Discrimination and gender identity

Ok, I know this is not in line with my usual topics! But it is an important issue because it is central to human rights, education and especially to viewing others with compassion and love. Everyone bears the Imago Dei whether they realize it or not. So, in that sense, it is very important to talk about.

In the US there is debate in 2021 about new proposed legislation, commonly termed the "Equality Act". You may or may not agree with the premise and I don't dismiss your opinion. But it is also important to think and discuss such things beyond the political or economic implications in order to think more deeply about how such ideas are good (in the deepest sense) and how they contribute to or detract from human flourishing in a global and timeless, universal sense.

I read recently a piece by the Washington Post titled "Dozens of LGBTQ students at Christian colleges sue the U.S. Education Dept., hoping to pressure Equality Act negotiations". You can find it here. This article provides a perspective on a situation where those outside of a biblical worldview might respond with “How can Christians possibly think that discrimination against those in the LGBT community is right or acceptable?” And, speaking from a biblical worldview, I completely agree. But there are at least 2 serious incoherencies that the article is unable to identify.

The first is that the so-called Equality Act ("equality" is another topic for another day) is purported to be the best solution because it would restrict or terminate state funding for any universities which hold to a biblical and historical view of marriage and sexuality. But in fact it is not the best solution. No law will terminate discrimination nor will it give people new values or motivation for caring for others or valuing people for who they are. Laws do not change beliefs, they simply reflect the beliefs of those who vote for them. (They may not even do this well because people may be uninformed or deceived regarding the intent or outcome of the law.) Of course this does not excuse those who have been cruel or uncaring to these students who felt discriminated against in these universities! Very few will nor have excused their unkind words or unhelpful actions. But we have to ask ourselves, “Are there individuals who have been discriminated against because of their views on gender or sexuality at non-Christian universities? Was that discrimination a result of government funding or the written policies on behavior or dress codes at those universities? Would limiting or terminating state funding at state institutions solve these cases of discrimination?” The answers are obvious. So, the only possible and logical conclusion is that financial or legal punishment of a university for its standards of behavior and stated views on marriage and sexuality does not benefit anyone who claims to be discriminated against because of their sexual views.

The second is that the Equality Act creates new victims of those who are trying to be a blessing and support to current victims of a destructive social narrative and furthers the damage to those currently victimized by this destructive narrative. Is it true that a man can be a woman? Is it true that the very nature of my identity can and should be changed by social constructs or by how I feel about myself today? If so, then we are living in a social mirage where nothing is real or as it seems. Is it fair that those most vulnerable in our society, those suffering from gender dysphoria, children and teenagers, those suffering from sexual or emotional abuse resulting from dysfunctional family contexts should be lied to about the value and the nature of being human? Our value does not lie in our sexual orientation, what we do or how we think. Our value lies completely in being made by our Creator who loves us and made us for a purpose. When we attempt to destroy or redefine our identity, the image of God in us, it only results in tragedy, unrealistic expectations of ourselves and others and, eventually, self-loathing. It also promotes a society which does not value human life, does not value the mothers and fathers responsible for creating human life or value the children who are best able to flourish in a home with both a mother and a father who love them most and know them best.

There is another issue that is less important but no less valid. Consider for a moment my options when choosing a university or a coffee shop or an online vender. It might be wise for me to do some investigation to see if their values agree with mine or if they don't. If I plan to spend money, especially several thousand dollars at a university, I would want to know who is benefiting from my investment and the educational philosophy that guides their teachers and course content. If I don't agree with their values or don't want to advance their values with my hard-earned dollars, then I will choose somewhere else to spend my money. There is always another option! Let me be clear that I still am not condoning anyone's unkind or discriminatory actions or attitudes as individuals. But I am always discriminating against certain businesses or organizations because either I refuse to read their material, promote their ideas or buy their products. Is this wrong? Absolutely not. Did these students have a choice about where to go to school? They are free to choose just as they might choose to go to McDonalds or to Chick-fil-A. So I am a bit confused as to why, when they knew the values of their chosen institution, they are not abiding by the agreements they signed to honor those values before they spent their money there. This is similar to nearly every other case of supposed gender identity discrimination when trying to place blame on institutions and not on individuals.

Is it right to deny valid funding or accreditation status for those universities whose values and programs are in line with and serving the needs of thousands of students and American citizens? I don't believe so. All organizations have values and they are entitled to those values when they are not purposefully destructive, promoting hatred or violence against a group of people. When we assume that value statements promote hatred, we are actually doing ourselves a disservice by intentionally or unintentionally interpreting beliefs as aggressive when they simply define boundaries. When I say "You are not my wife" I mean this as a boundary which defines reality, not as an aggression against anyone who is not my wife. If they misinterpret this as hatred, the problem lies with them and not with me. Of course, truth can be communicated in unloving or harsh ways, but truth is always the most loving and helpful for us because it helps us truly understand ourselves and the world around us.

