When the apostle Paul prayed that the false teachers troubling the church at Galatia would emasculate themselves, he surely did not envision the disturbing fulfillment of such an entreaty as reported in the latest edition of Newsweek.

Under the headline "Gender and the Pulpit," the newsweekly bemoans the "workplace quandary" facing ministers who have surgically altered their gender. The article examines the obvious and even ironic difficulties facing a minister who suffers from "permanent gender ambiguity."

The author quotes numerous "transgender ministers" who attended a gathering this past weekend held at Pacific School of Religion, the first "Transgender Religious Summit."

Pacific, an ultra left-wing ecumenical seminary in Berkeley, Calif., prepares students for ordination in Protestant denominations that include United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church and the Disciples of Christ. At its website, Pacific articulates its purpose as "Equipping historic and emerging faith communities for ministries of compassion and justice."

The article offers an uncontested platform for "transgender ministers" to air their grievances about conservative religious ideologies that have kept them "in the closet" with regard to their true sexual identity. The story does not include an evangelical response.

"Transgendered people are beginning to find their public voice with more advocates and opportunities for protection," explains Justin Tanis, an ordained minister who helped put together the summit—and who was born female.

Ministers quoted in the article accuse conservative Christians of twisting Scripture out of context in order to treat "transsexuals and other people with ambiguous gender as having psychological defects that can be cured with psychotherapy."

Ironically, one female minister, formerly a man, then quotes Isaiah 56:1-5—a passage that begins with a command of God to "do righteousness," a portion of the verse that is left out of the article— and says she uses it to locate evidence "of God’s love for her unique case."

Sadly, one "transgender minister" finds ultimate vindication, not in the gospel of God in Christ, but in the government; Tanis expresses hope that the Democrat party’s recently gained majority in Congress will create a political climate in Washington such that transgender activists will "finally be heard…on the issue of workplace rights."

The entire article may be viewed at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16774861/site/newsweek/from/ET/

A New York Times study of census data from 2005 claims that 51 percent of American women now live alone without a spouse, and most of them by choice. The report, which appeared in the paper Jan. 16, claims the number of single women has increased from 49 percent just five years ago and from only 35 percent in 1950.

Several factors, including women waiting longer to marry, staying single, getting divorced and living alone longer after their spouses pass away, led to the increase, the paper reported. "Coupled with the fact that married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape a range of social and workplace policies, including the ways the government and employers distribute benefits," The Times article concludes.

But the claims made by the paper about the census and why fewer women are married may not be entirely correct. The American Community Survey -- the study used by The Times -- included in its count of women who live alone spouses of deployed military personnel and other married women who live by themselves "for reasons other than marital discord," Robert Bernstein, an official with the U.S. Census Bureau, told Baptist Press.

More than 2 million of these married women who do not live with their spouses "for one reason or another" were included in The Times’ calculations. The report also counted among the number of women living alone those as young as age 15. That inclusion itself may have tilted the numbers in favor of those living alone without a spouse.

"If you use 18 and over as the threshold, this wouldn’t be the case," Bernstein said. "A majority of women then would be married in a household."

Another survey used by the Census Bureau, the Current Population Survey (CPS), also still puts married households in the majority at slightly more than 51 percent, contrary to the claim from The Times that married couples are now in the minority. The CPS relies on personal interviews, home visits or phone calls to the household, while the American Community Survey is conducted by mail and also does not include persons living in "group quarters," such as married student housing, military barracks or nursing homes, Bernstein said.

According to The Times, the study it commissioned probed the marital status of 117 million women, finding that 63 million -- 53 percent -- were legally married. But The Times then deducted more than 3 million women it said were separated from their spouses and another 2.4 million that were described as being alone while married. Ultimately the findings reported in the paper included multiple demographics and a single conclusion -- that a majority of American women are now not just alone; they are happier and freer with lives unencumbered by a spouse.

The Times presented in its article several women who claimed to offer the real reason why so many women are now single: They have "sworn off marriage" after bitter divorces, contentious relationships with live-in partners and even because they simply want to remain free. Ironically, as many as 10.5 million widows -- some 9 percent of the women counted -- also were included in the tally of women on their own by choice. They too may have been enlightened and avoiding remarriage, according to one interviewee in the story.

"For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage," William Frey of the Brookings Institution told The Times. "Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era."

Sam Roberts, the writer of the story, said his article "mentions all those caveats, including low marriage rates among black women too. It also says that most women do eventually marry."

"But, apparently for the first time, at any given time the majority of women are not living with a spouse. People have taken that to mean any number of different things. I was reporting on a statistical benchmark, calling it to people's attention so they can draw their own conclusions and respond in whatever way they think is appropriate," Roberts told Baptist Press.

But the research data presented by The Times doesn’t lead to the conclusion the article and the experts quoted seem to make -- that there is a devaluing of the sanctity of marriage or its necessity, Cathy Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies with the Family Research Council, said.

