A biblical resource for pastors on gender and sexuality 
By / Oct 11

We live in an age experiencing the disastrous effects of the sexual revolution. Confusion over basic concepts such as man, woman, and marriage are but the latest divergence between a culture committed to radical individual autonomy and a church committed to Scripture’s teaching. Local congregations daily face questions of gender dysphoria, same-sex unions, and on basic concepts of what it means to be a man or woman. The ERLC seeks to come alongside and assist pastors and ministry leaders to answer those questions in light of Scripture’s clear teachings with resources like these and future projects.

Below, we have given a basic theological framework from God’s Word for approaching questions of gender and biological sex. Additionally, there are some practical guidelines for churches to consider in updating their bylaws to ensure that they are afforded as much protection as possible under the law. It is our hope that at both the theological and practical level this resource will be helpful to you as you serve your congregation. 

A theological framework of sex and gender

God created you. At its most basic level, the fact that we are created by God means that we are limited by the design that God has given us (Gen. 1). Recognizing that we are created by God means accepting that we do not have absolute control over our bodies and how they are to be used (Is. 29:16). They are to be used in accordance with God’s design and purpose. When we attempt to usurp God’s design, we repeat the sin of Adam and Eve who desired to be more than just “like God” but rather to become God (Gen. 3:5). Remembering that we are created and therefore finite grounds our theology of the body and gender (1 Pet. 1:24). 

God created you with a body. Contrary to popular understanding, our bodies are inseparable from who we are. We are not souls trapped in a body (1 Cor. 6:12-20). The Christian church has long understood and upheld the worth of the body, looking at both the creation account of Genesis where God declares the world good and the Incarnation of Christ where a perfect and holy God took on flesh and blood (John 1). As Christians, we must not fall for the lie of culture that our bodies are to be changed to meet our self-perception (2 Cor. 10:5).

God created humans male and female. In the opening pages of Genesis, the author tells us that humanity was created in God’s image and created male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). We often focus on the former, but the latter declaration is just as important. The author’s description is an acknowledgement of distinction and difference between the two. Men are not women, and women are not men. Yet, we should not overplay these differences in an unbiblical way because, as the next chapter reminds us, there is nothing more like man than woman (Gen. 2). Still, those differences are there and part of God’s design. Neither is more important or carries more of the image of God, and both are necessary to fulfill the command given to steward creation and multiply. As Christians, we recognize the ways that God has designed both men and women as distinct, yet equal expressions of humanity. 

God created male and female to complement one another. The opening pages of Scripture remind us that we are made in God’s image, and that men and women are to complement one another (Gen. 1:26-27). At its most basic level, this complementarity is revealed in biology: both man and woman are needed for sexual reproduction. It also reveals itself in a range of social and relational aspects (Eph. 5:21-33). At its core, complementarity glorifies God and is a reminder that we are created, finite beings who are unable to live in existence without others (Gen. 2:18). Though our current context seeks to blur the distinctions between men and women to the point that they are interchangeable, Christians recognize that each gender has something that is distinct and special. Neither can exist without the other (1 Cor. 11:11-12). 

The Fall affects how we perceive our bodies. The effects of sin have broken every part of creation. This includes our own self-perception and understanding (1 Pet. 1:14). The presence of disorders such as gender dysphoria (when a person’s perception of a mismatch between their gender and their body causes distress) is one example of the way sin has warped our understanding. Christians must recognize that sin is able to powerfully deceive, even to the point of thinking that bodily mutilation is the way toward happiness (Eph. 4:22). In contrast, Christians must offer a word of hope and a reminder that our bodies are good gifts given to us by God, not obstacles to be overcome. 

God meets those broken by the sexual revolution with compassion and grace. We are repeatedly reminded that God has compassion for those who have been broken by sin. The pages of Scripture are filled with the story of a God who cares for those who have been deceived, abused, and mistreated by society and culture (Jonn 4; John 11). Christians must recognize that the sexual revolution has been built upon empty promises. Many people have been (and will be) left hurt, confused, and at the end of their rope, looking for hope and answers: those who were deceived to think that casual sex was meaningless, our bodies could be changed as we saw fit, and that their gender was unimportant to who they were. The response of the church is to be the same as the response of Christ: “a bruised reed he will not break” (Matt. 12:20). We offer the same grace and compassion given to us and seek to restore those who have been broken by the lies of sin. 

COMING SOON: Downloadable, printable version of “A Theological Framework of Sex and Gender” for use in your church or ministry.

The importance of bylaws 

The ERLC worked with Alliance Defending Freedom to create a resource guide for churches to update their bylaws in light of challenges related to sexual orientation and gender identity lawsuits. Below are the five areas where churches can provide clear frameworks outlining their faith and religious convictions to protect themselves so that they can continue in ministry that is faithful to God’s Word and brings about gospel transformation. You can read the entire guide here.

Statement of Faith (p.5): The Statement of Faith should serve as an encapsulation of the foundational theology of the church or organization. In addition to the usual topic of salvation, doctrine of sin, or church polity, a statement of faith should include the position of the church related to matters of gender, sexuality, and marriage. Because these issues now regularly confront churches, it is imperative that churches and religious organizations clearly put forth their belief in marriage’s foundational role in society, that it is rightly restricted only to one man and one woman, and that gender identity flows from and is inextricably connected to biological sex. 

Religious Employment Criteria (p. 11): Churches and religious organizations should strongly consider creating a religious employment requirement for all employees so as to avail themselves of the full weight of First Amendment jurisprudence. Under the “ministerial exception” churches and religious institutions are able to take religious belief into consideration when hiring and firing without penalty under non-discrimination laws. By clearly defining roles according to their contribution to the organization’s religious mission, and having employees sign the statement of faith, they can protect themselves from legal challenges.  

Facility Use Policy (p. 14): A fear of many churches is that they may be required to grant use of their facilities to couples who may wish to use them for a wedding ceremony the church would not sanction or other events. In general, churches are free to grant access to their facilities as they wish because they are private property. However, they can further protect themselves by creating a clearly defined facility use policy that identifies the religious nature of the building and restricts use of the facility to those who act in accordance to your beliefs. 

Formal Membership Policy (p. 16): While many churches have an informal process of affirming or recognizing church membership, their legal protections are increased by formalizing the process. In ideal circumstances, their written process should cover the procedures for becoming a member, procedures for church discipline, and procedures for disfellowshipping or excommunicating a member. Each of these helps to provide a legal framework protecting the church and providing clarity to members of the expectations of membership and the processes that can be expected in times of discipline. This can be especially helpful if a member objects to the church’s implementation of disciplinary measures. 

Marriage Policy (p.18): In addition to the statement of faith which clearly outlines the church’s theology of marriage, churches should create a marriage policy which outlines the parameters under which pastors, ministers, or staff will solemnize a marriage. This marriage policy may include not only a statement on belief of marriage as between a biological man and woman, but also another statement on the use of the facility for marriage ceremonies. Additionally, churches may consider adding a provision that only members will be able to use the facilities to provide a further layer of protection if the church has a requirement that members affirm the church’s statement of faith. 

COMING SOON: Downloadable, printable version of “The Importance of Bylaws” for use in your church or ministry.

Resources

Articles

Books

Podcasts and Videos

CP giving tops $200 million, the HHS transgender rule, and DACA review
By / Oct 8

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss the incredible gift of the Cooperative Program topping $200 million. They also talk about the HHS transgender rule that would threaten religious liberty and discuss DACA being sent back to a lower court for review. 

ERLC Content

Culture

  • BP: National CP giving tops $200 million for first time since 2008
  • BP: HHS transgender rule threatens doctors’ religious liberty, ERLC letter says
  • NBC News: Appeals court sends DACA case back to lower court to review new Biden rule, temporarily protecting Dreamers
  • Aaron Judge hits 62nd home run. 

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Dobbs Resource Page | The release of the Dobbs decision marks a true turning point in the pro-life movement, a moment that Christians, advocates and many others have worked toward tirelessly for 50 years. Let us rejoice that we live in a nation where past injustices can still be corrected, as we also roll our sleeves up to save preborn lives, serve vulnerable mothers, and support families in our communities. To get more resources on this case, visit ERLC.com/Dobbs.
  • Sexual Ethics Resource Page | Do you ever feel overwhelmed by the constant stream of entertainment and messages that challenge the Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics? It often feels like we’re walking through uncharted terrority. But no matter what we face in our ever-shifting culture, God’s design for human sexuality has never changed. The ERLC’s new sexual ethics resource page is full of helpful articles, videos, and explainers that will equip you to navigate these important issues with truth and grace. Get these free resources at ERLC.com/sexualethics.

The disastrous moral harm of California’s transgender ‘refuge’ bill
By / Oct 6

On Sept. 28, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a controversial new bill designed to promote California as a place of “refuge” and sanctuary for those seeking gender-affirming care. This is in response to how many states have sought to ban these types of medical treatments for youth and to punish medical providers and/or parents who allow it. After signing the bill into law, Newsom touted the openness and inclusivity of Calfornia as he decried the 22 Republican-led states who are currently seeking to block gender-affirming care for youth and children as demonizing and promoting hate toward transgender youth.

This type of bill coming from one of the most populous and influential states in the union is deeply concerning and immoral, as it will lead to irreparable harm for children, youth, and their families. What’s being promoted is a false view of the self under the auspices of moral autonomy and freedom — especially toward children and youth — that is at odds with basic biological and moral realities.

What is State Bil 107?

According to Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who led the effort, State Bill 107 was designed to reaffirm California as “a leader in protecting the civil rights and basic dignity of LGBTQ people and will help trans kids and their parents have a safe place to go if they are threatened with prosecution or criminalization for being who they are and seeking the care they need.” The authors frame it as a response to mental health issues and suicide among transgender youth. The bill had 12 co-authors from across the California General Assembly and the State Senate and was also co-sponsored by Equality California, Planned Parenthood, TransFamily Support Services, and Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis.

Essentially, SB 107 blocks out-of-state attempts to penalize families who may come to California for gender-affirming treatment and care or who have already sought services from any legal consequences for their decisions. According to Wiener’s office, the bill has three main components:

  1. It prohibits the enforcement of a law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from their parent or guardian based on the parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming healthcare.
  1. It bars compliance in California with any out-of-state subpoena seeking health or other related information about people who come to California to receive gender-affirming care, if the subpoena relates to efforts to criminalize individuals or remove children from their homes for having received gender-affirming care.
  1. It prohibits law enforcement participation in the arrest or extradition of an individual that criminalizes allowing a person to receive or provide gender-affirming healthcare where that conduct is lawful in California and to the fullest extent permitted by federal law. It declares that it is California’s public policy that any out-of-state criminal arrest warrant for someone based on violating another state’s law against receiving gender-affirming care is the lowest priority for law enforcement in California.

Of note, the bill is centered around the autonomy of youth and children, as well as their parents, to seek gender-affirming care which includes hormone treatments, gender reassignment surgeries, and other types of care which affirm the choice of the individual to bodily and gender autonomy. SB 107 also adds a layer of data and medical privacy for individuals since it bars California from cooperating with out-of-state subpoenas if the subpoena is intended to bring charges against an individual seeking these types of treatments. This is similar to recent bills passed about data protection in light of renewed questions surrounding privacy as it relates to illegal abortion procedures. One important aspect of this bill is that a severability clause was added which ensures that if a court strikes down parts of the bill as unconstitutional, then the rest will remain enforceable. 

In remarks made upon the signing of the bill by Gov. Newsom, Wiener said “With SB 107 signed into law, California is forcefully pushing back against the anti-LGBTQ hatred spreading across parts of our nation. The rainbow wave is real, and it’s coming.” The bill has led to 19 other similar ‘refuge’ bills across states all designed to provide greater access to gender-affirming care and provide safe haven for those seeking these services. The bill will take effect on Jan. 1, 2023.

What is behind this bill?

While the stated aims of the bill are to provide a refuge from states who have banned or limited access to gender-affirming services and gender transition care, SB 107 is the latest push to normalize these types of services and offerings nationwide for those who identify as transgender and to codify various civil protections for the LGBTQ+ community. Given the size and influence of California, these types of bills will not stay isolated to the state. Oher states will use this as model legislation, as has happened with a host of other issues such as digital privacy and abortion.

This bill is also framed in light of a growing chorus of concern over the state of personal privacy and moral autonomy after the Dobbs decision issued earlier this summer by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the decision itself was limited to abortion in the majority opinion, some have sought to use this decision to push for a host of bills codifying rights to contraception and same-sex marriage. As I have argued previously, abortion as personal autonomy is the linchpin to the entire sexual revolution which is rooted in a false sense of radical individualism and moral autonomy.

This gender-affirming care bill comes on the heals of another highly controversial and politicized package of bills signed into law on Sept. 26, which promotes California as a similar type of sanctuary state and safe haven for abortions. The state also launched a website providing information about abortion services — including detailed information for out-of-state residents on how to obtain an abortion in Calfornia. The website declares that all people have a legal right to an abortion, regardless of what may be legal in their state of residence.

Newsom, who is up for reelection in November, has recently been behind a mass billboard campaign across California, and even in other states that seek to limit access to abortion, promoting abortion tourism to the state. The campaign promotes the message “Need an abortion? California is ready to help,” and goes as far to cite a Scripture reference about loving our neighbor as yourself in support of abortion. This campaign has also been expanded by Planned Parenthood to include transit hubs in California, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, and Maryland with the message promoting the state’s pro-abortion policies. 

What about parental rights?

One of the most controversial aspects of this bill, outside of promoting radical gender transition surgeries and treatments for youth and children, centers on the role of parents and doctors in these types of life-altering and often irreversible decisions. These treatments can include hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and surgeries that forever alter one’s body. Surgeries could include facial reconstruction, chest (top) surgeries in which healthy breast tissue is removed or augmentation/enhancements are made, and even genital (bottom) surgery where genitalia are transformed and reconstructed. Other care can include voice therapy and gender-affirming counseling.

In a letter on Sept. 29 to the state senate, Newsom wrote, “In California we believe in equality and acceptance. We believe that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted for getting the care they need—including gender-affirming care. Parents know what’s best for their kids, and they should be able to make decisions around the health of their children without fear. We must take a stand for parental choice.” Interestingly, some aspects of SB 107 do not seem to align with Newsom’s own words about how parents know what is best for their kids. The bill raises a host of concerns about what happens when a parent or parents choose not to allow their child or youth to seek such care. As others have noted, this bill goes as far as to allow children this level of autonomy and rights even without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

How should Christians think about these issues?

Given the enormous consequences of this bill and its far-reaching promotion of moral autonomy and the rights of youth over that of their parents, there is much to be concerned about here. This bill may face significant battles in the courts over multiple provisions including parental rights, which is why the severability clause was added last minute before its passage. In response to this push, Christians must be wise and discerning as these false visions of reality are being promoted as common-sense measures in line with our contemporary culture’s fixation on defining our own realities and moral autonomy.

First, Christians should be sober minded about these situations. Part of a Christian vision of society includes upholding basic goods and God’s design for men, women, and families. God not only created us male and female in line with biological realities, but also designed the family unit as a basic building block of society. The family and the individual are pre-political, meaning that governments should seek to honor God’s design for marriage and sexuality given that they are rooted in the very nature of what it means to be human.

This type of bill seeks to put the family in the crosshairs of the sexual revolution by prioritizing the autonomy of youth and children over that of their parents. Parents, by nature, are to protect, care for, and seek the best for their children regardless of what the state may promote. The family is tasked by God with this grave responsibility and to give an account for how they raise their children into mature and wise adults. Youth and children are simply ill-equipped to make these life-altering decisions, and any provision that severs the unity of the family should be immediately called into question and subsequently rejected.

Second, Christians must speak into these matters. Many proponents of this bill will argue that it is simply not the role of others (specifically including the church) to speak into private issues of individuals and families, especially in regards to questions of sexuality and gender. This cuts to the core of the argument driving these bills since humans were not created to live self-determined and autonomous lives. Not only is true moral autonomy impossible, but we often fail to know what is truly best for us in many situations, especially when dealing with high-stakes gender-affirming care. 

Truth is not a matter of mere opinion or preference, but it is established by God and is to be discovered and cherished by all. Christians must resolutely promote the good of others (Matt. 22:37-39), and this means directly speaking to the realities of being made male and female (Gen. 1:27) and the grave threats to God’s design for marriage and sexuality encountered in our culture today. We must do so with lavish grace to those struggling with a host of sexuality issues, including gender-dysphoria.

Christians must remember it is not loving to speak a lie or affirm something that is simply not true, no matter the cultural pressure to do otherwise. But we also must do so remembering that those caught in these lies are made in the very image of God (Gen. 1:26) and deserve our love and care. Many of us know and deeply care for those in our communities and families who are walking through these types of issues. Regardless of one’s sexual brokenness, there is hope in the name of Jesus for radical transformation, just as there is for all who sin (Rom. 3:23). 

True dignity, value, and worth are not found in our sexual identities or expressions but in how God has made us. These truths directly counter the lies of the sexual revolution as well as the rampant ideal of moral autonomy which is fixated on the individual as reigning supreme. May the Church be known for speaking the truth, loving God, and loving those left in the wake of the sexual revolution’s failed promises and who have been harmed by this type of disatrous policy in Calfornia.

Explainer: Title IX expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity
By / Sep 19

On July 12, the Department of Education (DOE) issued a proposed rule under Title IX discrimination laws that would expand the definition of “sex” to include sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Following the announcement, the DOE allowed 60 days for organizations and individuals to comment with concerns. As that comment period closed Monday, the DOE is obligated to respond to each of these comments before putting forward a finalized rule.

What is Title IX?

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, stating: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX law is intended to provide equal opportunities for both men and women seeking to participate in educational institutions and extracurricular activities that receive federal funding.

How would this proposed rule change Title IX laws? 

This proposed rule would reinterpret Title IX’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy. Section 106.10 of Title IX will “articulate the Department’s understanding that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Under this new rule, preventing individuals from participating in school programs consistent with their self-identified “gender identity” would constitute discrimination. In order to receive federal funding, religious schools and organizations may be compelled to allow transgender students to live in opposite sex dorms, use restrooms reserved for the opposite sex, or participate on sports teams with their chosen gender identity. 

This proposed rule is another attempt by the executive branch to extend the bureaucratic application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). In Bostock, the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender employees against unlawful discriminiation — logic that various executive agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and now the DOE have applied to Title IX.

 The DOE’s proposed rule explicitly relies on Bostock’s reasoning because of similarities in the text of Title VII and Title IX and other comparable applications by federal courts. But a federal judge temporarily blocked similar guidance previously issued by the DOE, aiming his sights at the “improper expansion” of Bostock‘s reasoning to Title IX. This new rule, then, is likely vulnerable to similar litigation that could severely limit its applicability and effectiveness.

Why is the rule problematic?

The DOE’s proposed change would have sweeping effects that would significantly undermine the original intent and purpose of Title IX. The new language that expands the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) would penalize institutions that did not expand the definition of sex to include SOGI. Organizations and schools under the jurisdiction of Title IX would no longer be able to define sex as a person’s biological sex from birth, but instead would be forced to adopt gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations.

In athletics, a refusal to account for biological, sex-dependent differences will legally enshrine inequality in sports by changing the very law that sought to achieve the equality in the first place. In addition to being unfair, it is insulting and demeaning to females for our nation’s policies to proceed as if biological males are the standard by which they ought to evaluate themselves. If the proposed change is accepted, the law created to protect them from discrimination and provide them equality would discriminate against them and make them more unequal than ever before. Not only would this proposal completely blur the distinctions between men and women and the corresponding team sports they participate in and facilities they utilize, it will have the effect of rolling back all the good that has been done to ensure men and women have the same opportunity to participate in educational institutions and activities.

Additionally, though Title IX has a robust religious exemption, it does not include protections for people of faith at nonreligious institutions, and the DOE has indicated that they may take further action limiting the religious exemption in the future.

How has the ERLC responded? 

The ERLC has submitted public comments laying out our concerns with the proposed rule and urging them to reconsider making these changes. Title IX directly affects a host of other regulations across agencies making the effects of this change sweeping. The ERLC will continue to monitor these changes and look for additional opportunities to raise our concerns and advocate for the recognition of God’s good design for biological sex and for the protection of religious liberty.

Life in a digital age, China’s human rights violations, and religious liberty at the courts
By / Sep 2

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss the United Nations’ report on human rights violations in China, the rejection of the Transgender Mandate at a Federal Appeals Court, life in the digital age, and Yeshiva University’s appeal to SCOTUS regarding a potential religious liberty violation. They also celebrate the beginning of college football season. 

ERLC Content

Culture

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Dobbs Resource Page | The release of the Dobbs decision marks a true turning point in the pro-life movement, a moment that Christians, advocates and many others have worked toward tirelessly for 50 years. Let us rejoice that we live in a nation where past injustices can still be corrected, as we also roll our sleeves up to save preborn lives, serve vulnerable mothers, and support families in our communities. To get more resources on this case, visit ERLC.com/Dobbs.
  • Sexual Ethics Resource Page | Do you ever feel overwhelmed by the constant stream of entertainment and messages that challenge the Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics? It often feels like we’re walking through uncharted terrority. But no matter what we face in our ever-shifting culture, God’s design for human sexuality has never changed. The ERLC’s new sexual ethics resource page is full of helpful articles, videos, and explainers that will equip you to navigate these important issues with truth and grace. Get these free resources at ERLC.com/sexualethics.

Explainer: Appeals court blocks controversial transgender mandate for healthcare professionals
By / Sep 2

A federal appeals court upheld a ruling preventing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from requiring doctors and hospitals to perform abortions and gender-transition procedures. A three-judge panel unanimously upheld an injunction issued in a federal court in Texas that barred enforcement of the regulation. 

“Baptists have long recognized ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience,’” said Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “This ruling adheres to that truth and protects doctors and health-care providers from violating their consciences by conducting gender-transition surgeries or abortions.

“The government must understand that asking medical personnel to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs is an abuse of state authority,” he said. “This result is not only a victory for the rights of doctors but also recognizes that the conscience is not some trivial item that can be paved over.”

What was ​​the HHS regulation?

In 2016, HHS issued a rule—known as the Transgender Mandate—that required doctors to perform gender-transition procedures on any child referred by a mental health professional, even if the doctor believes the treatment or hormone therapy could harm the child. 

The regulation was based on implementation of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), a nondiscrimination provision that redefined “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

In response to the issuance of this regulation, two lawsuits were filed on behalf of multiple religious organizations, healthcare providers, and several states. The ERLC supported the move to challenge the mandate. 

What was the court case about?

In Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, the court ruled that a Catholic healthcare network and the Christian Medical and Dental Society—a group of nearly 19,000 healthcare professionals—cannot be required to carry out gender transition procedures or abortions when it violates their deeply held beliefs and professional medical judgment. 

As Becket, the religious liberty law firm that defended the plantiffs, explains, “The court explained that while the government argued it should get more chances to show why it needed religious healthcare providers to participate in gender-transition procedures, other cases showed that permanent protection was appropriate

This is now the second court ruling blocking the administration from enforcing the policy. The first ruling was handed by a federal court in North Dakota.

How did the term “sex” become redefined in the law?

In 2016, a District Court held in Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell that HHS erroneously interpreted “sex” under Title IX — that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious when Title IX “unambiguously refers to the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” The District Court further ruled that the Final Rule’s failure to include religious exemptions likely violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Four years later, the Trump administration finalized a rule reversing the Obama administration’s regulations on Section 1557 and narrowed the definition of “sex.” But mere days after this rule was completed, a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling authored by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County expanded the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” for the purposes of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

In 2021, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS announced that it will interpret and enforce the Affordable Care Act and Title IX’s nondiscrimination provision and expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The Office of Civil Rights used the Bostock decision as a justification for its redefinition of “sex.”

What happens now?

In most court cases, appeals are final. The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, which means physicians will not be required by to violate their conscience by the Transgender Mandate. The Supreme Court could be asked to take up the case, but there is no justification for them to overturn the permanent injunction. This decision is likely to stand as a major victory for conscience rights

Explainer: USDA allows religious schools to receive lunch funding without violating their beliefs
By / Aug 18

On May 5, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) issued new guidance involving sexual orientation and gender identity language requirements. It stated that “it will interpret the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program (7 USC § 2011 et seq.), to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” FNS is responsible for administering the USDA food assistance programs, including those related to schools, such as the School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). 

This interpretation comes as a result of President Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation and is believed by FNS to be an outworking of the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision that found the prohibition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Though the Bostock case dealt with Title VII, which involves employment discrimination, FNS believes that this same interpretation of “sex” also applies to Title IX, which deals with educational activities.

This means that these FNS school meal programs, which are subject to Title IX civil rights law preventing discrimination on the basis of sex, now also ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In order to receive funding for meal programs operated by USDA’s FNS, state and local agencies, schools, lunch program operators, and sponsors now must update their non-discrimination policies and signage to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Why is this problematic?

While it is troubling to see continued efforts to push gender ideology in ways that contradict a biblical view of human sexuality, this new guidance was particularly problematic in that it did not provide a robust exemption for religious schools or other faith-based programs that participate in FNS-funded meal programs. Title IX’s religious exemption is automatically granted to religious schools without any type of action required from either the school or government. Recently, this interpretation of the exemption was affirmed in a case involving Fuller Theological Seminary.

Despite Title IX’s strong protection for religious schools and faith based organizations, the USDA insisted that religious schools that object to this guidance must submit a written declaration to the secretary of agriculture identifying the provisions within the rule that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization. Additionally, it was unclear whether these schools would face penalties if they did not comply while their exemption letter was being considered. 

In 2019, the NSLP provided free or reduced price lunches to 29.6 million children every day. A significant number of those children attend religious schools that maintain deeply-held religious beliefs in contradiction to this understanding of sex and gender. Many of these schools were beginning their academic years with great uncertainty as they faced difficult decisions: will they violate their deeply-held religious beliefs or risk the loss of funding for some of the most vulnerable children enrolled in their schools. Already, one religious school, represented by our partners at Alliance Defending Freedom, was forced to sue in order to be granted their exemption.

Additionally, more than 20 state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against USDA, contending that the department’s interpretation of Title IX would cause the plaintiff states to lose federal funding for the National School Lunch Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The lawsuit accuses Biden of asking federal agencies to rewrite federal law, and the attorneys general allege that the USDA ignored procedural requirements and misconstrued federal code in issuing its directives.

What changed?

On Friday, Aug. 12, the USDA issued a clarification stating that it would reinstate the broad Title IX religious exemption that automatically applies to religious schools and faith-based institutions without the step of a written request. This clarification comes after months of work from religious liberty advocates and is a substantial victory for religious institutions and people of faith who do not want to compromise their most fundamental beliefs as they work to serve their neighbors in the public square.

Religious schools are on the front lines of caring for some of the most vulnerable children across the country, and the ERLC will continue to advocate for their ability to faithfully fulfill their mission without risking the welfare of the most vulnerable children enrolled in their schools or sacrificing their deeply-held beliefs on issues of gender and sexuality. 

Explainer: States propose bills related to parental rights, gender identity, and sexuality
By / May 13

Florida recently passed legislation expanding and codifying parental rights in their child’s education. One of the most controversial sections of the law prohibits classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. 

Critics have used this provision to frame this legislation as a “Don’t Say Gay” law. But supporters on both sides of the political aisle say such legislation is necessary because parents should be informed regarding what their children are taught about topics like homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender fluidity.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children, and schools should not be keeping important information from parents,” said Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson. “Children belong to families, not the state.”

Since the passage of the Florida bill, more than a dozen other states have proposed similar legislation. Here is some of the legislation related to parental rights and LGBTQ+ issues in education:

Alabama: In April, the state passed an amendment that prohibits classroom instruction or discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in kindergarten through the fifth grade in public K-12 schools.

