The purpose of this post is to preserve some remarks I made on this subject on Facebook a couple of days ago. Some readers ask that I record them in a sharable format and so I shall. But first, a couple of paragraphs to provide context for other readers.
There is an incredible amount of really good material out there right now, and a new wave of some incredibly bad material, addressing how one reconciles Traditional Christian doctrines about human identity and sexuality with a modern understanding of these identities and the physicality associated with them. I do not propose that what I will write for this humble blog to be a contribution to the conversation on that level. But I have some thoughts.
It seems to me that the recently published material out there takes a pretty binary position. The repressive material such as recent works by Andrew Walker and Ryan T. Anderson, or the infamous Nashville Statement (which I addressed at length here) obviously takes a hard line against any expression of LGB/T identity. Even though they have shifted grudgingly off the denial that there is something innate about being gay or trans (barely) they still maintain a strict "repress it" position which effectively amounts to the same thing, except more cruel. They do so of course because, assuming you impart noble motives to them, they are absolutely committed to the Traditional doctrine that the Bible forbids both. As Article 10 of the Nashville Statement makes clear, they view it as a non-negotible litmus test of authentic Christianity to affirm that view. On the other end of the spectrum, most of the progressive material (which I endorse) argues that at a minimum the Bible CAN be read without finding condemnation for either trans or homosexual identities, if not must be read thus. The remarks that I am about to share present a point of view that falls, in a sense, between these contrasting positions.
Much of the Traditionalist literature that acknowledges there is something beyond choice in being trans or homosexual still insist that with God's help, such a person can be "delivered" from acting on those "desires" as is argued in Stephen Black's book "Freedom Realized." The unaddressed question though, is to what is the person conforming - the edict of God or the tradition of men?
Yes, people can force themselves to conform to the demands of human tradition - either sincerely or as an outward facade - but such conformity does not (a) prove an actual change in the underlying nature; or (b) represent a validation of the tradition being conformed to. While I recognize that as one who's career and livelihood is completely dependent on being an officer in the anti-LGB/T army and thus, Black (or Walker or Anderson or passionately anti-trans Denny Burk) is wildly unlikely to actually give thoughtful consideration to the possibility they have been in error, I will nevertheless offer you the counter-argument that I offered in repose to the Nashville Statement, if as nothing more than a general response for the benefit of more fair minded readers.
While I recognize that there are passages in the Bible that can be interpreted as condemning all same sex relationship (there are not any against being trans, but I'll lay that aside for now) and I recognize that if the Bible is of any value at all, there is one objective reality when it comes to God's opinion on any given topic... the reality is that after 2,000 years Christians do not have unanimous consent on it (God's opinion) - on any given topic concerning human behavior or, indeed, very much else. So here's a question that deserves consideration:
Various Christian denominations have fundamental disagreements with each other about the nature and method of salvation, arguably the most important doctrine communicated in the Bible, yet well educated well intentioned and Christ seeking scholars cannot arrive at a unanimous consent on the details. Even so, the vast majority of Christians show deference and respect to their fellow believers who differ on this key topic, recognizing it is possible for sincere believers to disagree in their interpretation. On the single most important thing God revealed to us.
This is also true of a great many other doctrines big and small such as Baptism, the time and nature of worship, use of alcohol, how to dress, and so forth, and in the vast majority of cases (a couple of denominations are exceptions) there's obvious mutual respect. And yet according to these folks on this ONE issue - two actually, gay and trans are distinct and separate things, but they think of them as one - there can be NO deviation from their preferred interpretation of the relevant Scripture.
So here's my question: how is it possible that an Omniscient God left room for his imperfect creation to disagree among themselves about the single most important message he ever authored for them, BUT at the same time was unmistakably clear about his view on the use of the penis? How does that make ANY sense? Do we REALLY think that's the model Christ walked for us in the Gospels? Prioritizing the Doctrine of sex and gender above all else in Scripture? How can anyone believe that?
Christ ministered to the outcast, the marginalized, the pariahs of society - Pharisees created pariahs by their traditions.He rebuked the Pharisees repeatedly, his "go and sin no more" remark was to a woman who was caught in an act that literally EVERY Christian recognizes as sin you can rightly infer that message to any person involved in actual sin, but that message does not give Black et al the last word on what IS sin. Christians of good faith have a GREAT deal of disagreement about what constitutes sin. Unless the SBC (and others) wants the holiness churches haranguing them because their wives wear makeup and jewelry and pants and their men sometimes wear beards because it's okay to impose YOUR concept of sin upon those with a different view?
I was a preacher myself for 20 years, I know the drill. It's understandable that a congregation will be taught doctrine according to their denomination's views and their pastor's understanding, that process is not at issue here (even though that environment can be toxic for LGB/T kids) What is at issue is Pharisees taking THEIR definition of sin outside the congregation and trying to enforce it as a requirement upon the entire society, regardless of differing views even among Christians. The fact that Christians can come to the conclusion that "x" (whatever X may be) is sinful is natural, the notion that therefore EVERYONE must agree and comply that "x" is sinful and must be avoided is arrogant Phariseeism that looks nothing like what Christ modeled for us. The folks are very intent on LEGISLATING their doctrine upon all, even though both Paul and Peter specifically said "don't do that" and Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world". And failing that, using the power of collective shunning and shaming to force into compliance those they mark as deviant, even in the absence of legal recourse.
For example: if you sincerely believe the Bible forbids interfaith marriages, then your task is to only marry a Christian - NOT to go about finding every person married to someone of a different faith and lecturing them about their sin, Scripture says each of us will give an account of our OWN sins, and that there is no man who is a mediator between man and God. If that person believes that God does not forbid that marriage, that's between them and God. It doesn't concern you (and so much the less so when Pharisees try to enforce their doctrines under color of law). Remember, too, that what a given church - say the SBC - or a given person is absolutely convicted is sinful changes over time. 60 years ago millions of "Good Christians" were absolutely convinced race mixing was sinful. Did God change his mind? No.
Rather, failing and imperfect human beings were forced to realized their traditional doctrine, no matter how sincerely held, was in error (or perhaps in some cases simply recognized their ministry would suffer if they kept preaching that) and that has happen many many times in church history, and it continues to in our generation.
I'm not even finding fault here with your interpretation of those relevant passages, rather I'm finding fault with the arrogant assumption that you can't POSSIBLY be wrong - on this ONE subject there is no mistaking God's word. That, folks, is the way of the Pharisee.
I have, as you can see from my other infrequent posts her and my regular posting at The Girl Inside, quite a bit else to say on the subject of the intersection of traditional religion and trans identities, including prominently some theories about the motivations of the Traditionalist Pharisees. I want to make clear here that my intent is not to impart credibility to the arguments of the Traditionalists, but to present a different angle on viewing the topic which steps outside the "You're wrong/No you're wrong" debate. Ultimately, one has to be able to at least CONSIDER the possibility their view is in error if they are ever going to grow in wisdom and knowledge. My appeal to people like Mr. Black (however doomed to failure) and those who might find their arguments persuasive (perhaps softer ground for the seed) cannot start with "let me tell you why you are wrong" unless the question is first asked - will you even consider it possible that you might be?
Feel free to share this material as you see fit. Link backs to either blog (or both) are appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment