Randal Rauser's Blog, page 89

Some Thoughts on the Bennett/Lee Dialogue on Gay Christianity

These brief ruminations are offered in response to the latest episode of Unbelievable featuring a dialogue between David Bennett and Justin Lee. Bennett and Lee are both gay, but Bennett insists that celibacy is the only morally acceptable option for the gay Christian while Lee insists that the gay Christian can pursue monogamous samesex relationships.

First, I appreciate Bennett’s eloquent defense of the cruciform nature of Christian discipleship. There is no doubt that celibacy is a daunting call for most people, but gay Christians are not the only people who face it. For example, consider the man whose wife suffers a debilitating stroke on their honeymoon, one which leaves her permanently disabled. We would not consider the man now exempted from his wedding vows even though he finds himself facing a life deprived of the emotional, intellectual, and physical intimacy of another person. People face the challenging call of Christian discipleship in many ways, and the life of celibacy for the gay Christian is but one of them.

Second, I appreciate Lee pushing back with the example of the intersex person. Bennett appears to take the position that the intersex person should be deprived of a marital relationship because their genitalia and/or genetics fail to conform to the binary categories of heteronormativity. But one must wonder about the logic here. The fact is that scriptural writers never addressed the question of intersex identity. And that raises a significant question about how we should think about the issue.

Would Bennett be fine with an intersex person marrying if their parents had undertaken aggressive surgery in their infancy to construct the genitals they lacked? If so, then why should that surgery be the moral requirement for entering into the sexual intimacy of marriage?

Finally, I appreciated the irenic way that each side shared his perspective. It was an open exchange free of the judgment and finger wagging that often derails dialogue on these contentious ethical issues.

The post Some Thoughts on the Bennett/Lee Dialogue on Gay Christianity appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Does inerrancy apply to the human authors of the Bible?

This morning I posted a tweet on inerrancy which prompted a reply from the philosopher Paul Franks. I thought it was an interesting Twitter exchange and worth repeating here. After compiling our tweets, I’m a bit surprised at how long it is too. I have not bothered to flag or correct the typos that appear in both our tweets. (Such is the nature of a Twitter exchange.)

And so, without further ado, my exchange with Paul Franks on inerrancy.

RR: If the Bible is inerrant, as I believe, it is inerrant qua the divine meaning behind the statements of the biblical texts and that meaning may differ significantly from the meaning of the original human author and/or redactor(s).

PF: So it’s inerrant, but we have way of knowing what ‘it’ is?

RR: Did you mean to say that “we have no way of knowing…?” If so, why would you think that follows?

PF: If you divorce divine intent from passages’ authorial intent, how would we ever know when the two align (or not)? Pick any passage, how do we know what the author wrote is what God meant?

RR: You think that if we are agostic on the question of whether the human author of Isaiah 53 was intending to refer to the messiah we cannot thereby have any reason to believe that the divine author of Isaiah 53 was intending to refer to the messiah?

PF: In that case, no because there are other passages supporting it. I just worry that driving a wedge between divine/author intent undercuts confidence that what we take the latter to have meant is also what the former meant.

RR: Okay, so your premise was false: hermeneutical chaos does not follow if we distinguish between human and divine authorial intent.

PF: Dual intent doesn’t concern me, saying inerrancy only applies to one of them does.

RR: Why? A few examples of human authorial belief:

Gen. 1:6-8: God created a hard firmament in the sky to hold up the waters above.
Ps. 137:9: the person who kills Babylonian babies is blessed.
Prov. 26:3: Poorly behaved animals/slaves should be beaten.

Without error qua human author?

PF: My view of inerrancy doesn’t require every statement to be without error, only what is being taught as true.

RR: How would you discern when something is being taught as true? And do you dispute that one or more of the examples I gave consists of something the human author is teaching as true?

PF: This is the role of hermeneutics. There will be some passages where some think P is being taught (Gen 1) and others disagree, but I don’t take that to be problematic.

RR: But you deny that the human author could’ve sought to teach p (e.g. there is a hard firmament in the sky, those who bash Babylonian babies really are blessed, that poorly behaved animals/slaves should be beaten) and been wrong? Why?