I am currently on the board of an international organization and helped to develop recent additions to their Statement of Values. All board members, staff and volunteers must sign off on this every year, which is a normal procedure to ensure that the values of the organization are understood and will guide beliefs and actions within the organization. I should also mention that this is an organization that serves the educational needs of Christian families in a global context, so everyone involved already has an understanding of these truths. Here are the 2 statements:

• The Bible upholds the value of the individual as well as biological gender, both male and female, as stewards of the image of God. We hold to the biblical and historical definitions of gender as essential to a healthy understanding of our God-given identity (Genesis 1:27).
• The biblical definition of marriage, exclusively between one man and one woman in a committed, lifelong relationship, is the only relationship within which the gift of sexual intimacy is properly expressed and where children are best nurtured and prepared for life (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6, Hebrews 13:4, Ephesians 6:1-4).

If you want a statement from me, I will provide it here. But I warn you that taking it out of context is lying to yourself and lying to others about what I have said. Here it is:

• I am unwilling to sign any document or knowingly support any project or organization that promotes the fallacy that men can be women or women can be men. I will not lie to myself, our society, our children or further complicate the suffering of those with true gender dysphoria by claiming otherwise.

One more thought for us. Relationships can be difficult, irregardless of our values. Christians are called to the 'ministry of reconciliation' as described in II Corinthians 5:17-20. This is not an easy calling but it is essential for me to understand this as it relates both to those within the church and outside of it. Sometimes reconciliation is really hard in my own house between my wife and me because we are so different but have most of the same values. Sometimes reconciliation is really hard with those who have no idea of their value in God's eyes because our values are so different. But working in both these settings and everything in between is a moment by moment task that brings glory to God and a deeper purpose to my life as a follower of Christ. "We love because He first loved us." (I John 4:19)

If you are interested, you can find a good article on other potential impacts of the Equality Act here.

Recognize and evaluate assumptions

 How do I recognize and evaluate my own assumptions?

This is a question which I believe has always been important but is becoming important in a new way now. Having worked in education now for so many years, the importance of critical thinking has continued to receive more attention. However, critical thinking in public conversation seems to be highjacked by a tendency to ignore our own assumptions and to devalue the thinking of others. This is sadly not accomplished by reasoned arguments but by emotional reactions and even attacks on the other's person or character. Unfortunately, this may be partly due to the social media phenomenon which moves us away from personal relationships and accountability where people would value the relationship as much as the content of the conversation.

Now, in order to evaluate my assumptions and the assumptions of others, we must learn to ask good questions. Here is one to begin with. Is critical thinking important? And, if true, is a growing ability to think critically necessary for everyone in a society? I don't want to make this assumption without a way to back it up, but I have found no valid rationale for answering these in the negative. Certainly there are differing values about education and beliefs about what type of education is important and who should be educated. But if a community values education for its members, and not simply a process of indoctrination and behavior modification, then critical thinking is an essential ingredient of that process. The elements of education would be to develop an understanding about how we learn, what is valuable to know or do and why those are valuable for the individual as well as the community. The product would then be a member of that community who understands the values of that community and is able to contribute in meaningful ways to improve and even to lead that community through its internal and external struggles and successes.

If we take a look at a particular example, we can see a deep divide between critical thinking and non-critical thinking in relation to assumptions. This example is taken from the Smithsonian Institution in its recent "guidelines for talking about race". You can read more in the Newsweek article, but I will not post the "guidelines" here. Go to https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333 My comments will deal with the "guidelines" themselves and not the article about the guidelines by Marina Watts. Note that these were later removed from the display.

After reading the content, my first questions should be "What are my assumptions about this information? and How do these assumptions impact how I read and interpret this information?" Only after doing this, can I begin to ask questions such as "What assumptions does this information make? Are these valid assumptions, providing proof of their validity? Why or why not?"

In a brief examination of my assumptions, I must recognize several things. First, I come from a background of European immigrants to the US around 1900 who worked hard to make a living and did not depend on a government or system to supply what they did not earn themselves. I also must recognize that my constant and intense exposure to the Bible has set a standard for my thinking about life which is not common to the majority of those in the US, although a biblical perspective has had a major impact on the structure of American society and government over the last 400 years. I must also recognize that my experiences and education, living extensive periods in 4 countries, an intercultural marriage, work in ministry and education and much more, gives me a different view of life than many of my peers with a European ancestry. I recognize that I am opposed to ideas which set one system of values above another simply because they come from a group that is different than me. I am also opposed to the idea that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any set of values makes that people group of less or more value. Finally, I am strongly in favor of the idea that when a group holds a particular set of values, those must still be questioned and never assumed to be "right". This is because I believe in a God who provides absolute standards against which all human values can be evaluated, not for the advantage of one group over another but for the blessing and benefit of all.

