An Example of Christian Choice of Love Over Legalism

Tags

arguments, attacks, Bible, Biblical authority, born again, brokenness, bullying, child molestation, Christian leaders, Christian service, church, conviction, daily Bible reading, effeminate, ex-gay, experiment, Gay, gay theology, God's love, Gospel, grace, growth, guilt, harassment, Hawaii, homosexuality, hypocrisy, Jesus Christ, judgmental, legalism, LGBT, liberal, light, Lois Simmons, loving parents, male role models, men's fellowship, old-fashioned, open and affirming, peace, personal testimony, prayer, real-life experience, reprobate, salvation, sexual urges, shame, sin, sports, stability, stay-at-home mom, struggle, submitted, Sunday school, support system, Sy Rogers, symptoms, Transgender, U.S. Navy, unbelievers, walk with God, witness

To finish the list from my previous post, we jump back to the present day to someone with a history perhaps even more complex than the Apostle Paul.  This is probably the biggest risk I have ever taken with a blog post.  There are people who castigate him as someone who shames gay people.  There are people who laud him as an example of being cured of homosexuality and/or transgender.  But if you listen to his personal testimony rather than jumping to preconceived notions, you might find that he has gone far beyond these things in his message.

Sy Rogers has run the gamut from being associated with more than one letter of the LGBT acronym to being an active member of the ex-gay movement.  Now, according to recent remarks I have heard him make to audiences, he simply preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I find his story a fascinating journey from a troubled early life to a life of experimenting with lifestyles and identities to a triumphant and satisfied life of peace in Christ.  And it is a story that I present here as faithfully as possible as an objective reporter, not an editorial commentator.

This is the second blog post I have written about Sy Rogers.  The first, posted on 8/8/14, found no fault with him.  It only found fault with those who claim that he is a cured transsexual.  In their zeal, they ignore his own testimony.  That post is consistent with this one.  He never really is or was transgender.  It was an experiment after trying a number of other paths.  Fortunately for him, the Lord spared him from a terrible mistake.

http://wp.me/p45rR3-ey

It was when Sy focused on pleasing God that he found peace.  And that is the core of the message he now preaches.

So early in life that he does not even know at what age it occurred, he began to be molested with regularity.  Outside of the home, before he ever experienced any sexual attractions or became aware of any sexual orientation, Sy’s speech and mannerisms made him a target for reprehensible verbal attacks and bullying, using terms for being gay and/or effeminate that are too vile to repeat.  While most of his peers did not join in, none of them did much, if anything, to come to his aid.  And it should be pointed out that his attackers were not people who identified as LGBT.

At some point in adolescence, Sy decided that his attackers might be correct and that this is who he was.  He began to seek and find same sex relationships.  The verbal attacks and bullying continued through school until he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was stationed in Hawaii.  There his fellow sailors pretty much left him alone.  He theorizes that they respected anyone who had what it took to make it through basic training, regardless of any other personal views.  He used whatever free time allotted to him to lead a double life: sailor following orders on duty and active involvement in the gay community off base.  This included him meeting and becoming friends with men who identified as gay Christians.  They attended churches that identified as open and affirming of the gay lifestyle.  While Sy believed in God his whole life, he was lukewarm even about this church because he was angry with God.

The next step in Sy’s journey occurred after he finished his tour with the Navy.  He enrolled in college.  It was a difficult experience for him.  He became the target for any anti-gay sentiment on campus.  The college would not allow him to have a dorm roommate.  Petitions were filed against him.  He was nominated for homecoming queen as a joke.  He also says that there were some Christians who cared enough about him to try to witness to them.  But the mistake they made, well-meaning as they were, was to try to win theological arguments with him instead of emphasizing that God indeed loves him.

Around this time, two of his gay Christian friends, friends whose marriage he celebrated with them, contacted him with news they were excited to share.  By reading the Bible for themselves, they became convinced that the gay theology taught by their church was in error.  They renounced their marriage and their gay lifestyle, were born again and started to attend a conservative church.

The initial effect that this had on Sy was to challenge a key pillar in his life, the teaching of the liberal church that God had made him gay and he should celebrate it. But that pillar wasn’t immediately replaced with a new support system.  He decided that he was a failure as a man, as so many people were telling him.  In fact, maybe he wasn’t a man at all.  The only way that made sense for him to be born again was to be reborn as a woman.  He went so far as to live as a woman for about 18 months in preparation for “sex change”.

At that time, Sy heard directly from God even though he wasn’t actively seeking Him.  God found him when no Christian, no mocker, no church led Sy to Him.  God and particularly the love and redemption of God became real to him.  He reports that God didn’t say for him to stop being gay, but simply to walk with Him.  Sy realized this was what he had needed all along.  Having been told that he was reprobate and couldn’t be saved on the one hand, and that God made him gay on the other, he decided to turn to the Bible for himself to see what God had to say on the matter.

As a result, Sy turned away from living as a woman.  He didn’t return to a gay lifestyle, even though his gay friends attempted to bring him back there.  Soon, he realized that he needed to associate with people who shared his current values.  He started attending a church.  In this church, he found the male companionship he was lacking all his life and so desperately needed.  They didn’t judge him as effeminate, which Sy admits that he still was very much so at the time.  They simply drew him into their fellowship over and over again.  For the first time in his life, he met men who simply accepted him as a man and didn’t want to either beat him up or have sex with him.  This required an adjustment period for him, one that he was able to eventually work through.

Salvation is not followed by “and they lived happily ever after.”  Sy faced trials.  The main one was that he still had urges for sex with other men and the guilt he experienced as a result.  He became a pastor, got married and has a family (a daughter) and turned to the ex-gay movement, becoming an active participant in it.

But none of those things helped to get rid of the urges or the guilt: of feeling unworthy of salvation.  He needed something greater and he found it: a closer relationship and intimacy with God.  Sy reports that he received a word from the Lord, reminding him of two things: that God is from everlasting to everlasting and knows the end from the beginning, and that God knew he would continue to have these urges after he was saved.  The key was not the struggle against the urges.  The key was to substitute something better and stronger.  Sy learned to confess that yes, he still has these desires, but his love and desire for the Lord is greater.

Sy is still involved in ministry, but is no longer part of the ex-gay movement.  His focus is not on rebuking people for their sins, but for showing them the light, love and Gospel of Jesus Christ.  He counts his own salvation as the single most important accomplishment in his life.  And he counts leading others to Christ as his most important ministry.  When people give their life to the Lord, he trusts that the Lord will convict them of their sins, whatever they may be.  It’s not his role to judge.  He doesn’t need to do God’s work for Him.

Sy told a story in one of the videos of him that I watched.  It is a good example of where his emphasis is now.  He reports that a pastor told Sy that when a same sex couple moved next door to him, he shunned them and made his disapproval of them apparent.  Sy asked the pastor what he would do if an unmarried heterosexual couple moved next door to him.  The pastor affirmed that he and his wife would invite them to dinner at his house.  Sy was able to show him the hypocrisy of offering fellowship to the one couple and denying it to the other, even though the pastor admitted that he believes both are living in sin in their relationship.  The witness the pastor was giving to the first couple was helping push them away from Christ, the last thing any Christian should be doing.

