Gender Biology or Social Construct?

This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on May 18, 2021. To listen to the program, please click HERE.

Joe Green: Greetings, I’m Pastor Joseph Green, and I’ll be hosting today’s Stand in the Gap radio program, along with the honorable Sam Rohrer. Today we will be talking about gender and whether it is a social construct, fluid, or based on biology. We will also have two guests from the PA Family Institute that will be joining in on the discussion.

Recently on Dr. Phil’s show, he had Angela Stanton-King as a guest on his show. Mrs. King has a son who identifies as a woman, and Angela and the son are at odds over this. Angela is a conservative Christian who does not accept her son’s new name and new identity. During the program, Dr. Phil referenced a March 2019 study done by the Cleveland Clinic that stated that male and female brains are different, but that in transgender persons, their brains are more similar to the sex that they identify with and not their biological sex. So of course, I looked up the study, and although the study does make that claim, there is a glaring paragraph that Dr. Phil ignored. The clinic admits in the study, and I quote, “Research in these areas is extremely limited and more research needs to be done to find conclusive results.”

So what we are seeing is more and more questionable science that is being used to promote transgenderism as a natural phenomenon versus being a mental disorder. Obviously, aside from religious and moral arguments against transgenderism, science is the last frontier in which the LGBTQ community can win the argument for normalization of their lifestyle. Even the psychiatric community has begun to modify its definitions in order to make way for acceptance of what has been known in the past as gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also known as the DSM-5, a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association to diagnose mental conditions. This term is intended to be more descriptive than one that was previously used, gender identity disorder. The term gender dysphoria focuses on one’s discomfort as the problem, rather than identity. A diagnosis for gender dysphoria was created to help people get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. Notice the subtlety, the manual is not saying that identifying with the sex that is different from your biological sex, it is the discomfort associated with the feeling that they are focusing on. Let me rephrase. It is not the fact that you identify yourself differently from your biology, it’s your feeling of discomfort that they want to address.

I want to first bring in Randall L. Wenger, esquire. He’s the chief counsel of the Independence Law Center in Harrisburg, a pro bono law center dedicated to maintaining those liberties that have made America great and free. His cases included representation of Conestoga Wood and its owners, the Hahn family, in a companion case to Hobby Lobby, a recent religious liberty win before the US Supreme Court. The Independence Law Center is assisted in its work by the staff of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, and a growing network of pro bono attorneys throughout the Commonwealth. Randall, welcome to the program.

Randall Wenger: Thank you for having me.

Joe Green: Randall, can you give us some insight into the recent shift in the conversation regarding gender dysphoria, and the importance of this conversation at this time?

Randall Wenger: Sure. There’s been a lot of work done, I think, to confuse issues by changing the use of language, and in one is an example you gave earlier, but just so the listeners are clear on this, the Diagnostic Manual, the fourth edition had something called gender identity disorder. It was considered to be a disorder to do identify with the opposite sex. The fifth version of that, DSM-5, took away gender identity disorder and now it’s gender dysphoria. So there’s nothing considered to be wrong with identifying with the opposite sex, the only issue is if you are not comfortable with identifying with the opposite sex, and so you see that change then in the way that care is given as the result of those definitions.

Or think about the argument that was had over what sex means, what the term sex. So we’ve long understood sex to be something biological, we have the two halves of humanity that are known basically because of our reproductive differences, based on just typical reproductive function. But you saw the terms begin to change over time, and it didn’t all happen at once. First sex became biological sex, which maybe is redundant, but it’s still true. Then the term that that seems to be preferred right now is sex assigned at birth, as if it’s like something that you just willy-nilly come up with a category, but you can’t really know what sex is, you just assign it at birth.

But if you think of blood type, it would be like saying blood type assigned at birth, as if there’s no connection with the biological reality. That I’m a type O, it just is. But it’s a language that’s used to obscure real facts, and we see that happening then with uses of pronouns. We understand what pronouns are for, and it’s precisely because of the importance of pronouns that there’s a battle over that right now, because there’s a group of people who are arguing that basically our maleness or femaleness is based on something internal not related to our reproductive anatomy.

Joe Green: Randy, let me ask you a question here, about a minute left here in the first part of the program, we’ll get more into detail, but what you’re describing people are saying, wow, I’ve seen bits of this, I’ve heard part of it. But I’d like, you from a legal perspective, to say, what are the implications if you no longer have male and female, or you change those definitions? Because literally all of our legal system touches on a lot of this, there’s that assumption that’s build in. Just give us a couple of examples of the extent of what happens.