Arizona: A proposed bill in the legislature would allow parents to review the formational documents of any school student group or club involving sexuality, gender, or gender identity. Another bill had language stricken from its final version that would have prevented school officials from withholding or concealing, facilitating, encouraging, or coercing students into concealing a student’s gender identity or “requested transition” if it is “incongruous with their biological sex.” Parents also would have needed to give consent before students were asked questions on a survey about gender expression, perception, or stereotypes. 

Indiana: A proposed bill would prohibit any requirement for students enrolled at a state educational institution to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. Another proposed bill would require parents’ written consent for students to receive sex education on transgenderism and would require parental consent for medical inspections or mental health treatment, including on counseling about gender transitioning issues, pronoun selection, and referral to other agencies that provide these services.

Iowa: A proposed bill prohibits curriculum provided to a student from including instruction relating to gender identity unless the school district or accredited nonpublic school obtains the prior written consent of the student’s parent or guardian. If a parent or guardian does not provide written consent, a student may opt out of instruction relating to gender identity. Another bill would require schools to give a week’s notice to parents before educators ask students which pronoun they prefer or before administering a survey on pronoun use and to send them the response upon request.

Louisiana: A proposed bill would prohibit classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindegarten through eighth grade and prohibit teachers, school employees, and presenters from discussing their sexual orientation or gender identity with students. 

Missouri: A proposed bill would prevent public schools from requiring students to engage in gender or sexual diversity training. 

North Carolina: A proposed bill would require any state employee to report to parents if a minor has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria, gender nonconformity, or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with their biological sex.

Ohio: A proposed bill would prevent, teach, use, or provide any curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade, and prohibits students in grades four through 12 from being taught or having to use curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity in any manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Oklahoma: A proposed bill would prohibit public schools or libraries from holding or promoting books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or recreational sexualization.

Rhode Island: A proposed bill would also require children to be addressed by their common names and the pronouns associated with their biological gender unless parent permission is given to change them.

South Carolina: A proposed bill would prevent any state-funded entity from subjecting minors under the age of 18 to instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium that involve a number of “controversial and age-inappropriate topics,” including gender identity. The state has also proposed a bill that says a student, administrator, teacher, staff member, other school or district employee, or volunteer may not be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling.

Tennessee: A proposed bill would prohibit the state board from approving textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promotes, normalizes, supports, or addresses lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.

Wisconsin: The governor vetoed broad-based parent’s rights legislation that included a right to determine the names and pronouns used for the child while at school.

Why biological sex matters for athletics
By / May 11

One of my favorite athletes of all time is Florence Griffith-Joyner (1959–1998). Affectionately known as FloJo, she still holds the women’s world records for both the 100-meter and 200-meter open events. What made Griffith-Joyner so endearing was her combination of God-given speed and irrepressible style. Other female runners pull their hair back in order not to have any additional drag from the air as they run. 

Not FloJo: She sprinted to the front of the pack with long hair blowing in wind created by her own tremendous speed. And her fingernails were even more famous than her hair, with Griffith-Joyner sporting long nails in bright, fun colors. She was so fast and her nails were so long, it was not hard to imagine that she might just take off and fly! On and off the track, she radiated grace. And yet, as the fastest woman in the world, this American legend would be slower than the fastest male high school athletes in the United States. 

Consider these comparisons from Missouri. Florence Griffith-Joyner burned the 100 meters in 10.49 in 1988, a world record now 34 years old. But the Missouri state boys high school 100 meter record is tied between Jon Vaughn (1988) and Maurice Mitchell (2007)—both running at a blazing 10.42.1Missouri State High School Activities Association, “Championship Site Record Book – 100 Meter Dash,” https://www.mshsaa.org/Activities/ChampionshipSiteRecordBook.aspx?activity=19&gender=1.  In 1988, Griffith-Joyner also set the women’s world record in 200 meters at 21:34. And yet the fastest six boys in Missouri High School history beat our beloved FloJo’s record time.2Missouri State High School Activities Association, “Championship Site Record Book – 200 Meter Dash,” https://www.mshsaa.org/Activities/ChampionshipSiteRecordBook.aspx?activity=19&gender=1&recordtype=1302&view=all. 

The differences that can’t be changed 

Why are these young men faster than the women’s world record holder? Because God designed men and women differently, and when we go through puberty, males develop more muscle mass and larger bone structure.3One article says,  “In boys during puberty, sex hormones may have dramatic activating effects for promoting rapid accumulation of muscle mass and the acquisition of muscle strength.” Yang Xu, et al, “Relationships of Sex Hormones With Muscle Mass and Muscle Strength in Male Adolescents at Different Stages of Puberty,” Plos One 16.12 (December 2, 2021): 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260521. Nieves, et al say, “Gender-related differences in bone width are more apparent after puberty.” See Jeri W. Nieves, et al, “Males Have Larger Skeletal Size and Bone Mass Than Females, Despite Comparable Body Size,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 20.3 (2005): 529 For example, a man’s leg is about 80% muscle, compared with about 60% muscle in a woman’s leg.4Laura Geggel, “Why Do Men Run Faster Than Women?,” Live Science, May 27, 2017, Why Do Men Run Faster Than Women? | Live Science.  This means males can run faster than females. 

In light of modern demands for biological males to be allowed to compete with females in the name of trans-inclusivity, it is crucial to keep in mind that biological males who identify as females will have an unfair advantage over biological females. This advantage will continue to accrue to biological males even after taking female hormones. Someone who is born a male will continue to have larger heart size, bigger bone structure, and larger lung capacity after transitioning.

A 2021 report in Sports Medicine said the advantages in muscle mass and strength conferred by male puberty is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed as per current sporting guidelines for transgender athletes.5Emma N. Hilton and Tommy R. Lundberg, “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage,” Sports Medicine 51 (2021): 199 – 214. In 2019, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found that after one year of taking female hormones, male-to-female transgenders did lose about 5% of their muscle volume, but they generally maintained their strength levels.6Anna Wiik, et al, “Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 105.3 (March 2020): e805 – e813. 

The injustice toward women

Advocates in favor of allowing males to compete with females often make veiled and confused references to “justice” as a reason for their stance, but such arguments reflect not only a denial of basic differences between males and females but incoherent understandings of justice. The formal principle of justice states, “Treat like cases alike, and different cases differently.” Ronald Nash explained this concept and said, “Injustice always exists when similar people are treated differently or when dissimilars are treated alike.” And this is exactly what happens when biological males are granted leeway to identify as females in athletic competition: Dissimilar individuals—biological males and biological females—are being treated alike,7Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions, 359. and in so doing one person’s subjective autonomy regarding gender identity is being used in an unjust way to give a competitive advantage. 

I hope there will be many generations of young women inspired by Florence Griffith-Joyner’s amazing accomplishments. I also hope young women catch a sense of FloJo’s joy for life, realizing that life is a race to be run with excellence; our time on Earth is too short to give anything less than our best and to rejoice in the fact God let us be alive. But our culture already places many challenges in front of girls. Hollywood objectifies young women as sexual objects. Vulgar music cheapens sex. A billion-dollar porn industry distorts the entire culture’s view of women. All these things contribute to a sense of anxiety and inadequacy in many girls, feelings which emerge just as they are trying to navigate the difficulties of puberty and adolescence. 

Athletic competition divided into the categories of males and females allows girls to compete on equal footing with other girls, creating a sense of accomplishment separated from the cacophony of confused voices vying for attention. We serve our young women best when we do not place another hurdle on the track by allowing biological males to compete as biological females. 

  • 1
    Missouri State High School Activities Association, “Championship Site Record Book – 100 Meter Dash,” https://www.mshsaa.org/Activities/ChampionshipSiteRecordBook.aspx?activity=19&gender=1. 
  • 2
    Missouri State High School Activities Association, “Championship Site Record Book – 200 Meter Dash,” https://www.mshsaa.org/Activities/ChampionshipSiteRecordBook.aspx?activity=19&gender=1&recordtype=1302&view=all. 
  • 3
    One article says,  “In boys during puberty, sex hormones may have dramatic activating effects for promoting rapid accumulation of muscle mass and the acquisition of muscle strength.” Yang Xu, et al, “Relationships of Sex Hormones With Muscle Mass and Muscle Strength in Male Adolescents at Different Stages of Puberty,” Plos One 16.12 (December 2, 2021): 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260521. Nieves, et al say, “Gender-related differences in bone width are more apparent after puberty.” See Jeri W. Nieves, et al, “Males Have Larger Skeletal Size and Bone Mass Than Females, Despite Comparable Body Size,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 20.3 (2005): 529
  • 4
    Laura Geggel, “Why Do Men Run Faster Than Women?,” Live Science, May 27, 2017, Why Do Men Run Faster Than Women? | Live Science. 
  • 5
    Emma N. Hilton and Tommy R. Lundberg, “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage,” Sports Medicine 51 (2021): 199 – 214.
  • 6
    Anna Wiik, et al, “Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 105.3 (March 2020): e805 – e813.
  • 7
    Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions, 359.

Explainer: The Biden administration’s National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality
By / Oct 28

The Biden administration released the “first-ever national gender strategy” in our nation’s history Oct. 22. According to the administration, it is intended to bring about greater gender equity and equality for all people, whether in the United States or abroad. This strategy is made up of 10 interconnected priorities and will be led by the newly formed White House Gender Policy Council (GPC). It is designed to develop a roadmap for the entire nation on gender issues.

The White House release explains that this strategy is desperately needed given the “overlapping” pandemics of COVID-19 as well as a “shadow pandemic” of gender-based violence in the U.S. and around the world. The strategy is described as a pathway toward overcoming the “longstanding gender discrimination and the systemic barriers to full participation that have held back women and girls.” This national plan is primarily based on an intersectional approach to identity and has far-reaching implications for much, if not all, of public and civic life. 

One important and revealing aspect of this federal strategy is that gender equity and equality is framed as the natural next step in America’s pursuit of recognizing the inherent dignity of all people — in line with the Emancipation Proclamation, the passage of the 19th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, reproductive rights, and even marriage equality. Portrayed in this historical lineage, the Biden Administration is intentionally arguing that gender equity and equality—namely LGBTQI+ issues—are on the same level of importance with the abhorrent practice of slavery and inhumane Jim Crow laws alongwith the historic unjust subjugation of women as of lesser value and position in our society than men.

Who developed this strategy?

In celebration of International Women’s Day, which occurs annually on March 8, President Biden signed an executive order establishing the Gender Policy Council under the executive branch and mandating the release of this national strategy. The White House states that this council works in collaboration with other White House policy councils — including the Domestic Policy Council, National Security Council, and National Economic Council — and across all federal agencies. 

The council is co-chaired by Jennifer Klein, who also serves as the executive director, and Julissa Reynoso, who also serves as First Lady Dr. Jill Biden’s chief of staff. The council is also made up of various domestic and international gender policy experts, including a senior advisor on gender-based violence. This national strategy on gender equity and equality was among the first public aspects of the council’s work and was announced at a White House press conference last week.

What does the strategy contain?

The strategy is detailed in 42-page report that touches on a host of issues ranging from “abortion rights and immigration to the creation of a National Intelligence Officer for Gender Equality to analyze the relationship between gender and violent extremism.” Council Co-Chair Klein highlighted the historic nature of this first national gender strategy and whole-of-government approach both domestically and internationally in an interview with Foreign Affairs. 

The report states that its goal is to provide a federal vision based on intersectionality to ensure equity for all communities including “Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

According to the White House release, the strategy highlights 10 “interconnected” priorities of the Biden/Harris administration including: 1) economic security; 2) gender-based violence; 3) health; 4) education; 5) justice and immigration; 6) human rights and equality under the law; 7) security and humanitarian relief; 8) climate change; 9) science and technology; and 10) democracy, participation, and leadership. The specifics of these priorities are wide-ranging and include an emphasis on overcoming gender discrimination in the workplace, eliminating gender-based violence, addressing sexual violence at home and abroad, promoting the safe and fair treatment of “all people in the justice and immigration systems,” and advocating for the “leadership of women and girls in addressing the challenge of climate change.”

The plan is described by the co-chairs as “aspirational,” not tied directly to any piece of legislation. It also is designed to encourage the private sector to join with the administration in promoting gender equity and equality throughout our society as well.

What is intersectionality?

Intersectionality is considered an analytic tool used to identify various power dynamics and relations through various overlapping identities among minority groups in society. As scholars Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge describe in their influential introduction to the subject, “Intersectionality investigates how intersecting power relations influence social relations across diverse societies as well as individual experiences in everyday life. As an analytic tool, intersectionality views categories of race, class, gender, sexuality, class, nation, ability, ethnicity, and age — among others — as interrelated and mutually shaping one another.” 

This concept is often used to highlight the unique perspectives that each person has given their intersecting and overlapping identities. Intersectionality is also closely related to various critical theories as well, given how each frames our true identities in light of the pronounced power dynamics that exist in society, often defined around various economic realities.

GPC Co-Chair Klein explains that this strategy will employ an “intersectional approach that recognizes overlapping forms of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ability, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity” as the core and guiding principle of the entire strategy. 

The concept of intersectionality is routinely applied to many of the issues highlighted in this national strategy, which is concerning for people of faith, particularly Christians, who do not see our true identities as grounded in mere power dynamics or economic activities, but rather as people created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-28) with infinite value, worth, and dignity. While Christians rightfully acknowledge our sin has both a personal and social component to it, some of these tools highlight the differences among people as paramount instead of what actually binds people together — that all human beings are created in the imago Dei. 

Referencing the need for evangelicals to support biblically defined social justice, famed theologian and ethicist Carl F. H. Henry wrote in God, Revelation, and Authority that “Social justice is not simply an appendage to the evangelistic message; it is an intrinsic part of the whole, without which the preaching of the gospel is truncated. Theology devoid of social justice is a deforming weakness of much present-day evangelical witness.”

Christians understand that as believers we are given a new identity in Christ and that this new life in Christ doesn’t seek to be colorblind or overlook our differences, but rather reframes them as unique gifts from God to the world and the church for his glory.

How should Christians think about this strategy?

This strategy is not only ambitious, but can be seen as a way for the federal government to expand its authority and influence over everyday life given the sheer breadth of issues included. While this plan may contain some elements that could gain bi-partisan support, these issues are completely overshadowed by the intersectional approach to issues and the unwavering support for a constitutional right to abortion nationwide. While the strategy does not have any immediate authority and Congress would have to authorize many of the priorities listed as part of the normal legislative process, the framing of these issues reveals the deep-seated tensions in our society over public expressions of faith and some of crucial issues in the public square today. 

Notably, the strategy rarely mentions the plight of religious minorities around the world, among them many women and girls, nor does it enumerate religious freedom among the many human rights it claims, especially in the midst of the ongoing religious genocide among the Uyghur people in the Xinjaing province in China. This is striking given the persistent practice of authoritarian regimes around the world that strip their people of all basic rights, including religious freedom and free expression. Religious freedom is of paramount importance domestically and around the world because it is a basic human right and good for a flourishing society.

Of particular interest, many of these interconnected priorities align with the administration’s goal to solidify a right to abortion under, ironically, the auspices of healthcare. The strategy states that this administration is fully committed to promoting “access to sexual and reproductive health and rights both at home and abroad.” This commitment is a part of the whole-of-government approach that President Biden declared in light of the recent Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Texas SB 8, that “bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which typically occurs anywhere between five and eight weeks into a pregnancy.” The strategy also calls for a concerted effort to uphold the practice of abortion in light of how the Supreme Court is preparing “to hear the greatest challenge to Roe in a generation, putting women’s fundamental rights on the line.” This particular reference is to Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which begins oral arguments at the Supreme Court Dec. 1. 

It also remains to be seen what this National Strategy and/or the GPC may seek to do to promote greater online regulations or digital content moderation for hate speech and violence online, especially given the emphasis of many social media platforms on expansive definitions of what constitutes hate speech. These hate speech definitions now include conflating the misgendering or deadnaming of individuals—meaning using the name prior to one’s gender transition—with actual threat of physical violence and hate crimes. In recent years, ideas — particularly those rooted in biological realities and historic Christian teaching — have been deemed as inherently bigoted and harmful. But, as Brookings scholar Jonathan Rauch eloquently states in his recent work, The Constitution of Knowledge, “words are not bullets . . . stopping words does not stop bullets, and . . . confusing words with bullets is a tragic error” (203). Hate crimes and violence cannot be equated with words online, especially words speaking to the realities of how God made both men and women in his image.

The ERLC will be closely watching the developments, including any potential recommendations or future legislation, surrounding the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality. We are committed to providing further resources from a biblical worldview on the concerning aspects of the federal government’s approach to gender and various social issues.