Religiously conservative American Christians suffer from a sabotaging flaw. That flaw is described as sabotaging rather than fatal because that flaw won't threaten the faith of the believer directly. However, it will undo our ability to carry out the Great Commission. And without carrying out the Great Commission, the Church gradually dies from attrition.
That flaw is easily demonstrated in R. Scott Clark's (click here for a short bio) recent blogpost entitled The Tyranny Of The New State-Religion Incoherence (click here for the article). His article laments the firing of Virginia public school teacher for not using the proper gender pronouns as requested by a student in gender transition. To Clark, this is an open-and-shut case of the rejection of objective truth by those who wish to force teachers to adhere to the gender desired pronouns of those in transition rather than letting those teachers refer to students by gender pronouns based on biological facts. Clark regards the required pronouns to be based on irrationality for those suffering from gender dysphoria while the latter is described as being rational because the pronouns fit what can be observed.
Unfortunately for Clark, neither all cultures, and culture includes religion, nor do all scientists, at least many who are members of the AMA agree with him. As for the view of gender by some Native American tribes is that of recognizing 3 to 4 different genders. Those genders included feminine males and masculine females. And, again, since cultural values are influenced by religion, then, if we are going to recognize freedom of religion, we have to recognize this expanded view of genders acknowledged by some Native American tribes. And all of that conflicts with the open-and-shut case presented by Clark.
But furthermore, many scientists have been advocating for the use of gender preferred pronouns as determined by the individual, especially those who suffer from gender dysphoria (click here). Furthermore, there are mixed results as to whether one's gender identity is the result of genetics (click here and there and there again). We should note that the three cited articles recognize that gender identity relies on many factors and a couple of those articles state that gender identity may not be as static as Clark believes it to be.
Now while Clark would be standing on solid ground if he were to base his binary view of gender identity solely on the Scriptures, he needs to cite scientists, and not just simple observation that assumes one genitals are the sole factor in determining gender identity, who objectively support his approach. His neglect of citing scientists is the weakness of his argument since he is championing the objective approach to determining gender by appealing to biology. For the scientific approach says that both the causes for gender identity are too complicated and that we don't know enough to say.
With this article, Clark demonstrates a trait that all of us religiously conservative Christians have: our insularity and self-righteousness makes us unaware of how we come across to unbelievers. To us, the world is simple and that emboldens us to look down on those who disagree as if they have lost all touch with reality. Our insularity, which is our tendency to circle the wagons as it pertains to reading about the world around us, reinforces our insularity and self-righteousness.
In addition, our mission of sharing the Gospel sometimes causes us to have a higher view of ourselves, as compared to others, than we should. And that reinforces our insularity.
I agree with Clark with how the Scriptures define gender. However, we should note that we share society with unbelievers. And either we look to share society with others as equals or, if we assume ourselves to be superior to unbelievers, we feel entitled to rule over unbelievers in society so we can better carry out the Great Commission. And if we are going to share society with others as equals and we wish to appeal to objectivity and science, then we we appeal to reason and science in order to prove what Clark has claimed. And Clark's failure to appeal to science and reason while assuming he did is his the major fault here. And that shows his lack of awareness for how he comes across.
No comments:
Post a Comment