PF: Yes, I deny that. Why? Because I believe inerrancy of what is taught is true. I gather my take on it is just the standard understanding of the term. It’s, at least, how it’s understood in Tyndale’s statement of faith.

RR: The fact that this is (allegedly) the standard definition of the term is not a very good reason to think it is correct. What do you think these 3 passages are doing qua the human author, if not commending as true the sentiments expressed therein?

PF: Right. But my reasons aren’t just that it’s the standard account. I mention that so you can read my statements in light of the reasons for accepting the standard account provided in (seemingly) hundreds of books on the topic.

We exchanged a few more tweets but I can’t find them at the moment. Regardless, the exchange thus far illumined some important issues in inerrancy, hermeneutics, and epistemology.

The post Does inerrancy apply to the human authors of the Bible? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

In apologetics, the ability to debate is good, but the ability to listen is better

My exposure to apologetics began in the late 1980s when I was still in high school. That first wave came by way of Josh McDowell, John Warwick Montgomery, and Norman Geisler and focused on many of the occupations of Christian fundamentalism including the defense of a six-thousand year old earth and a global flood. On the latter point, I remember, for example, memorizing a list of factoids defending the claim that Noah’s ark was hidden in a glacier atop Mt. Ararat. (For a brief discussion of that ignominious chapter, see my book What’s So Confusing About Grace?).

By the mid-90s, my reading had shifted to scholars like William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, and as a result, my focus in terms of arguments had moved onto topics like the cosmological argument, historical resurrection, and the critique of naturalism.

But while my first decade of reading in apologetics saw a lot of change, one thing remained consistent: I always assumed that the ability to debate or argue is the summum bonum of apologetic skill. And so, I devoted most of my time to constructing arguments and anticipating rebuttals which I could then dispatch with power and efficiency.

I still think that the ability to debate is important for apologetics. But I now believe that it is superseded by another skill: the ability to listen. By listening, I mean not simply auditory recall, but the ability to be present when others share their views and to enter into the views they share in an attempt to understand them from the inside.

Why?

To begin with, listening leads to understanding. Too often, the consummate debater misses nuances in her interlocutor’s views because she has not taken the time truly to understand them. As a result, she instead ends up directing a battery of arguments at a position which may be some distance from her interlocutor’s actual views.

Shadow boxing with an imagined opponent is not simply a matter of time wasted: more fundamentally, it undermines trust that you have an open mind and are willing and able truly to listen to others. By contrast, carefully listening builds that trust by conveying the message (presumably a true message) that you are interested not simply in winning an argument but in coming to a deeper understanding of your interlocutor.

Finally, listening to another and establishing a bond of trust with them provide an excellent basis for you to share your views in kind. Ideally, the interlocutor will echo your behavior by lowering the rhetorical ramparts and seeking instead to understand your views as well.

In my experience, this dynamic of genuine listening and mutual sharing is far more productive of understanding and persuasion than the deft execution of a list of arguments. And so, while I continue to value the importance of careful reasoning (indeed, hopefully I’ve exemplified that virtue in this article), I nonetheless believe the best apologetics begins with listening.

The post In apologetics, the ability to debate is good, but the ability to listen is better appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Atheism and Christmas: An interview with Rick Marazzani

At the end of my book Is the Atheist My Neighbor? I offer Christians some practical tips for building bridges of hospitality with those from the atheist community. Among the suggestions, I propose a rather obvious one: get to know some atheists and take the time to learn their views.

In the spirit of that suggestion, and with the holiday season soon to be upon us, I thought this would be a great time to sit down for a conversation with an atheist who really loves Christmas. Rick Marazzani is the author of The Atheist Christmas Coloring Book which he describes as “a fun and creative way to share the joy with skeptics of all ages.” You can download the book for free at http://atheistchristmas.org/ or you can purchase a copy at Amazon.

RR: Rick, thanks for joining us for this discussion. Let’s start with a rather obvious question: what prompted you to invest a significant amount of time and effort in producing an atheist Christmas coloring book?

