Letter to the Cascade School Board

Letter to the Cascade School Board

by | Feb 14, 2023 | Apologetics, Politics

Policy 3281 Advisory Committee:

I am a pastor, father, and resident of our beautiful city—and I am writing to encourage the Cascade school board to repeal policy #3281. It is troublesome that such an aberrant and neo-cultural policy has paralyzed the school board and administration. The formation of a committee to poll the public response demonstrates either a lack of morale fortitude or simple bewilderment on what is right and wrong. The reasons to rescind this policy are voluminous. However, I am concerned that the evaluation process situates logic, science, morality, love, and truth on equal footing with whimsical pop-culture, progressive political agendas, and a general acceptance regarding social experimentation on our children—I pray that I am in error on this understanding. I hope that logic, science, morality, love, and truth will prevail.

I want to begin by acknowledging that I am protesting a policy—not a people. I recognize that all people have tremendous inherent value and worth. All of us, created by God, have amazing special significance, not based on arbitrary cultural, religious, or behavioral metrics but instead, our incalculable value has been expressed in history by God in the giving of His Son to redeem us. This is an incomprehensible love and without rival. I do not pretend that I stand above or beyond anyone—Christ died for me, a sinner, apart from Christ, I have no righteousness and I am certainly superior to no one. It is because I know the love of Christ that I publicly declare a love for all the children in our community—normative and non-conforming. My objection regarding this policy is not an objection against people; rather, my objections to this policy flow from a loving heart for people.

Here is a brief list of justifications for repealing policy #3281:

  • Inconsistent Application. The school district does not affirm any other psychological condition the way this policy requires faculty and students to accommodate for gender dysphoria. For example, if some is depressed, you do not have a policy to affirm their depression. If someone has an eating disorder, you do not have a policy which affirms their unhealthy self-perception. If someone has low self-esteem, you do not have a policy to affirm their low self-worth.  Not only do you not have policies to affirm any other psychological condition, at this moment, you probably acknowledge that you would not create such a policy to affirm these other conditions.  Application of policy 3281 is designed to affirm gender dysphoria while keeping it a secret from parents and requires faculty, coaches, and students to affirm the dysphoria—this is inconsistent.
  • Depression and Self-Harm. The prevalence of self-harm and suicide is the second leading cause of death for ages 10-24; LGBTQ youth are at least four times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers.[i] This tragedy transcends policy or behavioral affirmation, consider San Francisco LGBTQ youth have higher rates of depression and self-harm than the national average while boasting the most progressive policies and aggressive affirmation conditions in the nation.[ii]
  • Safety. Public policies such policy #3281 are retracting faster than they were implemented due to realized safety issues. For example, transwomen (biological men) committing acts of sexual misconduct while incarcerated, high school trans-girl (biological boy) raping classmates in the bathroom—and inversely, statistics show that nearly half of trans-identified individuals have been sexually assaulted. There is a significant safety concern which policy #3281 does not address. It simply broadens the safety concern—not lessening it.
  • Title IX Consideration / Discrimination. It is important for us to recognize that this policy does not provide any additional protections for lesbian, gay, or bi-sexual individuals. They are still protected by federal Title IX guidelines and repealing this policy will not impact that protection. This policy does makes transgender individuals into a protected class—something neither state or federal law has accomplished—meaning this policy is more progressive than current law.  The Department of Education did attempt to include transgender under Title IX, resulting in a federal lawsuit and a Federal court order “enjoined and restrained from implementing” such a policy.[iii]
  • Parental Rights. There are serious ethical concerns within this policy under the title, “Confidentiality.” This policy prohibits school employees from disclosing transgender status or sexual orientation from the student’s parents/guardians—this presupposes responsibilities and consequences the school is unable to provide like a parent. This also appears to conflict with Idaho Statutes 32-1010, 32-1011.
  • Health/Wellbeing of the Student. Prematurely affirming the student in their gender dysphoria or transgender transition causes irrevocable harm.  The school’s culpability will be through a blind and indifferent policy which affirms a child to decide an irrevocable lifetime decision. Despite the propaganda, a biological male will never be a woman; a biological woman will never be a man. The process of hormone blockers and replacements will never end for a transitioner; their bodies will continually fight any medical alterations to their body. The scars on outside of their body will represent the harm experienced within their heart and mind.  This policy does great harm.

 

Please categorically reject this policy.

 

[i] Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Andrzejewski, J., Barrios, L. C., Zewditu, D., McManus, T., et al. (2019). Transgender identity and experiences of violence victimization, substance use, suicide risk, and sexual risk behaviors among high school student–19 states and large urban school districts, 2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(3), 65-71.

Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Haderxhanaj, L. T., et al. (2020). Trends in violence victimization and suicide risk by sexual identity among high school students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2015–2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69,(Suppl-1):19–27.

[ii] City and County of San Francisco, Department of Pubic Health. Maternal, Child, & Adolescent Health Report, December 1, 2021. Mental Health of MCAH Populations in San Francsico, Page 2

 [iii] Tenn., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 3:21-cv-308 (E.D. Tenn.) (July 15, 2022)

God In A Box?

God In A Box?

by | Sep 16, 2019 | Apologetics, Christianity

I recently heard someone substantiate a theological claim with the reasoning, “you cannot put God in a box.”

If he had intended this as a literal claim there would be little dispute—but this is an expression meant as an illustrative claim. The phrase is used to disarm any number of theological viewpoints that appear to limit the power of God. I have been on the receiving end of this claim in witnessing encounters. It is a common response when someone disagrees with a truth about God or the statement by Jesus when he said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 ESV)” The person disagreeing will frequently respond with a diatribe on the perceived lack of fairness regarding a single savior (as if anyone deserves salvation) and then close their claim with, “you cannot put God in a box.” All they did was create a different box—the box of arbitrary fairness and gently set their god in the new box. The issue is not the limitations presented by the box; the issue is the contents of the box—The God verses a god.

I acknowledge that we cannot place God entirely in a box, to do so, would require an exhaustive knowledge of God which is impossible for us. Yet, this dispute is not regarding what is known about God, the dispute is being raised as a question mark, as if, what God has shared with us is insufficient to make any conclusions. Pair this premise with the high level of discomfort among many Christians to limit God in anyway and quickly you find yourself standing before a tattered box unable to hold any discernible quantity of truth. What God has shared about himself is absolutely sufficient for us to know him and we ought to find comfort, not anxiety, in the things God cannot do—God cannot lie, do evil, or do anything inconsistent with his nature. Let’s take a look at this box.

God has revealed himself, both in general revelation and special revelation. In general revelation, everything about existence, both tangible (the universe, earth, diversity of life, diversity of elements, etc.) and intangible (love, logic, morality, etc.) point to God. As David writes in Psalm 19, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” We ought to also recognize that we are not held to a standard of exhaustive knowledge of God when the Apostle Paul writes, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Yet, God did not stop revealing himself with general revelation.

God desires that we know him—To know him like a sheep knows his shepherd, a child knows their father, a wife their husband, how good friends know each other. God has revealed himself directly to individuals and groups throughout the ages, he has used special messengers, and the writer of Hebrews records that, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” Throughout this time of special revelation we learn much about God: His holiness, wisdom, patience, truthfulness, immutability, transcendence, faithfulness, kindness, justice, mercy, and love. I think it is our nature to focus on the attributes about God we find most beneficial while doing our best to ignore or justify the attributes that scare us, like his holiness and justice. However, we ought to acknowledge that with each trait of God that is revealed to us by God, we cannot then logically apply the opposite. If God claims to be light it would be false for us to then claim God is darkness, if God claims to be love it would be a false contradiction to say he represents indifference, if God claims to have a plan we cannot then say he is capricious and arbitrary—do you see a box forming?

Again, like God’s characteristics, we only dislike the box metaphor when we feel as if it is working against us. For example, we dislike gravity when we are falling, we do not dislike gravity when it keeps our cars planted on the road while traveling 70mph. We dislike the rigidity of God’s truthfulness when he warns us against sinful behaviors, we rejoice in His truthfulness when we think of His love and mercy. As Christians, we should not confuse piety as meaning we must have a lack of confidence in God’s character and word anymore than we would fault a physicist for having confidence in gravity.

God has clearly revealed himself to us by sharing his characteristics and often doing so with anthropomorphic language to help us better understand. We should recognize that the box God is placed in, is a box of his own construction, and God stepped into the box. This point is most evidently seen when God the Son put on human flesh in the person we know as Jesus. We can have confidence in knowing Jesus is who he said he is because as Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.” We should have absolute confidence in Jesus because God has proven to be faithful, truthful, and powerful. As the Apostle Peter writes, “And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place.” We do not need to feign ignorance or worry that we are limiting God in some way by resting confidently in the description of God has used of Himself, preserved in his word. We ought to look at God’s revealed immutable character with either tremendous fear or a confident hope. Tremendous fear knowing all that God has promised will come to pass for those outside of Christ; confident hope knowing all that God has promised will come to pass for those in Christ.

God built the box so that we could know truth. God did not place himself in a box because it was necessary for him—he did it, because it was necessary for us.