"It’s not as if 51 percent of women chose to live life by themselves," Ruse said in an interview. "These figures don’t account for widows who had long and happy marriages, who loved their marriages, and they don’t account properly for absentee husbands, such as those deployed in the military. My questions are about whether the research actually holds up, and also about the conclusions that they draw from the data -- that marriage is actually a bad thing when we know it’s not.

"I will concede that there is a trend in marriage. Women are marrying later in life," Ruse said. "But that isn’t a commentary on marriage. Many women delay to better prepare for marriage, and to choose more wisely. I didn’t marry until age 39, but it wasn’t because I didn’t want to; it was because I hadn’t found the right man."

Nevertheless, Frey contends in the article that America has reached a clear "tipping point," an era in which the social changes of the 1960s have finally borne their fullest fruit. America is in an age of "greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women," he told The Times.

With that much, Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director for issues analysis with Focus on the Family, can agree. "There’s no question in my mind that the anti-male, anti-marriage messages that originated in the 1960s have encouraged women to view marriage more negatively. Certainly women have more professional and educational opportunities today but that doesn’t mean they have to jettison marriage."

The Times report also included comments from Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the liberal lobby, the Council on Contemporary Families. She said that statistical data published by the newspaper is "yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where one can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives."

That is a suggestion that organizations like Focus on the Family flatly reject. Earll said the individuals highlighted in the story were pushing a liberal agenda.

"The individuals interviewed -- particularly Stephanie Coontz -- are touting the same party line: that marriage is an outdated and obsolete institution, and who needs it? The answer is both men and women need it, and benefit from it. Social science research finds that married people are happier, healthier, tend to have higher incomes and enjoy greater emotional support. Domestic abuse rates are higher for women who cohabitate versus those who are married. The list goes on," Earll said.

While the motivation for the article on single women and marriage may never be known, Earll said she believes one thing is clear: "Certainly the way the data is assembled and interpreted is suspect."

At least one prominent critic of The Times said he knows how the paper arrived at its conclusions about marriage. That is the conclusion the paper wanted to reach in order to advance an agenda for social change, said William Proctor, whose book "The Gospel According to The New York Times" examined a bias toward liberal social policies at the paper.

Proctor said the "statistics they’ve reported don’t add up to what they are saying about marriage. There might be any number of factors involved." Facts, however, have never really concerned The Times when it comes to pushing for changes in society, Proctor added. He said the paper is illustrating its bias in favor of a certain type of feminism that suggests the traditional role of a woman in marriage is to be attacked and even denigrated.

"This is really a featurized, very slanted look at this picture," Proctor said. "There is a whole set of assumptions built in there, but that is typical of the way they have operated. It sounds to me like the kind of thing they will follow with an editorial saying the same thing -- that women are tired of marriage. They’ve done it on gay marriage, transgender issues and abortion. They are very much pushing for social change."

For many, especially conservative Christians, that still leaves the question of why. "When you consider the benefits of marriage for women and men, society -- and The New York Times -- should be encouraging marriage, not publishing articles that announce its near demise," Earll said.

The article quotes numerous single women—several of whom are divorced or who have been involved in live-in relationships—who celebrate their newfound freedom as a positive life development.

Fifty-nine year old Elissa B. Terris of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after 34 years of marriage. Terris, who has a grown daughter, implies that marriage had a negative effect upon her.

"Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options," Terris said. "There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side."

The Times report touts, in unmistakably positive terms, 2005 U.S. census data that puts the number of women living without a spouse at 51 percent. By contrast, in 1950, some 35 percent of women were single, a figure that climbed to 49 percent in 2000, The Times reports. According to the article, experts believe the majority of U.S. women are single for the first time in the nation’s history.

While the conclusions that the Times draws from the way the percentages are tabulated might be logically questionable (the 51 percent includes widows, military wives with husbands away on duty, women living away from husbands for reasons other than marital discord, and girls as young as 15), the article offers several specific reasons for the "statistical shift."

"At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods," the author writes. "At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom."

The story also points out a 2005 survey which put married couples as a minority of all American households for the first time—the accuracy of which evangelical groups such as Focus on the Family have questioned—and ponders how this and female singleness could ultimately shape social and workplace policies.

Randy Stinson, executive director for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, says the Times report, if accurate, is not as positive as those quoted in the article seem to think.

"It certainly is an unfortunate trend because it reveals that there are millions of homes where there are children without dads, where marriage is viewed negatively, and where there are obviously strained relationships," Stinson said. "This can’t possibly be good for this country."

Stinson said he fears that the numbers of single women and married couples within evangelical churches may mirror those in the broader culture. If so, this trend signals an indictment on what is being taught in American evangelical churches, he said.

Evangelicals must rediscover a theme that sits at the very heart of the gospel, Stinson said: the doctrine of self-denial.

"When you have people saying things like ‘I got to sleep on the other side of the bed,’ and now they can feel a sense of freedom, my concern is that there are too many Christians who also feel that way," Stinson said.

