fbpx
Articles

Why a 7 year-old boy’s “gender transition” is sparking national outrage

Injustice in the name of tolerance

/
October 24, 2019

An equally heartbreaking and morally revolting story is happening in Texas, where a court has severed the custody of a father from his 7-year-old son in order to allow the mother to oversee the child’s transition to living as a girl. The boy’s father is objecting to the child’s transition, believing that the child is being manipulated by his mother. In severing the father’s custody, the state is giving the green light to allow this young boy’s mother to begin more invasive transition services.

The state is depriving a father of his God-given right to protect the innocence and dignity of his son by subjecting him to the whims of politically-conditioned medical practices orchestrated by his physician mother. And the state supposes it is doing this in the name of justice, compassion, and in the child’s best interest. But any action by the state which jeopardizes the long-term well-being of a child can never be just. It can never be compassionate. And for this to occur in an ostensibly conservative context like Texas is all the more concerning.

There is real harm being threatened in this situation. Transgender medicine is contested, polititiczed, and in large part, experimental. Honest journalism and honest medical professionals will admit as such. But if you dare express dissent from the orthodoxy of gender denialists, you are retaliated against.

Thankfully, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, stated on his twitter feed that he is having the attorney general’s office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective services investigate.

When we abandon biblical morality

This situation is not just about gender because our debates about gender are wrapped up in a larger vortex of mass delusion that follows from jettisoning a moral foundation based on biblical morality. 

As a society, we’re told that we govern society around certain ideals like justice, equality, and liberty. But as this story demonstrates, the effects of sin lead to competing definitions of what these terms even mean. Chemically castrating a child who does not have the cognitive maturity to understand the gravity of his actions is not a condition of justice and liberty; it is a perversion of it.

This is a form of abuse. And those are terms that ought not be trotted out casually. But when certain circumstances arise that offend the conscience with such palpable resolve like this one, let us name this situation for what it is: Child abuse under the guise of tolerance and politicized medicine.

 As an image-bearer of God, humanity has a divine obligation to carry out God’s purpose for humanity in the world. God’s divine purpose for humanity encompasses matters of sexuality, gender, and personality.  

A time for drawing a line is the sand is now, because it won’t stop here. If this ruling is allowed to stand, you can be sure that progressives will see this as a confidence boost to an ever-growing proliferation of gender subversion and gender madness. And additionally, it puts parental rights on the chopping block as the next casualty of the sexual revolution. As we’re seeing, the state growing supposedly more “tolerant” is at the same time jeopardizing the ability of parents to object to controversial medicine.

From the perspective of Christian ethics 

What can be said about this situation from the perspective of Christian ethics? Too much for only one article. But at least one essential comment is worth making, and that is to focus on the utter futility of actions like “gender transitions.” There is no such thing. A person may undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to shape or augment his or her body to a desired appearance, but that will not and cannot change the underlying composition of the design stamped on it by his or her Creator. 

Humanity is the creation of the Creator God. As a created being, humanity’s ontology and teleology are divinely fixed by God who created humanity in his image. Unlike God, humanity does not possess self-existence, but is dependent upon God. Human identity, thus, is rooted in being an image-bearer of God. As an image-bearer of God, humanity has a divine obligation to carry out God’s purpose for humanity in the world. God’s divine purpose for humanity encompasses matters of sexuality, gender, and personality. 

This means a biblical view of what defines a man and woman must be defined according to God’s design in creation: A man and woman are image-bearers of God whose biological design is oriented to fulfill a creational mandate of subduing creation by his and her covenantal marriage union with their sexual counterpart. This definition applies to the unmarried, too, because a man or woman’s reproductive organs are built toward a particular purpose—reproduction—regardless of whether every man or woman actually reproduces.

We do not determine what is male or female by psychology alone, or appearance alone. The pattern of the Creator beckons that all of these realities are an integrated whole enveloped by a biological reality.

When basic categories essential to a civilization’s survival—like the definition of man and woman—are contested as they are, we are not in a place of civilizational health.

Andrew T. Walker

Andrew T. Walker is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Fellow with The Ethics and Public Policy Center. Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24