RM: Thanks Randal, I appreciate the invitation to chat. My family are freethinkers, and we are raising our kids as cradle atheists. No ghosts, or demons, gods, or angels except in fairy tales. But we love the spirit of Christmas. The sharing and joy and celebration are real and warm regardless of belief. Christmas seems bigger than one birth two millennia ago. It is celebrated around the world, in almost every culture, regardless of religion. It really unites people, where most religiosity divides. I wanted to explore this seeming contradiction: atheism and Christmas.

It was important for me to put it in rational and approachable terms. For myself, for my kids, and for others. A coloring book was the perfect medium.

Also the notion of a coloring book about atheism, and the mash up of atheists Christmas, jars people’s expectations. It is a power hook to get engage folks in the deep topic using a whimsical device. But at the end of the day it is cute and fun.

RR: Before we dive further into Christmas, I’d like to ask you about your commitment to raising your kids as “cradle atheists.” Personally, I respect that decision: as a general principle, it seems to me that parents have an obligation to raise their children to hold beliefs that they consider true and important. And that is as true of atheist parents as Christian ones.

That said, I often hear atheists express the position that it is wrong for Christians and other people of religious conviction to raise their children to hold their beliefs. Richard Dawkins, in particular, has been insistent on this point, even going to the point of suggesting that it constitutes a sort of abuse.

So what are your views? Do you agree with me that Christian parents have an obligation to inculcate beliefs that they hold to be true and important in their children? Or do you agree with Dawkins?

RM: To be clear, we are not imposing our beliefs on our kids. We do not believe. They were born atheists, as every baby is. We taught them to see the world as it is, using reason and logic to guide them. Their world is not haunted. If one of my kids wanted to believe in Bigfoot or Zeus or Ken Ham’s God, they would do so logically. Which is why they have not, and likely will not.

Teaching a child to deny reality is a dangerous foundation to build their lives. Religious parents should share their culture and traditions with their children. This is a reason we celebrate Christmas as a family in our home, it is a cultural festival. But imposing fear of the fantastic and mythological into a child’s reality could be at least manipulative and at most psychological torture.

Our family is good, and does good, based on objective moral principles. Do unto others, Non-aggression, and all that. The Golden Rule was not invented by Jesus.

RR: Okay, well I certainly don’t teach my child to deny reality. Rather, as I said, I teach my child reality as I understand it, as I assume, do you. I also teach my child to be aware of the fallibility borne of one’s perspective and individual biases, for these are cognitive limitations that beset us all. I can also assure you that there is no manipulative psychological torture in our household.

Now as regards Christmas, one thing I suspect many folks will be wondering is precisely what it means for you to celebrate this holiday. Obviously, for Christians Christmas is the celebration of the incarnate Son of God born to redeem creation. What would you view as the center of Christmas celebration?

RM:  I am glad your kids are not afraid of hellfire for not doing chores! Many people grow up living in fear of supernatural punishment for not eating their peas, or for masturbating, or being gay.

Regarding Christmas: Family is the center of the holiday for us. Christmas is not a dreary holiday, even though it occurs on the darkest night of the year. It is a celebration of life and hope with people you love. There has always been a Winter festival of some sort in Western Culture, dating back to prehistory. The thing most winter holidays have in common, from the ancient Winter Solstice holidays to most versions of the Christmas celebration, are celebrating peace, love, and joy. This is usually around family and friends and the return of the light after Solstice. I wish people Merry Christmas to share the same sentiments as a Christian: peace, love, joy.

RR: Well, that’s definitely the message that comes through the Atheist Christmas Coloring Book. It’s very well done: the rhymes are clever, and the illustrations are professional quality. And for parents who want to inculcate a naturalistic worldview in their children which is disparaging of religious perspectives (e.g. “A season for Love, Joy and Goodwill, Celebrate them without religion to shill.”), this is the book.

I was surprised, however, to find Bigfoot included. I was hoping, instead, for the Abominable Snow Monster of the North that was immortalized in the 1964 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer special. But then, I suspect that might constitute copyright infringement!

Speaking of which, growing up, that Christmas classic was one of my seasonal favorites. And that brings me to my final question. To get us in the seasonal spirit, could you could share your favorite Christmas memory?