I have done my best to accurately share Sy Rogers’ story.  Lest I fell short in any way, here is one example of his testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gbVgcKZQtg

My testimony is quite different from Sy Rogers’.  I grew up in a stable home with an older brother and parents who were married nearly 65 years when my dad passed from this earth and my mom followed him 18 months later.  I had good relationships with both my parents who were both present in my life (including a stay at home mom).  They loved me and provided for me, taking care of my needs and even some of my wants and desires.  But they certainly were not indulgent as many of my friends’ parents were.  They had old-fashioned values (and happened to be a half generation older than most of my friends’ parents).  My mom made sure that I went to church until I left home for college: then I could decide for myself what I wanted to do.  And I loved church and Sunday school.

For a while, I turned away from the institution of church as many of my generation did.  But I met a woman when I was 27 years old.  Before we even started courting, her Christian testimony as part of her life story, not as a rebuke or in an attempt to lead me to God (she knew that at some level I believed in Him), convicted me that I needed to return to church and the fellowship of other Christians.  We fell in love and got married and I became both husband and instant father to my infant stepson.  And even though the marriage failed within a year, as did an attempt at reconciling 25 years later, I know that my return to church was a marvelous gift of God through this woman to whom I was once married.  Slowly but surely, I grew as a Christian because of taking that step.  And I must add that I initially returned to the church I attended as a child, in part because the pastor always was encouraging and friendly should we meet in public during that period of being away from the church.  He never chastised me for my absence.

I never have identified as gay.  My transition was never about doing so to get rid of guilt or shame when having sex with men.  I have never had sex with men and did not transition to seek a sexual relationship with a man.  If I end up in a marriage relationship with a man, it will be because my future spouse and I will, after much prayer, have arrived at the belief that this is God’s will for our lives.  I am open and submitted to God’s will for my life.  I have had men attracted to me since I began transition.  I did not seek them and none of them were God’s will for me to pursue.

At the same time, I knew I was female from the time I was seven years old.  Unlike Sy’s testimony, it was not an experiment because nothing else was working.  I was quite content in my childhood, doing well in school, having a good relationship with my brother who I emulated in many ways until I got older and started to express my own likes and dislikes.  I loved sports and had male friends and was never accused of being effeminate, and certain not bullied or mocked or called insulting names.  My struggle was not so much internal as my need to deal with the knowledge that there were (apparently) almost no other people like me plus my awareness that society considered people like me something to be mocked, scorned or condemned.

But none of that kept me away from the church and God.  In my case, I actively served in church as a trustee and an elder before I was saved.  During this time, I attended regularly and took an active part in church life.  I was respected.  I served on the pastor nominating committee when the pastor I had known for well over 20 years at that church resigned to go to another church.

I was quite the ecumenicist at the time, studying other religions including eastern religions and philosophies.  Like Sy, God found me in my own home, an answer to a very open-ended question I asked.  I was 36 years old.  From that time, I put away all other religions, and my relationship with God grew closer and closer.  I began to grieve when I fell short of the glory of God rather than look to excuse or justify my sins.  I occasionally gave a sermon when the pastor was on vacation, and I gave the only altar call I ever heard given in that church.  I was convicted to pray and read the Bible daily and read the Bible cover to cover.  (I would estimate that I’ve done so at least 15 times by now, sometimes in a year, sometimes more slowly and more studiously.)

Two and a half years after I was saved, I became part of a worldwide ministry (primarily men), a non-denominational missionary outreach of local churches.  It was here that I had even stronger and closer fellowship with men, wonderful Christian role models, especially as I was able to go outside my local area in the ministry and see men in positions of greater authority.  I also saw many strong and loving Christian marriages, with wonderful relationships between husbands and wives.

I was in the main part of that ministry for nearly 21 years.  I still love the work of that ministry and support it financially as I am now in a peripheral part of it.  I have calculated that to the glory of God, He equipped me to have a tangible part in the distribution of well over 300,000 copies of His word (either full Bibles or pocket New Testaments) through personal donations, by placing them directly in the hands of people or in various locations where they were accepted, by raising funds by speaking in churches, or by creating the assignments for teams of men to go out and distribute His word.

But here is a key point in my testimony: when He saved me, God knew I would transition 23 years after I was saved.  He also knew I would continue to grow in His word, love Him more and more, be active in a Bible-believing church, and give my Christian testimony (as I am doing right now).  In addition to God’s foreknowledge, there’s a more subtle point.  Those 23 years were a long time of being in God’s word until I saw the scriptures that showed me God’s mind on this matter of how I was created.  I did not act on transitioning until I had this Biblical knowledge.  In addition, although my life had experienced its share of relationship and financial struggles, the need to live as my authentic self came at a time when my life was content and untroubled by anything else.

Furthermore, I still distribute His word on a limited basis as well as continuing to contribute to the purchase of scripture (whether for me to hand out or for others to distribute, mostly in countries where they can afford to purchase far less than the need).  I am currently a member of a church that is also another well-known worldwide Christian ministry: the Salvation Army.  I have shared my Christian testimony and my transgender testimony with a number of people there.  I walk in the light and no longer hide who I am in darkness.  And just before Christmas 2016, the Lord gave me a wonderful encouragement.  I was able to hand out about 75 copies of His word to the needy people of the area who were picking up presents for their children and food for their holiday dinners.  And we would have been able to hand out more scriptures if we hadn’t run out.  We will be better prepared next year to help our neighbors satisfy their hunger for God’s word as well as their hunger for a celebratory feast.

A second key point in my testimony is that once I reached the point where I considered acting on transitioning, I did not keep this knowledge from my pastor at the time (not the church I go to now).  I came out to him early in the process.  We prayed together and searched the scriptures together.  I spoke to whoever he wanted me to speak to on the matter.  Throughout the process, he never stopped showing me Christian love or respecting me as a person.  He continued to acknowledge my authentic Christian identity.

I have no idea if Sy Rogers would accept my testimony.  I have no idea if he would be willing to share a stage with me to present our life stories and then carry out the important work of witnessing for Christ.  I certainly have no right to speak for him on a topic where I have not heard him speak.  What I do know is that in his current testimony, he does not identify as having been gay or transgender.  He considers those symptoms of the brokenness of his upbringing, not identity.

What I have in common with Sy Rogers is that I have a life story and the most important part is what God has done for me in my life.  As I routinely tell people, first I am a Christian: that is my eternal spiritual identity.  Next I am female: that is my innate gender identity.  Somewhere down on the list is the anatomical incongruence that makes me transgender.

Someone who is generally recognized as a Christian leader in the United States recently commented that Jesus wasn’t always loving.  Any Christian leader should tremble when making remarks like that.  Jesus’ rebukes were almost always directed at those in religious leadership who enforced the letter of the law without understanding or including the love, mercy and compassion of God that was at the heart of the spirit of the law; who required burdens of their proselytes that they themselves would not bear; who condemned tax collectors for cheating the people when collecting taxes for the Roman government but were just as guilty for their involvement in cheating the people in the temple when it came to exchanging their currency for the shekel to pay the tax or in declaring their offering blemished so they could sell them another animal for sacrifice.

