Does the government have the authority to tell a person to transition?

Last month President Trump signed an executive order stating that the government will only recognize two sexes—male and female. The Executive Order also stated that “sex” will be used instead of “gender.” 

The Executive Order can be read here:

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government – The White House

This seems to be an extension of a campaign that happened in the election to target people who identify as transgender. 

I have grave concerns about this Executive Order and this campaign to target people who have or will transition. 

I’m not sure what authority the government has to decide if people are going to transition. Many of my conservative friends have told me they want the government out of their lives. On many issues this makes sense to me. And on the issue of gender and sexuality this makes a lot of sense. 

I grew up in Worthington, Minnesota. I knew of no person who publicly transitioned between genders. If I had come across a person who transitioned or wanted to transition, I would have not understood the decision. So I have appreciation for people who don’t understand why a person would transition. 

However I’m not going to ignore the experience of 1.4 million people in the United States who, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality, identify as transgender.  Chain of Lakes has people who attend our congregation who have transitioned. I am so glad that they have found our congregation to be a welcoming and accepting place. 

What authority does the government have to define a person’s experience of gender? Who should have the final authority on this issue? 

I’ve been a pastor for 33 years, so often people will share with me that the Bible has authority on issues of human biology and sexuality. And the Bible does have a lot to say about the goodness of humans and our propensity to sin or fall short. 

Some would argue that Genesis 1:27 would make an argument that a person would not transition. “So God created humankind in [God’s] image, in the image of God [God] created them; male and female [God] created them." 

To me the writer of Genesis wasn’t making an eternal pronouncement that gender is not fluid or finalized at birth. I don’t think the writer of Genesis was trying to make a statement about the experience of people who wanted to transition in 2025 or that gender is static. What I do think the writer of Genesis was saying is that each of us is created in the image of God. 

If I want to learn more about gender I’m going to go to the best biologists and doctors in the world who study this issue. People like the Mayo Clinic who provide quality care for transgender people Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic in Minnesota - Overview - Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins who also provides quality care. Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health | Johns Hopkins Medicine

If someone close to me was transitioning, I don't think I would call up the City of Blaine or any other governmental agency to see what should be done.

What I’m also not going to do is fit a view on biology into a narrow reading of the Scriptures. To do this would be to make the same historical mistake that some in the church have done. Galileo was convicted in a trial in 1633 for his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. The church believed differently based on its literal reading of the Bible. The leaders of the church at that time wanted to pigeon-hole a belief about the stars into its reading of Genesis. 

That didn’t work then; it doesn’t work now.  

Ultimately my final authority is Jesus and the way he loved people. Jesus went out of his way to love the outcast—the Samaritan, the women at the well, prostitutes, and lepers. It hurts me to think that a person who has transitioned would be treated as an outcast in 2025, but the recent Executive Order by President Trump makes me wonder. If Jesus was alive today he would go out of his way to love a person who has transitioned. 

I’m proud that in 2018 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church passed a statement encouraging “congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to welcome transgender and gender non-binary people into the life of the church and to continue to grow in compassion and knowledge about the full expression of our individual and respective gender identities.” 

In commenting on that statement the Advisory Committee on Social Witness wrote, “our committee is very concerned about the mistreatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons by others who use religion to demean and discriminate. We hope that Presbyterians will not only repudiate the mistreatment of any persons but will affirm the God-given humanity of people of all gender identities. Transgender and gender non-binary persons have amazing gifts to offer the church, and their calls to membership and leadership deserve both affirmation and celebration.” PC-Biz                      

This statement is a much clearer expression of what Jesus would have us do than the recent Executive Order. 

Who does have the final authority to decide if a person will transition. I don’t think it’s the government.

The wisdom of Atticus

 

Two weeks ago I shared at the beginning of a sermon that “To Kill a Mockingbird” was in my canon, that is it reflects the values that are dearest to me. After the sermon a number of people came up to me and shared how much they love the book and they love Atticus. One person even said they named their son, “Atticus.” 

