Is the Concept Of An Autonomous Individual "Self" A Modern One? Here's The AI Answer.

The increased role of Artificial Intelligence in almost every
aspect of our lives both intrigues and terrifies me.
 -graph by Wikipedia

I often type in -ai (minus AI) when I do a Google search in order to avoid the use of AI technology, but in preparation for a recent talk I decided to ask AI the question in the title of this post.  

Feel free to comment on the almost instant answer it gave me:

The concept of an individual autonomous self is largely a modern invention, emerging primarily in the West over the last few hundred years, whereas the communal self has been the dominant mode of human identity throughout most of history and across many global cultures.

While the capacity for individual experience is a biological universal, the cultural framework that defines a person primarily by their internal traits, choices, and independence—rather than their relationships and social roles—is a distinct product of specific historical shifts.

Historical Evolution: From Communal to Individual

Traditional & Pre-Modern Societies (Communal/Relational Self)

Identity is derived from the group (clan, tribe, caste, or guild). A person is defined by their duties and relationships to others, not their internal desires.

Early Modern to Enlightenment (17th–18th C.) (Emergent Autonomous Self)

The birth of the "individual." Thinkers emphasized reason, personal liberty, and the idea that humans possess inherent rights independent of their social standing.

Modern & Contemporary West (Hyper-Individualistic Self)

The self is viewed as an independent, self-contained unit. Authenticity is found by looking inward, choosing one's own path, and breaking free from external constraints.

Key Drivers of the Modern Autonomous Self

The shift from a communal self to an autonomous self in the Western world was driven by several massive historical disruptions:

• The Reformation (16th Century): Martin Luther’s challenge to the Catholic Church shifted spiritual responsibility from the communal institution to the individual conscience. Salvation became a private, direct relationship between the person and God.

• The Enlightenment (17th–18th Century): Philosophers like René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am") and John Locke (who defined the self through personal memory and consciousness) reframed the individual as a self-contained, rational agent.

• Industrialization & Capitalism (19th Century): The rise of market economies disrupted village life. People left communal agrarian settings to sell their labor as individuals in cities. Social mobility replaced fixed, hereditary social roles.

• The Consumer & Digital Age (20th–21st Century): Modern capitalism and social media encourage continuous self-branding, self-expression, and personal optimization, pushing individualism to its current peak.

The Communal Self as a Continued Reality

The autonomous self is not a universal truth of human nature; it is a cultural construct. In many contemporary cultures—particularly in East Asia, Africa, and Indigenous communities—the communal self remains foundational.

• Interdependence vs. Independence: Psychological research (such as studies on cultural psychology by Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama) demonstrates that while Westerners tend to have an independent self-construal, non-Westerners often have an interdependent self-construal, where the self cannot be separated from the social context.

• Philosophical Frameworks: Concepts like Ubuntu in Southern Africa ("I am because we are") explicitly state that human beings are only realized through their relationships with other people. Similarly, Confucian ethics define the self through filial piety and social harmony within a network of relationships.

Summary of the Extent

The individual autonomous self is a profoundly modern and historically contingent invention. While humans have always had unique personalities, the idea that the individual is the primary unit of society—possessing an identity separate from the community—is a recent shift. It traded the security, belonging, and shared meaning of the communal self for personal freedom, privacy, and self-determination.

If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to focus on:

• The psychological impacts of this shift (such as rising modern isolation)

• Specific philosophical arguments from Descartes, Locke, or Rousseau

• How this concept affects modern political and economic systems

Your comments are welcome.

Quiz #2 Of A Two-Part Men's Bible Study

My objective for this study is to show how the Bible, much as it is intended to bless individual believers, is largely addressed to whole communities of people (the plural "you all"), and that our primary identity and mission has to do with our membership in our family, our faith family and the worldwide family of God's reign on earth.

On this election day, November 3, we will also note that we are to be responsible citizens of our local communities, of our city or county, and of our state and our nation. In short, each of us is our brother's and sister's keepers, and none of us live only as autonomous individuals, but are to live in ways that express a passionate love for God and a compassionate love for our neighbors.