When Jesus taught and even corrected multitudes of the common people, it was never in a harsh or attacking way.  As Paul advised in Colossians 4:6, so did Jesus minister to the people: his speech always with grace, seasoned with salt.  The grace, lovingkindness, compassion, gentleness, healing, feeding and freeing the people from the bondage of the Law was what drew people to Him.  The salt was to convict them when they were violating the spirit of the Law or were slow to see and hear the message in His teaching.  But if the message is all salt, who can swallow it?  It drives the people away.

And Jesus did not rebuke the Roman authorities and other Gentiles who did not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  He didn’t fear them.  Why should he?  It wasn’t that they were excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.  Their time would come in the next 10-15 years.  No, it was simply because He knew that they were not ready to receive His message.

But today, leaders routinely attack those who are outside of the body of Christ, who do not consider the Bible their authority, for doing things and committing sins contrary to Biblical teaching.  Of course they don’t.  Why would they follow the teachings of something that they don’t consider authoritative?

Judgment begins within the Church, not outside of it.  When the body of Christ gets its act together and presents a Christlike face to the rest of the world, then we can do a more effective job of drawing people to Christ.  Yes, there will always be those who hate us, because the world hated Him before they hated us.  But if one must suffer, it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing wrong.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things.  But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? – Romans 2:1-3

God bless,

Lois

Christians’ Choice: Witness for Christ or Condemn for Self

Tags

1st Corinthians 13, Acts 16, Adam Smith, Agape, Apostle Paul, Bill of Rights, Cesare Beccaria, China, Christian Liberty, Christian principles, Christianity, Christians, Colossians 3, Constitution, culture wars, David Hume, Eric Liddell, evangelism, First Amendment, founding fathers, free exercise, freedom, Freedom of Religion, Gentile, God-given rights, gold medal, Gospel, Gospel of John, grace, Holy Spirit, internment, jailor, James Buchanan HS, Japanese, Jesus Christ, Jew, John Calvin, John Locke, legalism, Life Book, Love, marketplace of ideas, martyrdom, Mercersburg, missionary, Montesquieu, obedience, Olympics, Pennsylvania, Pharisee, Philippi, Plato, politics, prison, public education, Rene Descartes, responsibility, road to Damascus, Rousseau, rule of law, sacrifice, salvation, Thomas Hobbes, United States, values, Violet Clark, Voltaire, witness

Many Christians in the U.S. today are preoccupied with fixing: fixing the country; fixing the culture; fixing individuals who identify in various ways.  Is this what the Bible calls for?  And is this a worldwide phenomenon for Christians?

To some extent this is a phenomenon pretty much found in the United States alone.  Behind this preoccupation is the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation based on Christian values, and that if the United States abandons those values, the nation will experience a significant decline from its greatness.  Those at the forefront of this movement will point to evidence that in some ways the United States is already experiencing the beginnings of decline including a corresponding moral decline, and that the evidence parallels both the growing trend to remove God (and especially in the person of Jesus Christ) from the public square.

Regarding their premise, there is a great deal of evidence that the United States was founded on Christian principles and by mostly Christian political leaders.  We can see it in everything from numerous laws, to the theological content of the early McGuffey Readers, to the foundation of colleges and hospitals, to oaths of office and swearing in of witnesses on a Bible, to public statements by political leaders at their inauguration in office, their farewell addresses and speeches at times of national crisis.

But were these the only principles upon which the United States was founded?  We might accurately say with a touch of humor that the Founding Fathers relied on both Calvin and Hobbes.  Indeed, they were influenced by the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Cesare Beccaria, David Hume, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Rousseau and Plato: all known for varying degrees of secularism in their major writings and some not Christian at all.

Therefore, while we were seen as being endowed with unalienable rights by a creator God, the United States also greatly expanded the rights of a free people to both participate in the political process of the new republic and to enjoy life and liberty and pursue happiness as they saw fit, provided it did not interfere with those same rights in others.  So even though these rights come from God, each citizen could choose how to worship God or not worship at all, or even refuse to believe in the existence of God.  Certainly many political leaders of that time would have believed in the superiority of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas and therefore would have had little concern about the United States ever abandoning Christianity to any great degree.  One of the ways to ensure that, they believed, was to have a well-educated public in at least the basics, what became known as “the three R’s”.  From such was spawned an emphasis on the importance of a public school education for all children who reached a certain age and the establishment of most of the early collegiate institutions of the country.  (Ironically, most of these colleges are today liberal bastions and harbors of negativity towards Christianity.)

Regardless of the origins of the political system and the prevailing culture in the United States, we’ve come a long way and seen many changes in the 450+ years since the first permanent colony by Europeans was established in St. Augustine, the 400+ years since settlers from England founded Jamestown and the 240+ years since the First Continental Congress of the American colonies met, leading to the 13 colonies declaring their independence from Great Britain less than two years later.  In particular during the past fifty years, Americans have moved away from mainline Protestant denominations in general and from organized religion in particular.  Many also continue to nominally identify as Protestants or Catholics, but have turned away from strict adherence to Papal authority in the case of Roman Catholics, and local ecclesiastic authority in the case of Protestants, many of whom retain the identity but are essentially unchurched.

At the same time, there has been growth or at least continued strength in various denominations of Baptists as well as in independent evangelical Christian churches (some in small splinter denominations) which include a number of megachurches.  It is from these denominations and churches that the greatest hue and cry comes to see the United States either continue to be or return to be a “Christian nation”.  But the question is, how should this occur, through politics or evangelism?  And if through evangelism or both ways, what should the evangelical part of the message be?

First and foremost, let me state unequivocally that there is nothing in either the Bible or the Constitution of the United States that prohibits Christians (including clergy) from participating in the political process, whether voting, voicing public opinion, running for office at any level, and serving in either appointed or elective offices in any of the branches of government at any level.  And certainly the positions and actions of those who serve in government can and must be influenced by their moral beliefs and convictions as shaped by their spirituality.  But it must also be consistent with the laws under which they serve and swear or affirm in some way their fealty to.  And if those same moral beliefs and convictions cause them to have sharp and deep disagreement with any of those laws, their attempts to change those laws must also be within the framework of the law.  Furthermore, if they can no longer abide by the framework of the law, they must be willing to accept the consequences if found guilty of violating the law in a fair and just hearing or trial.

There is, and should be, far less restriction on what is preached or taught within churches and in general the free exchange of ideas in the public square.  This is also part of the “American experiment” in freedom, including protections within the Bill of Rights regarding the free exercise of religion.  And that free exercise extends beyond mere worship.

But freedom, to be used wisely, demands a high level of responsibility.  In his letter to the Romans and two letters to the church at Corinth, the Apostle Paul writes in detail about the balance between Christian liberty and responsibility.  Those responsibilities extend to dealings with both fellow Christians and non-Christians, and include a general requirement to obey the laws of the land unless such laws require (not permit) Christians to disobey God’s commandments: in particular, only those commandments that apply when part of a country that is not a theocracy (which is every country other than Israel and Judah from the time of Moses until the diaspora).

