The New Christians

The New Christians


More on the Complexity of Gender

posted by Tony Jones

Here’s a comment string from the last post that might be interesting…

Confused and Hurting Sinner writes,

most of the previous comments seem somewhat educated albeit cold
& clincal. To me the elephant in the room that everyone seemed to
ignore is a person that is transgender or no discernible gender is
still a feeling, loving, human even if not treated like one by society.
They are not a tree, rock or animal. they want to be cared about &
cherished by God & others the same as everyone else. try to put
yourself in there place. you are born you basically look like other
children in most aspects its just your diaper fits differently &
your emotions & thoughts don’t line up with your peers maybe you
don’t care on the outside or maybe you show it but either way it scars.
you have to live your whole existence fitting no where. even the every
day thing of need a restroom presents real & painful challenges.
now cliches about rocks & trees because that doesn’t matter one
iota to this person all they want to know is can they have friends,
dreams, ambitions, & a relationship with God. if your this person
do you want to hear theological mumbojumbo or existential theoretical
ramblings? or do you just want to here your loved, cared about, &
valued?? think on that please & contemptible what you would want to
here & try to respond to others the same way because you never know
who your talking to.


John G responds,

Dear confused & hurting sinner, Lisandgirls,

Please understand that the Christian Worldview does not classify a
homosexual based on who s/he is personally, rather, what s/he does
sexually. It is the act of same-sex sexual activity that distinguishes
homosexuals from heterosexuals and has nothing to do with the person.
This distinction must be clear and accepted as clear if any fruitful
discussion is to take place in this conversation.

This gives us the basis for which we can love the sinner despite the
sin. This applies to us only, not to God (he hates the sinner and the
sin, not just the sin). With this knowledge, it is an act of love to
make known God’s position on this to the homosexual and demonstrate
kindness, patience, and understanding in the process.

To which I reply,

John G,

This post, and the comments to which you refer, do not refer
to homosexual sex. This post is about those who are “intersex” or
“hermaphroditic” — they do not fall into the categories of “male” or
“female,” and, indeed, those categories are not as discreet as many of
us would like to believe.

According to you (or the Bible), who are those people allowed to have sex with?

Anyone care to venture an answer? (Let me just guess that a lot of sexually active heterosexual Christians will say they should stay celibate…)



Advertisement
Comments read comments(34)
post a comment
Leann

posted August 21, 2009 at 9:15 am


Since a heterosexual relationship is between a man and woman, I’d say it’s the two people involved who identify as the man/woman couple to determine. Assuming one has female body parts and the other male, it is a hetero relationship. This would include however, transsexuals that have undergone successful body modifications via surgery. You still have someone identifying in a specific gender with the correct genetalia.
The line is blurred when you’d have a pre-operative transsexual. Someone who identifies as female for example, but has not had the surgery to complete the process would still consider her relationship with a man ‘heterosexual’ even though she still has male genetalia.
Perhaps it’s best to let God decide what is right, and leave us mortals to try to learn to love thy neighbor, and judge not, lest ye be judged and all that.
We have enough trouble following the main 10 commandments, and our sexual activities are not even on that list. Let’s not make it an issue to split a nation.



report abuse
 

Matt Kelley

posted August 21, 2009 at 9:29 am


It’s rather presumptuous to assume that we can articulate what “the” Christian worldview is, John G. A cursory glance at church history shows that there are and always have been a plethora of worldviews that are shaped by Christianity. I am a Christian, but who am I to tell another Christian that their worldview isn’t correct just because it doesn’t line up with mine on one issue?



report abuse
 

ben w.

