Coach Fired after Saying Males and Females Are Biologically Different
Bloch contends in his lawsuit that Sousa’s actions against him were unfair and did not follow constitutional procedures, including those required in school policy. His lawsuit also asserts that school policies censor speech. Bloch said the lawsuit is a “very uncomfortable process,” but he wants to help other educators feel free to speak without fear of losing their jobs.
David Bloch, head coach of a Vermont high school snowboarding team, told two students on his team a scientific fact: that males and females have different physical characteristics based on their DNA. One day later, the school district superintendent fired him, accusing him of engaging in gender identity harassment that violated school policies.
On July 17, attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on Bloch’s behalf. Bloch wants reinstatement in his job as head coach of the snowboarding team he founded in 2011 at Woodstock Union High School in Woodstock, Vt.
Bloch also asked the court to rule that the laws, policies, and actions of the Windsor Central Supervisory Union school district, the Vermont Principals’ Association, and the Vermont Agency of Education violated his constitutional rights.
Bloch alleged that the school district fired him as retaliation for expressing personal beliefs about differences between males and females. The school district had never reprimanded or disciplined him before, and he had never received a complaint. As a devout Roman Catholic, he believes God creates males and females with immutable sex characteristics determined by their chromosomes.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Christianity Can Be the Safest Space for Truth-Seeking Intellectuals
There are few safe havens for thoughtful people in today’s world; few forums where curious folks and creative thinkers feel comfortable enough voicing certain questions or contrarian thoughts. Church, let’s seize this opportunity, inviting our secular neighbors into what once was, and can be again, the world’s most electrifying intellectual community.
Free thinking, fearlessly open dialogue, a willingness to voice unpopular ideas: these are increasingly endangered species in a society ever more surveilled by Orwellian thought police. A new, fundamentalistic secular religion has emerged, with tenets that demand total adherence. To question the logic of any aspect of this secular creed—for example, a statement like “transgender women are women”—is to be branded a hateful heretic. Books that logically challenge prevailing orthodoxies are being banned by Amazon. There are countless more examples.
You know it’s bad when atheist hero Richard Dawkins is disowned by an atheist organization (which explicitly defines its purpose as including advocacy for “freethinkers”) over a tweet where he (very cogently) questioned the new orthodoxy on transgenderism. Rather than engaging Dawkins’s entirely reasonable tweet on its own terms, the American Humanist Association saw it as grounds for retroactive cancellation. Nothing says “advocacy for freethinkers” like canceling someone for a thought that goes against the grain.
In a strange twist, Christianity—long accused of being narrow-minded, anti-intellectual, and afraid of difficult questions—has the potential to fill a growing void in Western culture. In a world where we increasingly walk on eggshells—unsure when, if, and how we’re allowed to speak publicly on contested issues—Christianity can become a grace-filled haven for curious questioners, doubting dissidents, and anyone seeking truth in a world where partisan narratives take precedence.
In short, Christianity has an opportunity to again become the most fertile intellectual ground—as it was for most of the last 2,000 years (until fairly recently). Why? Because a truly fruitful intellectual culture must be built on unshakeable, transcendent foundations—which Christianity has in God’s Word. Without this, all discourse about “truth” is arbitrary and devolves into power struggles. All claims become mere ammo for inflicting injury on one identity or another, rather than bricks for building in a shared intellectual project.
Scriptural Foundation Should Inspire Intellectual Curiosity
The secular approach to discourse results only in deconstruction—as we’re seeing. With no ability to gain consensus on truth, secularism can only cancel, condemn, ban, silence. It’s fundamentally destructive. But the Christian approach can be constructive because there’s a solid foundation on which to build. This is why, in my “Wisdom Pyramid” rubric, Scripture is the foundation. God’s infallible Word functions both as a horizontal, “solid ground” foundation and as vertical scaffolding, keeping the structures above it rightly ordered. We can build knowledge using all sorts of materials—books, the arts, nature/science, reason, community, lived experience—but none of it will be structurally sound, in the end, unless it is built on an unshakable foundation.
God’s objective, transcendent, true-for-everyone Truth is not a constricting, check-your-brain-at-the-door truth. It’s a liberating, world-expanding, galvanizing, purposeful truth that gives a common vocabulary and telos for intellectual pursuits. As Jesus says, it’s the truth that “will set you free” (John 8:32). This liberating truth is what inspired the founding and flourishing of Oxford, Harvard, and most of the great universities. It’s the truth that undergirded the world-changing discoveries and revolutionary ideas of Johannes Kepler, Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, and many others. It’s the truth that, for countless artists, writers, and philosophers, provided life-giving illumination and impetus to explore.