As a teaching device, I'm using the following "Short Quiz For Christian Citizens, Part II," for this Tuesday's 7 am lesson, which is preceded by a simple breakfast at 6:45. This review is based on the Second Covenant (New Testament).

T F 1. Unlike many of the historical books of the Old Testament, the gospel writers in the New Testament avoid references to genealogies and to political rulers of their time.  

T F 2. The theme of Jesus’ first public sermons, as noted in Matthew 4:17, 23, is the announcement of a new heaven-governed reign of God here on earth.

T F 3. Jesus’s inaugural “Sermon on the Mount” outlines some of the key practices governing citizens of God’s kingdom.

T F 4. “Ye are the light of the world” is primarily about each of us “letting our little light shine.”

T F 5. The KJV pronouns “ye, your, yours” are plural, while “thee, thou and thine” are singular.

T F 6. The “Lord’s Prayer” is primarily meant for use in one's private prayer and devotions.

T F 7. Anabaptists saw Matthew 18:15-20 as a major example of how citizens of God’s reign are to be governed.

T F 8. Jesus clearly teaches that his followers should give the institutions of marriage and family priority over every other institution or cause.

T F 9. The Matthew 25 passage on God’s final judgment makes it clear that it is individuals, not nations, that will be called to give an account for their actions on behalf of “the least of these.”

T F 10. In Jesus’s final words to his followers he commands them to urge people throughout the world to accept him into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior.

T F 11. At Pentecost people from nations all over the then known world were brought together into a new international “nation of nations.”

T F 12. The Acts 15 gathering of church leaders at Jerusalem further expanded and defined the circle of those eligible for kingdom citizenship.

T F 13. In the book of Acts we learn that Peter, Stephen, Paul and other first century church leaders largely avoided addressing people in positions of political power.

T F 14. Like citizens of ancient Israel who were living in other lands, members of the grafted-in new "Israel" are to see themselves as resident aliens, strangers and ambassadors in the nations (James 1:1, I Peter 2:4-10, II Corinthians 5:16-21).

T F 15. In Ephesians 2 Paul describes the redeemed body of Christ, with Christ as head, as having been raised with him to the position of power at “the right hand of God,” with all other powers, authorities and dominions being under Jesus’ feet. 

T F 16. In Christ’s last recorded prayer prior to his death (John 17), he recognizes the diversity of his followers, but prays they will finally become gloriously one in the life to come.

T F 17. In the Revelation (1:9-20), the post-ascension Jesus is located in the midst of seven golden lampstands (menorah) representing seven actual congregations to whom John’s “unveiling” is addressed.

T F 18. The Radiant Woman in the Revelation (12:1-12) represents the people of God through whom the One will come who rules over all the nations as “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

T F 19. In the Apocalypse the non-violent Lamb of God is victorious over the kingdoms of this world that are governed by a trinity of evil: 1) the Beast-like power of world empires, 2) the civil religions and ideologies (Second Beast, or False Prophet) that urge allegiance to the First Beast, and 3) the whore Babylon, the worldwide economic system that nations are in bed with—until the “kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ."

20. Underline the New Testament book or books you see as addressed primarily to an individual lay
believer:
• Matthew Mark Luke John  Acts
• Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon
• Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude
• Revelation

Key:  1 F, 2 T, 3 T, 4 F, 5 F, 6 F, 7 T, 8 F, 9 F, 10 F, 11 T, 12 T,  13 F, 14 T, 15 T, 16 F, 17 T, 18 T, 19 T, 20 Philemon

Note: Session I can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-jUdqDyZ3U&t=262s

DN-R Guest Post: Freedom Is On The Ballot

Sheba Williams, Executive Director of
Nolef Turns Inc.,was a recent guest at
one of Valley Justice Coalition's twice-
monthly Zoom meetings. She has led
the Virginia Right to Vote Coalition for
over a decade.

Felony disenfranchisement first showed up in Virginia’s state constitution in 1830. But after the Civil War, newly freed male slaves became very active in the civic process, which led to felony disenfranchisement and other vestiges of Jim Crow again being intentionally placed in the Virginia constitution.