posted August 21, 2009 at 9:39 am


First, John G. I think you’re completely misguided to not be able to say that God loves homosexuals. God’s love can be a complicated thing to understand, but the Bible plainly speaks of God loving all of His Creation. He does hate sin, and His anger burns toward unrepentant sinners, but these facts also have to held in tension with his love. (see a fuller treatment in Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.)
Tony, you’re right to expect my answer is “no one” because I wrote the same thing in response to the last post. In Matthew 19, Jesus lays down the principles that some are born eunuchs, and therefore will never be married, while others choose it for themselves in pursuit of the Kingdom of God (voluntary celibacy). In the new heavens and new earth, we know that “they will neither marry nor be given in marriage” and thus this precludes sex as well (I found the argument of Mr. Green a few days ago not-at-all compelling :) ) Thus, all followers of Jesus will one day be celibate, and those who are born biblical “eunuchs” are called to live that life even now.
Confused and Hurting Sinner – I don’t know all the specifics of your situation, but if your gender is finally not distinguishable, you should take comfort in the goodness of God. It seems clear that Jesus taught that people born this way by God’s design are called to live an uncommon life of service to God in celibacy. I can hardly imagine what kinds of struggles and difficulties that means for you, but I do know 1) other Christians have walked this road faithfully and have sought purity and righteousness from this same place before, 2) I personally know Christians who have only been given same-sex desires and walk a road of chosen celibacy rather than disobedience to God and their reward in heaven will be great, and that 3) God is good. You should trust and rejoice that after death, spending 60 seconds in God’s unmediated presence will be more joyful, more intimate, and glorious than all the joys that sexual experiences in this life can bring.



report abuse
 

ben w.

posted August 21, 2009 at 10:01 am


Tony, thinking on the complexity of gender, do you ever read the blog of Dr. Russell Moore, dean of theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? He apparently asked is Ethics class about how to care for a transsexual person who came to their church for their essay final. He put together how he would respond to the question here: http://www.russellmoore.com/files/2009/06/joan-or-john.pdf
You’d probably find it interesting, I hope you find it helpful.



report abuse
 

Joel

posted August 21, 2009 at 11:52 am


Wow…God hates the sinner? Well that’s news to me. Here I thought that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us because He loved us. If God loves me, surely He can love a homosexual or someone who’s sin is not as grievous as my own. Such a belief as John G put forth is just as danger (if not more dangerous) than some of the stuff I’ve seen on this blog.
As for what you put Tony, you can act sarcastic and say, “Oh, well it’s a heterosexual involved in a relationship who tells the others to refrain from sex,” but I really think such arguments are below you. For one, the two people we can turn to on the issue of celibacy in the Bible come from Christ and Paul – both single. Likewise, I can turn to heterosexual men and women who agree that those who are confused over their gender (or cannot biologically determine their gender) can remain celibate – and these heterosexuals are celibate.
But the reason I find the argument below you is that it’s irrelevant. You’re falling into ad hominem when you imply what you implied. So what if a heterosexual who is married and having sex says that someone with a certain condition or confusion should remain celibate? What does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with the truth of the matter?



report abuse
 

Cassie C

posted August 21, 2009 at 11:54 am


I read his answer. It was disgusting. The man obviously has no real experience with transgender people, in the sense of knowing and caring for them personally- or if he does, he’s heartless. I could barely believe what I was reading– stop taking hormones after thirty years? Living as a man again? He clearly doesn’t know or care that the attempted suicide/suicidal tendency rate for young transgender people is 50%, but decreases significantly among those who are loved and supported as they are, aka, including their transgender status.
His was not a loving response.