As C. S. Lewis famously said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it, I see everything else.”
God’s Word is the settled truth that unsettles our intellectual complacency and compels us to plumb the world’s mysterious depths. It’s a framework through which we can read and study widely and know how to evaluate the relative merits of an idea. It gives us bearings to navigate a fallen world glutted with ideas—some true, some false—in a way that doesn’t turn into a nomadic, frustrating wander.
Challenges for the Church
In recent history, though, many Christians have failed to see Scripture as the catalyst it should be for profound intellectual energy and curiosity—and that’s a scandal.
Read More -
How the Happiness of Heaven Can Make Us Happy Here
Those who are in heaven have come out of great tribulation (Revelation 7:14). But the means of surviving to reach heaven is not their own innocence (for they needed washing), nor their own sufferings or works (for what made them white was “the blood of the Lamb”). It was by taking themselves only to Christ’s satisfaction that they attained this righteousness and the blessedness of heaven. Christ’s red blood can make blood-guilty souls white, it has such excellent virtue. While the rest of the world were worshipping idols, or following self-righteousness, these folk fled to Jesus Christ for refuge, and by His righteousness and satisfaction alone they are made white, pardoned of sin, and brought to heaven.
Their happiness in heaven is set out in these circumstances, or steps.
A Happy Place
They are “before the throne of God” and “in His temple” (verse 15). They begin to be in this place in His Church on earth, by fellowship in His ordinances. But their position there is completed in heaven this is completed, when they are presented before God’s throne in glory.
A Happy Activity
Their service and work, and the uninterruptedness of it, are happy. “They serve Him night and day” (verse 15), and have their place among the angels that stand by (Zechariah 3), freed from selfishness and the body of death. They are not doing this service by fits and starts, but constantly, like the priests who took turns to spend night and day in the temple (Psalm 134:1). This is a special part of their happiness – that the enmity which is in them now against the service of God, is then taken away, and their delight in His service is not marred. What a privilege they have! They need no priest, nor any intervening means to help them serve. What constancy they have! There is no intermission in their service, no whoring from God, but they do the will of God cheerfully and delightsomely.
A Happy Company
A third step of their happy condition is that they enjoy God’s company. “He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them” (verse 15). They are not at a distance from God, nor is He at a distance from them. He makes Himself familiarly known to them, and there is no intermission of their sense and joy in His presence. They do not have communion with God on and off, but He shall constantly and fully manifest Himself as dwelling in the same house with them, and they are in His company for ever.
A Happy Freedom
Another step of their happiness is that they have freedom from all crosses and natural defects and infirmities, and attacks from others. There is neither hunger nor thirst, nor scorching heat of the sun. That means no persecution, if we take it figuratively (as Matthew 13), or if we take it literally, no disturbance of the air or bad weather or anything hurtful to the body. Not only are there no sinful defects in heaven – there are no sinless defects either. Hunger, cold, weariness – there is nothing of that sort in heaven, nothing to temper their happiness or impair their blessedness, not the least upset from their natural infirmity internally, nor anything externally by annoyance of even the weather. -
“Presbyleaks” From a Business Analysis Perspective
From a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology. All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
In my day job I function in the role of a business analyst much of the time. Business analysis (BA) involves helping the business enable change by defining needs and recommending solutions that deliver value to its stakeholders. We employ many tools and techniques to make that happen, and we will frequently discover misalignment when examining stated goals and objectives and comparing them to actual practices.
I’d like to put on my BA hat to consider the so-called “Presbyleaks” (the release of the National Partnership documents) which occurred last year. Of particular interest is the characterization of the National Partnership (NP) by TE Kessler as quoted in the article by Travis Scott last November, The Big Leak, Part 1: [1]
This group exists as a way to resource one another. We want you to feel prepared for the Assembly and engaged in its work on the Presbytery level. This group does not tell you how to vote. Even if I/we make recommendations please remember that we are grateful for diversity. We are looking for unity, not uniformity. Being a part of the National Partnership means that you are committing to participation in the business of our denomination. We will be about the logistics of denominational health; we aren’t a visioning committee. The NP also creates a place to have a conversation in confidence; nothing here is reproduced and blogged or whatever. Our discussion boards are places to stretch and reason together. Please feel free to use them.
“I have said it before and I’ll say it again: the intent of confidentiality was always to protect those of you who felt you could not be as forthcoming in larger groups. I’ve always wanted the NP to be a place where you can seek advice with confidence that your questions weren’t being used to fuel blog posts. The lack of confidentiality makes no difference in what I share with you. Emails will say pretty much what they would have said.”
