Again, The Problem is the Philosophy

Christians are up in arms about the Transgender bathroom problem, and they should be. But the problem is the secularist philosophy that gave rise to this new sexual revolution. The odd thing is that many of these Christians now upset about the transgender issue had no problem with the legalization of gay marriage. They have nothing to do with each other, right?

The first sexual revolution was about women's rights, to vote, to work for equal pay, to be treated with respect. This new sexual revolution seeks to end the notions of male and female altogether. The first sexual revolution fought for the dignity of women; this new revolution would wholly obscure the meaning of womanhood altogether.

The country's runaway secularism can only lead down this path. When the view of reality is that we are ultimately purposeless convulsions of matter, then there will clearly be no changeless personal ground for any ethical sentiment. In other words, when the vision for a society informed by an unchanging ethic is lost, one is left to look to secularist visions of the morally evolving society. We are now far too evolved, far too forward-thinking, to accept the defining strictures of some ancient religion. In its place, or perhaps (to be more dramatic) upon its ashes, we erect the enlightened secular state, either right or left.

In such a state, human reason determines all. But human reason, lest we forget, gave us the gulags. It gave us Hitler. It gave us the French Revolution. It gave us its most cherished offspring: Utilitarianism. It gave us war upon war and compromise upon compromise. It gives us fragmentation.

Douglas Wilson was precisely right on this. If one holds that matter is infinitely malleable, then that view of reality translates downstream in one's ethical practice. If nature can provide us various permutations of matter, with no particular plan or purpose, then surely we can impose our subjective plans or purposes upon matter, and the mindless universe is not going to put up any resistance. We can make ourselves to be man or woman, god or animal, one or three. If in fact nature is infinitely malleable, and nature makes no preferences, then of course I can treat it as such. I can define and redefine various phenomena, such as the "one man, one vote" concept. Perhaps I determine that some men are more intelligent and ought to be given two votes. Or, to be more respectful of current societal norms, we can call it the "one womyn (one who presents as a woman), two votes" principle. If any minority feels discriminated against, then they should merely identify as the prevailing cultural class, and insist on being treated as such. If one can identify as man or woman, then surely groups can identify as minority or majority, depending on the need of the moment.

Of course the enlightened secularist worth his salt knows that I am arguing in something of a circle. Even if the Bible should become the source of societal cohesion, it still must be understood by reason, and so reason is still the foundation, or so it is claimed. But while that seems a "gotcha" moment, it is not the whole story. It is true that I am guilty of circularity, but the secularist has it wrong about the center of the circle. I grant that I am guilty of circularity, but I affirm a divine circularity. That is to say, I believe that God's reasoning through His Word (The Logos) and His active Spirit in His Church provide a clear and unifying set of propositions sufficient for the moral guidance of the whole world. If we have a disagreement, I say that the Bible as interpreted by Spirit filled believers will find core agreement. That is a circularity, but it is preferable, and far more successful at escaping the death trap of relativism, than the secularists circularity of human reason. He says human reason will provide the answers, but then we are led to endless parsing, endless quarreling, which he says will be solved again by human reason, which turns out to be mere force in the end. To find proof of this one only needs to look to the long history of the dictatorship of human reason. After all, the gulags were indeed quite persuasive.

In short, both sides argue in a circle, but my circle is a centrifugal and gravitationally ordering phenomenon while his circle is solipsistic and suffocating in its ultimate subjectivity. My circle grabs hold of the world to set unity and diversity in tension. His circle grabs hold of everything, a black hole collapsing all things and leaving a cosmic wasteland in its wake. The mind of God can only give rise to a symphony; the mind of man cut off from God can only give rise to cacophony.

Gay marriage, gender atomism and transgender bathroom policies all are notes in the crescendo of the cacophony.