report abuse
 

John G

posted August 21, 2009 at 7:50 pm


Matt Kelley: It’s rather presumptuous to assume that we can articulate what “the” Christian worldview is, John G.
JG: Presumptuous, not at all. The revelation of God in his Word is and has been for Christianity the primary epistemological principle from which all its other truths are deduced. Since the revelation of God in his Word is objective and absolute, it establishes the truth and error, right and wrong, as it pertains to what Christians believe and how they live. Therefore, it is valid to assert that there is one worldview rather than many. According to Irenaeus, the Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our faith! (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1).
ben w: First, John G. I think you’re completely misguided to not be able to say that God loves homosexuals.
JG: Perhaps I am misguided as you’ve charged, but this is what I said: “This gives us the basis for which we can love the sinner despite the sin. This applies to us only, not to God (he hates the sinner and the sin, not just the sin).” — I assume you have an issue with my parenthetical statement that God does not love the sinner and only hate the sin, rather, hates the sinner and the sin. If I am reading you correct, here is why I am not shy to state that: For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; **you hate all evildoers.** (Ps. 5:4-5) [other translations: the *worker* of iniquity, not just the iniquity as contemporary pop-theology claims]
Joel: Wow…God hates the sinner? Well that’s news to me.
JG: see my response to ben w. I understand that this may come as a shock at first. The phrase, “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” is not found in Scripture. Nor is any derivative statement. The phrase is a sort of Christian motto or slogan similar to, “God helps those that help themselves,” etc. But it is not Scriptural.



report abuse
 

Rev. Greg McCaw

posted August 22, 2009 at 12:25 am


Wow, Ben W., at your suggestion, I did go to read Russell Moore’s paper from his Ethics class project. I am beyond amazed every time I read this kind of truly odd belief. I thank God daily, especially when I read this kind of sad ethical work, that I have been delivered from the deadly trap of Christian fundamentalism. Thank you for sharing the link, it was helpful to me in reminding me yet again just why I am emergent. Lord, Jesus, I pray, please, please protect LGBT people from this kind of “love.”



report abuse
 

ben w.

posted August 22, 2009 at 1:00 am


John G. – I appreciate that you keep looking to God’s revelation for support of your ideas, rather than basing them solely on your own thoughts.
I fully accept that you CAN, in a sense, say that God hates sinners. BUT, such a statement is incomplete and largely unhelpful. Again, I think there is plenty of biblical warrant for also saying that God loves ALL sinners. As I mentioned in my comment, Carson’s book gives greater detail of the various aspects and types of God’s love described in the Bible. God does not love all in the same way, and for some of His creatures, He loves them while His anger burns against them. I humbly encourage you to read Carson’s argument before you publicly say again, that God does not love sinners. I think such a statement is biblically reductionistic and unhelpful.



report abuse
 

John G

posted August 22, 2009 at 1:24 am


ben w,
If I recall Carson’s book correctly (it has been a few years), he speaks of a peculiar and discriminating love directed to the elect. I remember he worked emotions into agape overturning Nygren, I think, but I don’t recall him making an argument for universal love in the popular sentimental sense.
Perhaps you’d be so kind as to direct me to a chapter or even page number?



report abuse
 

Delphi Lomeli/transgendered female

posted August 22, 2009 at 2:01 am


My comment on Dr.Moore’s website regarding his anti-gender diatribe.
June 14th, 2009 at 6:23 am
One day the world will hear God’s message of redemption to all, not some, who have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory from my pulpit. This I can assure you. I will be living testimony of the power of God, who possesses both male and female traits, to transform not only the physical body but, the soul as well. The transformation is of course, with the grace of salvation through our savior Jesus Christ and coupled with salvation from doomed sinner to a saved saint. This is my calling. For you see, God is incapable, being a perfect God, of creating imperfect creatures, humans included. By definition, God created two, and only two perfect humans—our first ancestors. After sin entered God’s creation, perfect man became imperfect man. He populated the earth with imperfect, defective descendants born with, physical and other birth defects including the birth defect of gender incongruency. Spiritually, none of us are in possession of race, gender, or other superficial earthly attributes. God’s perception of his creation is not from human eyes limited by earthly illusion, but from a divine perspective whereby he perceives only good and evil. Both males and females were created in the image of God. Conclusion: God, that is the family of God, consists of both male and female traits. Both males and females are in need of salvation. Conclusion: being neither male nor female in and of itself is a characteristic of good nor evil. Therefore, the attribute of gender, and the physical correction thereof, serves neither to save nor condemn—shame on you for even perpetuating this logical fallacy. If I, you, or any other living person, sinners in the eyes of God, were ourselves created by God rather than products of human reproduction, then there would be no need for the savior. Descendants of reproduction that we are, we are tainted images of God. God has given us the wisdom to correct physical maladies including gender abonormalities borne as a product of sin. I have promised God, as thanks for correcting my gender malady, to serve him in the ministry proclaiming the Good News to all disenfranchised from churches such as yours that have strayed from God’s divine truth. God clearly specifies that which is sin—-being transgendered is not one of them.



