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.