Why Parents?

A question has been raised about parental rights in Alberta. 

I suppose it seems self evident that children should be under the authority of their parents. This would be necessary to have a society that can raise a wise, competent, moral generation to follow them. When questioned, I had to think about this for about 5 minutes before I was even able to formulate a response. It's such a basic (foundational) thing that we take it generally for granted.

First, some questions. Are children under their parents authority or their own? Are they actually autonomous, and parental authority is a kind of totalitarianism, imposed on them from birth? Or is it the schools that are in authority? Parents, governments or children - one of them is in charge.

The problem is that this position is spun as inclusive and compassionate, but I believe it is just the opposite. A child that is under his or her own authority is an orphan. A child that is under the authority of the government/school is, well, ummm... a communist youth?

So for a child's well being, they have been given parents - people who are their own flesh and blood, who have a bond and responsibility to raise them. (And may I add - this is why marriage, marred as it is, is so important for kids. Marriage creates the safety in which they can flourish - it provides what they need from both a mother and a father, two ingredients that prove statistically massive in predicting their success in life. Not a single mom, not a single dad, not two moms or two dads can ever replace a biological mother and father, bound in marriage for the good of each other and kids.)
This is the reason children absolutely do NOT have a right to privacy. Not because we want to deprive them, but because in giving them autonomy without giving them character we ARE depriving them. Many kids are suffering from just this sort of deprivation - the lack of parental involvement, which may explain why many parents aren't that bothered by this whole thing.

Parents should involved constantly with their kids daily lives - indeed, you cannot have responsibility over something or someone without knowing the most important details, and having a say. A parent is responsible and in authority because a parent is wiser than a child. Kids generally disagree at various points, every day, with this fact. And increasingly so as they get to be 12, 14, or 16. But at these crucial ages kids need parental involvement as much as ever. They need their parent to wisely tell them no (or yes) when every other kid's parent is saying yes (or saying nothing). No, you can't go to a keg party without adults present. No, you can't call in to work just cause you're tired. No, you can't watch Netflix downstairs alone with your girlfriend with the lights off. Yes, you must finish your homework before going out with your friends. I don't think I'm saying anything explosive here.

But if parents are needed for these basic things, how much more do they need them for the subtleties of navigating their sexuality! In saying this, I do not mean that all parents are involved in the right ways, or anything like that. It would seem most parents have become altogether shy about their involvement as the kids grow into teen years, and it is to the children's harm and sadness.

But this doesn't negate the point - parents should be the primary instructors of their children in all areas, including sexuality. Once again, if this is not true, then some other person or party will be. It will be the child, the government, or the internet.

What about homes that discourage their children from identifying as homosexual or transgender? Shouldn't the schools help the kids hide their true identity from their parents? No, they should not. This is once again, to usurp authority that is not theirs to take. It also assumes a particular view of sexuality - namely, that homosexual or transgender "identities" should be encouraged or accepted, not treated or corrected. I am not making any claims about that here at all - I am only pointing out that the common view assumes the right and proper nature of these "identities" - that they should be accepted and not corrected. And this is one of my main concerns - the government should not be forcing a particular view of these issues onto it's population. This is exactly what is happening here, when the government essentially claims to know better than a huge swathe of it's population. Do I disagree with the common sentiment? Of course I do. But even if you don't, we should both agree that these guidelines are a major step in the wrong direction.

Reflections on Christ in David's Friends

Some reflections on my reading this morning.

In 1 Samuel 19-21, Saul’s state of mind only grows worse as the story progresses. He becomes more desperate, enraged, mad.

There are two notes in the story that illustrate his state of mind. First, in chapter 19 Michal, David’s wife and Saul’s daughter, makes a ruse for David so he can escape from Saul. She attempts to deceive Saul’s messengers with a dummy in his bed. When this doesn’t work, Saul knows her plan. And what does he say? Basically, how could you let David go! You have betrayed me! Saul wishes that his own daughter would betray her husband to her mad father. He is indignant when she does not.

Second, Saul threatens his own son for the same reason. We see in chapter 20 that Jonathan does the same thing as Michal. He tells a lie to Saul to preserve David’s life. And once again, Saul knows it is a lie. And what is Saul’s response? “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman” - basically, you son of a bitch! - you have betrayed me to your own shame! And Saul, in famous form, chucks a spear at his own son but misses.

Of course, Jonathan delivers the inevitable news to David, that he must flee. And Jonathan maintains his honor in all of this.

It is clear to the reader that the shame is Saul’s alone. He is bent sideways with anger, with jealousy, likely with regret. Saul is in a pit of his own making, and he continues furiously shoveling his own grave with every decision that follows.

Questions raised: what type of fealty is owed to any ruler solely due to the rank? Are we to submit to evil requests by evil leaders?

Both Michal and Jonathan lie to the king, and it seems quite clear both are justified. It would seem that the moral equation favored saving David’s life with a lie, than submitting to the king at risk of his life.

Where is Jesus in this story?

David is clearly seen to be the Christ figure in most of his stories. Here as well, we can see how Jesus, like David was rejected and murderously pursued by those close to him. The difference is that, where David escaped, Christ did not. Jesus set his face towards the cross, submitting to death.

We see Christ figures in Jonathan and Michal as well.

Michal is a true spouse - she risks her life to save David’s. Christ, our true spouse, lays down all self interest for us.

Jonathan freely released his rights to the throne (consider - before David came along, Jonathan would have been the rightful heir! No small thing then, that Jonathan was such a selfless friend to the one taking his place). He freely risked his life to save David’s, and spoke truth to power despite the cost. Jesus, similarly released his rights to his throne so that he could exalt someone else - his people. He freely laid down his life for ours. Jesus spoke to truth to power, ending in his crucifixion.

Jesus, like David, received the anointing as king - God’s chosen One, yet had to walk through the valley of the shadow of death before receiving his kingdom and throne. He walked through the valley of the shadow of death, variously pursued by enemies; assaulted, betrayed or abandoned by friends (Judas, Peter, the other 10). He did it for me, so that when I walk through deep valleys, I would know that “thou art with me - your rod and your staff, they comfort me.” If Jesus has gone there first, then I know it is safe for me.

Sameism - The Worship of Radical Fairness

Same-ism is the disease creeping into people's thinking, into public discourse, especially through the means of "political correctness".

Same-ism is the resistance to any statement, any word, any organization, any law that recognizes real differences in people. It is the value of infinite fairness, perfectly level playing fields, elimination of any advantages whatsoever.

For example, secular egalitarianism (basically, liberal feminism) seeks to obliterate - or atleast ignore - all genuine differences between men and women.

Segregation of males and females in school activities, sports, olympic events, etc.
- on this note, I have in the past attempted to have a guys night, only to have several men simply bring their wives. The insinuated sentiment was that, "look, don't ask me to come unless girls can be included." So, there is no appropriate context for guys to be guys, do guy stuff, talk about guy things, without somehow sending a "you're not as good as us" message to all surrounding women?

Politically correct speech regarding race - there is almost no way to speak "correctly" about a person's country or culture of origin without somehow unfairly highlighting a difference between your culture and theirs. Therefore we see the ever evolving PC terminology of Indian, then Native, then Aboriginal, then First Nations and Indigenous, and so on. Of course, to even consider referring to someone as "white" or "black" or "Asian", etc. is beyond the pail. How could we be so hurtful in these using these offensive (if correctly descriptive) terms! The next thing you know, instead of asking someone if they are from China or Japan, we`ll be asking them, "Are you of eastern origin?", not willing to say what is obvious from their physical appearance.

"You can't just ask someone why they're white!" 10 points if you can guess the movie reference.

Physical appearance in general is a touchy subject. You've all had that situation where you're trying to describe someone to a group of people. And you could just so "he's the large black fellow over there", we choose terms that are less descriptive like "middle aged, jovial looking, the guy next to the soda fountain." I am not saying we should refer to people as pejoratively as possible - not at all. I think we should hold our neighbor (that is, each person that we encounter) in higher honor than ourselves. But we do not hold someone in high honor simply by ignoring who they actually are.

And of course, in the end, the nuclear obliteration of any real differences means that of course, we all deserve to be treated the same since we are the same.
So, men should be able to have breast implants and use the woman`s washroom. And woman should be able to enlist for the army, and be sent to the front lines of battle. And rich business men should pay 80% in taxes so that they'll be more like the poor men who are biding their time on government aid.

Leveling real differences leads to a rejection of personal responsibility. The overweight person begins to think the government owes them liposuction and six pack ab transplants, instead of thinking they should really get a gym membership and a workout partner. The poor person thinks they deserve to have a decent paying job handed to them. The woman believes she deserves to be freed from the burden of her fertility and likewise, the man believes he should be unhinged from his burden of taking responsibility for his sexual choices. Rather, a just society would tell the woman to behave in accord with her fertility - in other words, don't have wonton sex with strangers, since you may end up having their child. Choose your partner carefully. To men, we would say that he should live as the man he has been created to be - an individual that takes responsibility for all his choices, and does not abandon the fruit of them - even if the fruit of his choices are children. Because all men are meant by their Creator to be protectors, providers and givers. Not assailants, consumers, theives.

We should seek to treat people in accord with their nature. This is why we should not send women into combat, but we should send men. We should not ask men to bear or nurse children - because there is an innate difference that prevents them from doing so.

A retort from a thinking person might be, "well, aren't YOU the one who is making sweeping generalities and eliminating true differences by lumping all men into one group, and women in another (or all people of a given race, or whatever the group in question is)." (this criticism could probably be leveled with a straight face, even if the generalizing statement were "all women have wombs")

My response would be, if we do not recognize genuine differences, generally speaking, we will be forced into banal individualism that secularism holds so dear. Each person can only be judged on their own individual preferences and personality. To quote a recent government brief, "an individual's self identification is the sole measure of gender identity" (or any other kind of identity) This is the spirit of the age - it seeks to level any God-given, inborn qualities like gender, physical make up, and country of origin, in favor of identifying factors like the things that you might list on your online dating profile - attracted to people of the same sex, or dog lover, or loves indie folk rock, lives on the west side, and so on. These are not factors that should ground your identity as a human. These are real features, no doubt. But what should we take to be foundational to us as human beings?

There is only one way to ground identity - to accept the identity given by the Creator. So, we then can accept that we are not all the same - we have been given real differences like height, muscle mass, gender, intelligence.

But there IS one feature that does radically bind us as people, and once again this is received from our Creator - it is His image on every bit of us. This is precisely what allows each of us to accept our real differences, learning to live with all the many things we cannot change about ourselves. 

If we do NOT recognize the Imago Dei as grounding our identity, then we most certainly will look for identity in passing, insignificant or even sinful things.

This is why I do not tell my son you can be anything you want to be. That is not a message of empowerment - it is a message of bondage to desire, personal inclination and personal choice. Were he to believe it, his life would be spent trying to find himself. Rather, I tell him that God has made you to become a good, strong man. There are differences in men, but there are also guideposts. He does not need me to tell him to search for his radical uniqueness, but to bring his gifts, personality and desires under the Lordship of Jesus, seeking the sort of manhood that his Heavenly Father has bestowed upon him.

The Parental Aspirations of the Government

If you live in Alberta, you have probably heard of the NDP government's school diversity bill (Bill 10). It outlines guidelines whereby schools must provide safe spaces for students of "diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions." You can see the whole document here.

There are lots of troubling elements to the guidelines, and these have been thoroughly discussed in various articles, on social media, etc.. 

Some of the main concerns:

• "Self-identification is the sole measure of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” The problems with this can hardly be explored in a simple blog post. There are simply no parameters whatever placed on this open statement. Total sovereignty of the self, subject to no authority and no reason.
• males identifying as female students, can enter female locker room and bathroom facilities (and vice versa, although no one is nearly so concerned about girls entering the boys bathroom, for obvious reasons)
• the discouragement of gender segregated activities, seeing them as divisive and potentially alienating

The disrespect of a girl's right to privacy in bathrooms or change facilities has probably received the most air play. But in my opinion, it isn't the most crucial section of the guidelines.

The two most important issues are these:

1. Under these guidelines, a student who is mired in a state of confusion, experiencing conflicting emotions and thoughts about their own gender, can not expect to receive ANY outside help. From page 5 of the guidelines: “No student or family should be referred to programs which purport to ‘fix,’ ‘change’ or ‘repair’ a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” 

We can compare this condition to any number of mental disorders, where a person believes one set of facts about themselves, but those facts disagree with their physical make up. Examples would be anorexia - the belief that you are overweight, even when starving or body dismorphic disorder - a pyschological disorder in which a person becomes obsessed with imaginary defects in their appearance. 

These are both disorders that bear parallel features to gender dysphoria, where a person strongly believes or feels that something with their body is not right, or does not match the person they believe they are.

A fact that you will not hear in the mainstream media: this condition is a treatable one, and the young people that experience it have a high degree of recovering a cohesive body/mind identity. In fact, even without treatment, many people who experience report recovering a cohesive identity over time.

Included in the guidelines is this statement: "Staff (must) have access to information about available community resources and expertise. When needed, they can help a student (or the student’s family) identify and access relevant and appropriate resources and supports beyond the school. No student or family should be referred to programs which purport to ‘fix,’ ‘change’ or ‘repair’ a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression." 