report abuse
 

Delphi Lomeli/transgendered female

posted August 22, 2009 at 2:02 am

Rev. Greg McCaw

posted August 22, 2009 at 2:22 am


Tony, I believe that the reality of the existence of intersex persons is precisely the hinge upon which swings the entire discussion/debate about LGBT persons and their freedom to “be.” One is hard-pressed to find any scientific or Biblical support or evidence for what truly makes any particular human being identify as “male” or “female.” Intersex persons have potentially both, but perhaps more of one, gender’s genitalia, but, at the same time have the chromosomal make-up of the opposite gender, or at least more so. So, which is it that determines the actual gender? The genitalia? Or the chromosomal balance? And, if one is so bold as to attempt to answer this question as being either/or, by what authority? By what credentials are you qualified to say? And, what proof of your decision do you offer?
Further, it is a well-accepted point of agreement across all segments of society and medicine and science and sociology, etc., that the human brain is the single strongest determiner of the vast majority of our human experience. Our brains are where we generally experience life. All sensations – the way we feel, and see, and taste, and hear, and smell the world – are processed, are understood, are experienced in the brain. Even the non-substantial – framing story, point of view, system of belief/religion, love, attraction, romance, happiness, sadness, etc. – experiences of our lives are processed in the brain. Don’t most of us say, or, haven’t most of us said, when discussing sexuality, that our greatest, most important, strongest, most influential sexual “organ” is the brain? And, not the genitalia?
Much of the most recent good science concerning gender identity is concentrating on new discoveries of what goes on while a baby is forming in the uterus of its mother. Scientists are now finding that the same chromosomal oddities that cause intersex conditions also affect the development of the brain while in the uterus. And, there may even be other factors that also have an affect on brain development while in the uterus. Studies are ongoing as to whether it can be shown, and early results are promising, that the brain development of a fetus may indeed play a significant role in gender identity. As science opens more understanding of this complex issue, I, for one, fully expect to see results that show romantic orientation and identity also may be strongly affected during fetal development.
This all, of course, has to do with the age-old debate among religious persons as to whether this “otherness,” whether intersex, transgender, bisexual, gay or lesbian, is a “choice,” or “nature?” or “nurture?” I personally believe the answer lies in “both/and” rather than “either/or.” However, while “nurture” obviously plays a significant role in all human experience, there is increasingly strong evidence that sexual/gender “otherness” also has substantial causation in “nature.”
I would submit that religious fundamentalists must substantially demonstrate God’s intent in creating intersex people, which we know for a fact exist and had no “choice” as to whether they would be intersex, and that God’s plan for such persons is that they must “choose” a particular gender, based upon which genitalia are most prominent? I guess? and that they must also only be romantically/sexually involved with a person of the opposite gender from their own “chosen” or “assumed” gender, or they must live a life of celibacy. Since religious fundamentalists only have scripture to rely upon as a source for such substantiation, and since literal interpretation is what fundamentalism requires, I look forward with great anticipation to the day when such substantial demonstration can be accomplished.
Of course, that wait will be eternal because such substantiation cannot be accomplished. Fundamentalists base their response to this issue upon the insistence that “otherness,” in this respect, is “choice.” However, they are unable to claim “choice” when it comes to intersex persons. So, does God condemn intersex persons who by virtue of the nature of their ambiguous gender seem able to “choose” for themselves whether they are male or female and then, given that “choice,” seem able to “choose” which gender they will love? Nowhere does scripture speak to this issue.
I then further submit that our response to LGBT persons must be the same as our response to intersex persons. The truth is that we honestly know so little about the power of the brain, and how the brain develops during fetal development. The incidence of intersex, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons is far too common to assume that so many persons are simply being silly and selfish.
The answer to your question, Tony, in my mind is that love, in all of its aspects and splendor, must be responsibly experienced and lived out fully and freely by all persons, regardless of which “otherness” is realized, and that God blesses our responsible and respectful and mutually-fulfilling relationships.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted August 22, 2009 at 10:33 am