Randall Wenger: Well sure. And I’ll be really quick with this, I’ll give two examples and I can tease them out a little bit more, but think of women’s sports, think of women’s civil rights, think of bathroom, locker room, shower privacy. If we can’t figure out what sex means, then we’ve got a real problem. So for instance, if you’re hiring someone to be the house parent for a girl’s home, somebody who needs to work with young girls, they may need to bathe them, and you want a house mom, so you want to hire somebody who’s female, and from time out of mind, we understood what that meant, but in this period of time-

Joe Green: Randall, hold that thought, we’re going to go to a break and we’ll come back and we want you to finish that thought. We’re here with Randall Wenger of the PA Family Institute, and we’re talking about gender, whether it’s a social construct, or whether it should be based on biology. We’ll be back here on Stand in the Gap Today radio after these messages.

And we’re back. Today’s conversation we’re talking about gender, biology or social construct. Of course my name is Joseph Green, and I’m here with the honorable Sam Rohrer, and we’re talking with Randall Wenger, who works with the PA Family Institute, and he was in the middle of a thought before we went to the break, and Randall, I wanted you to finish that thought. We were talking about why it’s important for us to really look at gender from a biological perspective, and to understand why this conversation is so important.

Randall Wenger: Sure. And so I was giving the example of, if you’re hiring somebody to be a house mom for a girl’s home, and you might need to help the girls with bathing or showering, or something like that, you’re going to want somebody who is a woman, which is why they hire house moms. But if you can’t define what sex is based on actual sex, if you have a man who identifies as a woman, are you going to be satisfied to hire that person to be the house mom? If we don’t understand these distinctions, we make bad choices, and that’s precisely what the Equality Act would have us do. Thankfully it’s not been passed, but the Equality Act was clear that you can still have what they call bonafide occupational qualifications based on sex, meaning that you can hire somebody of a certain sex for a function like that, but when carrying it out, you can’t actually do it on the basis of sex, you have to do it on the basis of gender identity the way that a person identifies.

And so these are things that cause human suffering, whether it’s that, whether it’s bathroom privacy issues, whether it’s what happens to girls sports if you have boys identifying as girls winning all of the titles. But it’s just suffering in general when we bring confusion, medically, into issues like this, with kids who are already trying to navigate difficult time of life. Being a teenager, being a pre-teen, can be a confusing time, and if we’re adding to that confusion a disintegration of what sex means, we’ve now got countless kids that are walking down a path that leads only to misery. And so if we care about people, we’ve got to get these issues right.

Joe Green: I couldn’t agree more. I want to read a study that also answers this question. We read the first study, the Cleveland Institute, and I believe that because of how that study was written, it was very misleading, and so this is another study. There’s a lot more science to the contrary of what the Cleveland Study says than not. The question is, does a man who identifies as a woman have a female brain? “No, a man, even who identifies as a woman, still has a male brain, Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence Mayer explain. It is now widely recognized among psychiatrists and neuroscientists who engage in brain imaging research that there are inherent and eradicable methodological limitations of any neuroimaging study that simply associates a particular trait, such as a certain behavior, with a particular-“

Sam Rohrer: I’m going to go ahead and finish that, brain morphology. And it says, “And when the trait in question is not a concrete behavior, but something as elusive and vague,” as the report is saying here, “As gender identity, then these methodological problems are even more serious.” And it goes on to say, “All interpretations, usually in popular outlets claiming or suggesting that a statistically significant difference between the brains of people who are transgender and those who are not, that’s the cause of being transgendered or not.” Now, if that’s not confusing to you, I don’t know what is, and that’s this whole thing. Now Joe, you’re back here with us now? All right, were not there, so we’re having a little bit of technical difficult, but this came out of New Atlanta’s sexuality and gender, and there’s some other things related to that.

But Randall, I’m going to go back to you on this right here and ask you this question, even if evidence existed that brain studies showed some differences, which it is clear that they do not, it would tell us whether the brain differences are the cause of transgender identity, or the result of identifying and acting upon somebody zones stereotypes. Now I want to go here to this and ask you this question. We are entering an area, all of this discussion, and Randy, you are an attorney, you deal in matters of law. I was in the legislature, I was a part of determining policy and voting on matters of law, and laws, as we all know, are based on words. And almost every law has a portion of it as part of the definitions, you define the terms, because we don’t define the terms, you don’t know what the law means.