Christians ought to take notice that Paul was writing these words from locations and to Christians in locations that were far harsher in their treatment of Christians than anything close to what Christians in the United States experience today.  He was writing these tenets that became part of the Biblical canon of the New Testament at a time when he and eleven of the first twelve post-ascension Apostles would be martyred for being Christian (the twelfth, John, sentenced to exile on the island of Patmos for the final decades of his 94 years on Earth).  While persecution of Christians in the world is at historically high levels, there is nothing in the United States that even remotely compares to what was experienced by the early Church until the conversion of Emperor Constantine around 312 AD.

So what choice do Christians face?  In terms of Christian witness, it is the choice between legalism and love.  Love doesn’t mean anything goes and all Biblical standards are thrown out the window.  Agape love means primarily caring about others, Christian or non-Christian, looking to lift up and edify other Christians while drawing non-Christians to the love and light of Christ.  It means remembering who we were before we were saved and that we still fall short of the glory of God even after becoming new creatures in Christ.  And it means remembering how powerful God’s love is; how strong God’s grace is.  1^st Corinthians 13 is one of the best known chapters of the New Testament, and one of the best testimonies to the power of God’s agape love (translated as charity in the KJV).  The strength of God’s grace is not as well known.

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. – 2^nd Timothy 2:1

So I choose agape love over legalism.  Here are some examples of agape love in action.  One is someone famous in the 20^th century, one is someone unknown to all but a handful of people, and one is direct from the Bible.  There will be a follow up to this post, a part two, that will deal mostly with a fourth example whose example is especially interesting to me in comparison with my life.

Anyone who watched the movie, “Chariots of Fire”, knows the story of Eric Liddell.  His refusal to compete in his specialty, the 100 meter dash because the heats for the race in the 1924 Olympics in Paris were held on a Sunday is a key element of the story portrayed in the movie.  It certainly smacks of legalism.  But while it might have hurt the chances of his country’s team in one event, it was basically something he imposed on himself.  He did not require it of any of his teammates.  And it was potentially less detrimental to his team than the refusal of Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax to play on Yom Kippur during key games in a pennant race or the World Series.  As it turned out, Greenberg’s Detroit Tigers would win the American League pennant in 1934, Koufax’s Los Angeles Dodgers would win the World Series in 1965 and Great Britain would win the gold and bronze medals in the 100 meter dash at the 1924 Olympics, the race that Liddell refused to run.  As for Liddell, he had time to adjust his training to a longer sprint race: the 400 meters.  He won the gold medal in Olympic record time, and also captured a bronze medal in the 200 meter run.

The movie also showed how Liddell, born in China, was from a family of missionaries.  What is somewhat less well known is what he did after his Olympic triumph in 1924.  In 1925, he returned to China as a missionary, first in Tianjin (Tientsin) and was transferred to a poor rural area of Xiaozhang in 1941.  The area was so dangerous due to attacks by the Japanese Army that he sent his pregnant wife and two older daughters to Canada to live with his wife’s parents.

In 1943, Liddell was captured by the Japanese with other members of the mission and was interned in a camp.  While others, even many of the missionaries, became selfish and cliquish, Liddell’s exemplary character stood out in the worst of times as he tirelessly helped others, especially the elderly and the children.

Many stories of his selflessness survived Liddell and the camp.  The one that stands out to me involves him serving as a referee for the boys team sports games like soccer, rugby and field hockey.  Originally, consistent with the stand he took at the 1924 Olympics, he refused to referee any games on Sunday in hopes that the boys would spend their Sundays in church and devotions that day.  Instead, the boys formed their own informal matches.  Reasonably well-behaved when their hero was refereeing, fights broke out among the boys during the Sunday games.  When Liddell learned of this, did he punish the boys?  No.  Understanding that they were boys, not men, and concerned for their safety, he relaxed his strict position about activities on the Sabbath and began to referee their Sunday contests as well.

From an internment camp in China during World War II, we go to a small town in south-central Pennsylvania.  The year was 2016.

Mercersburg is a small town of about 1500 people, but some famous people were born there or have lived there.  A private prep school, Mercersburg Academy, has educated seven Rhodes scholars, a Nobel laureate, two Academy Award winners and 54 Olympians (12 who have won gold medals).  I met one of those gold medalists.  Charles Moore Jr., who won a gold medal in the 1952 Olympics at Helsinki in the 400 meter hurdles and a silver medal running one of the legs on the 4 x 400 meter relay team, went from Mercersburg to my alma mater of Cornell, graduating in 1952 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  He is also a member of the Quill & Dagger Society, a senior honorary to which I was selected in 1974.  But I’ve already talked about an Olympic gold medalist.

Instead, this story primarily involves the public high school which is named for perhaps its most famous native son, President James Buchanan.  And it involves a student there who will never receive world recognition.  But I believe she will receive many crowns in heaven.

It began in early March with a local Youth Pastor hearing about The Life Book, which contains the complete Gospel of John.  Students are using it to witness to their peers.  The pastor was so excited by this that he ordered six cases and shared the information about it at their next youth group meeting.  The students eagerly began to make plans to distribute the books to their classmates at James Buchanan High School.  But the most eager was Violet Clark.  One of the most popular students in school, she asked the Youth Pastor for a full case: 100 books.

Did Violet distribute those books of witness to her fellow students by preaching fire and brimstone and telling them what horrible sinners they are?  No!  With a big smile and joy in her step, she went from student to student, those she knew and those she didn’t, to hand them a book and share Christ’s message of hope with them.  It took her a little over six weeks to share the entire case, sharing the last three just before her 18^th birthday.

The day after her birthday, Violet was involved in a serious car accident as she left school.  Although the school is not one where prayer is normally promoted, students and teachers spontaneously began a prayer vigil on behalf of Violet.  But three days later, God chose to call her home.

In the immediate aftermath of Violet’s death, the school community turned to the word of God that was now readily available, not only to deal with her death, but to find out how to receive the kind of joyful life that Violet lived while she was among them.  Many students are coming to Christ, not in response to rebuke, but because Violet and some of her fellow youth group members radiated the love of Christ among them.

From modern day Pennsylvania, we go back nearly two thousand years to eastern Macedonia, in particular to the city of Philippi.  Here we look upon two men who have gotten themselves into a peck of trouble.  We know them today as the Apostle Paul and Silas, but it was Paul who was the leader.

It is Paul who we will focus on.  God could not have picked a more interesting and well-suited person to be both his chief missionary of the Gospel and author of a major part of the New Testament through the letters he wrote to the churches he planted, clarifying some of the finer points of Christian theology and contending with heretical positions that were already creeping into the early Church.  As the Church spread into Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and points west, the early Church membership went from being entirely Jewish to a not always comfortable mixture of Jew and Gentile.

But who better to deal with contentions and heresies than a Jewish scholar who at one time thought that believing that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God was the very epitome of heresy.  Saul of Tarsus, who would later be better known by his Roman name, was perhaps the foremost persecutor of these Jewish followers of Jesus.  It fact, it was when he was on the road to Damascus to apprehend these followers of Jesus (the name “Christian” was not even being used yet), that Paul had his direct encounter with Christ that led to his 180º change of position on the legitimacy of belief in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.  It was such a major change that many of the leaders of the early Church were highly suspicious that it was a trick to enable Paul to destroy the Church by cutting off the head.  It would be like Ted Cruz suddenly speaking out as the most ardent advocate of pro-LGBT issues.