Rev. Greg McCaw said:
The answer to your question, Tony, in my mind is that love, in all of its aspects and splendor, must be responsibly experienced and lived out fully and freely by all persons, regardless of which “otherness” is realized, and that God blesses our responsible and respectful and mutually-fulfilling relationships.
end quote
What an excellent comment! Thank you!
There are ongoing studies in several countries which have already established that gay men and straight women have the same basic brain anatomy as do lesbians and straight men.
I frequently think, after reading many of the fundamentalist comments here, that much of their real motivation for discriminating against us is based on the absurd culturally determined role models Americans in the deep South and ‘red-nex’ districts are subject to.
You especially see this in the extreme focus upon anal-intercourse between two men among the fundamentalists writing here. The thought of a man being penetrated by another man scares them to death. Why, that is what women do! For a man to behave like an inferior being (a woman) is unthinkable.
Cultures in Europe which treat women as equal human beings also treat gays as human. Cultures which have highly segregated roles for men and women, with women being assigned inferior status treat us badly.
We are saved through God’s love, not man’s tolerance. For this, I am very grateful, indeed.



report abuse
 

Artboy

posted August 22, 2009 at 10:46 am


Rev:
As a guy who is unfamiliar with this territory, I found your comments mostly helpful, and felt my compassion growing for intersex people as I imagined their predicament. In the interest of moving the discussion forward, I offer a of questions:
// “…I would submit that religious fundamentalists must substantially demonstrate God’s intent in creating intersex people, which we know for a fact exist and had no “choice” as to whether they would be intersex…”//
Is it unloving, immoral, or incorrect to think of these people as having a physical deformity from birth? And if so why? If this is correct then we needn’t demonstrate God’s intent in “creating” them any more than we need demonstrate God’s intent in “creating” other people with disabilities. I have a son with a disability. He has been ignored and marginalized by most of his peers for all of his life. He may or may not ever marry. This doesn’t make him a new category of human being.
//”…Since religious fundamentalists only have scripture to rely upon as a source for such substantiation, and since literal interpretation is what fundamentalism requires…… Fundamentalists base their response to this issue upon the insistence that “otherness,” in this respect, is “choice.”…//
A correction here. Fundamentalists (I assume you mean Christian fundamentalists,) generally believe “all truth is God’s truth,” and do not view science as something that is in opposition to scripture. It is incorrect to say they “only have scripture to rely upon as a source for such substantiation.” They do rely on scripture as their final authority.
For example, it has been a couple of decades since I have viewed homosexual orientation as a “choice” because research consistently points to the cause being the result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors. There is no conflict with a “literal interpretation” of scripture here.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted August 22, 2009 at 10:59 am


Artboy,
I wish more fundamentalists were capable of your discernment. I’m very glad that your child who is different has such a parent.
I do think, however, that God permits both hetero and homosexuality as well as clearly ‘male and female’ as well as other genetically determined variations for good reason.
The insistence of so many conservative Christians that we all have to be either male or female and 100% heterosexual is what causes an enormous amount of misery. This attitude turns people away from Christianity.
When I am told that my love is the same as loving a rock, that my monogamous, loyal, faithful, true committed marriage is equal to practicing pedophilia, that conservative Christians would gladly end my marriage and tear me from my husband…not to mention those posting here who want to torture me (for my own good, of course), then it is very difficult not to become furious.
Scripture is not the final authority. God is. The discussions we have had on various languages and versions of the Bible here over the last days alone show that we can not, may not take the Bible literally. The simple fact that American conservative Christians have added the word ‘homosexual’ to some texts despite there being no such term in the originals is reason, alone, to reject such a position.
In the end, we all answer to God. I can not know his Mind. I find it highly unlikely, however, that he will condemn me for loving another man. Highly likely that he will ask, in detail, about everytime I could have used my money and social status to help the poor but relied on our endowed charities to ‘do the job’ instead of getting my hands dirty.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 22, 2009 at 2:23 pm


