The Only Alternative Is To

Will be reviewing an article written by Carl Trueman (click here for info on Trueman) on his reaction to the Bostock Supreme Court decision regarding discrimination at the workplace. This article was posted in the First Things website which is a conservative Catholic website that posts writings from Conservative Catholic thinkers and even from some non Catholics (click here for the article).

Now usually I respond to Trueman's articles in the comments section which is provided--or I should say was provided. Unfortunately, First Things has gone the way of many conservative blogs by removing its comments section for blog articles. This is an unfortunate trend since it reinforces the perception that conservatives are often authoritarian and cannot tolerate dissent.

Anyway, the Bostock decision ruled that an employee could not be dismissed from one's job because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This has upset Trueman who has written quite a few articles on sexual issues in society and its culture.

One would think that it is only fair that employees could not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity. But Trueman doesn't see it that way because it means that things aren't what they use to be. That our society and its culture have finally rejected what the Scriptures say about sexual orientation and gender identity. For if society accepted what the Scriptures said, then the laws for society would reflect it. Remember that Trueman is reacting to a SCOTUS decision here, not just a cultural trend.

But his objections go on past what is stated above. For what Trueman does not like about the Bostock decision is that it reinforces the belief in the 'autonomous self.' Then he quotes a line from a book by Catholic Theologian Douglas Farrow:

The autonomous will really has no choice but to attack the body as well as the mind. For the body is the most obvious locus of the given, the most stubborn impediment to the power claimed by the will.

Trueman follows that by saying: 'Transgenderism is the logical outcome of all this.'

The trouble is that Trueman's claim is made from a philosophically deductive approach. Not that there is anything wrong with making philosophical deductions, nothing wrong at all. The problem is that when philosophical deductions are not met by the facts on the ground, they prove themselves to be meaningless.

What do we know about the causes for gender dysphoria that we could automatically assume that responding to that dysphoria with a change in gender is one attacking one's self?

But there are other issues here besides LGBT issues and the results of the Sexual Revolution--another favorite target of Trueman. Those issues include a concern over the 1st Amendment with its affirmation of religious freedom. Those issues include a concern with how we Christians should share society with unbelievers. Those issues include a concern with how much our laws for society should be guided by the Scriptures. And last, but not least, those issues include a concern with what do we want to associate with the Gospel.

When we oppose a SCOTUS ruling that protects people from discrimination, what do we Christians think we are associating with the Gospel? Can't we both preach against what the Scriptures call sexual immorality and the modern view of gender identity and still oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity at the workplace?

Unfortunately, Trueman writes an inordinate number of articles on sexual issues that often focus on LGBT issues and what he thinks is a toxic effect that the LGBT community and the Sexual Revolution have on society. And this is most unfortunate. For while Trueman seems to be writing in order to promote conformity in society, he has demonstrated the ability to be an independent thinker. He has offered some brilliant Biblical insights when interpreting the Scriptures. He has the kind of talent that we need in the Church to address societal issues. But unfortunately, what appears to drive his writings about some issues is a desire to establish a significant degree of Christian control over society and its laws.

The only alternative to the SCOTUS decision that Trueman opposes is the imposition of Christian views and rules on society. And the biggest objection to that is not when that imposition will stop. The biggest objection is whether we have the right to impose our Christian views on unbelievers in society regarding individual moral issues. For while we can preach against the autonomous self, do we have the right to legislate against it?