But Paul was far more than a zealot.  He was a scholar who studied at the feet of the best teachers of the Law that Judaism had to offer in his day.  In fact, he was a member of the sect whose name is now synonymous with legalism.  He was a Pharisee.  And while he preached in the synagogue of Damascus immediately after his sight was restored following his Damascus road experience, he also studied the Tanakh long and hard to make sure that his interpretation of the experience was accurate.

Although the Bible tells us that Paul did not preach with eloquence, by adding a solid scriptural foundation to a compelling testimony of a changed life, he was able to win many converts, both Jew and Gentile, to the early church.  As such, he often drew the ire of those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether Jew or Gentile.  In Philippi, it was wealthy Gentiles he angered.  They incited a mob that brought Paul and Silas to the magistrates who in turn had them beaten and thrown into prison.  At this point, we’ll let the Bible tell the story, starting with Acts 16:23.

And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. (Acts 16:23-34)

What brought salvation to the jailor and his family?  Was it angry rhetoric directed against the jailor, the magistrates and his accusers?  Was it the formation of a protest committee, marching around the jail and shouting slogans?  Did a commando raid break Paul and Silas out of prison, taking the jailor and his family with them?  No!  It was because he saw their concern for him.  Not only had they been cheerfully praising God in a situation where most would be surly and grumbling, they did not avail themselves of the perfect opportunity to escape.  But Paul, who wrote about sacrificing his Christian liberty for a weaker believer, sacrificed his physical liberty for someone who didn’t even believe in Christ.  Yet led by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate humble obedience, Paul won this man and his family to Christ.

Even some conservative Christian websites are talking about the need to return to the primary Gospel message for our witness to the world.  Although I don’t agree with every idea stated in the article, I am providing a link to one such discourse.  And then the next blog post will look at the fourth and final person in the list I promised, a person some of my transgender friends may be surprised that I am including.  But his message fits this theme perfectly.

https://scottsauls.com/2016/10/31/politically_anxious/

And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.  And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. – Colossians 3:14-15

It’s good to be “back”!

God bless,

Lois

The Price of Prejudice

Tags

acceptance, Barry Goldwater, Bible, black Christians, Cassius Clay, Christian salvation, Christian upbringing, Christianity, Civil Rights, Civil Rights Act of 1964, coercion, conservative, de facto segregation, Deep South, Elijah Muhammad, enemy, Federal Government, gays in the military, George Will, hypocrisy, Jane Austen, Jerry Falwell, John 14:6, Judeo-Christian principles, judgment, justice, LGBT, liberty, limited government, love of Christ, Matthew 23:13, Muhammad Ali, name change, Nation of Islam, Orlando, Pat Robertson, Phoenix, prejudice, Pride, Pride and Prejudice, Pride Month, pro-choice, racism, Ravi Zacharias, religious right, Sandra Day O'Connor, segregated bathrooms, Social Justice, stumbling block, Sunni, transgender Christians, transgender discrimination, Walt Kelly, woe

One of the most beloved novels of all time is Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”.  The two main characters in this novel are able to come together in a loving relationship only after one of them overcomes internal pride and the other overcomes internal prejudice.  Clearly both pride and prejudice, if left unchecked, would have had a cost: the loss of love.

The pride talked about by the title and the character’s initial point of view relate to the type of pride that is viewed in Judeo-Christian principles as sinful.  It is the opposite of humility and equated with arrogance, haughtiness, disdain and thinking more highly of oneself than is justified (conceit).  The Bible warns us that this type of pride precedes a fall.

It is not the same as the pride that one feels for the genuine accomplishments of their children, their team, their group or their country.  It also includes self-respect and a sense that one is a deserving of respect as anyone else.  While pride in the first definition comes from a sense of selfish superiority, in the latter definition it is an assertion of equality.

June has become known as Pride Month for members of the LGBT+ coalition.  Ideally, it should celebrate the second sense of pride: equality, not superiority.  And recently in Orlando, we saw the price of Pride in the massive loss of life and injury to members of the LGBT+ coalition as a result of hatred and violence.  As oppressed and marginalized members of society, it is a price we have paid many times.  Orlando happened to be one of the steeper prices.

That said, I will now turn to the main thrust of the article: the price of prejudice.  In doing so, I will turn from the death of many by violence to the death of one by age and infirmity.

Muhammad Ali was one of the most recognizable people in the world during most of his life.  His fame far transcended the world of sports.  To many he was a champion, not just in the boxing ring but in the arena of civil rights and the anti-Vietnam War movement.  To others, he was the epitome of the arrogant pride described previously.

A major source of Ali’s controversial image was religion.  The most symbolic example of this was his change from his birth name of Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali.  (I had not yet reached my teen years when Ali changed his name.  I certainly am far more appreciative of the reasons and significance for it now.)

In childhood, Ali was brought up in a home that was neither Muslim or irreligious.  He was brought up in a Christian home.  His father was Methodist and his mother was Baptist.

Ali didn’t convert to any old religion.  He joined Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam.  Without getting into the details of their beliefs, one of the greatest attractions of the movement to black people was its promise of a decisive answer to the systemic racism experienced by Blacks in the United States.

Similarly, the existence of racism in the life of Malcolm X and his reaction to it was a significant influence in leading Malcolm to convert from being known for his anti-religious stance to becoming a member of the Nation of Islam.  This is clearly seen in “The Autobiography of Malcom X” (which is, followed by Alan Paton’s “Cry the Beloved Country”, the most significant book I have read in terms of shaping my attitude towards civil rights and social justice and in opposition to racism).

The incidents of racism in the life of Muhammad Ali, including during his formative years, are also well-documented.  It is hard to imagine that racism was not the primary incubator that led Ali to begin to regularly attend Nation of Islam meetings and eventually become a member.  Furthermore eleven years later, Ali, like his mentor Malcom X, eventually broke with the Nation of Islam and converted to mainstream Sunni Islam.  He also developed an interest in the Islamic practice of Sufism in later life.  Therefore, we have multiple indications of Ali’s religious development, none of which ever brought him back to Christianity.

Only God knows the fate of Muhammad Ali’s eternal soul.  But two things related to this blog post are abundantly clear in Christian theology:

• Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (from John 14:6)
• Not everyone will be saved, but woe be it to those who put a stumbling block in the way of another person’s salvation.

No one is perfect and we shall have things for which to answer to God.  Those Christians who contributed to the system of racism in this country and elsewhere in the world, if they have not repented of those sins, will have to answer for that.

Racial segregation and other forms of racial prejudice are illegal in the United States in just about every situation of public accommodation, although de facto segregation still occurs.  But now we see the issue of unfounded prejudice rising up against transgender people.  Sadly, once again some Christians are not only part of this prejudice, they are at the forefront of it.  Sadder still are some black Christians who are championing the efforts to discriminate against transgender people.  Have they so soon forgotten the lies told about them and the reasons why the races needed to be separated?  And have they so soon forgotten that in many locations, while the white bathrooms were gendered, the black (aka Negro or Colored bathrooms as they were called in those days) were not?

Tell us, black Christian leaders of anti-transgender forces, what horrible things were black men doing to black women in those bathrooms?  (Yes, that was a rhetorical question meant to show absurdity and accuse people only of hypocrisy.)