In reading this I am amazed at the scriptural Ignorance of people. Have Y’all never read Psalm 5:5, 11:5? Moreover, the idea that God Loves the Sinner and hates the sin, is not a Christian Concept, it was stated by a Christian in it’s original usage. I doubt that the majority of people even know who first said that…
Tony,
I understand that on the surface it may seem like intersexed persons are up a creek. However, in our modern society, we are lucky enough to have the ability to look at Chromosomes, and tell if a person is Male or Female. There are only 2 genetic choices here. Get the Test, and then do what the bible says. Doesn’t seem to hard now does it?



report abuse
 

Artboy

posted August 22, 2009 at 2:41 pm


TO DELPHI LOMELI :
For what it’s worth, I have read over your post a couple of times, and, regarding this issue, you have won me over.
Thank you for a carefully thought-out and illuminating statement. It seems that God has expanded your ministry beyond only those that are disenfranchised from the theologically conservative church, at least in my case.
If I understand you correctly, I see nothing in your statement that would be in conflict with an “inerrant” view of scripture, (which I hold.) I see nothing in your statement which would be objectionable to the majority of my “fundamentalist” friends, (especially were any of them to produce an intersex infant.)
However, I still think I disagree with Rev McCaw’s statement, “I then further submit that our response to LGBT persons must be the same as our response to intersex persons“, at least with regard to LGB persons. The difference seems to be the issue of the presence of a physical, observable, developmental defect. I don’t believe homosexuals would like for homosexuality to be perceived as a defect, and my understanding of the research (which is admittedly not comprehensive) does not suggest this. However, clearly, to say that environmental factors are the determining piece in a homosexual person’s development is not the same thing as saying homosexuals are born gay. Nor is it the same as saying homosexuality is a choice. I believe neither of the latter two views is correct.
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts Delphi. I also wouldn’t blame you for not wanting to step into this.
I’m also curious to see if I’m the only conservative who can embrace Delphi’s statement. Perhaps we can begin to find some common ground here.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm


Just a Correction from the Last Post – it should read – Moreover, the idea that God Loves the Sinner and hates the sin, is not a Christian Concept, it was *not* stated by a Christian in it’s original usage. I doubt that the majority of people even know who first said that…



report abuse
 

Joan

posted August 22, 2009 at 6:11 pm


Ken,
Speaking of ignorance, there actually are more than two chromosomal options; there are people with xxy, xxy, xxyy, and xyy genotypes (just to name a few-there are more variations). Additionally there are people with androgen insensitivity syndrome who have an xy genotype but are female bodied, as well as chimeric individuals who have some cells with an xy genotype and some with xx. Although many people believe that it’s a matter of one or the other the reality is that biology is somewhat messy and doesn’t run on hard, fast, and simple rules. As a result the variation in gender and its expression is virtually limitless, and in my opinion a source of beauty and wonder rather than an abomination.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 22, 2009 at 11:05 pm


Joan,
I am of not as ignorant as you might think, I was speaking in general. There are of course special cases that would fall under pastoral discernment, but in general one either has a y Chromosome or they do not.



report abuse
 

ben w.

posted August 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm


John G., (and Ken, if you responding to my comments as well…) it’s been a couple years since I perused the book as well, but I checked the Amazon reviews and people praise / curse this point of Carson’s as well. It seems to be between pages 10 and 25 where he details the different aspects of God’s love (which of course also includes a discriminating love toward the elect.) Carson affirms that Reformed-types (like myself) can tell non-believers that God loves them, while recognizing that this love is different from God’s salvific love toward the elect.
I (and I think Carson) am not as at odds with you as you seem to think. I am certainly not affirming God’s universal love in the “popular sentimental sense” and I’m not sure why you thought I was. But I do want to say that you can affirm “God loves the sinner and hates their sin” as a true, even if incomplete statement (because it is also true that God hates them personally).