RM: Thinking back through my process, I am sure I’d have weighed Yeti and Sasquatch as options. Indeed Sasquatch is funnier, but Bigfoot is more universal. The illustrator, Claire Viskova, is from Europe so she likely had the Abominable Snowman in mind. She definitely nailed the page for Krampus.

We had lots of family that lived around us in the Bay Area. Half of the family were of the Christmas Eve celebrating moiety, and our half did Christmas Day. I was told it was a regional Italian thing when you celebrated.  So we’d go to the Christmas Eve cousins on the 24th and have dinner and then they would open ALL their presents. Since we were Day-ers, me and my brother would only get to open one present, which would always be matching pajamas.

We’d go home and sleep (in matching pajamas) anticipating the morning. Then our house would have a big breakfast and open presents. The Eve cousins would wake up to stockings filled with oranges and toothbrushes, while we were starting our day of celebration.

RR: Nice! In fine German fashion, our family always opened gifts Christmas Eve and then my brother and I would stay up until 2 or 3 am playing with our new stuff like Atari video games and Hot wheels racing tracks. As a bonus, in the morning we’d get stockings stuffed with goodies like Lifesavers books and Uno playing cards. Good memories.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your project, Rick. Merry Christmas to you!

RM: Merry Christmas, Randal! May the Holiday Spirit warm the season for all: atheists, Christians, other religions. Peace, love, and joy.

The post Atheism and Christmas: An interview with Rick Marazzani appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Problem of Animal Suffering: An Atheist and Christian in Conversation

A couple of months ago, YouTuber SkyDive Phil invited me onto his popular channel for a discussion on a topic with which he is very familiar: the problem of animal suffering. In fact, I first became acquainted with Phil’s work when he appeared a few years ago on Unbelievable to debate that very topic with Christian philosopher Michael Murray. Phil has also been on Unbelievable to discuss the Big Bang and the multiverse. I was always impressed with Phil’s articulate approach to these fascinating issues, so I was more than happy to participate.

We recorded the show in early October and it was just uploaded to YouTube. Unfortunately, the WiFi in my office cut out early in the interview and so I moved to a classroom at the seminary to complete the interview/discussion. But other than that, things went very well!

The post The Problem of Animal Suffering: An Atheist and Christian in Conversation appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Transgender Hospitality Redux

In my article “Transgender Hospitality: A Response to James Anderson,” I defend the propriety of accommodating at least some of the requests of transgender people on the basis of hospitality. Anderson offered a couple replies but, unfortunately, then left the conversation with several of my rebuttals unaddressed. [Note: since posting this follow-up, Anderson has rejoined the conversation. Please see the discussion thread of the original article for his important contributions.]

However, Steve Hays of Triablogue did offer a response. I’ll quote the relevant passages and then offer my replies below.

“I doubt the transgendered are any one thing. Some people genuinely suffer from that psychotic disorder. Some impressionable people (mostly adolescent girls) have been swept up in a social contagion. In many cases, gender dysphoria naturally resolves itself. Some people are gaming the system. Claiming to be trans instantly elevates their social status.”

I have no problem, in principle, with these observations. All it would mean is that one should carefully evaluate which are the serious psychological cases where accommodation to the requested use of alternative pronouns, titles, and proper names would be justified for the sake of minimizing psychological harm.

“Sure, there are people with incurable conditions we need to accommodate. But the degree of accommodation varies. Take doping adolescent with puberty blockers. That does irreparable damage to their physical (and psychological) maturation. Adolescence is an irreversible phase in the life cycle. Not to mention sex change operations, which are even more harmful.”

Also true. A person can agree to the requested use of alternative pronouns, titles, and proper names without agreeing to support a person’s request for hormonal treatment or invasive surgery.

“A better comparison would be body dysmorphic disorder. Does Rauser think surgeons should amputate perfectly healthy, functional body parts to accommodate their delusion?”