Woe to you Christians who tell yourselves that your sins aren’t so bad, and justify yourselves that at least you aren’t wicked perverts like these transgender people.  What will you do when the judgment by which you judged transgender people is meted out to you?  What will you do when you are called to account for putting a stumbling block in the way of transgender people, turning them away from Christ?

I am amazed with joy when I meet another transgender person who is a Christian.  My respect for them is profound.  I know that their faith has stood tests that Christians in some foreign countries face, but most Christians in the U.S. could never conceive of.  It takes great spiritual strength to continue to trust in the Lord when you are told repeatedly that you are forsaken by God, given over to Satan, sinful, perverted, wicked and condemned to Hell.

I have been blessed to find a local, evangelical church with overwhelming acceptance of me by those who know about my transgender circumstance.  The transgender Christians who have reached out to me have not been nearly as fortunate.  What I do, I do for the glory of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  But I also do it so that other transgender Christians may soon receive the same acceptance I have received.  And I do it so that other transgender people may learn that Christ loves them, too.

An ending to this blog post was elusive.  Then I happened across something about another controversial figure from the mid-1960’s: Barry Goldwater.  As I watched a couple of videos and read some background information, I knew his POV would tie things altogether.

Senator Goldwater was known as the leader of the Conservative movement in the United States.  George Will once remarked after Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter that it took 16 years to count the votes from 1964 and Goldwater won.

But did you know the following about Goldwater?

• He was pro-choice.
• He favored gays serving in the U.S. military, noting that gays had served honorably as soldiers dating back at least to the time of Julius Caesar. His remarks indicated that he only cared if you shot straight, not whether or not you were straight.
• In his later years, he supported full civil rights for gays.
• He decried the rise to power of the religious right in the 1980’s. He identified as a person with Christian values and was known as an honest person of firm principles.  But he opposed the political attitude of this group of conservatives who required total agreement and acted as if they were speaking for God.  He was against Pat Robertson’s political campaigns and when Jerry Falwell said that “Every good Christian should be concerned” about the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, Goldwater replied that “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”  (It was noted by those present that reporters had used “ass” in place of a more sensitive part of the anatomy.)
• He found himself increasingly at odds with the conservative wing of the Republican Party, labeling them as “extremists”. A few years before he died, he claimed they hurt the GOP more than the Democrats had and forbade them from associating his name with anything they did.  In 1996, he noted with irony to Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, that the two of them were now the liberals of the party.
• His reputation on civil rights for Blacks has been dominated by his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the timing of which coincided with his campaign for President, giving it high visibility. What many don’t know is that he desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard two years before the President Truman did the same with the U.S. Military (a move which Goldwater had urged).  He also voted for every piece of federal civil rights legislation during his time in the U.S. Senate until the 1964 Act and he had voted for the original Senate version of the 1964 Act.  He opposed the final version of the 1964 Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, giving power to the Federal Government (and taking away power given to the states by the Constitution) that was not provided for in the Constitution.  It was that firmness of principle that I mentioned previously, but based on American law, not on a self-proclaimed pipeline from God.

Goldwater’s opposition to the final version of the 1964 Act is rooted in the same quarrel that he had with both liberal Democrats and the Religious Right.  Goldwater as a staunch defender of liberty and justice was opposed to any form of coercion, whether it was from the government or from Christian clergy and organized groups of the religious right.  This leads us to another high price for prejudice.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”  That quote (or one of its variants) didn’t originate with Barry Goldwater.  But he used it during his 1964 campaign and lived by it.

As a young man, Goldwater took over running the family business, the eponymous department store which was the largest in Phoenix.  He didn’t practice racial discrimination in business and his experience in Phoenix was that much of the desegregation of that city occurred because where moral force was insufficient, enlightened self-interest worked.  Other business owners saw that desegregation and civil rights was good for business.  Allowing black people equal access to jobs increased the consumer base and disposable income.

Based on Goldwater’s philosophy, I believe that he would not have supported laws and lawsuits against small businesses that refused to provide cakes, flowers or photographs for same-sex weddings.  He would have encouraged competing businesses to embrace such customers and be rewarded with increased sales.

He believed that enlightened self-interest would eventually bring about civil rights for black people even in the Deep South.  But there were two things he either failed to consider or didn’t weigh highly enough to change his thinking. The first is the vagueness of “eventually”.  In the places where discrimination against Blacks ran deepest, “eventually” appeared to be a long way off and black people had run out of patience.  Between Supreme Court decisions, strikes, sit-ins, freedom riders and the occasional use of Federal troops, civil rights momentum was building.  While Black leaders of the day appreciated Goldwater’s honesty and sincere belief in his philosophy, they saw the adoption of his policies as a roadblock to that momentum.  Black people had waited long enough, even 100 years since the end of the Civil War, for eventually to become today.

Furthermore, moral force and enlightened self-interest might work in a climate where there would be at least a modicum of fairness in the system to begin with.  Black leaders knew that the climate in the Deep South did not include even a smidgen of fairness to their people, let alone a modicum.  What chance does moral force and enlightened self-interest have when black people are systematically disenfranchised, the courts are prejudiced against them, the police are prejudiced against them, and white business people that buck the system are intimidated with fires, bombs and burning crosses?

Another price of prejudice is that when discrimination becomes so pervasive in a section of the country, it motivates groups to urge the Federal government to step in and take over.  An example of the law of unintended consequences, the very thing that is brought in to protect the freedom and rights of people can eventually expand through initially benign actions to become a source of tyranny that oppresses people.  Think about this year’s presidential election.  Whether you oppose either or both major party presumptive candidates becoming President, is not one of your fears that this person will be in charge of such a powerful apparatus?

When it comes to the price of prejudice, cartoonist Walt Kelly described it well (even though he used it in different contexts) when he wrote, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. – Matthew 23:13

Ravi Zacharias: Made in God’s image >>> Love thy neighbor

God bless,

Lois

Lois responds to reader: does transgender contradict the Bible?

Tags

1st Samuel 16:7, all-knowing, anatomy, ay’lonit, Bible, Bible teaching, birth, castration, celibacy, circumcision, classical Judaism, Code of Hammurabi, corruption, cross, curiously formed, David, death, Deuteronomy 10:16, equal footing, eternal soul, eunuch, familiar references, fearfully and wonderfully made, foreskin of the heart, Gender, genitalia, Gentiles, God, heart, Holy Spirit, immortal soul, imperfection, in utero, inner things of the heart, inspired inerrant infallible, Jeremiah 1:5, Jesus, Jesus' disciples, layers of meaning, Lord, lower parts of the earth, Matthew 19:12, mind, outer appearance, parable, Passover lamb, perfect, Psalm 139, Psalms, reconcile, Romans 2:28-29, sacrifice, salvation, saris, Scripture, sexual temptation, sin, six genders, soul, spirit, temporal body, Throne of Grace, Transgender, Transsexual, women

Hello,

I come to your blog seeking answers with respectful Christian curiosity […] Please respond to this query:

If God is perfect and all knowing; and the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired instrument of his grace and peace. How can a contradiction in natural birth exist? 
How does the Transgender person of soul reconcile their spirit? 