So it appears here, when we come in something of this type, and you use the word, I noted before you were talking, you used the word confusion, when I ask you about implications of redefining gender, you used most recently confusion, you talked about human suffering as a result, you talked about misery, and you brought up a number of very practical applications, such as pretty tough to have a man in a position of dorm mom for a place where they would house young girls. So into this aspect of it, why is it so important, from a legal perspective, generally, and as we’re looking at this issue of gender, that we start from the basis of where we define these terms, which is obviously what they’re talking about here. Talk about the importance of defining terms, and where do you go to define the terms? Or is it just up to anybody what you want to say?

Randall Wenger: Traditionally it wasn’t difficult to define the term sex. So when you look at federal law, there was not a definition of the word sex because everybody universally understood what it meant, and even in the context of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which dealt with non-discrimination on the basis of sex in educational settings, it was very clear they talked about one sex and the other sex, they were talking about the binary, not gender identity, which is not fixed on a binary, and they were talking about one of the effects is being able to get pregnant. We understood that those things were inherently connected, and we need to have terminology that captures what it means to be the reproductive half of the species we call male, and the reproductive half of this species we call female.

If we take that term away, and have it just have to do with our subjective identity, it really robs us of the ability to capture the importance of those biological differences, because there are a lot of settings where those things matter. Again, you think of girls sports. We don’t separate sports because we want to just affirm people’s masculinity and femininity, it has to do with creating real opportunities for females. And so to change it misses the whole point of our biological differences. So we do need to go back and define things we didn’t define before because we live in a culture that undermines shared understanding. And it reminds me a little bit of what happened in the Christian Church in the early centuries where we needed to come up with creeds because there was confusion over things like the deity of Christ, so we put it in a creed because of the confusion.

Unfortunately this time around it’s because we’re really blowing up definitions and trying to steal definitions, and rebuild them in ways that are really not scientifically valid. I’m here talking about biology and reproductive differences, and in there are people who will then say, “Well, that’s the whole point of the brain study, there are people with male brains and female brains, and what if I have a male brain and female anatomy, or female brain and male anatomy, and that’s why you need to transition.” But if you look at the studies, you understand that there is somewhat of a bell curve in terms of what a normal female brain, what a normal male brain will look like, but it’s a bell curve. Not everybody falls in the center of the bell curve, that’s how bell curves work. You can’t look at anybody’s particular brain makeup and say, oh, well, that person, because they’re off of the mean, therefore they’re transgender. There isn’t anything that is determinative.

And in addition to that, we do know, from neuroplasticity, that our brains do change based on the way we think. Even think about praying people have different brain functions, it’s been shown, than people who are not praying people. And does that mean that we were all born with different brains so that some of us are praying people and some people aren’t? No, no, it has to do with the way we live, it has to do with the habits that we’ve created. So to try to create a biological root for what’s happening with the gender identity issues are really not fair, and it’s really not helping people, at the end of the day to live the lives that are going to be the fullest and the freest. And so what we see happening now, and I know we need to go for a break, but what we see happening now is really a social contagion.

Joe Green: Those are great points, and I think that it is so important to have these conversations, especially because they’re trying to force laws to uphold this false science, and to force us all to connect with it. But we’ll talk some more after the break, we’re here on Stand in the Gap radio, and again, we’re talking about gender, whether it’s biology or a social construct.

And we’re back. My name is Joe Green, I’m here with the honorable Sam Rohrer, and we’ve been talking about gender, whether it’s biology or social construct, and why it’s important to have this conversation. We’ll be joined now with Lexi Stefani, who’s the communications and policy officer for the Pennsylvania Family Institute. But first, let me make a reference to an article that was in the 2018 LA Times, and it talks about the fact that the more equal women and men are, the less they want the same things, the study finds, and it says in egalitarian societies that they found that the gender differences widen and not narrow. And when we say egalitarian societies, they’re societies that are wealthier, so we’re talking about what’s called first world nations. They also have more equality between males and females, and in those societies they said that the key gender differences across six personality traits widen in those societies. It means people gravitate more to something that is more connected to their biological sex, and they gravitate less towards each other, which I think is important.

So this shows that gender isn’t simply a social construct, but it has a pretty consistent attachment to biology. But anyway, thank you, Lexi, for being on the show. Welcome to the program.