But now I will also need to evaluate the assumptions of the authors of these "guidelines" and possibly the assumptions of those in the Smithsonian Institute who allowed the publication of these "guidelines". I hope I am not too critical here, so I encourage you to evaluate my perspectives and share yours! We cannot learn and grow in our understanding if we are unwilling to consider other perspectives - especially of those who disagree with us!

Let me first examine the title. It reads "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States". So, the information which follows is ASSUMED to be authoritative and somewhat complete on the topic. In addition, since it is provided by the Smithsonian Institution, the reader would ASSUME that it is not only authoritative but historically accurate and based on quality testing and peer-review, otherwise it would have no place in an institution of such quality. But we can see from a cursory reading of the information that this is not the case, nor is any proof or reference to academic studies provided for our consideration. 

Actually, the title is quite confusing when we ask ourselves a simple question such as "Is the color of one's skin a major determining factor of their values and culture?" A simple study will show that values are determined by the family background, education, social structure and language of each person, not their skin color. We must also recognize that many values shift over time for both individuals and people groups. Further complicating the issue is the increasing multiculturalism and cross-cultural relationships within our society. If a person has a French father and Indian mother, their values will be different than a peer with a Nigerian father and German mother. Which of these 2 people is white? How has their "whiteness" impacted their values and culture? "Whiteness", if there is such a thing, has no significance here at all.

Another problem with this title is the phrase "in the United States". We would ASSUME that the author knows at least something about people of European ancestry currently living in the United States. But this is not evident in the document. The first clue is that the designation of "white culture" is used in place of a more descriptive and precise term such as "European culture". This would at least provide a distinction between the more individualistic values of western society from the more collectivist values of African, Asian or Middle Eastern societies. But, of course, there are varying degrees of so called "whiteness" in all of these societies and significant differences in values between each of the European countries (many of which do not match these "guidelines").

So, we already have many reasons to doubt the validity of the content. But when we take a look at the content itself, we begin to wonder "How could this serve to significantly describe any group based on color? and How could this provide a foundational context for talking about race?" The only possibility is if these guidelines somehow transcend skin color to describe a group of people (whether caucasian or not) and classify these values in a category called "whiteness". This begins to lose all meaning because it is really not about color at all but something else entirely. Another follow-up question might be "What is the motivation or agenda behind providing such misleading information?" Let me provide just one observation.

In the first category, rugged individualism, it is said that in white culture "individuals [are] assumed to be in control of their environment, 'you get what you deserve'". I would recognize that no one is fully in control of their own environment, even if they think they are. Our skin color has no influence on the actual control of our environment, but this is not really what is being communicated here. So what is the author trying to communicate? I believe the statement has more to do with how one interacts with their environment and the responsibility they might, or might not "own" in order to change their circumstances. If you feel you have no control over your level of education, your job prospects, your relationships, your personal contribution to society, then you are less likely to try to change it, believing that your actions will have no impact on the outcome. If you feel that your actions do have some impact or that the more effort you put into changing your circumstances, the more likely they are to change, then you are more likely to try. We can also examine the statement "you get what you deserve" and try to think of what other options there are to this perspective. Here are a few: "You don't get what you deserve. You get what you don't deserve. You don't get what you don't deserve". None of these statements are always true for any group of people or for any individual. There are statements that could be shown to be more true, such as "Many people get what they earn but few get what they deserve." Is this closer to a "white" assumption, as described by the author? I don't think so - this assumption still has nothing to do with the color of one's skin but rather on their family background and their perception of reality.

But all this begs the question, "What is the purpose of providing such misleading information?" This is much harder to evaluate without knowing the author, their background and their personal values. Without that information, we can easily move to more dangerous and uncertain conclusions. But I believe I am safe in assuming that there is a serious misunderstanding of how multiple cultures and value systems have contributed to American society and how all of us, from every background, have benefited from this blending and exchange of cultural ideas. We learn the most from those who are most different from us. It is not clear to me if the author is judging "white culture" as bad or good and maybe that is not the purpose of these "guidelines". However, I am making the assumption that whatever the author assumes "white culture" to be, its values are ASSUMED to be different than the values that are held by every "non-white culture" - whatever that means!

I might make some further assumptions in the form of questions, and these are a bit more disturbing. Who is the intended audience for these guidelines and why? Is it possible that the intent in these guidelines is to divide and alienate people of one skin color from another? Is it possible that the color of one's skin is so important that there are people who would reject the values others hold simply because they have a different skin color? What is the purpose of promoting any division between groups within a society except to gain political power or material advantage?

