D
O YOU EVER WONDER how rational
people could think genderless bathrooms
are a good idea? Are you confused about
what is happening culturally? Does it make any sense
to you that corporations are applying political and
economic pressure to reform our social sexuality?
Here’s what’s going on. The cultural battle over
sexuality and gender comes down to one thing: a
meaningful life. That is what all of the fighting is
about, and it is why it rages with such fury and vitriol.
Each battle contributes to a war over the much larger
question: How does one have a meaningful life? And
this is what you must understand: your answer to that
question is determined by your worldview.
A worldview is a set of beliefs that cause you to
view life a certain way. We all have one. You cannot
escape it. We each have beliefs that affect how we see
life, form conclusions, and interpret our experiences.
I have a Christian worldview. I possess Christian
beliefs about reality. Among other things, I believe
God exists, the world is rational (i.e. knowable),
and life has objective meaning and inherent value.
My existence as one made in God’s image—my
inestimable worth in His eyes—is the source of my
meaning and value.
I live in a society, though, where nearly everyone
has a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is another
set of beliefs about reality. Naturalism holds, among
other things, that God does not exist, the world is
rational (though naturalism cannot explain why it is
that way), and life has no inherent meaning or value.
And that is a big deal. Did you catch it? Life has no
inherent meaning or value. So what makes you and
your life worth anything? That’s the big problem for
the naturalist.
Naturalists have long recognized the consequences and
problems that stem from their worldview. You see, accord-
ing to naturalism, the self or soul does not exist. Put simply;
you do not exist. The you that “you” think “you” are is merely
molecules in motion. Chemistry and physics dictate how
you act, feel, and respond to this world, and “you” are merely
one local effect of all that physical activity. George Orwell
noted this some time ago in his essay, Notes on the Way. In it,
he writes about the necessity of cutting away the self. “Man
is not an individual; he is only a cell in an everlasting body.”
He goes on. The problem, though, is when you cut away the
soul you find yourself in a very desolate world: existence void
of meaning and value. Orwell saw this: “For two hundred
years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we
were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than
anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down
we came. But unfortunately, there had been a little mistake.
The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was
a cesspool full of barbed wire.”
So how do Naturalists rescue themselves from this bleak
dystopia? They manufacture their own meaning. French
philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a pioneer in this. He
espoused that “existence preceded essence.” This basically
means that you are a blank slate, so make your life whatever
you want. Because your existence has no inherent meaning
or value, you can do whatever you want with it. Be a dragon.
Become a woman. Marry your mother or computer. Define
your life as you see fit. Your autonomous will—and that
alone—is what gives your existence value and meaning. It
is your dignity.
This is what the fight is over. To have a meaningful exis-
tence, you must be free to form yourself according to your
own will. Therefore, a threat to the freedom to choose your
gender is a threat to a naturalism-centered society’s needs
to manufacture meaning and value through unfettered
freedom of choice. If you remove the ability to form your
essence through choice, you remove any hope of a meaning-
ful life.
Let’s be clear about what is taking place here. Our society
is collectively acting on the assumption that God does not
exist, and naturalism is true. Men and women are fighting to
form a society that reflects this belief. This again is why the
fighting is so intense.
I wonder if people are aware of how radical this shift is.
I wonder if we are prepared to declare in such a fashion
that God is dead. Are we ready to completely replace the
Christian worldview with a naturalistic one?
If naturalism is true, then certainly we should do that.
Christians should abandon their Christian worldview. But
it’s not true. Naturalism is a very weak worldview in terms
of its ability to explain reality, and it doesn’t offer a sufficient
rational justification for believing in it. To explain that fully
would require more space than I have here, yet I think we
17