report abuse
 

John G

posted August 23, 2009 at 6:37 am


panthera says: Scripture is not the final authority. God is…I can not know his Mind.
JG: That says it all, folks! (Bible: “…we have the mind of Christ.” 1 Cor. 2:16)
ben w, I’ll drop the issue between us for now seeing that only a very minor nuance separates us at this point. As Reformed brothers we should be aware of our intramural debates and set them aside for the sake of more important issues. We should save these discussions (God’s love, the decrees, baptism, etc.) for when we smoke and drink beer in private!



report abuse
 

Sarah d.

posted August 23, 2009 at 9:21 am


You people continue placing gender ans sexuality in the same mold. I am a transsexual woman. you are saying if I have a sexual relationship with a male I am homosexual. Being a true transsexual female that makes having a sexual relationship with a male a Heterosexual act. I am not Homosexual and never have been but the church keeps mixing gender and sexual relationships together. I was born and raised as Sarah and I prefer men not women. but just because I have genitals that look similar to a male I am told I am gay. Being a woman is first nature to me not male so where do we go from here. if I dated women I would be called a lesbian and if I dated a male I would be called gay. you tell me what gender I should be dating because the church has me confused.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted August 23, 2009 at 11:09 am


John G: Ah, the arrogance, the arrogance.
So you really purport that being a Christian equates to knowing God’s mind?
Wow.
I am a Christian because I have accepted God’s forgiveness of my sins, offered through his Grace, given to me by the death of his Son.
You, on the other hand, just semantically raised yourself to God’s own august level.
Goodness. The cherry-picking is beyond belief among you conservative Christians. Let’s have the entire verse, shall we?
1 Corinthinans 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
Did I say the mind of Christ? Why no, I did not. I said God’s mind.
False witness may follow both from commission as well as from omission.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted August 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm


I’m not gay but if all followers of Jesus are going to be celibate one day I’m joining the Buddhists!



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 23, 2009 at 9:16 pm


Panthera: “Did I say the mind of Christ? Why no, I did not. I said God’s mind.”
Hmmm…so Christ is no longer God?



report abuse
 

Joan

posted August 23, 2009 at 9:36 pm


Ken,
Are you saying that it’s up to pastoral discenment to decide whether one identifies as male or female based on 46 genotype? Is genetic analysis taught in seminary? Are you saying that kerotypic (appearing) famales who are androgen insensitive but possess an xy genoype should be given hormonal treatment and surgery to become male? even if they identify as female? Sorry, but although having a 46 y chromosome frequently corresponds with a male body and identity it is not an absolute correlation. Sure, either one has a y chromosome or one doesn’t, but the possession of a y chromosome (or two x chromosomes) does not always correspond with physical or mental gender identity. The world that god created does not place humans into an either/or position, granted the occurence of gender sterotype defying individuals is not as common as those who are gender typical but they do exist, naturally (and not as uncommon as you might think), and to deny their existence is to deny the full truth and extent of God’s creation



report abuse
 

panthera

posted August 23, 2009 at 10:23 pm


Daniel,
Perhaps you should read the entire thread before jumping to conclusions.
It might help to read the Bible, too.
If, after reading both my comments and those of John G (who, despite his many hateful attitudes does write clearly) you still think 1 Corinthians equates God’s mind and Jesus mind within the context of the verse concerned than I doubt not, one of the more fundamentalist Christians here will be quite happy to explain the verse and its meaning to you.
If you will accept the interpretation of a gay Christian, I take the verse to mean that Jesus gave us a means to achieve God’s will for us, it being otherwise beyond us to embrace even the smallest trace of his mind.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm


Joan~
I am saying that in cases that fall outside the norm, the biblical model is that one should have and submit to pastoral authority. That does not mean that the medical field is out of the picture is out of the picture at all, but rather that the shepherd of the flock is to be looked to for advice in odd situations, such as an abnormal genetic code. That pastor will no doubt have a serious load of work to do, but my point is that we have general concepts from the bible, this includes sexual/gender issues, and that outside of that we must look to pastoral authority. The pastor’s roll is to deal with difficult ethical and moral problems.
As to your statement that the World God created not putting people into gender kinds, I think that you might need to re-read Genesis 1-2 and Matthew 19.



report abuse
 

Alex

posted August 24, 2009 at 12:51 pm


“That does not mean that the medical field is out of the picture is out of the picture at all, but rather that the shepherd of the flock is to be looked to for advice in odd situations, such as an abnormal genetic code.”
Talk about above ones pay grade!



report abuse
 

R Hampton

posted August 24, 2009 at 1:55 pm


In 1999, the Texas 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio said chromosomes — not sex-change operations or outward gender characteristics — determine a person’s gender. That ruling allowed Jessica and Robin Wicks to be married the following year because one was born a man (and later had a sex change operation). The rest comes from an article published by the Cox News Service in September 2000:
Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, the president of the Texas Conservative Coalition, said … “We don’t object to a marriage license being issued since we do favor a marriage between a man and woman and this fits the legal definition of gender. They are legally a man and a woman. What they do once they are married is up to them.”
But other issues complicate things, said Jack Sampson, a University of Texas law professor. Not everyone is born with a set of chromosomes, XX or XY, that clearly defines their gender. Hermaphrodites and other cases of confused genetics could pose problems.
Klinefelter syndrome: three sex chromosomes 47(XXY)
Turner syndrome: one sex chromsome 45(X)
Because we only have two legally recognized sexes, how do we “assign” gender to those with said afflictions?
We know that gays can legally marry someone of the opposite sex, but who is the opposite sex for someone with said afflctions?



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm


Alex ~
Not at all, There is no higher pay grade then being judged for your shepherding of the Flock by God Almighty.



report abuse
 

noah

posted September 2, 2009 at 12:40 am


hey tony,
yet another blog with no scripture.
how do we expect your argument to hold water if you dont use scripture?
you claim to be a christian right? they why dont you ever use the book that dictates your religion?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

My Blog Has Moved
Dear Readers, After a year with Beliefnet, I've decided to move to my own domain for my blogging.  It's been a fine year -- some things worked, other things didn't.  But in the end, I'll be a better blogger on my own.  My thanks to the Bnet editorial staff; they've been very supportive. Ple

posted 12:13:57pm Nov. 13, 2009 | read full post »

The Most Important Cartoon of the Year
By Steve Breen, San Diego Tribune, October 18, 2009

posted 8:51:22am Oct. 25, 2009 | read full post »

Social Media for Pastors
Following up on Christianity21, we at JoPa Productions are developing a series of boot camps for pastors who want to learn about and utilize social media tools like blogging, Twitter, and Facebook.  These are one-day, hands-on learning experiences, currently offered in the Twin Cities and soon

posted 10:45:52am Oct. 22, 2009 | read full post »

Ending Christian Euphemisms: "Fundamentalist"
I've taken some heat in the comment section for using yesterday's post on "unbiblical" and a "higher view of scripture" as a thin foil for my own disregard of biblical standards. To the contrary, I was pointing to the use of the word unbiblical as a stand-in for a particularly thin hermeneutic. Ther

posted 10:15:41am Oct. 21, 2009 | read full post »

Why You Should Get GENERATE
Last week at Christianity21, GENERATE Magazine debuted. With the tag line, "an artifact of the emergence conversation," it fit perfectly at the gathering. When I actually got around to reading it last weekend, I was truly surprised at how good it is.There have been several efforts to begin a paper j

posted 3:14:37pm Oct. 20, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.