Florida’s New Law Is Only Bad for People Who Believe Parents Have No Rights over Their Children
The law requires schools to provide parents with any and all information related to their child’s well-being, to protect students who may be in harm’s way at home, and to knock it off with the sex talk until at least the fourth grade.
“Queer” activist and Florida student Zander Moricz implored CNN’s audience on Friday to immediately take it upon themselves to read the new parental rights law that has caused so much heartburn among leftists. I can only guess that he’s banking on nobody actually doing it because he went on to mischaracterize all seven pages of the thing (with of course no pushback from the anchor).
“If you haven’t read the bill, go read it right now,” he said, “because the language of the legislation makes it so obvious that despite the title, this has nothing to do with empowering parents. This is about de-empowering and harming queer children.”
Let’s call his bluff!
The full text of the law can be read here in the same amount of time it takes to say “gender dysphoria,” but here are just a few key lines on what it directs public schools to do:
- “…adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being and the school’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the student.”
- “…not prohibit parents from accessing any of their student’s education and health records created, maintained, or used by the school district.”
- “…encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent.”
- “…notify parents of each healthcare service offered at their student’s school and the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service.”
In essence, the language affirms a parent’s right to control and be fully informed about the health and development of his or her child. That means if a school plans to give out hormone replacement drugs, they’re going to need parental consent (a radical concept, I know).
You Might also like
-
Hypocrisy and God’s Reputation
Our pride convinces us that God needs us to hide our sins, so as to not to bring shame upon Him. But He calls us to bring it out into the light, denounce it, be ashamed of it so that by His mercy our shame might be turned into the uplifted face of those who have received forgiveness. So then, we ought to be swift to confess our sins, so that by God’s grace we might be kept from presumptuous sins in order that we might not give way to great transgressions.
Hypocrisy is one of the most hated sins. There are Pride parades, Pro-Choice rallies, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and anxiety support groups. But you’ll have a hard time recruiting folks to show support for “Hypocrites Rights.”
Hypocrisy is, of course, claiming to hold up some virtue or set of virtues while secretly violating those virtues. Some examples come to mind. The pro-life politician who is exposed for making his mistress get an abortion.The Pastor using tithe dollars for secret trips to Vegas. The Instagram trad-wife whose perfectly curated online image doesn’t match her real life image of laziness in homemaking and bitter snappiness in mothering. All such hypocrites will soon find their secrets out in the open, and their hidden sins made public, and God will judge it.
But amongst Christians there is a silly but dangerous temptation when it comes to hypocrisy. We know how we ought to live and the standards we ought to uphold. And if we have sinned in some arena we are tempted to think we must protect God’s reputation by not confessing our sin, bringing it into the light, and making things right.
Read More
Related Posts: -
“The Meaning of Non-Binary Sexuality”
Written by Dr. Peter Jones |
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Queer theory is not just a case of free expression of physical desires. It is a Oneist worldview statement against God the Creator which will undermine our culture in profound ways. We can expect a totalitarian state opposed to God, determined to stamp out the truth. This is a homo-cosmology, a non-binary worldview based on sameness, and this has been the great cultural battle throughout history, not moralism but ontology.A Personal Introductory Word
In 2003, I felt constrained to leave seminary teaching in order to help churches and Christian individuals to understand what was going on in the culture and where such ideas would lead. Twenty years later, I still feel the urgency. truthXchange has recently expanded our reach by planning for the Irenaeus Institute, a place where young leaders can gather for fellowship and for intensive instruction to prepare them for their service to Christ in an increasingly dark culture. As we grow into tXc 2.0, having hired Jeffery Ventrella to grow the Institute, our message will be known in broader circles. I felt it was important to express the fundamental principles that define the work of truthXchange. Some of you will be thinking: “I think I’ve read this before!” but I hope that the following essay will strengthen your understanding of the Binary nature of our faith. There are only two religions: We worship God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), or we worship something created.
Non-Binary Homosexuality & Binary Heterosexuality
There is much confusion in our day regarding sexuality, both in the church and in the culture. Father James Martin, SJ, one of the attenders at the official Synod on Synodality (the meeting of all Catholic leaders now taking place over several years), affirms publicly that “we cannot deny the reality of same-sex relationships as integral to the meaning of the church as the People of God…Both heterosexual and homosexual people embody the truth of their dignity as imago Dei in their sexuality.” Alas, Rev. Martin has no biblical support and is only repeating exactly what Pope Francis is also saying about the issue, creating total confusion in the Catholic Church and causing some leaders in the church to wonder if Francis is a true pope.[1]
Christians, seeking to be biblical, must take up this controversial issue, though using great care. As we speak of homosexuality, we must avoid self-justifying moralism—“I’m good, you’re bad.” We must find a discourse that avoids emotionalism, hatred or bigotry. We need to give a holistic, respectful, worldview response, not a merely judgmental opinion, since sexuality is such a delicate and fundamental element in our personhood. We may not express any contempt for gay persons since they are all fellow human beings, made in God’s image. Literally, we must love our homosexual friends.
Worldview
It is essential that we present the issue in worldview terms. Indeed this is one way to love gender-questioning friends, namely to place our thinking in a worldview or cosmological context. One verse in the Bible describes in the largest (yet simplest) possible terms the notion of worldview. Paul’s statement in Romans 1:25 gives an amazingly short but complete description of the nature of existence:
They (the fallen human race) exchanged the truth about God for the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Theology and the Peace of the PCA: Lessons from John Webster
Written by Albert D. Taglieri |
Monday, July 4, 2022
Scripture is the source of the church’s life. The church does not precede Scripture but arises in response to Scripture. The church obeys and preaches the Scriptures, not judges them. While the church hears Scripture, Scripture stands in judgment over the church. If controversy is churchly, then it must be characterized by Scripture, for attention to Scripture defines the nature of church life.Introduction
Church meetings can be contentious. When controversial topics are up for it is worthwhile to reflect on an essay by John Webster contained in his book The Domain of the Word, entitled “Theology and The Peace Of The Church.”[1]
Webster consistently addressed topics by following the “material order” of theology: God in himself prior to God’s works. Here he moves starting from God through creation, redemption, church, theological reason, finally to controversy. This ensures that the nature and conduct of controversy is rightly understood by its place within God’s economy. The result is an extended theological meditation for approaching controversy.
I aim to highlight four lessons from Webster’s essay for consideration. First: Webster views peace primarily as an indicative reality, accomplished by God—not merely as an imperative. Second: Webster articulates a distinction between sinful anger and faithful zeal. Third: Webster distinguishes between controversy within the fellowship of the saints and sinful conflict. Fourth and finally: Webster emphasizes that Scripture is the rule of controversy.
In doing this, while I have my own perspectives on the various controversial topics, my goal is to avoid explicitly advocating any specific position—though I will use some of the topics for discussion. Rather, my goal is to use Webster as a source of reflection on the proper conduct of controversy.
Lesson 1: Peace as Indicative
Webster consistently emphasizes God’s sovereignty. The opening line illustrates: “in order to speak about conflict…theology must first speak about peace” (150). Why? Because peace is the condition, established by God, in which conflict occurs. It is therefore both real and primary. And it starts within God: “Theology must first speak about the God of peace” before it can speak of peace in creation which God establishes (150).
To explain the sovereign reality of God’s peace, Webster tells us that “God is both pattern and principle of creaturely peace” (153). Many acknowledge that God is the pattern of peace, but we must recall that he is also the principle, or the ground and cause, of peace. To see him as merely an example which we must actuate is to follow Pelagianism, where Christ is merely an assistant to our efforts. But to see him as the principle of peace acknowledges the reality that God creates peace, and we do not achieve it by our efforts. Created peace flows out of the fullness of God’s own life: “his peace is neither enhanced by created peace nor diminished by its absence” (154).
If God creates peace, and it is therefore fundamental to the nature of the church, why do we see conflict? Because peace unfolds in creation: “God secures the peaceful movement of created being” towards perfection (156). Webster reminds us that God’s peace is eschatological – it is both already (real) and not yet (perfected). So when Col. 3:5 commands “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,” the precept “is directed, not to making peace real, but to making it visible” (159). Conflict is then merely “the lingering shadow which the rising sun has yet to chase away” (162). To truly know and see this reality requires us to acknowledge God’s work as primary, and ours as derivative.
So what bearing does this have for our conduct of theological controversy? It means that we may conduct controversy humbly and gently, even while passionately. The work of redemption does not hang on the outcome of our controversy. God’s action frees us from the responsibility (and stress) of guaranteeing a lack of conflict, as well as from guaranteeing perfection in the church. This actually enables us to more honestly approach disagreements. We don’t need to cover over disagreements for the sake of maintaining peace, because God’s peace is already real. Only by acknowledging and addressing disagreements can God’s peace truly be seen.
God’s peace in the church also gives us confidence. Controversy which is undertaken honestly, for “the furtherance of communion, not its erosion” trusts God to settle disagreements (168). In this, all parties to a conflict can acknowledge that they are seeking obedience to God and peace with each other: even as that requires that God move them to repentance. This position and intention is not victory at any costs, but rather obedience and love, preventing “self-conceit, mutual provocation and envy” (169). Controversy is no place for pride or achievement, but a place for repentance. It is not a place for self-justification, but for obedience. God has spoken. Controversy listens.
Lesson 2: The Character of Zeal
Much of Webster’s essay is taken up with the previous theme. But as one of the final movements in his argument, he includes a discussion of the proper attitude for theological controversy. Who is the peaceful theologian? Out of inner peace (derived from Christ’s rule in the heart), the theologian is not disturbed or agitated by his conversation partners. The contrast between anger and zeal explains this. Evil anger follows the passions – it is moved by one’s opponent and reactive. Zeal “is cooler and more objective,” even while an intense and deep spirit of opposition to evil (167).
Zeal can be corrupted by either deficiency or excess. Deficiency in zeal is “indifference, weariness” which leads the church into error (167). It too easily declares a false peace by finding points of unity. But this is a self-established peace, not a God-established one—and a minimalistic one at that. Zeal requires controversy to occur, that God’s truth may be obeyed.
Zeal in excess however, is also dangerous. It too quickly becomes unrighteous anger. Zeal may be tempered from excess by reinforcing the first theme: peace is from God. If it is accomplished by God, then zeal is not for making peace, but for showing peace. Webster prompts reflection by a helpful and thought-provoking, statement: “Zeal in a world in which God’s peaceful judgement is utterly real is a very different undertaking from zeal in a world where evil will not be stopped unless I shout it down” (168). By refusing to concretely define the difference, he invites us to ponder it with Scripture.
Zeal must not let divergences in opinion “become weapons of the will” which divide the unity of Christ (169). Zeal must start from the position of peace, and therefore must recognize that God’s peace is established not just between him and man, but also as “a society in which hostility is put to an end and peace is made” (157). Controversy is conducted within the fraternal love of the church.
Lesson 3: Controversy, not Conflict
This churchly nature of controversy is one main way in which Webster differentiates between “controversy” and “conflict,” which is a sinful fight for dominance over others. This theme comes into focus especially throughout Webster’s five rules “for edifying controversy” at the end of his essay (168). In fact, the first four rules all in some way highlight this churchly nature of controversy.
Perhaps the most important thing to be kept in mind about the churchly nature of controversy is Webster’s third rule, which distinguishes “divergence of opinion” from “divergence of will” (169). Are there “fundamental divergences about the Gospel” at stake in the controversy? The situation is either within the church, or a disagreement concerning what the church is. Only in the latter situation, where there are such “fundamental divergences about the Gospel” does controversy leave the bonds of a united will (169).
This provides an easy temptation in two ways though. Certainly, some issues in current controversies can be seen as affecting the Gospel. Does the divergence on the issue of sanctification and homosexuality constitute such an issue? Or is there a more moderate diagnosis whereby a “fundamental divergence” can be distinguished from what is correctible error? Certainly none of us is perfect, and this is a question that must be decided by every member of the controversy. The temptation to over-diagnose an error into a charge of heresy must be combatted. So must (and oftentimes more) the temptation to under-diagnose an error. Surely the principles of Presbyterianism, while allowing certain latitudes, are not in any way “latitudinarian.”
Perhaps a few questions about divergences can help to illuminate the nature of certain controversies. First: how is the Gospel articulated? And then, secondly: how is obedience to the Gospel instructed in pastoral counsel? A difference in articulation is no doubt cause for concern. But our sin often implies our failure to practice what we preach. Thus, agreement in articulation might camouflage a practical difference. Since divergence is not only in opinion, but may also be in will, the second question further illuminates divergences. What pastoral counsel is given, that characterizes the shape of obedience to the Gospel? Is it pastoral counsel which declares the perfection of God’s redemption, and exhorts trusting him alone in faithful use of his means of grace? Or is it pastoral counsel which declares a possible redemption, and encourages a routine of works and achievement, looking to works as the sign of acceptability before God?
While this may not be a total divergence in will, there is no doubt that it tends towards one. The question of sanctification is certainly important, and requires characterization. But there should be no doubt that some other questions, such as the composition of the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), do not even approach being divergences about the Gospel—even while remaining important questions. It is less a matter of what obedience is, than it is about the precise manner which best actualizes such (agreed upon) obedience.
One final thing may be mentioned under this heading:
If controversy is within the church, then this shapes church discipline as controversy. Discipline is not to be regarded as an evil process. Too often, instead of distinguishing between controversy (good and rightly conducted) and conflict (the evil corruption of controversy), we are prone to view discipline as a “necessary evil.” But if it is necessary, it cannot be evil because evil can never be necessary. Conflict is sin, but controversy is the right response to sin’s presence and work. Discipline’s reality is not necessarily a pronouncement of sin on anyone involved. It is the context in which such a judgment, as to whether or not there is sin, may be made in obedience to Scripture.
Lesson 4: The Rule of Controversy
Webster’s final rule follows from the previous themes. Controversy is ruled by Scripture. He challenges the church of today: “Once confidence in the power of Scripture to determine matters in the church is lost, the politics of the saints quickly slides into agonistic practices in which we expect no divine comfort or direction” (170).
One may see a similar principle in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”[2]
The Scripture is God’s instrument of revelation and rule. Because God’s peace is the primary reality, it is only seen and actualized by attention to his Word. This attention is given by submission to Scripture. Controversy can only make God’s peace visible if it is focused on hearing and obeying Scripture.
The Scripture is what zeal loves. Zeal does not respond to offense, nor even to error considered in itself. Zeal responds only from love of Scripture, which grounds it. Zeal does not guard my own position or rightness. It guards obedience and submission to God’s Word. And so, when in controversy, zeal focuses on Scripture instead of on persons or secular philosophies.
Finally, Scripture is the source of the church’s life. The church does not precede Scripture but arises in response to Scripture. The church obeys and preaches the Scriptures, not judges them. While the church hears Scripture, Scripture stands in judgment over the church. If controversy is churchly, then it must be characterized by Scripture, for attention to Scripture defines the nature of church life.
Conclusion
God is the God of peace. Let us give attention to him and his work above our own, trusting him to resolve our controversies by listening to his Word alone in conducting them.
Albert D. Taglieri is a member of Reformed Presbyterian Church of San Antonio.
[1] John Webster, “Theology and the peace of the church” in The Domain of the Word, 150-170. Further citations from this essay use parenthetical page numbers.
[2] WCF 1.10
Related Posts: