HBU Apologetics Professor Nancy Pearcey is exploring taboo issues and the ideas that have become culturally normative tenets in her latest book, 鈥淟ove Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality.鈥� With a combination of reason, boldness, real-life stories and her characteristic tenderness, Pearcey brings common sense and biblical application to matters like abortion, assisted suicide, transgenderism and homosexuality.
While many have adopted the creed that morality is a matter of personal preference, the doctrine of self-determination is fraught with snares. In 鈥淟ove Thy Body,鈥� Pearcey goes past the surface assumptions and exposes the ramifications of secular and sacred belief systems. The message of the book has resonated, and has resulted in opportunities for her to speak in many forums including national and international radio and television shows, the Heritage Foundation (the nation鈥檚 largest conservative think tank), C-SPAN and even to members of the US Congress in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC.
鈥淧eople are so hungry to get answers that go beyond the soundbites,鈥� she said. 鈥淚鈥檓 digging deeper and looking at the worldview 鈥� your ethics depend upon your worldview and what it means to be human.鈥�
In spite of connotations of liberation from stuffy rules, the move away from a biblical perspective has led to a lower view of humanity, Pearcey said. 鈥淭he secular, liberal worldview is demeaning to human dignity and denies human rights,鈥� she said. 鈥淭ake abortion. Most bioethicists agree that life begins at conception 鈥� that the fetus is human. But they say it鈥檚 not a person until it achieves a certain level of cognitive functioning. The implication is that as long as the fetus is 鈥檓erely鈥� human, it has no rights. It can be killed for any reason or no reason. It can be used for research and experiments, tinkered with genetically, picked through for sellable body parts (as Planned Parenthood does), then tossed out with the other medical waste. In other words, being human is no longer the basis for human rights. This is a very negative view of what it means to be human.鈥�
Pearcey continued, 鈥淪upport for euthanasia uses the same reasoning in reverse: It says if you lose a certain level of cognitive functioning, you鈥檙e no longer a person 鈥� even though you are obviously still human. At that point, you can be unplugged, your treatment stopped, your food and water withheld, and your organs transplanted. Again, being human is not enough for human rights. This is very dehumanizing.鈥�
This split or division between being human versus being a person explains a host of other cutting-edge issues as well, Pearcey noted. 鈥淭ake homosexuality, for example. It, too, rests on a divided view of the human being that denigrates the body. Think of it this way: on the level of biology, physiology and anatomy, no one really denies that males and females are counterparts to one another. That鈥檚 how the human sexual and reproductive system is designed,鈥� she said. 鈥淭o embrace a same-sex identity, then, is to contradict that design. Implicitly you are saying, 鈥橶hy should my body have any say in my moral choices? Why should my biological identity as male or female form the basis for my psychological identity?鈥� This is a very disrespectful view of the body.鈥�
The denigration of the body is even more obvious in the transgender movement, Pearcey said. 鈥淎rguments for transgenderism explicitly say my biological identity is completely dissociated from my authentic self. A BBC documentary says at the heart of the debate is the idea that the mind can be 鈥檃t war with the body.鈥� And when that happens, the mind wins,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut why accept such a low view of the body? Why not try to recover a higher view? I recently read an interview with a 14-year-old girl who had lived for three years as a trans boy, then embraced her identity as a girl again. She said the turning point came when she realized it was okay to 鈥檒earn to love my body.鈥� The antidote to transgenderism is learning to love your body.鈥�
Such conversations go far beyond the simple truisms that many are taught in church. Pearcey knows she鈥檚 not alone in searching for answers to the complex questions that present themselves. In multiple surveys, youth have indicated that they left the faith simply because no one around them could satisfactorily answer their tough questions, she said.
That鈥檚 a dilemma that is all too familiar for Pearcey. She grew up in a Lutheran home where the message of salvation wasn鈥檛 scratching her intellectual itch. 鈥淚 asked a Christian professor once point-blank, 鈥橶hy are you a Christian?鈥� He said, 鈥橶orks for me.鈥� I asked a seminary dean about how he knew the faith is true, and he said, 鈥橠on鈥檛 worry; we all have doubts sometimes.鈥� I decided that Christianity must not have any good reasons,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd if you don鈥檛 have good reasons for something, you shouldn鈥檛 believe it 鈥� whether Christianity or anything else.鈥�
Having spent part of her childhood in Germany, Pearcey returned to Europe in the early 70s. She was soon drawn into the group of other searchers in theologian and evangelist Francis Schaeffer鈥檚 home in Switzerland called 鈥淟鈥橝bri,鈥� which means 鈥渢he shelter.鈥� Pearcey and many others had been delving in drugs to expand their consciousness, and looking for answers to the questions that had never been satisfied.
鈥淎t age 16, I had pulled books off the philosophy shelves looking for answers. I pretty rapidly realized that if there is no God, there is no foundation for ethics, or truth, or meaning to life. We鈥檙e on a rock flying through empty space,鈥� she said. 鈥淎t L鈥橝bri, I found Christianity appealing because I had never encountered apologetics before. Here were people who actually understood the secular philosophies I had immersed myself in. They could even help me ask better questions!鈥�
鈥淟鈥橝bri was so attractive that I was afraid I might become a Christian before I was intellectually convinced. So, I fled, and went back to the States,鈥� she said. But in her time with the Schaeffers, Pearcey had discovered other apologist writers like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. In her own study of the theological giants she had been introduced to, Pearcey became utterly convinced that Christianity was true. Hungry for a Christian family to help her grow in the faith, she went back to Switzerland for four months.
Since that time, Pearcey鈥檚 compelling motivation has been to help others like the seeker she was. 鈥淭eaching apologetics is my heart and soul 鈥� that鈥檚 how I became a Christian,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hat really drives me the most is helping people answer these questions. I love teaching and interacting with students.鈥�
As a professor, Pearcey knows that students at many institutions are presented with psychological arguments against their faith, such as the idea that God is a social construction by people who never grew out of the need for a father figure. 鈥淢y long-term goal is a book on how to stay Christian in college,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 had one student who told me after going to graduate school elsewhere, 鈥橧f I hadn鈥檛 taken your class, I might have lost my faith because they sure do make secular ideas sound persuasive.鈥欌��
While the message of the Gospel is foundational, Christian teaching would do well to go further into the application of all the Bible presents. Some Christian faith traditions focus so much on the conversion experience that they fail to engage the whole person, Pearcey said. 鈥淓vangelicalism has been marked by an anti-intellectualism at times that has made people afraid to ask the hard questions,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he Bible applies to all areas of philosophy. It鈥檚 as comprehensive as any other worldview, and is meant to pertain to every part of life.鈥�
A two-time winner of the ECPA Gold Medallion Award, Nancy R. Pearcey has been hailed in The Economist as 鈥淎merica鈥檚 preeminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual.鈥� A bestselling author and speaker, Pearcey is a professor of Apologetics and the scholar-in-residence at HBU. She is editor at large of 鈥淭he Pearcey Report,鈥� and a fellow at Discovery Institute鈥檚 Center for Science and Culture. Her past books include 鈥淗ow Now Shall We Live?鈥� co-authored with Chuck Colson and Harold Fickett, 鈥淭otal Truth,鈥� 鈥淭he Soul of Science鈥� and 鈥淪aving Leonardo.鈥