The government has apparently discovered (not sure when or how) that, "ta da", it's actually NOT a problem! It should be affirmed rather than treated, so students are told to just embrace it, and teachers are told to affirm it.

To quote one article, "What is missing from the conversation about these laws is any sound legal or scientific basis for the proposed changes."

The entire article on the non-science of transgenderism (as a settled identity) can be found here. 

2. The second major issue is that the parent is summarily shoved aside in favor of the government's wisdom and values. Allow me to quote from a letter to a friend, Josh, from his MLA (Shaye Anderson, Leduc-Beaumont) in response to Josh's letter of concern.

"What our guidelines have identified is that not all students are not supported in their homes when it comes to their expressed gender identity... schools can be the place where students struggling at home can feel safe. It's our legal responsibility to support them as best we can."

Right, this is all a legal concern.

From the guidelines themselves: “In keeping with the principles of self-identification, it is important to: … [have] a student’s explicit permission before disclosing information related to the student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression to peers, parents, guardians or other adults in their lives.” (page 6) 

To quote from ARPA Canada - Opposing New Ministry of Education Guidelines:
"In other words, parents are only allowed to be informed about how their child decides to identify if the student gives permission to the school. The school (through the power of the State) now can interfere in the parent-child relationship, even without the parent’s knowledge or consent. This is a direct violation of parental authority."

Does anyone see the problem here? We are one step away from kids being confiscated from their homes because their parents have the audacity to say that if they were born a boy, then they are a boy. Perhaps some would say this is just being dramatic. And my question would simply be, should we wait until such things are actually happening to get all flustered? The government has stated, to it's citizens, that they know better than parents. They have taken a particular view of human nature and sexuality, and have stated their disapproval with parents who differ. 

The NDP aspire to be the parent you always wish you had. They are already the parent I wish we didn't have.

I hope to write some more thoughts on this later. I'm interested in hearing yours.

C.S Lewis, Reason, and Naturalism

This week, having found some time to get away, I have been listening to and reading some very interesting and engaging material. I want to note, before I continue about the material I've been taking in, one interesting thing. I can honestly say that reading heady philosophical literature, listening to debates, and thinking about arguments regarding the world, God and reason feel to me much like eating an ice cream cone or soaking in a warm bath. I find few things as invigorating and life giving. Those who know me can probably attest to this, either to their delight or chagrin. My wife would identify with the latter. But I can't help it.
Two thinkers have been filling my time this week, one who is current, and one from the last century. William Lane Craig is the first. He is perhaps the most well spoken Christian thinker when it comes to arguments from reason for the existence of God, the resurrection, and many other things. Whether writing or speaking, he carefully and tactfully builds arguments from the ground of logic upwards, so that each point naturally follows each argument and evidence. I quite enjoy it. Check out his debate with Bart Ehrman on Youtube, where he lays out a mathmatical formula for the probability of any explanation for any given event or phenomenon - thereby forcefully arguing for the vaidity of Christ's resurrection. Check out reasonablefaith.org for more from him.
The second is C.S. Lewis. He was introduced to me when I was in perhaps grade 11, and I read Mere Christianity. The force of his reasoning, as well as his use of metaphors and language, was not only a new discovery at the time, but very transforming for me spiritually. I have come back to his work, both fictional and philosophical, periodically since that time. I have read perhaps half of his well known work, my favorite being perhaps The Great Divorce and Miracles, which I am reading now.
What inspired me to write at this moment was precisely the aforementioned Miracles, a treatise on the possibility for miracles in our world, and also the foundations of reason. I want to share some thoughts from the third chapter in particular, which I think our culture's thinkers need to seriously revisit in light of some frightening developments in modern science and philosophy. The chapter is called "The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist". Although written in 1946, it is very apropos.
"All possible knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning... Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true... A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished."
Why does this matter? Naturalism is the reigning worldview of modern science and culture. Yet the foundations for reason and science depend on this logical conclusion - that we can in fact coherently reach certain conclusions about nature, based on human reason. But naturalism holds that our brains, and our bodies, are simply part of the total whole.
"The mind, like every other particular thing and event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on of its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes and nothing more than that." Lewis goes on, "You cannot show that our processes of thought yield truth unless you are allowed to argue 'Because a thought is useful, therefore it must be (at least partly) true.' But this is itself an inference. If you trust it, you are once more assuming that very validity which you set out to prove."
He goes on to then tackle those who would say they really aren't interested in truth, just the well being and flourishing of human life. The paragraph here is good enough that I want to include all of it: "The real answer is that unless Naturalists put forward Naturalism as a true theory, we have of course no dispute with them. You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true.' I feel also that this surrender of the claim to truth has all the air of an expedient adopted at the last moment. If the Naturalists do not claim to know any truths, ought they not to have warned us rather earlier of the fact? For really from all the books they have written, in which the behavior of the remotest nebula, the shyest photon and the most prehistoric man are described, one would have got the idea that they were claiming to give a true account of real things. The fact surely is that they nearly always are claiming to do so. The claim is surrendered only when the question discussed in this chapter is pressed; and when the crisis is over the claim is tacitly resumed."
I am going to now go back to reading instead of writing. Hopefully you enjoyed these thoughts from myself and mostly C.S. Lewis.

