6:09 AM

I learned last year at York U that gender and sex are both separate, and are both continuums… go figure.


15. Steve
December 20, 2006
8:30 PM

Randy H, I read and re-read your comments. I have considered them in light of over 20 years as a combat medic, and then nurse…though I no longer practice as a nurse. I suppose it is my intimate knowlege of the medical community, and the ways in which it conducts its tests and comes to its conclusions that lend to me a rather jaded view of what they have “proven”.

Most tests, much like carbon dating, must have a “standard” by which they can key their conclusions. In carbon dating, and in any other form of dating system…someone had to say…”This rock is ‘x’ years old. Therefore, the variances in other rocks are judged by the ‘assumed’ age of the rock used as the standard. Yet, the rock in question was given an age…not proven to be that age. Therefore ANY conclusions based on that ‘rock’ are questionable.

This is similar to genetic research; and thereby, any conclusions based on this research. An arbitrary decision on what the information being persued is made, and from that data is gathered. So, to prove an issue, or make a catagoric statement of fact on an issue is patently impossible. While our understanding of both of these issues have narrowed the gap of the “x” factor in the issues…there is a vast difference in stating a proven point, and the possibility of its exsistance.

I do not pose this to counter the things you have said. Rather, I pose it as new thinking material. I have watched as some of the best doctors in the world try and save patients…but by far the overall work of any doctor is to help the body do what it does, because what it does is understood very little by any doctor…no matter how skilled or educated. When seemingly basic questions, such as: “how does an antibody recognise a specific virus and produce antibodies to combat that specific virus”, cannot be answerd, then it must be understood that doctors are simply are more skilled than most at helping a body that is far beyond their understanding to do what it is failing to do. All without fully understanding the complex interactions of its most basic funtions.

Just food for thought.