This was a blatant attempt to keep as many newly freed slaves as possible from participating in democracy. While poll taxes, literacy tests, Black codes, public lynchings and other means of discrimination were eventually eliminated, felony disenfranchisement remained embedded in our constitution. 

This was never about public safety, but about maintaining control of minds and bodies. Virginia became one of three states in the nation that required a resident to plead for full citizenship after a felony conviction, and from one politician, the sitting Governor. We became an outlier in the nation in permanently treating certain neighbors as second class citizens. We began to consider a constitutionally guaranteed right as a mere privilege, and removed the right to vote as punishment for breaking a social contract.

In 1870, in exchange for rejoining the Union following the Civil War, Virginia agreed to not expand the list of 11 common law felonies in efforts to keep Black and poor people from participating in democracy, yet for 156 years Virginia violated this social contract. At a 1901-1902 state convention, Lynchburg-based senator and publisher Carter Glass successfully spearheaded efforts to make every felony conviction result in an individual losing their civil rights. 

When questioned as to whether these measures were potentially discriminatory, Glass stated, "Discrimination! That is exactly what we propose. To remove every Negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." Thus one in seven Virginians were denied their civil rights.

We’re talking about our sisters, brothers, parents, children, co-workers, fellow parishioners, friends and even strangers. People were returning to their community following a felony conviction and not allowed to be whole again, and to make decisions about how they and their families were governed. They were told that they violated a social contract and were never redeemable. 

Thus Virginia demanded that offenders be better neighbors and be upstanding citizens, but did not allow them to be forgiven. The Commonwealth was not open to showing mercy and grace but continued to place multiple barriers in front of its residents. 

Research has shown that our communities are safer when people participate in how their communities are governed. The social contract by which we have measured forgiveness has been hypocritical. Redemption is for everyone.

This year, the state was handed a guilty verdict by Judge John Gibney, Jr., senior judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Commonwealth was found guilty of violating their original social contract by illegally taking away individuals’ civil rights for 156 years. By that ruling, 234,852 Virginians became eligible to participate in democracy.

Yet there is still work to do. There is still a class of residents who have committed certain felonies who must beg forgiveness from a single politician, the governor, before they can be made whole again. But this November we have the opportunity to permanently remove the last vestige of Jim Crow from our constitution by voting Yes to Ballot Question #3. 

We have a duty to stand up for our neighbors and vote for fairness, for equality, for safety and to finally end discrimination against those who have served their sentences but must still pay for certain convictions in perpetuity. 

Not only do we have the opportunity to protect the right to vote for every eligible voter in the state for the first time in our history, but we also have an opportunity to protect those who live with disabilities by ensuring they only lose their right to vote if they are proven to not understand the act of voting, unlike the current process that can remove a person’s civil rights for needing assistance with day to day functions.

This November, freedom is on the ballot for all of us.There are 3 constitutional amendments being voted on in Virginia and they all rely on the fundamental right to vote being accessible for every eligible voter in the state. We call on every citizen to take a stand with and for our neighbors this year, including our neighbors who may be imperfect people. 

We ask everyone to take their civic responsibility seriously this year. Vote to protect yourselves this November. Vote for your neighbors this November. Vote for freedom this November. Vote intentionally, with love, compassion, and sacrifice.

Even persons who have committed crimes deserve dignity and respect for their civil rights.

18 Questions About Ballot Questions 1, 2 and 3

The following Open Forum piece in yesterday's paper is another version of some of my thoughts about the three constitutional amendments on Virginia ballots this fall.

Far from me to tell folks whether or how they should vote, but here are some of questions that run through my mind regarding what’s on the ballot this fall, for whatever they’re worth.

Ballot Question #1:

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?

1. Should not human life be considered precious at any stage of development, and never terminated as a convenient means of birth control? 

2. Should we ever criminalize the use of a morning after pill in the case of a twelve-year-old victim of rape or incest?

3. How should we respond when the life and/or health of a mother are at risk, or when a fetus is determined to have some serious or fatal abnormality? 

4. Are there reasonable distinctions to be made between prenatal human life and postnatal human personhood, similar to how we regard natural abortions (miscarriages), as in when or whether we give a zygote, an embryo or a viable fetus a name, count them in our census, give them a burial and memorial service, etc.?