In general, no, I do not. In fact, I’ve written an article on this, though at the moment I cannot find it. (Cut me some slack: I’ve got 2791 articles published on my blog and several hundred more written elsewhere. Sometimes you lose track…) In that article, I make exactly that point: those who support sex-reassignment surgery should consider whether they would support the surgical removal of an arm or one’s eyes if a person deeply desired to be armless or blind. If they would not, then they should reevaluate their support for sex-reassignment surgery.

Note, however, that I said, in general, I do not support this. That caveat is meant as a recognition that it is possible in principle that such radically invasive surgery could be justified on psychological therapeutic grounds.

To see why we can start with a non-controversial example. I submit that it is possible in principle that caregivers could be justified in providing plastic surgery for a bullied child with protruding (but otherwise healthy) ears.

Thus, we have at least one case where an invasive surgical or medical procedure of a physiologically healthy individual could be justified to reduce the psychological distress of the individual. The next question concerns what degree of invasive surgical and/or medical intervention could be justified as a means to reduce psychological distress. And until someone presents a persuasive argument on the limits of that kind of invasive action, I will retain my modest caveat.

I’ll conclude with an observation: when it comes to ethical analysis of difficult issues, it is crucial that we acquaint ourselves with the complexities of specific cases. With that in mind, I’d recommend this documentary titled Transgender Kids. At first blush, it might look like these are cases of radical liberal parents imposing their ideological confusions on their unsuspecting children. But if you take the time to hear these stories, you’ll discover it is a good deal more complicated than that. And in each case, you can ask yourself: how would I address the situation if my child were gender dysphoric in the manner and degree of these children?

The post Transgender Hospitality Redux appeared first on Randal Rauser.

In surprise settlement, United Church agrees it’s not actually a Christian church

Here is the first sentence in the American Humanist Association’s description of their organization:

“We strive to bring about a progressive society where being good without a god is an accepted and respected way to live life.” (source)

Like many secular and humanist groups, the AHA expects their secular celebrants to conduct humanist ceremonies which “express our positive, nontheistic philosophy of humanism instead of traditional faith.” (source)

[As an aside, a couple years ago I interviewed Galen Broaddus, a secular celebrant with CFI. You can read the interview here.]

The Christian Secular Celebrant?

Now imagine a secular celebrant named Gerta who ministers with the AHA. All is fine until one day when Gerta converts to Christianity. Awkward, right? Not for Gerta. She carries on with her duties, although now all references to the indomitable human spirit and the majestic reach of natural science are replaced with references to God and Jesus.

How long do you think it would be before Gerta would be shown the door? I mean, inclusivity is great and all, but you can’t very well have secular celebrants who represent your organization actively denying the fundamental raison d’etre for said organization.

One would think.

The Atheist Christian Minister

With that in mind, we can turn to a topic on which I wrote a series of articles 2-3 years ago: the status of atheist minister Gretta Vosper in the United Church of Canada (UCC), a historically Christian church. (See, for example, “Should Christian clergy be expected to believe that God exists?” and “Are Christian denominations permitted to expect theism of their ministers?“)

For the last three years, Vosper’s status as a minister in good standing within the UCC has been under debate. Just as the hypothetical Gerta in our AHA illustration came to reject the fundamental unifying principles of the AHA, so Gretta Vosper has long rejected the very existence of the triune God (or indeed, of any God) of Christian faith. What is more, she is not quiet about it. Instead, she has repeatedly expressed her own outright hostility toward historic Christian faith.

For example, in my article “The Ongoing Trials of the Minister Who Was an Atheist,” I quote Vosper as describing the Lord’s Prayer as irrelevant, a perspective that is made clear when she introduces it in services with this pandering preface:

“I would introduce it [the prayer] and invite people for whom the words had meaning to say them with me and then I started to introduce it saying, ‘Those for whom these words have meaning, I invite you to say them together, and those for whom they do not I invite you to think of you know, something that’s important to you.'” (source)

But Vosper was never content to quietly hold her personal convictions within the walls of her church. She has long been an evangelist for her atheism. The UCC could no longer ignore that evangelistic impulse when, in 2015, Vosper wrote an indignant open letter to Gary Paterson, the moderator of the UCC.

What had the UCC done that elicited Vosper’s atheistic ire? Believe it or not, the UCC had the gall to post a prayer to their website in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre of January 7, 2015. I mean, how dare a Christian church pray at a time of crisis, right?!