Lexi Stefani: Thanks for having me today.

Joe Green: Oh, it’s our pleasure. Lexi, a new bill introduced to Congress would ban biological males from participating in girls and women’s sports. Christian Headline reports that, “Proposed by Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, the legislation would clarify that the athletics clause found in Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 refers only to biological sex and does not include gender identity.” Talk to us about the need for legislation like this, and some of your experiences in this area.

Lexi Stefani: Yeah, I’m really glad that you bring up that bill, it’s something that over 30 states have introduced similar bills, including Pennsylvania, which has a Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, and there’s a really big need for this legislation because women and girls deserve a fair and equal playing field, and they don’t have that and they lose that when they’re forced to compete against biological boys.

And this isn’t just a hypothetical problem, I think it’s easy, and I know, before I entered all this, it’s easy to think there’s one or two cases and it’s not going to affect me, but this is something that we see happening all across the United States, and even in Pennsylvania I know of cases where high school girls are forced to compete against biological boys, and not only is it harmful for them to be forced to compete against these boys, but it means that they lose out on so many different opportunities. We’re talking about these girls who now their name’s not going to be in the gym because they didn’t place at a race, or maybe they were bumped out of the top three and couldn’t get a metal, or maybe they didn’t make the final heat all because they’re forced to compete against these biological boys.

I think that opens up the point to an even bigger discussion on what fairness looks like in these situations. I think most people would acknowledge and agree that there are biological differences between men and women, and those differences are especially important when we’re looking at the context of sport. So when Title IX, and this is the section of Title IX that we’re looking at clarifying, because what’s happening is Title IX helped separate sports between biological sex, and so what some people are trying to do is redefine it so it can be based on biological gender.

And this is also really important because in a lot of these discussions we see people talking about how we’re trying to ban different people from competing in sports, but the fact of the matter is, it’s a discussion on how we should separate sports. Both sides want to separate boards, we’re arguing that sports ought to be, and their most protected, when we separate it based on biological sex, not based on someone’s own personal ideas about their gender. And that’s because scientifically there are really big physical differences.

So not only does testosterone give men a physical advantage when it comes to athletics, but even without testosterone, they have stronger muscles, denser bones, and larger hearts and lungs. And some people would argue that maybe we should allow men who thinks they’re women to compete against women after they’ve taken hormone replacement therapy, so after they’ve been off of testosterone for a while, but actually there’s a 2019 study out of Sweden that found that even after a year of hormone replacement, these men still have advantages over women.

And I think it’s really interesting to look at the records of high school boys versus Olympic world champion women runners, because in one year alone there was 275 high school boys who ran faster than the lifetime best of the world champion sprinter, Allyson Felix. And when you take a look at high school, again, this is high school boys against the Olympic women in Olympic track and field, in the 100, 200, 400 and 800, women won’t even make the top eight or final heat.

And there’s really similar things if you look at other sports. If you look at swimming, high school boys versus Olympic women when they’re swimming, these high school boys would have taken every single metal, except for one bronze metal, and we see this happening. And so I think this is also important, we’re talking again high school boys versus Olympic women, and so if Olympic women do not stand a chance to even place against high school boys, it is simply unfair if we expect high school girls to be competing against these high school boys.

Sam Rohrer: And Lexi, what you’re sharing, that’s pretty interesting information, and I’m listening to you and I’m saying, wow, you’re citing facts, it appears to me, and facts generally are the basis for science. Boy, how did we get off base on this? And I wouldn’t ask you this question, because what Joe put before you as a question, what you’re talking about, is the potential for a piece of legislation, we’re talking about law, statutory law, a law being on the books to clarify what you’re referring to here as Title IX of education amendments.

Now here’s my question to you. Anybody who’s listening right now says, well, of course it makes sense that a man is going to, in any kind of a physical, and I’m going to put it that way, most of what you’re describing was a physical area of engagement, swimming, running, jumping, whatever, of course, there’s going to be a difference. Now often that doesn’t apply, in competition of minds, or mathematics or science, or that kind of thing, but let’s go here. We have never had a problem like this in this country. As a society we’d never had a problem with trying to make it say that boys and girls were equal in everything, so here’s the question I have for you. What happened legally, what happened judicially, that requires a consideration of a piece of legislation to clarify the most basic distinctions that we find out there, how did this happen that now a piece of legislation is necessary?