5. Who should make the final decision in such matters, the person carrying the developing life, members of ones family (or family of faith), or the state or nation?

6. What do our scriptures say about this important subject?

Ballot Question #2:

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?

1. Are there natural differences among humans in this area (just as a certain percentage of people are born left-handed) or do individuals choose to be something other than heterosexual? And can they change if they undergo intensive therapy?

2. hould definitions about what constitutes a valid marriage be determined by the state or by individuals and their family and faith community?

3. Is the issue of same sex marriage something Jesus and the writers of the New Testament scriptures are absolutely clear about, or can this be considered a “disputable matter?”

4. Is society as a whole better off having those with same sex attraction being in committed, stable relationships—rather than in unstable and promiscuous ones?

5. Since celibacy has a highly respected status in the Christian tradition, is that the one and only right choice for followers of Jesus who have same sex attraction?

6.Should a major political party that championed an openly gay candidate for statewide office in 2025 now be advocating voting No on Ballot Question #2?

Ballot Question #3:

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, (ii) to revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony, while not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration, is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration, and (iii) to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?

1. Is casting a ballot an inherent right of every citizen or is it a privilege one earns?

2. After offenders have paid their debt to society, as determined by a court of law, should they face additional sanctions like being disenfranchised for an indefinite period of time?

3. Are incarceration survivors who are civilly engaged more likely or less likely to reoffend?

4. Should citizens with intellectual disabilities be denied the right to vote if they at least understand what voting does or what it means?

5. If we have conflicted feelings about any of the above, is it better to simply refrain from voting (and accept the will of the majority) or just vote for the sake of having done so?

6. Above all, how do our choices align with the commitment to love our neighbors as ourselves, with the kind of love that never inflicts harm but always offers support and help to our fellow humans in need?

A Short Quiz For A Two-Part Men's Bible Study

Millions have read and appreciated Sarah Young's numerous devotional  books, the first of which was her best-selling daily devotional, Jesus Calling. In each of her published works she has Jesus personally addressing individual believers with promises and blessings based on selected scriptures.

As a part of the Men's Bible Study group that meets Tuesday mornings at the Park View Mennonite Church, I'm to lead a two-part series on Christian citizenship on October 27 and November 3 (my apologies for this being for men only, but that's another subject). 

My objective in this study is to show how the Bible, much as it is intended to bless individual believers, is largely addressed to whole communities of people ("you all"), and that our primary identity and mission has to do with our membership in our family, our faith family and the worldwide family of God's reign on earth.

We will also note that we are to be responsible citizens of our local communities, of our city or county, and of our state and our nation. In short, each of us is our brother's and sister's keepers, and none of us live only as autonomous individuals, but are responsible both to God and to our neighbors.

As a teaching device, I'm using this "Short Quiz For Christian Citizens, Part I," for this Tuesday's 7 am lesson, which is preceded by a simple breakfast at 6:45. 

(Part II, for the following week, will focus on New Testament texts)

T F 1. The word citizen comes from a word for city, and refers to “a resident member of a community, town, city or nation.”

T F 2. The word political has to do with the polity (policies), civic affairs and governance of a community, town, city or nation of which we are inevitably a part.

T F 3. The Bible is non-political, in that it deals with the inner spiritual life of individuals in preparation for the kingdom to come, while politics is about our public life in the here and now, governed by secular authorities ordained by God.

T F 4. The first civil entity God ordained is the family, a small civilization whose members (citizens) are to honor their elders and freely help and support each other.

T F 5. Both male and female citizens made in God’s image are to exercise responsible sovereignty over, and stewardship of, the earth on God’s behalf.

T F 6. Adam’s companion, taken from his side, is created as a “helper suitable for him,” the word helper being the same Hebrew word as in the psalmist’s, “The Lord is my helper.”

T F 7. The majority of the 39 books that make up the First Covenant are addressed to, and are about, God’s called out people (and sometimes to the people of surrounding nations).