Here is an excerpt from Vosper’s indignant and very public reply to Paterson and the UCC:

“The prayer posted to the United Church’s web portal is one of the myriad responses and I appreciate that we chose to offer it in a timely manner. I question, however, the merit of such a response because it underscores one of the foundational beliefs that led to the horrific killing in Paris: the existence of a supernatural being whose purposes can be divined and which, once interpreted and without mercy, must be brought about within the human community in the name of that being. This belief has led to innumerable tragedies throughout the timeline of human history and will continue to do so until it fades from our ravaged memory. If we maintain that our moral framework is dependent upon that supernatural being, we allow others to make the same claim and must defend their right to do so even if their choices and acts are radically different from our own; we do not hold the right to parcel out divine authority only to those with whom we agree.

“I urge you to lead our church toward freedom from such idolatrous belief.” (source)

Did you catch that? Vosper, a nominally “Christian” minister, had the temerity to call belief in the Christian God (or indeed, any god) and prayer to that God in the wake of tragedy as idolatrous.

The UCC Welcomes Evangelistic Atheist/Anti-Theistic Ministers. But Christian Ministers? Not so much

That bizarre letter initiated a long and winding UCC inquiry into Vosper’s fitness to minister within the church, an inquiry that has just now concluded after close to four years. (I’m guessing it wouldn’t take quite as long for AHA to figure out that Gerta should be shown the door.)

Except, the UCC decided in a confidential settlement this past week that Vosper’s active and condescending hostility toward Christianity is perfectly fine for a Christian minister. The Toronto Star summarized the outcome in their article, “In surprise settlement, United Church agrees Toronto’s atheist minister can keep her job,” wherein they quote the Right Rev. Richard Bott, the current leader of the UCC:

“The dance between these core values [of faith in God and inclusivisty], how they interact with and inform each other, is one that we continue to explore as followers of Jesus and children of the creator.”

A dance! How nice! And inclusivity! Got it.

In other words, the UCC is inclusive of atheistic pastors who are actively opposed to orthodox Christianity.

But by the same token, they are not inclusive of Christian pastors who are actively opposed to the inclusion of atheistic pastors who are actively opposed to orthodox Christianity.

Inclusivity, it would seem, only goes so far.

The post In surprise settlement, United Church agrees it’s not actually a Christian church appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Arguments for and against God: A Christian and Atheist Discussion

Just this morning I was interviewed by atheist Tom Jump for his YouTube channel on the question of whether God exists. You can watch the exchange here:

The post Arguments for and against God: A Christian and Atheist Discussion appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Morally Indignant Humanists Take Aim at Operation Christmas Child

In this article, I’m going to offer a response to an article by Humanists UK which expresses opposition to the Samaritan’s Purse Operation Christmas Child (OCC) program. In the program, donors pack shoe boxes with gifts to be distributed to poor children around the world at Christmas.

I’ll be the first to admit that OCC is not perfect. (I’ve stated some of my concerns in this article). And I am personally not a big fan of Franklin Graham, the founder of Samaritan’s Purse (see here). But in this article, I’m going to focus on the primary concern of Humanists UK, namely that it is somehow unethical to distribute gifts with a positive Christian message to children.

Let’s begin with the article’s description of OCC practice:

“a scheme run by evangelical US Christian charity, Samaritan’s Purse, which has used donations from the public to promote religious literature and convert children to Christianity.”

Now as Christians I do think that we should be aware of the specific ethical issues with child evangelism (see here). Nonetheless, I don’t see anything unethical about distributing gifts to children while sharing with them a positive message of God’s love and care as embodied in the church. Needless to say, calling such actions a “scheme” (i.e. an underhanded plot) borders on the ridiculous.

As if that weren’t enough, the article goes on to quote Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy, Richy Thompson:

“It is absolutely appalling to target vulnerable children in the way this scheme does especially when, in many cases, these children have already suffered poverty, war, and other terrible tragedies.”