"Being a Christian in general is an others-oriented calling. What this trend says is that when we become self-preoccupied, things like marriage and family commitment are among the first things to go because they require so much sacrifice and commitment to people other than ourselves. A divorce culture and a culture that prolongs singleness are contrary to the gospel in the sense that at least most of the time it is the result of a self-centeredness."

These numbers on singleness among woman, a portion of which can be tied to divorce according to the article, by necessity reveals an equally troubling trend among men, Stinson said.

"The fact that there are so many women living in a single state does say something—generally that men are abdicating their responsibilities to lead, provide, and protect," Stinson said.

The bottom line for evangelicals is the need for steadfastness in upholding biblical teaching on marriage and family, Stinson said.

"I think we need to recognize that many times some of these similar trends can be found in our churches and we need to be very careful to hold the line on the importance and value of the biblical sanctioning of marriage. We need to be more vigilant than we’ve been on the sanctity of marriage as a biblically ordained institution.

"Many churches around the country have become too casual when it comes to issues of divorce and marriage. I think the article revealed, at least from the participants (who were quoted in the article), a self-preoccupation that I think we are all in danger of succumbing to."

To read the entire Times article, please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Editor’s note: The following is an interview with R. Fowler White, administrator, faculty dean, and professor of New Testament at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. White spoke with Gender-News on behalf of the seminary regarding the school’s commitments on gender issues.

Gender-News: Does your school/organization have an official confessional article regarding gender roles in the home and church?

R. Fowler White: The Seminary is a division of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian Church in America) and is governed by a Board of Directors that answers to the Session of CRPC. Therefore, Knox Seminary is committed to operate according to the Holy Scriptures and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, namely, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order. The Constitution of the PCA affirms only the ordination of men to the church offices of elder and deacon.

GN: Would you describe your school/organization as committed to the egalitarian view of gender roles, the complementarian view, or neither?

White: We are decidedly complementarian.

GN: What are you personal convictions on this issue?

White: I am a complementarian.

GN: How does the issue of gender roles affect various practices at your school in making decisions such as hiring, selecting chapel speakers, assigning teaching responsibilities, assigning leadership responsibilities and the like?

White: It definitely affects numerous areas. Only men are eligible to be hired as faculty members, to speak in chapel, and to be given or accept teaching assignments at the Seminary. We do have a women’s student fellowship and an auxiliary led by women. All other positions at the seminary are not affected by gender considerations.

GN: Do gender issues seem to be a matter of concern among your students, faculty, and constituents?

White: Yes. There would be concern among all the groups mentioned that the seminary uphold the ordination of only men. Generally, there would be eagerness to see the gifts and graces of women exercised outside of the ordained offices, as long as it does not result in a woman teaching a man (men) or exercising authority over a man (men).

Pointing to biblical truth, social science and intuition, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson asserts in the latest issue of Time magazine that children are better off with a mother and a father and that society should avoid the "untested" and "far-reaching social experiment" of homosexual parenting.

Dobson's column, "Two Mommies Is One Too Many," was published in the Dec. 18 edition in light of news that Vice President Richard Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, is pregnant with her partner, Heather Poe.

"[T]he majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father," Dobson wrote. "That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."

Dobson's column accompanied an opposing column, "Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks," by Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, a homosexual organization. Chrisler used most of her column responding to the social science research cited by Dobson, who she called a "religious and political extremist" and even said Dobson was "lying."

"According to the 2000 census, the vast majority —- more than 75 percent -- of American children, are being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children," Chrisler wrote. "We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, and families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples and more. Despite Dobson's assertions to the contrary, there is no single 'traditional' family structure in the United States."

Dobson, though, said the debate over homosexual parenting has "nothing to do with politics" but instead concerns "what kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children, and, by extension, the nation at large." The traditional family, he said, is "supported by more than 5,000 years of human experience."

"Isn't there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father?" he asked in his column. "Admittedly, that ideal is not always possible. Divorce, death, abandonment and unwed pregnancy have resulted in an ever growing number of single-parent families in this culture. We admire the millions of men and women who have risen to the challenge of parenting alone and are meeting their difficult responsibilities with courage and determination. Still, most of them, if asked, would say that raising children is a two-person job best accomplished by a mother and father."

Dobson cited three studies, including one from 1996 by Psychology Today, which he quoted as saying, "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." Dobson summed up research by educational psychologist Carol Gilligan thusly: "[M]others tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences."

Other researchers, Dobson said, "have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of 'maleness.' They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers."

"A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa," he wrote.

America, Dobson asserted, should have learned something from "no-fault divorce," which swept the country in the 1960s and has left a legacy of "countless shattered lives within three generations, adversely affecting children's behavior, academic performance and mental and physical health." Homosexual parenting, he said, would be "another untested and far-reaching social experiment."

Focus on the Family, Dobson said, "does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe."

"Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples," he wrote. "Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large."

Focus on the Family sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to send a "brief, polite note" to Time editors thanking them for publishing the column. Homosexual activists, Focus said, are asking their supporters to write Time and tell the magazine Dobson's column was inaccurate. Letters to the editor can be e-mailed to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it