What are your assumptions regarding these "guidelines"? How does your background and experience influence those assumptions? Are you willing to evaluate your assumptions as they relate to this information? Why do you believe (or not believe) that this process of critical thinking is important in developing an understanding of our world and how we interact in our society?

Society - Haiti

As I consider the natural disaster in Haiti this month, several things come to mind. Most of the e-mails I have received focus on the desperation of the people without any means of helping or supporting themselves, the terrible loss of life (and miraculous rescues) and the huge response of the global community in sending food and help. There have also been reports of people arriving with nothing in their hands, expecting to help but becoming a burden to others because of their own need for food, water and shelter. Fewer e-mails speak of Haitians waiting quietly and patiently in a long line at a newly opened community water source, or large groups of homeless singing together from dusk to midnight to pass the hours of darkness.

The questions I've been asking are: If I have nothing in the world, what do I really need? And what are the steps to rebuilding a society with millions of people and no means of auto-sufficiency? Haiti has a population where the average person makes less than $3 per day and only 50% can read. To add to the difficulty of their current situation, about 300,000 orphans are now dependent upon what their society can provide until they are able to make their own living.

And the result? It's obvious that it will take between 3 and 6 years to restore what was their GNP, replace all the schools, homes and public buildings, and recreate a healthy and "normal" environment for Haitians in the Port-au-Prince area. But is that enough? I am not in favor of industrialization which creates new "needs" or dependencies, but there are basic societal improvements which lead to real positive development and an atmosphere of peace, security and confidence. Haiti is on record as one of the 2 poorest countries in the world. There are several causes for that but the primary ones are poor (and overpriced) education and a corrupt government that robs the people they are supposed to care for. Public education is mostly done in French, the official language, but 98% of the population speaks Creole every day. Can you imagine an educational career in a different language? The government initiated that travesty because the French had controlled Haiti from 1664 - 1804 and the language of the elite ruling class was French. Over the last 50 years 3 people have primarily controlled the country either as oppressive dictators or as greedy and embezzling presidents.

So one of the primary concerns for the establishment of a productive and peaceful society in Haiti is education. Not an education in French, not an education in modernism and liberalism with its accompanying dependence upon government, but a real and integrated education in Truth and in the God given rights and responsibilities of the individual and the family. With thousands of orphans and many more single parent families, the children and youth of Haiti need to know their individual value, their potential for life and learning, and their responsibility to be the future of their country, people with values and commitments and respect for others. They need to know how to read and write and use the resources of their beautiful country for the good of their community. Most of all they need to know how much their Creator loves them and about His unique purpose for each of them. So with millions of dollars pouring into Haiti, who is going to really do something of lasting value, something that will do more than just provide a few meals and some medicine? The great thing is that people are doing something! Anything, just to keep people alive, is far better than nothing at all but there is a long road ahead for the people of Haiti to have real hope for their future.

Fractured Education

One of my goals this summer is to catch up on the reading that I never can get to during the school year. Part of that, of course, is current events. It is amazing to see how inconsistent people can be in their ideas and it shows up at all levels of society. Probably it is related to pervasive postmodern culture which has no problem with conflicting "truths" all being true. The obvious result is, "If they conflict, then one is really very false or both are false!"

Take a look at this simple example in the area of education. An article in "Christian Today" talks about the debate in Germany over the possibility of allowing theological questions about the origin of the world into biology classes. An interesting issue, no doubt. The very nature of biology leads us to ask questions about origin; and the classroom is one important venue for the sharing of ideas in a free society, right? What really gets me though is a comment by a member of the Protestant Church's theology committee! He says, "Frau Wolff is ignoring the differences between natural sciences, religion and philosophy. That does not correspond to the Protestant view." What is that!? If he believes that God made the world and everything in it, then what exactly are those differences? It would be helpful to know what "differences" he refers to. Is it differences in fact or differences in method? Either way these fields of study, taken honestly, should cross paths periodically and support a cohesive view of the true human condition and the world we live in. Is it acceptable to say that God made us in religion class, that we are a product of chance in biology class, and that we "made" ourselves in philosophy class? That approach is part of what I call fractured education.

I'll leave the resolution of the issue to your own detailed research. But, take into account another little article from "The Christian Science Monitor" - a site I RARELY read! An article about a linguistic project talks about the probability of a common language root. Sound familiar? Take a peek at Genesis 11:1. Then there is a comment about human genetics tracing its ancestry "to as few as 1,000 individuals". The years may need some adjustment, but it is very interesting to see how science falls into line with biblical truth. Of course I don't want to "prove" the Bible through science, we must come to God in faith, but it supports the idea that fractured education is a worthless means of learning!