Let’s put this in perspective: a poor child who has suffered the trauma of war receives a shoebox with a stuffed animal, a toothbrush, a rubber ball, a toy car, and a simple pamphlet declaring God’s love for them.

By what metric should that action be considered “appalling”?

How about we turn things around? What if that child had received the same box but instead of declaring God’s love, the pamphlet relayed a simple message in keeping with the values of Humanists UK. Would Richy Thompson still be outraged? Would he still consider that an appalling act targeting vulnerable children?

I’m guessing … no.

Not surprisingly, OCC has addressed these kinds of concerns: here is a nuanced and thoughtful response from OCC Canada to the question: “Do you use the shoeboxes to coerce children and their families into Christianity?”

As for Humanists UK, my suggestion is that they recalibrate their offense-meter. The Christian church has done many things that provide a legitimate ground for moral offense, but packing Christmas boxes for children with a message of God’s love is not one of them.

The post Morally Indignant Humanists Take Aim at Operation Christmas Child appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Transgender Hospitality: A Response to James Anderson

This article is a response to James Anderson’s article “You Will Be Made to Lie.” I will assume the reader is familiar with Anderson’s article. And if you’re short on time, don’t worry: it should only take a couple minutes to read Anderson’s pithy article (literally, two minutes, tops).

Now for my response. And it would be good to start on a point of agreement: so I agree with Anderson that people who object to the use of pronouns that diverge from a person’s sex should not be compelled to do so.

However, I also have the following points of disagreement.

1 Dealing with or interacting with?

First, I’d like to offer a caution about Anderson’s description of the challenge as being “how to deal with people who claim to be transgender and ask us to use different names and pronouns to refer to them.” (emphasis added) While the phrase is technically appropriate — to deal with is to give attention to a problematic or challenging situation — I worry about the negative implicature that is typically associated with the phrase which is liable to frame personal interactions as a problem to be solved.

Consider the contrast between these two descriptions:

How do I deal with transgender people?
How should I interact with transgender people?

It seems to me that 2 removes the adversarial framing and thereby provides a more neutral, inviting, and hospitable basis for interaction, and for that reason, it is to be preferred.

2 Hospitality

This leads me to the second point: as I said, framing our social interaction with members of an outgroup in a neutral fashion allows for the question to be framed as a matter of hospitality. And in my view, that is precisely where it should be. Just as Paul actively sought to remove stumbling blocks whenever possible in his interactions with others (1 Cor. 9:19-23), so should we as well.

Could it be consistent with the desire to extend hospitality to people to accede to the requests of a gender dysphoric person? I believe so. For further discussion, see my article “What would Jesus say to Caitlyn Jenner?”

3 The Propriety of Coercion

Next, while (as I stated above), I take issue with those who seek to compel people to use pronouns that do not identify with one’s sex, I don’t share Anderson’s concern as captured in the Orwellian phrase “You will be made to care.” The reason is that we already widely recognize the general propriety of this kind of compulsion to hospitality.

Consider, for example, a policy that requires people to use the preferred title for female members of the community. Now imagine a male employee who insisted on only using titles for his female colleagues which reference their marital status (i.e. Mrs., Miss) even when they explicitly request that he instead use the neutral Ms. That man likely wouldn’t last long in that community and for understandable reasons: the good ole boys need to conform or move on.

Since people widely recognize the licitness of this kind of compulsion in principle, I simply do not share Anderson’s principled concern about being “made to care.”

4 Lying

Finally, I don’t agree with Anderson’s claim that being compelled to use a gendered term that does not match the individual’s birth sex is equivalent to compelling another person to lie. Clearly, there is no deception here, only an accommodation (whether of hospitality or compulsion) to a request.

Perhaps Anderson means “lie” in a broader metaphorical sense so that such use constitutes a betrayal of the person’s birth sex. However, given that I already think acceding to this request is a reasonable expression of Christian hospitality, I simply don’t share Anderson’s concerns here.

In conclusion, I do want to make clear that I also think hospitality goes both ways, and that’s a point I make in the article “Hospitality Is a Two-Way Street: Gender Pronouns and Welcome of the Other.”

The post Transgender Hospitality: A Response to James Anderson appeared first on Randal Rauser.