Lexi Stefani: I think that’s a great question because it’s easy to get so focused on what’s happening now and look up and wonder how we’ve gotten so far where we even have to make a point and remind people that there are these physical differences, and that it is unfair. I think there’s a lot of different reasons that we’ve gotten to this point. I think a big driver is misinformation, and this gender ideology agenda that is has tried to erase the differences between men and women, and tried to affirm people who have gender dysphoria, but affirm it in a way where it’s ignoring the biological facts and the biological reality.

And legally the big thing that people try and blur the lines on, where they really ought not be blurred, is between biological sex and gender identity. So biological sex is you’re born a woman, you’re born a man, it has to do with your reproductive organs, but a lot of people are now trying to say that biological sex isn’t really true, that it’s something that is just assigned at birth, as though doctors subjectively just, when you’re born decide what they think you look most like, they’re trying to say that the most objective thing is actually your gender identity, which is what you believe about your own gender.

And so I think the more and more that we get away from the truth of, actually there are two biological sexes, it can be easy at first to get away of, we want people to feel good and feel welcomed, but in reality what we’re doing is we’re actually hurting people, both those who have gender dysphoria and both those who are like these girls in these sports of when we don’t have those distinct lines anymore, and when we ignore the scientific fact of biological sex, everyone ends up getting hurt, because they do have real implication.

Joe Green: Lexi, those are great points, and really appreciate it. I think that it is sad that in this day and age, we have to have this conversation, because this has been a foregone conclusion, probably since the beginning of time, that there’s a difference between males and females. And it is, to put it in perspective, and what you said, and I had read that as well, Allyson Felix, who’s one of the most decorated sprinters in the history of the United States track and field, there’s 275 high school boys that run faster than Allyson Felix, which just goes to our whole premise that there is a stark difference biologically between male and female. And so it’s okay, different doesn’t mean bad, it just means it’s different.

When we come back after the break, we’re going to talk a little bit more about this conversation that we’re having about gender, and how Christians should respond to this, and why we should be concerned about how we have drifted away from the idea that biology matters, and that there are only two biological sexes, and gender and biological sex should go hand in hand. This is Stand in the Gap Today, my name is Joe Green, with Sam Rohrer, and we’ll be back after these messages.

Welcome back here to Stand in the Gap Today. My name is Joe Green, along with Sam Rohrer, and we’re talking with Lexi Stefani, who is the communications and policy officer for the Pennsylvania Family Institute, and our conversation today is about gender, whether it’s biology, or just simply a social construct, if it is immutable, or if it is fluid and changeable, and I think we’ve had a great conversation far. Lexi, you gave us some great points about some real examples of why legislation has to be passed, unfortunately, in order to protect women, and women in sports, and other areas where they may be overlooked and pushed to the side by a biological male who identifies as a woman. Do you have some more examples you want to give us, or some other insight, or even just a word of encouragement or advice or warning for our listeners?

Lexi Stefani: Yes, I’m really glad that we’re having this discussion, And I think a big part of it is just bringing awareness to people and recognizing that if everyone stands up and takes a stand for women’s sports, that we can really make a difference. And I think also just at the end of the day, there’s so much misinformation surrounding these kinds of bills, but remembering that the reason that we need this legislation is to protect a fair and equal playing field for women, and when they’re forced to compete against boys, they lose out on not just scholarship opportunities and placements, but also just all the good that can come from competing in a team sport, and the lessons you learn from athletics. So if you’re listening and you wish that there was something you can do, I think a next good step too is going to PA family.org/fairplay, and do we have more information on the Pennsylvania legislation, Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, and also a way for you to contact your legislator and tell them that you want them to support this important bill.

Joe Green: Very good. Thank you again for being on the program, and I would just encourage our listeners to go to the PA Family Institute. There’s also a nice blog that I saw that you guys created addressing the issue, and I would encourage our listeners to check it out, because these are important conversations, and when we don’t have the conversation, again, when I first heard about that report that was trying to, I call it false science, that was trying to imply that somehow or another that the brains of those people who identified as the opposite sex actually resemble more like the opposite sex thought, I thought it was important for us to have this conversation. And we as Christians, we need to take the forefront when these things come up.