The Answer

So it has been a while since my last entry. I have plunged into my busy season of life, which of course is summer. As soon as the weather heats up, window washing picks up where it left off, and my free time shrinks considerably. And there have been other things filling my schedule too.

This will be fairly brief. I want to write one thing I have been meditating on. It is from Watchman Nee's book, "The Normal Christian Life".
He says this: "God makes it quite clear in His Word that He has only one answer to every human need-His Son, Jesus Christ."
I wonder if we believe this, if I believe it. Or do we believe some hybrid of this, somewhat diluted? Do we perhaps relegate the gospel to dealing with "purely spiritual matters", the stuff that is between me and God, as if there were any other kind of matter at all. No, this is true. But I know I for one sometimes don't live or act like it.
I come back to this passage alot, but I believe it contains the essential truth of the gospel.
Isaiah 55:2:
Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.

The point is this: God is the highest desire of every righteous person, of every upright heart, of everyone who has come to a clear valuation of things. Anyone that has begun to see reality as it really is will begin to understand their need for God, and they will also understand that He is in fact what they want above all else. They will understand that every beautiful and desirable thing in this world is only of value if it serves to point us to our Creator. They will understand that despite the world's best efforts to substitute every created thing for god, there is only one God, one Creator, lover, healer, and Savior of our souls, and only One worth our total affection.

Kids

There is a metaphor that has been developing for the past 3 and a half years in my life. It is having children. I remember clearly the weeks following the birth of my first daughter Makenna. The thought swept over me continually that God's love was similar in some ways to my love for my daughter. Though she was small and helpless, I saw infinite value and worth in her. And I loved her long before she could love me. Those are things I have heard before, being raised in the church. Yeah yeah, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. But having a daughter took that truth from my head to my heart.
In more recent days, there have been other ways God has spoken to me through my children. Such as the fact that as I write this, my 3 year old is begging me to do something fun. So I must take a break. Bye!
Ok, so where was I...
There is something our parents tell us when we are growing up, although no kid likes hearing it. "I just want what is best for you." That is of course the reason for missing out on so much fun. But as a parent you sincerely want your kids to understand what you mean - why sometimes they cannot have what they want, something very good in itself. Like cake. Or seeing a friend. Or having a snack. Or why they cannot have something that is in fact inately harmful, although they cannot understand that either.
I was thinking this week that life is so much about our perspective. A toddler has the perspective that they are the only really important person in the world. A teenager, having moved through a few phases of life, develops an idea that although they are not the only person that matters, they are the only person with a clue. Their parents are outdated and unfair. Then, you become a parent. And you realize that in each stage of life, we lack the true perspective on our own life, although it is easy to have a proper perspective on, say, my little brother's life.
As our character matures - if it does and is - then the only proper perspective to have is one of humility regarding our own life. We realize with each step, as I am realizing in my life, how little we know, and how much we do not.
So that leads me to wondering if I am paralleling my children's immaturity, but in more subtle ways. I wonder if, as God leads me through different challenges, and calls me to new things, I am acting like a child, resisting His efforts to bless and grow me.
My littlest daughter is 1. She has begun to assert herself very strongly when she wants something. We insist that she uses her limited words or signs to "ask" for something, rather than screaming for it. It is easy to see that such a habit and skill - that is, graciously and humbly relating to others - will serve her well in life. More than that, she will learn to be gracious to us and to God, and view everything as a gift, nothing deserved. But she cannot possibly understand all of what it means to ask politely, or to say thank you. Those are still a means to an end.
I wonder if, in my tough situations, whether God would rather have me seek to hone my own attitude and character than look to fix the problem. Not that the problem is good in itself, but it will be truly of no good if I cannot adopt God's perspective on it in the process. So, it is not that my daughter should not have food when she is hungry, but that if in her hunger she never learns to be gracious in the asking and recieving, the food will only feed her body, not her soul.
"Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?" Matthew 6:25