T F 8. Many of our Old Testament books were written during and/or are about times when God’s people were without their own land, and highlight stories of key leaders in exile like Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah and others.

T F 9. The Shepherd’s Psalm (23), while usually read as the personal experience of an individual believer, uses the metaphor of sheep, which are always a part of a flock or herd (as in the word shepherd), and describe our being a part of a blessed and forever house (household) of God.

T F 10. The oft quoted phrase “Be still and know that I am God,” is best understood as an invitation for individual believers to take time for quiet meditation and reflection on God in a way that restores inner peace (Psalm 46).

T F 11. The Isaiah 1:18 text that offers forgiveness and salvation even if our sins “are like scarlet” and “red like crimson,” refers primarily to our need for personal repentance.

T F 12. Jeremiah 29:11 (“I know the plans I have for you…”) is one of many examples of God affirming the first of Bill Bright’s “Four Spiritual Laws,”“God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your (individual) life.”

T F 13. Hymn #173 in Voices Together (The Lord Your God Is With You) is based on a text in the Bible,

Zephaniah 3:17, that is focused on God’s personal, rather than communal, care for us.

T F 14. In the First Testament God’s people are to pledge their allegiance and loyalty to God’s heaven-governed nation alone, and are never to become actual citizens, but only resident aliens and ambassadors, of any other nation in which they might temporarily live (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, etc.).

T F 15. God’s people are commanded to provide help and hospitality to citizens of any other nations who live among them as immigrants and strangers.

T F 16. The descendants of Abraham, the people of Israel, are blessed in order to become an agent of God’ salvation and blessing to all nations in the world.

T F 17. Stories in the Hebrew Bible of people’s direct encounters with God usually have to do with their being called out as prophets and leaders of God’s people.

T F 18. Most adults in Bible times were literate and had access to their own copy of the Torah.

T F 19. God’s eternal empire/reign is God’s priority. All other nations are as a ‘drop in a bucket.’

20. Underline the Old Testament books you see as addressed primarily to individual believers.

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy
Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra
Nehemiah Esther
Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs
Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

Key: 1. T, 2. T, 3. F, 4. T, 5. T, 6. T, 7. T, 8. T, 9. F, 10. F, 11. F, 12. F, 13. F, 14. T, 15. T, 16. T, 17. T, 18. F, 19. T, 20. some of the Psalms, much of Proverbs

Here's a link to view the session online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-jUdqDyZ3U

Are We Going The Way Of The Roman Republic?

Since reading this fascinating book, I haven't 
been able to shake the feeling that we may be
facing the same demise as that of this once
powerful empire.

I'm not an expert on the history of the Roman empire or on the story of our own, but I do find some striking parallels between the two world powers. 

For example, what is now the United States was also first governed by a monarchy, then as a republic, and then...

Here's the fascinating Roman story:

The Roman Kingdom was  founded in 753 BC and was successful in establishing colonies well beyond its borders. Kings continued to rule the new nation until the monarchy was overthrown in 509 BC. The resulting  Roman Republic was ruled by officials elected by a legislative assembly.

Julius Caesar, one of the more powerful of these elected rulers, was elevated by the Roman Senate to the status of a god after his assassination in 44 BC. His son Octavian proclaimed himself "the son of a god" and was named "Augustus" (majestic) and "Princeps" (first) by the Senate. He was later honored with the title "Pater Patriae" (father of the country).   

Octavian, now known as Caesar Augustus, was emperor at the time of Jesus's birth, and was revered as one of a pantheon of Roman deities. He became known as the first emperor of the expanding Roman empire, effectively ending the republic that had existed for centuries. The Roman Senate wasn't abolished, but became a rubber stamp for his policies. 

Many of the emperors that followed, notably rulers like Caligula, Claudius, Nero and Domitian, had elaborate temples erected for the veneration of the empire, and subjects were to offer token sacrifices as signs of their pledge of allegiance to the emperor ("Caesar is Lord"). Domitian, the virtual dictator in power when the New Testament book of Revelation was written, declared himself "Dominus et Deus" (Lord and god) and persecuted Jews and Christians who refused to comply with his orders. Christians, of course had their own alternative confession, "Jesus is Lord," and opposed any such pledge.

The gradual decline and ultimate fall of the empire occurred over centuries of time. After a thousand-year history, Rome, like every other world empire, eventually came to an end. 

Here is a helpful analysis in a Wikipedia article:

The fall of the Western Roman Empire, also called the fall of the Roman Empire or the fall of Rome, was the loss of central political control in the Western Roman Empire, a process in which the Empire failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided among several successor polities. The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration. Increasing pressure from invading peoples outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse. Climatic changes and both endemic and epidemic diseases drove many of these immediate factors. The reasons for the collapse are major subjects of the historiography of the ancient world and they inform much modern discourse on state failure.

History may not repeat itself, but there are often significant parallels we can take lessons from, the first being that no world empire lasts forever.

Some Reflections On Ballot Questions 1, 2 and 3

Should followers of Jesus weigh in on the three ballot
questions that have to do with amending our state
constitution? 

The older I get, the more I realize that since I will never know everything about everything, I can never assume to be absolutely right about everything. So take these reflections as food for thought, not as irrefutable truths:

Ballot Question #1:

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?

To be clear, I believe human life should be considered precious at any stage of development, and never terminated as a convenient means of birth control. However, there may still be some questions worth considering and praying over, like whether we should criminalize the use of a morning after pill in the case of a twelve-year-old victim of rape or incest, to cite an extreme example.

Some reflections: Throughout history we have made distinctions between prenatal human life and postnatal human personhood. In the frequent cases of natural abortions (many happening even before individuals know they are pregnant), we don't consider miscarriages in quite the same way as we do the loss of an already born baby. That is, we don't normally name miscarried zygotes, embryos or fetuses, issue birth or death certificates, count them in any census, or have a memorial service for the miscarried human life. But we do all of these when we welcome an addition to the family at birth or memorialize the loss of a born baby. This doesn't at all mean we should not take miscarriages seriously, or minimize the deep grief so often associated with the loss of an anticipated new member of a family.

But should all terminations of a pregnancy, at whatever stage, be considered an act of murder, as in the killing of a baby person? And should any of us assume the right to make all such judgments, or should that right, and that responsibility, be reserved for the person (and their family and congregational family) carrying a precious human life in formation? And are there easy answers in cases where exceptional factors are at play, like the life and health of a mother being at risk, or when there is a fetus with some serious or fatal abnormality? And should not men be held primarily responsible for unwanted pregnancies rather than women carrying that responsibility alone?

Here are some further thoughts: 

https://harvyoder.blogspot.com/2022/06/we-need-ongoing-conversations-about.html

Ballot Question #2:

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?

Few issues have created so much distress or caused so much division as the question of whether, how, or why some people are born with differing sexual or gender orientations or characteristics. In my years of counseling and pastoral experience, I've come to accept the fact that virtually no one actually chooses to be orientated differently from the majority of their peers, and that in fact many would give anything to experience what most consider "normal" heterosexual relationships. 

But there do appear to be natural differences in the human family in this area, just as some people are born left-handed, some right-handed, and some are ambidextrous, for no known or preventable reason. After learning to know and respect many differently-oriented individuals over a lifetime, I no longer see this as having an easy answer. At the very least, I have to ask whether society is better off having gay and lesbian individuals in committed and stable relationships rather than having them experience secretive, unstable and/or promiscuous ones. I do believe celibacy can clearly be a God-honoring choice for any of us, especially since Jesus himself was celibate, but realize that's a hard ask, and may be more difficult for some than others. I also realize that fellow believers who take the Bible seriously don't all come to the same conclusions about this kind of "disputable matter."

And is there any hypocrisy involved in a major political party in Virginia championing an openly gay candidate for statewide office in 2025 and now advocating for voting No to Ballot Question #2? 

Here are some more reflections: 

https://harvyoder.blogspot.com/2014/11/we-need-help-in-discerning-what-are.html

Ballot Question #3:

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, (ii) to revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony is not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration but is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration, and (iii) to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?

While I will never know everything about everything, I affirm this one without reservation. The other two I may pray more about before I settle on a simple yes, no or blank response.