A lot of times what would happen, and I thought it was important to get on this right away, because a lot of times what happens is that people will promote an idea about the transgender issues, or whatever, and they’ll continue to push the idea, and they’ll continue to push so-called science, which we know is false science, or studies or reports they’ll reference, and we are silent and we don’t address the issue. And then when we finally come around to finding out that it is false and that it has taken root, and then we address the issue, we’re fighting an uphill battle because we haven’t taken the forefront in these conversations.

And Sam, I think ultimately what this comes down to in the larger scheme of things, from a biblical perspective, this isn’t about sports or just about bathrooms, or anything like that, this actually, in my estimation, is an attack on the very image of God. Because Genesis 1:26 and 27 says that, “God says, let us make man in our own image,” he says, “He created them male and he created them female,” and then it says, in Genesis 2, that, “The two shall become one flesh.” And so these types of battles that we’re fighting are definitely a spiritual battle, because we’re not just fighting for the small issues that we’re talking about, but in essence it is a fight to preserve and to protect and to promote the very image of God in the earth, because God didn’t make a mistake. He said he created two genders, male and female, or two sexes.

And so for us, I believe, and I’ve said this all the time, and I’ll turn it over to you, Sam, I’ve said this a lot as the church, I think we do a disservice when we allow people that may be living their life thinking that they’re in the wrong body, or that they were a mistake, that God somehow or another created them wrong, and that they are biologically in a man’s body, but they are really a woman, what type of existence is that for a person to live under that understanding, or that belief? I think we do a disservice for not actually addressing that and talking to them and telling them they’re not a mistake and that God created them exactly as they’re supposed to. Sam, can you talk a little bit about how you think we should respond as Christians, but especially pastors and leaders in this day and age?

Sam Rohrer: Well, Joe, absolutely, and you just laid down the foundation for it. When I think of these kinds of discussion, are you a male, are you a female? Or the idea, do we have any choice in that? Is about somebody standing up and standing on the edge of a cliff and say, “Well, gravity, no gravity, I’ll make my own choice.” Well, we know what happens, if you jump off a cliff you’re going to end up at the bottom. And this is the point I want to draw her, I think it’s important for us, everything that we’re talking about today, natural law of gravity, male, female, up, down, right, left, light, dark, all of those things, that is all a description coming out of the mind of a creator God, and to me, what it is is it’s order.

God has established order. God is a God of order. God, the father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit, it’s order. When God created authority, detailed in Romans chapter 13, he ordered the very words mean ordained, in Romans 13, is ordered, or ranked authority, so the individual fits, according to God’s plan, as an individual, makes decisions about all aspects of life, which includes this. Am I a boy or am I girl? Well, a person who operates and lives their life in accordance with God’s order is never confused about the basic things of life. But the individual then becomes a father and a mother and children, well there are questions, children to parents, parents to children, father to mother, wife to husband, they’re all questions that come up there.

If I understand God’s order, and I understand that there are duties and responsibilities commensurate with the wife for the husband, and the husband has commensurate duties and responsibilities for the wife, and I consider it God’s order, it’s perfect, it works out wonderful. And if civil government understands that they don’t pass laws, they don’t try to redefine what God established, as far as marriage is concerned, or sex is concerned, or the role of the home, or education.

The point here being, Joe, is this. When we follow the scripture, God’s word, we embrace order, loving order, that has with it defined purpose and responsibility, and with it fulfillment, and with it joy, and with it blessing, which is why God said, “I put before you Israel,” Deuteronomy 30, “I put before you today a choice. Here’s my order, my commandments, my statutes, if you do that and you fear me, I will give you prosperity and blessing, I will give you children, I will give you good weather. I will give you security from your enemies. But if you walk in your own way and attempt to redefine what I have said for your best and for your good, you will encounter the exact opposite, confusion, chaos, unfulfillment, unhappiness, misery suffering.” It’s very clear.

So that’s where we go, Joe, and I think that’s the way we should leave our listeners right now is that there’s two options, God’s way our own way. God’s way, blessing abundant, our own way, nothing but confusion. That’s what we’ve been talking about today. It’s a choice, and God gives it to us.

Joe Green: Absolutely, and we honor God when we live our lives based on God’s design for our lives. That’s really the only way that we ever have peace, his peace, when we live in accordance to his will, his purpose, his plan, and his design for our lives. This has been Joe Green here with Sam Rohrer, and also our two guests from the PA Family Institute. Until next time, we thank you for tuning in, peace and blessings to you, and always realized that we have been created in God’s image, in his likeness, and our job is to promote and to glorify God in everything that we do. Blessings to you.