The experience made me realize that I needed to read “To Kill a Mockingbird” again. I read the book for the first time in college in a literature class where I learned how to write. I don't know how many times I've read it since, but the book has been close to me. Though the actual book I had was so worn out that I ordered another one. It didn’t take long to finish this time as I’ve challenged myself to read fifty pages of some book every day. And even though I do my reading at an ungodly early hour, I fell in love with Atticus again. 

I kept coming across quotes from him that captured my imagination. Quotes like: 

The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience. 

I put that one on my Facebook page and received many comments. 

Other meaningful quotes for me were:

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it. 

“Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win.” 

“The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box.” 

“It’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn’t hurt you.”

Atticus lived in a different time. I’ve been wondering since I read this book again how he would respond to the culture that we all find ourselves. It’s much easier to criticize publicly via Social Media those with whom we have disagreements. The thoughts that we shared behind closed doors are now frequently shared in public. 

I wonder how Atticus would have handled this. Would he have a Facebook/Twitter/Instagram account? 

His task was to try to understand the person in front of him—and to understand that person in a non-judgmental way. He would try to live in that person’s shoes for a while in order to come to the conclusions about why that person acted as he or she did. 

So thought he disagreed with Bob Ewell and the jury who unfairly sentenced Tom Robinson, he still wanted to understand both. 

I’ve tried to embrace this line of thinking in the past two weeks. I have as strong opinions about what is happening in our culture as most. I’ve avoided sharing my opinions via Social Media or even in my sermons. I’m still in the “understanding” phase. I’m doing my best to walk in the other person’s shoes and look at the world from that person’s perspective. 

And admittedly I can respond as a person of privilege, just as Atticus was. I don’t have to immediately take actions. I am personally not suffering from what is happening in the culture. Atticus thought he wouldn’t suffer by defending Tom Robinson. But he was wrong and was fortunate that Bob Ewell didn’t kill his children. 

Some have questioned whether Atticus did enough in the novel to earn the praise that he has.

The Contested Legacy of Atticus Finch | The New Yorker 

And some have wondered if Atticus fit into the mold of a “White Savior” that actually disempowers people of different races. Atticus Finch, Abraham Lincoln, and the Imagination of White Educators - National Council of Teachers of English

These questions are important. 

However right now we need more people to act like Atticus. To respond with integrity, to put themselves in another person’s shoes for an extended period of time and try to imagine how that person came to their conclusions, to fight for justice even when the result will be loss. 

I’ve made a commitment to myself to read “To Kill a Mockingbird” every year in the foreseeable future. And who knows maybe next year I’ll be captured by Scout or Jem or even Boo Radley. But for now I’m doing my best to look at the world through the eyes of Atticus. I believe we need his wisdom.

Is it political to share mercy?

I will/did share the following words with the people of Chain of Lakes in a weekly email that will be/was sent out on Thursday, January 23. 

This week it seemed that with the Inauguration of President Trump politics was in the air even more than usual. I shared a sermon series on politics on October 6, 13, & 20 last Fall called, “Talking about the dreaded word.” Check it out at vimeo.com/chainoflakes

Talking faithfully and respectfully about politics is very important for us as a community of faith. I get it—many don’t want to talk about politics and certainly don’t want politics to be discussed in a church. In my work as a preacher, I have been accosted many times after a sermon by someone who was upset that my sermon was “political.”

However when we don’t have conversations about something as important as politics, we’re diminishing ourselves as people.

Most of the time I think of conversations that many would describe as political as really being about our ethics and world view.

In the sermon series from this past Fall I wondered how Jesus would talk about politics if he was alive in our day. In the series I shared that I believed when talking about politics Jesus would

1) talk about the Kingdom of God;

2) give his followers tools to talk about this topic in a healthy way with others; 

3) talk about the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I get it—this is hard.

The way a person votes has no bearing on whether the person will be accepted at Chain of Lakes Church. To say that only a person who votes more left or more right makes that person a Christian or is accepted at Chain of Lakes would be a violation of our Core Values, particularly the Core Value of Acceptance.

A very challenging topic is what we do with our Social Media feeds.

In the past week I’ve read Social Media feeds of people who are very happy about the new Administration; and I’ve read feeds of people who are sad and very angry. Often the people who comment on a post or feed agree with the politics of the person who made the original post.

On Tuesday I shared a clip on my own Facebook feed of Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington sharing her thoughts with President Trump at a worship service at the National Cathedral. In the clip she pleaded with President Trump to treat people in the LGBTQ community and the people living in the United States who are not citizens with mercy.

I was very touched by her statement for many reasons. One reason is I can imagine how hard it would be for me to share the words she did in a worship service with President Trump and Vice-President Vance. No matter what your political views, can we agree that she was a role model of courage?

And I also get it that I highly doubt that Bishop Budde voted for President Trump in the last election.

What’s most important to me about her statement is one simple question.

Is it political to share mercy?

Set the timer on your phone for thirty seconds and reflect on this question.

After I did this, my answer to the question is, “no.” Mercy is an attitude and/or action rooted in morality.

At Chain of Lakes I want us to share mercy with everyone who participates in our community.  Share mercy in our thoughts and actions for the people who voted differently than us, with the people who voted the same, and go out of our way to share mercy with those who are quite vulnerable in our country—the people who I believe Jesus would go out of his way to extend mercy.

Remembering Dr. King--aiming for the higher ground.

At Carleton College I learned about Martin Luther King Jr. Until then I didn’t know much. But in a class called "Protest Politics and Social Movements," Paul Wellstone encouraged us to read as much as we could that Dr. King had written. I was touched deeply by Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Dr. King was thrown in jail, but while in jail he was still reaching out in love to the White community in Birmingham. He knew that the City would not be desegregated until a coalition centered in agape love made its voice heard.

Through Dr. King I first learned about non-violent passive resistance. Dr. King learned this from Mahatma Ghandi. The philosophy was centered in non-violence. He was tested often to renounce non-violence, but he never did. He continually aimed for the highest aspiration of a human.

This appeal to a higher moral power changed the world—and certainly influenced me.

When I took that class, Minnesota was suffering through a terrible farm crisis. This was the worst crisis in agriculture since the Depression. Even though I didn’t grow up on a farm, I was very familiar with farming. Both my parents grew up on a farm; my dad’s brothers were farmers; some of them went bankrupt in the farm crisis and had to leave farming. It was a very difficult time.

In my hometown of Worthington, Minnesota a movement called Groundswell emerged. It was made up of farmers who wanted to resist foreclosures. They believed in protest, but always believed it had to be done non-violently. It was as if Dr. King had transcended death and came to my hometown.

I decided to go to seminary because I believed that the world could not be changed unless a movement centered in non-violence and aimed for the highest aspirations of humans was created. I believed the church had to be part of this movement. Lasting social change has never happened in the United States unless the church was involved.

I learned these lessons as a fourth grader when my family lived in Kansas City, Kansas. We lived within a half mile of two housing projects, in a neighborhood where everyone was poor. But just a few miles away was Johnson County which was the third richest county in the United States. I wondered then and still wonder why the people of Johnson County weren’t doing more to help the people in the neighborhood where I lived. In my limited fourth-grade mind I didn’t understand why the highest aspirations of the people in Johnson County weren’t being lived out.

For the past week I’ve been reading Jonathan Eig’s magisterial biography of Dr. King. I highly recommend it to everyone. When I was in college, I read everything I could about Dr. King. Jonathan Eig’s biography is the best I’ve read. It is thoroughly and dispassionately researched.

Very early this morning I read a paragraph that is worth repeating. Dr. King had been leading a march through Mississippi. His group had been attached by a mob of twenty-five white men. The attack was vicious. Some within Dr. King’s group wanted to respond with violence. Dr. King responded in a speech at a mass meeting in Yazoo City, Mississippi.

“I’m not interested in power for power’s sake,” he said, “but I’m interested in power that is moral, that is right, and that is good.” Blak people comprised 10 percent of the nations’ population, not enough to stand or fight along. “There’s going to have to be a coalition of conscience, and we aren’t going to be free here in Mississippi and anywhere else in the United States until there is a committed empathy on the part of the white man.” He also reminded his audience that white people sch as Viola Liuzzo, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman had sacrificed their lies in the struggle for civil rights, that he would never case white people as the enemy. Black people were going to win their rights, win their freedom, he said—but not through violence and not through hate.” (Page 491, “King” Jonathan Eig.)

