Skip to main content

The Absurdity of Self-Identification and Public Education

    Forget about bathrooms.  Forget about LGBT and all that.  What we are dealing with now is a plague of self-identification, as evident by the number of memes satirizing the concept.  We're taking the whole "I think, therefore, I am" thing to places Descartes never imagined.  To say that we're bordering on the absurd is an understatement.  We've crossed the border.  We're officially residents in the land of absurdity!

    Allow me to offer an illustration.  There are laws in basically every political subdivision of this country against impersonating a police officer.  If I can simply identify as whatever I please, why is that the case?  Can't I simply self-identify as a police officer?  I dare you to try.  You'll find your rear end parked in a jail cell so fast you're eyes will spin.  Why?  Because reality.  Because we live in a world where natural laws are constant and things that are true are really true.  Two plus two equals to and so on and so forth.  If you haven't proven yourself qualified to be a cop, and if you haven't been sworn in as a cop, you are not a cop.  It is an objective reality.  Again, try performing surgery in your garage and see how long that lasts.  You can't just call yourself a doctor.  You actually have to have studied and proven that you are qualified to be a medical doctor.  It is a great irony that our government requires standards and licensing (many times unnecessarily) for so many different professions, yet allows (encourages is a better word) self-identification in the realm of gender.

    Why has this issue blown up so much?  We all know it's because the liberals want to be viewed as progressive and LGBT friendly, and the LGBT movement is ideologically unwilling to stop at tolerance.  No, they want to cram their ideals down our throats.  At the end of the day your gender is no more fluid than whether you are a police officer or a medical doctor.  This goes beyond gender though.  This goes beyond sexuality and the state of our legal system.  This is a national crisis of truth.  This political climate in which we find ourselves is a natural outworking of the "truth is relative" teaching that several generations have now received in the government education system. Don't think that this has been accidental.  It has been an intentional degradation of our Christian moral heritage.  John Dewey, widely considered the father of progressive education, hated Christianity, particularly the distinction that it made between "sheep and goats."  The educational system he helped to establish in our country has done a pretty good job of relativizing not only morality, but truth itself.  You can choose your gender in the same way that you can choose what you want to believe.  It's all relative.  If it's true for you, then that's fine.  I'll have my truth and you have yours.  You can choose your religion, sexuality, and now your gender.  There's no higher authority or standard by which to determine if your truth is true.

    So, we can argue till we're blue in the face about gay marriage, bathroom use, and other political issues, but don't expect it to be successful.  Those engaged in the debate speak different languages, philosophically speaking.  All these incidentals are just symptoms of the ideological unraveling of our nation.  Until we return to a place where truth and morality are objective, based not upon the whims of creatures but upon the revelation of man, we'll continue our descent into absurdity.

   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...