Interview with Nancy Pearcey


(Carson Weitnauer) #1

Hi friends,

Given the intense interest in questions of human identity in Western culture, I thought you might find this interview with Nancy Pearcey to be helpful:

https://religionnews.com/2018/01/26/from-secularism-to-sexuality-nancy-pearcey-and-i-spar-on-the-hottest-of-hot-topics/

The interview covers questions about why it makes sense to be pro-life, against physician-assisted suicide, a challenge to hookup culture, questions raised by the push for gay and transgender rights, and how the church teaches us to cherish the bodies God gave us. Very interesting!


Recommended: Love Thy Body by Nancy Pearcey
Is there contention between Homosexuals, Feminists and Transgender People?
(SeanO) #2

I really liked this quote - I think that many people simply do not grasp the danger of giving the state the power to define who is human (healthy, productive members of society) and who is not (old people / babies): predictably, the strong label the weak as disposable in the name of freedom for themselves.

“Pre-political rights are being reduced to merely legal rights at the dispensation of the state. And what the state gives, it can take away. Human rights are no longer inalienable.”


(Jimmy Sellers) #3

@CarsonWeitnauer thanks for the post. I will have to add Nancy to my “to be read list” and go back and re-read Colson who had a lot to do with my worldview thought process.

I wonder if we connect abortion and euthanasia like Nancy does? I didn’t.

Note again that being human is not enough to qualify for human rights. You have to earn the right to legal protection by exhibiting an arbitrary level of cortical functioning. This is not compassionate, it is exclusive. It says that some people don’t measure up. They don’t make the cut.


(Carson Weitnauer) #4

Hi @Sean_Oesch, yes, a helpful summary. I think this points at a helpful positioning of the debate: we are on the side of human rights and human flourishing. The counter-argument is ultimately a selfish one: this human life is inconvenient, so might we find a way to see that it isn’t really worthy of life?

@Jimmy_Sellers, agreed. I learned a lot from her in this interview!


(Kelly) #5

Read the article and then moved to the comments section. Wow, the rationalization and rebuttals are what I would love to get some response to from this community. What do you say to some of the people commenting? How do you address their arguments? I haven’t been studying apologetics long, but when I read articles like this, it all makes great sense. Then I read the comments and many times I don’t think I could respond. Thanks for posting. It has given things to think about.


(Carson Weitnauer) #6

@kelelek, could you post one or two of the hardest comments and we can look at them together? Great idea!!


(Melvin Greene) #7

Thanks, @CarsonWeitnauer. I was introduced to her through Chuck Colson’s, and her, book “How Now Shall We Live?” I thought it was an outstanding book. It is true that Chuck Colson received the lion’s share of credit for that. I had no idea of the keen intellect of Nancy Pearcey. I found her responses to the questions articulate, thoughtful, and filled with Godly wisdom. I will definitely read her book. I also read through some of the comments on the article. What a great idea to post some of the comments here so we can discuss them.


(Kelly) #8

I know that there are Bible rebuttals to the homosexual lifestyle. But how would you address the following?

JP Ben in Oakland • 8 days ago
If there is no biological evidence for homosexuality then that means there is none. Its not that difficult. Funny how it all works.

MadScientist1023 > JP • 6 days ago
There’s also no “tallness” gene, no “intelligence” gene, no “athletic” gene, no “diabetes” gene, etc. There are boatloads of studies showing that all of these, including homosexuality, have genetic factors, however none of them have one single gene you can point to and say “there’s the gene for it”. Saying there isn’t one specific gene that controls something doesn’t mean it’s not biological in nature.


(Kelly) #9

Thought this was an interesting perspective.

Ben in Oakland > G J • 8 days ago
Bang on exactly. She isn’t bothering to talk about all of the gay people who have lost their jobs for dating to challenge her “moral” orthodoxy. She didn’t care about the denial of religious liberty inherent in all of the morality campaigns of the hyper evangelicals.

Her concern is obvious: the loss of political power and dominion that the hyper Christians have experienced in the last 25 years. When they were running the show, none of these issues were of any concern to them. But now that they are no longer able to exercise the political and religious dominion that they used to have over the lives of gay people and liberal denominations that don’t obsess over genitalia, she’s whining.

Thanks for posting this.


(SeanO) #10

@kelelek I think the comments about her mourning the loss of political power are what I would label either trolling (being rude for no reason) or projection (putting a stereotype on top of the actual person rather than taking their words at face value).

As for the gene argument, I think one thing that the Bible says is very hard for the current cultural mindset to understand. Tim Keller has given the best explanation of this that I have found anywhere:

Tim Keller - “The reason that homosexual relationships make so much more sense to people today than in previous times is because they have absorbed late modern western culture’s narratives about the human life. Our society presses its members to believe “you have to be yourself,” that sexual desires are crucial to personal identity, that any curbing of strong sexual desires leads to psychological damage, and that individuals should be free to live as they alone see fit.”

I think the bigger question here is one of autonomy, authority and purpose. And that this question goes much deeper than just the issue of genetic predispositions.