In the above we find the purpose, responsibility, and methodology of membership within the NP according to TE Kessler:Purpose: To resource one another, to prepare its members for effectiveness within their presbyteries and at GA. Being part of the NP necessitates participation in the business of the denomination, but the NP doesn’t exist to function as a voting bloc.
Responsibility: Participation in the “business” of the denomination, for its “health”.
Methodology: Confidentiality in order to maintain a safe space that facilitates frankness and free expression would otherwise be precluded in open groups, where men may “stretch and reason together”.Upon closer examination, we find several inherent contradictions in each of these, as well as conflicts with the proscribed practices and polity of the PCA (another task of BA: document analysis, the BCO in this case).
Let’s consider first the stated purpose. The emails reveal much organization and coordination for votes on overtures at GA, nominations for committees, and activities within Presbyteries[2]. Travis Scott even concedes the political nature of the activities of the NP in his article. So the stated purpose and the actual activity of the NP are misaligned, which raises the question of the accuracy of the stated purpose.
Training videos, seminars, and articles in public forums open to all interested parties would function as much better tools to equip individuals to serve effectively in the denomination rather than secret societies of email groups on a rather broad scale. The chosen method of selective “resourcing” betrays a suspicion and lack of trust, which precludes making such endeavors open for all: only the right people are to be resourced.
Second, consider the stated responsibility of each member in the NP: participation in the business of the denomination, for its health. The truth is that every officer in the PCA must vow to perform all the duties of his office, which includes participation in its courts. Qualifications for church office include familiarity and acceptance of PCA polity (BCO 21-4 & 21-5 for teaching elders (TEs), 24-6 for ruling elders (REs)). So any officer who engages in a secret society or group for the supposed purpose of doing the “business” of the church fails to understand the very nature of Presbyterian polity, and tacitly breaks his vows for ordination. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the PCA is explicitly stated to be a joint rather than a several power (BCO 1-5), and secret groups by their very nature constitute a breach of the PCA form of government.
Third, consider the stated methodology: confidentiality. The need for confidentiality usually arises when there are sensitive topics to be considered. We commonly see this in business settings where corporate concerns are meant to be kept from the competition, or where personal HR matters are discussed. In the case of the NP, however, the premise for confidentiality is for the sake of personal growth and development, where its members may “stretch and reason together” without having to worry about being taken out of context and without having to deal with slander by outsiders (whether inside the church or not). But in light of the purported purpose and responsibility of NP members, how is it possible that REs and TEs in particular are afraid to own the truth of their convictions?
It seems incredulous that men who, in the case of TEs, have completed college and seminary, been examined by presbytery prior to being ordained and installed as church officers, men who regularly teach and preach the truth, giving correction to those who err (a requirement for the office), how is it that they of all people need a safe space to share what they really believe and think in order to “stretch and reason together”?
In my day job as a business analyst one of the ground rules we often employ in group meetings is called “stand your ground.” This ground rule sets the expectation that participants in the meeting will own their ideas and share them in the meeting to improve productivity, as opposed to leaving the meeting and telling everyone afterwards that it was a total waste of time. The courts of the church are supposed to be the space of deliberation and discussion, where men own their ideas and the church as a whole votes on them. Men serving as TEs and REs must not be shrinking violets who are afraid to stand for the truth as they understand it for fear of opposition. Nor should they be too proud to be open to instruction, even publicly. Our Lord has a word or two to say about those who are ashamed of Him and His words in this present age (Luke 9:26).
What’s more, confidentiality and large numbers tend to be mutually exclusive, and practically a fool’s errand. The more individuals who are in on a secret, the more likely it is to be leaked. As cited above, TE Kessler has stated that any lack of confidentiality would make no difference in what was shared in the emails. If that is the case, why the need for an exclusive email group in the first place, apart from fear of being challenged or ridiculed? The truth will stand up to scrutiny, whereas error and subterfuge will not.
So from a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology. All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
Nathan Bowers is a member of First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ft. Oglethorpe, Ga.
[1] Travis Scott, The Big Leak, Pt. 1, https://www.semperref.org/articles/the-big-leak-pt-1?fbclid=IwAR2ymcY18V8sn1A64M8u6e0RN6G5ix9PAAWajpWPr2YADqqrQbFZMqh0vvI accessed Jan. 22, 2022.
[2] Al Taglieri, National Partnership Called to Repentance, https://theaquilareport.com/national-partnership-called-to-repentance/, accessed Jan. 22, 2022.