We still need a coalition of conscience. A group who is connected by aiming for the high road—looking to bring the best of humans together to confront the issues that Dr. King confronted—poverty, militarism, and racism.

Remembering Jimmy Carter

 

The first time I hear about Jimmy Carter was when I was talking about politics with my Dad. When I grew up, our family was always interested in politics. We would watch the party conventions on television and talk about the candidates who were running for President. I remember in January of 1976 asking my Dad who won the Iowa Caucuses. "James Earl Carter" he said. I had never heard of him—of course, I was only twelve years old. 

My hope is that Jimmy Carter’s recent passing will cause all of us to reflect on what it means to be a servant leader. Because by all definitions Jimmy Carter was one of the best servant leaders of our generation. 

He wasn’t viewed favorably as the President. I remember the taking of the American hostages in Iran and the seemingly inability of President Carter to get them free. He was challenged by Ronald Reagan  in the 1980 Presidential race and only won six states and the District of Columbia in the 1980 election. .

 

But his success as a person happened after his Presidency. 

According to the Dallas Habitat for Humanity web site:

“It all started in 1984 when Jimmy Carter was speaking at a local church in New York City. He passed by a Habitat for Humanity build site and stopped in to say hello. He had volunteered with Habitat previously in Americus, Georgia, where Habitat was founded.

At this particular site, there seemed to be a shortage of volunteers. “We need to bring some volunteers in to help,” said President Carter. So he and his wife picked up a few dozen volunteers and showed up to help renovate a six-story apartment building. This brought safe and affordable housing to 19 deserving families.

Since then, the Carters have personally worked alongside 103,000 volunteers in 14 different countries to repair, renovate, and build over 4,331 homes. That’s 38 years of volunteer work. ..."

In an interview with PEOPLE magazine in 2019, President Carter said, “We knew that we had undertaken a major and very enjoyable hobby on the side. We stayed busy doing other things, but we devoted 36 years to Habitat.”

 Carter goes on to say that it’s his faith that has kept him building houses for those in need. “One of the things Jesus taught was: If you have any talents, try to utilize them for the benefit of others,” says President Carter, now 97. “That’s what Rosa and I have both tried to do.”

My family was influenced by President Carter’s commitment to Habitat for Humanity. I remember when I was in college my parents took the youth group of our church on a Habitat for Humanity trip. They were inspired by the example of Jimmy Carter. When I worked as a youth director in New York in seminary, I took a group of youth to New Jersey to work on a Habitat for Humanity project. Jimmy Carter was our inspiration.

It still touches me that a man who was the most powerful person in the world would be willing to get on his knees and pound nails so a person could live in an affordable home.

 

Only two years after his Presidential defeat, President Carter began the Carter Center. He and Rosalynn sought a way to use their influence to improve the life for the world’s poorest poor and to advance peace and health worldwide. 

Because of the work of the Carter Center, guinea worm disease is close to being the second human disease after smallpox to be eradicated. It has been done without the use of a vaccine or medicine.

 President Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He closed his speech by saying the following:

“The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes – and we must”.

President Carter taught Sunday School at Maranatha Baptist Church for decades. People would have to arrive at 5am to attend his classes. My parents went once to a class of his. What a testament to faith that President Carter even into his late nineties would teach Sunday School.

And perhaps what is most remarkable to me is he was married to Rosalynn for 77 years. They both grew up in Plains, Georgia. They met when he was three years old and Rosalynn was one day old.

In my sermon yesterday I concluded by talking about President Carter’s faith. I said this,

"Jimmy Carter studied every part of the Bible, and let the Bible influence his life. Jimmy Carter knew about the anger of God—he was a Baptist. But he was inspired by God to change the world. He did. Through his work with Habitat for Humanity and his development of the Carter Center—he did change the world. His faith propelled him.           

Carter’s Bible lessons focused on central themes: God gives life, loves unconditionally and provides the freedom to live a completely successful life. Like Jimmy Carter may all of us embrace God, and follow God to help create the world that God desires for us."

May we all look up to President Carter as a role model for morality. He did all that he could to make the world a better place. The world is a better place for his success.