Jeremiah 1:5: 
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-14:

For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

Again, a respectful query on reconciliation.
Thanks

Hello,

To respectfully seek answers, to reconcile ideas and people, to arrive at truth: these are all honorable aims.  I am delighted to respond as best as God lays on my heart.

First, both for ourselves and any other readers, let’s make sure we understand what is meant by soul and spirit.  I took the following from the BibleHub website.  It is similar to what I found on some other sites as well as confirming my previous understanding.

[T]here is in man a spiritual, reasonable, and immortal soul, the seat of our thoughts, affections, and reasonings, which distinguishes us from the brute creation, and in which chiefly consists our resemblance to God, Genesis 1:26. This must be spiritual, because it thinks; it must be immortal, because it is spiritual. Scripture ascribes to man alone understanding, conscience, the knowledge of God, wisdom, immortality, and the hope of future everlasting happiness. It threatens men only with punishment in another life, and with the pains of hell. In some places the Bible seems to distinguish soul from spirit, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 [and] Hebrews 4:12: the organ of our sensations, appetites, and passions, allied to the body, form the nobler portion of our nature which most allies man to God. Yet we are to conceive of them as one indivisible and spiritual being, called also the mind and the heart, spoken of variously as living, feeling, understanding, reasoning, willing, etc. Its usual designation is the soul.

First, a quick explanation of 1^st Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12.  My sense is that the inclusion of both “soul” and “spirit” in these verses is meant as an amplification, not as distinguishing.  We can see that more easily in the Hebrews verse.  When the two-edged sword is described as dividing asunder soul and spirit, it means both, not dividing “soul from spirit”. 

So the simple answer is that if humankind, while we walk this earth as corporeal creatures, are not spirit, but have an eternal soul that has a spiritual nature and therefore includes spirit, then the soul and spirit, even for a Transgender, must be reconciled with each other.  Otherwise, you would be talking about some sort of split personality.  No one I know of, not even our worst detractors, claims that about us.

But let’s look at a broader question of contradiction.  Since God is all-knowing (there is no “if” about it) and the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God, then is there some contradiction between people who claim to be born transgender and God’s Word? 

Let’s take Psalm 139:13-14 first, since that is an all-encompassing situation rather than a verse that applies to one particular person.  I considered this passage so important to discuss that I wrote a three-part blog post on it in the first month of this blog back in November 2013.  (The reader is reminded that I was using the older term, transsexual, at that time.) 

I will provide a link back to those posts so the reader can have further details.  But to summarize for the purpose of this answer, I point out how interesting it is that when these two verses are used as a proof text that transgender is not of God, verse 15 is never included to give the full context of these verses.  It is quite inconvenient to their claims of contradiction to call to mind that every one of us, transgender and cisgender alike, was curiously formed in the lower parts of the earth.

When sin entered into the world, death and corruption entered in with it.  So while the Lord God has final say over everyone how everyone is formed, no one is born perfectly whole and complete.  The imperfections are not sin in and of themselves (think of the passage when Jesus’ disciples ask who sinned, the blind man or his parents).  Furthermore, if someone had been born who was without spot or blemish, there would have been no reason for God to have sent His only begotten Son to shed His blood and nail our sins to the cross.  Only Jesus, born of the Holy Spirit, could have been the perfect Passover lamb to save us, one perfect sacrifice for all time. 

While we are in the Psalms, we ought not forget Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.  It is another Biblical reminder of our humble origins.

https://ts4jc.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/i-am-fearfully-a…ully-made-part-1/

https://ts4jc.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/i-am-fearfully-a…ully-made-part-2/

https://ts4jc.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/i-am-fearfully-a…ully-made-part-3/

That brings us to the Jeremiah verse that you cited.  And guess what?  I cited that same verse in Part 3 of my blog post series “I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made”.  Look closely at that verse again.  God is not just telling Jeremiah that He formed him in the womb.  He is also telling Jeremiah He knew what manner of person he would become.  This means God knows Jeremiah on the inside: his heart, soul and spirit, not just his skin color, bone structure and yes genitalia. 

Now here’s the question: based on which group of characteristics does God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet, the first group or the second?  Obviously the first group. This is how God identifies Jeremiah as a person. 

None of this is meant to say or imply that Jeremiah is transgender.  What I am saying is that God’s primary identification of us is based on what’s inside, not on what’s outside; the spiritual and eternal, not the physical and temporal.  Only a relatively small percentage of people are born transgender.  But we have been around since the earliest days of recorded history.  I’m not a scholar of ancient languages, but I’m told that the subject of transgender people was dealt with in the Code of Hammurabi.  And my learned Jewish friends (as well as Christians who have researched this topic) tell me that in the rabbinical writings of Classical Judaism, there is provision for six genders, not two.

http://www.transtorah.org/PDFs/Classical_Jewish_Terms_for_Gender_Diversity.pdf

There is one thing that neither you or anyone else I have discussed the topic with has ever been able to produce: a Bible verse that states that the inner spirit of a person must match the outer anatomy when it comes to gender identity.  I have been reading the Bible faithfully, daily most of the time, from cover to cover over and over again, for over 25 years.  This was always an important topic for me.  That verse would have leapt off the page for me.  Those Christians who naysay transgender would be raising it as a banner.  But they can’t because it doesn’t exist.

But is there scripture that suggests the opposite?  I believe so.  They are the very words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:12.  Jesus describes three categories of eunuchs: those who were born that way, those who were made that way by someone else and those who made themselves eunuchs.   

Now the lesson that Jesus is teaching to His disciples directly relates to the ability of a person to resist sexual temptation and therefore be able to remain single without falling into fornication (any sexual activity outside of marriage).  But there are two things to keep in mind.  First, that Bible teaching can have layers of meaning.  Second, when Jesus taught in parables, He used examples and situations that the people of His day were familiar with.  Therefore, even though scripture is eternal, Jesus never would have taught a parable that referred directly to computers or nuclear weapons. 

Of the three categories, the most familiar would have been those who had been made eunuchs by someone else.  Although the Jews did not practice it, it was a familiar practice for the rulers of the neighboring countries to castrate certain people, whether of their own nation or a defeated nation, for various purposes: watching over harems, becoming trusted advisors who would not be aggressive enough to become rivals, and so on.  Since these eunuchs were neither born that way nor did so of their own volition, the most familiar category is of no further interest.

The less familiar two categories are where we draw our attention.  Remember that Jesus and his disciples would have been familiar with the six genders of classical Judaism. 

The person born a eunuch could be someone born with male anatomy but is impotent and acts more feminine upon reaching puberty.  Such a person would likely be saris and would be considered male to female transgender today.  Or it could be someone identified as female at birth who displays a masculine personality at puberty.  That person would have been identified as ay’lonit in Jesus’s time and female to male today.

What of the person who makes “himself” a eunuch?  Yes, that could be someone seeking to live a celibate life and needing to take extraordinary means to accomplish that purpose.  It was not uncommon for men of the early Christian church to undergo castration to live a celibate life of service.  However, a saris could also fit this description: someone assigned male at birth but who now lacks male genitalia, in this case voluntarily ridding themselves of unwanted body parts to live as in the preferred female gender.

It should be noted that Jesus does not speak disparagingly of any of these eunuchs.  If He had reason to, He either would have used a different example or phrased the parable in a different way. 

We have one more example relating to genitalia (in particular male genitalia) where the spiritual is more important than the physical.  Deuteronomy 10:16 taught: Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. 

Nor is this an isolated verse.  We see this theme repeated in Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:4.  And that devout scripture student, the Apostle Paul, picks up this theme in Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11.  These teachings have import far beyond transgender.  It permits Jewish women to stand before the cross of Christ and the Throne of Grace on equal footing with Jewish men.  And it permits physically uncircumcised Gentiles to do the same.  Indeed, this was one of the first debates in the young Christian church when evidence of the Holy Spirit’s anointing of Gentiles was first reported. Would these Gentile men be required to undergo circumcision?  It was eventually deemed unnecessary.  God had already circumcised their hearts.

Apparently we haven’t come very far in 2000 years.  People are still focusing on the less important physical attributes, willing to limit ourselves to what we can see.  As God truly observed in 1^st Samuel 16:7, man judges by the outer appearance, but God judges by the inner things of the heart.  Are we not called upon to grow in spiritual maturity so that we see things as God sees them?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. – Romans 2:28-29

God bless,

Lois

Related articles

• Omnipresent God

I don’t want men in the women’s bathroom either …

Tags

1st Corinthians 10, 2nd Amendment, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, bathroom stalls, Bible, Biblical argument, bigotry, body parts, children, Christ, Christians, coed bathrooms, coed dorms, Columbia, Curt Schilling, danger, discredited psychiatrists, discredited studies, discrimination, Dispute, doors, Ephesians 4:15, eunuch, evidence, female, findings, fruit of the Spirit, gender assigned at birth, God, Gospel of John, gun control, hatred, high murder rate, ignore, innate gender, Jesus, John's epistles, Leon Lott, liberal, lies, Love, male, Matthew 19:12, medical community, men, mind, misrepresentation, moral argument, murders of transgender people, New Testament, nudity, Old Testament, Paul's epistles, personal testimony, plot, protection of women, real-life experience, research, Richland County, right to privacy, rogue organizations, sex offenders, Sheriff, South Carolina, spirit, Spirit of truth, state capital, steadfast faith, Transgender, transgender women, true gender, truth, underreported, women, women's bathrooms

I don’t want men in the women’s bathroom either …

… but as always, the devil’s in the details … and in the definitions.

So this is the new rallying cry, is it?  “No men in women’s bathrooms.”

Well I happen to agree.  A man has no right in a public women’s bathroom.  What I disagree on is their definition of man and woman, male and female.

It continues to sadden me that certain segments of the Christian population are spearheading this attack on the safety of transgender people.  But what saddens me particularly today is the blatant disregard for truth by these Christians.  Love of the truth should be one of the hallmarks of a Christian.

The word “truth” occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and 118 times in the considerably shorter New Testament.  It is a major theme in the Gospel of John and John’s epistles.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. – John 8:32

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. – John 14:6

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – John 14:17

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. – John 17:17

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. – 1^st John 2:21

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.  And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. – 1^st John 3:18-19

John was not the only New Testament writer to deal with truth.  Here are some verses from Paul’s epistles.

[Charity] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; – 1^st Corinthians 13:6

But [we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. – 2^nd Corinthians 4:2

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. – 2^nd Corinthians 13:8

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. – Ephesians 4:25

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) – Ephesians 5:9

And still more verses from the New Testament:

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. – James 3:14

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: – 1^st Peter 1:22

Now what truth does this segment of Christianity ignore, deny and dispute?

• They dispute our personal testimony. Even with conservative estimates of the frequency of transgenderism, hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and millions around the world claim that this is our story, our experience, our reality.  It is the testimony of little children whose lives are improved when they are allowed to live in their true gender identity.  It is the testimony of people of my generation, baby boomers, who tried to repress and deny the truth about ourselves even more than our opponents do.  But our identities persisted despite everything we did.  It is the testimony of many fine, upstanding citizens and many whose potential is untapped because of discrimination.  It is the testimony of Christians like me who have and continue to proclaim Christ, tenaciously holding onto our faith in the face of every attack we have received from those who claim to speak for the church and for Christ.
• The ignore the danger that transgender people face every day because of bigotry and hatred against us. They ignore the horrific murder rate against transgender people, a rate that is most likely even higher than reported in a world where many murders are reported with the transgender identity of the victim hidden behind rejected name and gender; where there are many countries (e.g. Russia and China) where our very existence is denied.  They ignore the even greater danger we would face if forced to use spaces based on our gender assigned at birth rather than our true gender.
• They outright lie about transgender people being a danger. Earlier this month, a sheriff with 41 years of law enforcement experience unequivocally gave testimony to the legislature of his state that he has “never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom. This is a non-issue.”  This is not a sheriff in the liberal Northeast or California.  This is Leon Lott, Richland County (SC) Sheriff since 1996.  His county includes the state capital, Columbia, so he serves in a populated area.  In addition, any law enforcement official at his level is going to keep up-to-date on crime trends and issues outside of his own area, especially once the issue rises to the be on the front burner in his state and around the country.  The plain truth is that of the jurisdictions that have passed laws protecting the right of transgender people to use bathrooms consistent with their innate gender, laws that have been in place for many years in some cases, there have been ZERO problems.  In addition, when transgender people are in public, we have to use restrooms.  So even in locales where such protections don’t exist, we fearfully use the restroom that corresponds to our identity.  Again there have been ZERO problems.
• They dispute the preponderance of learned opinion of the medical community, in the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were very willing to accept their findings decades ago when these groups had little to go on in the way of research and real life experience.  But with nearly three full generations of evidence at hand (and more being gathered), these respected organizations have updated their opinions and protocols based on the enlightenment gathered from their findings.  Somehow in our opponents mind, without evidence, this is all a plot.  Instead, they lean on discredited studies, discredited psychiatrists, rogue organizations and misrepresentation of valid studies.  (I’m old enough to have lived through this before.  I can remember when rock ‘n roll was supposedly a communist plot.)
• They often lie and hide their true motive for waging this battle. But not always.  With a debate version of three-card monte, they deftly shift from reason to reason behind their legislation and umbrage.  When the moral/Biblical argument is rejected, they shift to the need to protect women as the purpose.  When that argument is countered, then it becomes a matter of a right to privacy: balancing the rights of transgender people against that of cisgender women.
  • As far as the moral/Biblical argument, I will touch upon that in the next bullet point. As far as the protection argument, I have already shown that to be a canard.  But I will take it one step further.  There is a group known to be a danger primarily to women and children.  They are the people on the sex offender list.  Where is their hue and cry about such people being allowed to use public bathrooms?  And as far as transgender protection laws opening the door for perverts to take advantage of it (recently parroted by Curt Schilling, among others), not only doesn’t it happen, they (many of whom are staunch 2^nd Amendment defenders) would never apply the same rationale to strict gun control measures just because a small minority of people in our society actually do carry out horrific violence using firearms.
  • As far as the privacy argument, the only bathrooms I have ever seen where the stalls had no doors was in men’s locker rooms. (I hated them.  I avoided using them whenever I could.)  A naked cisgender woman in a public women’s bathroom would likely receive a negative response unless it was a clear case of a medical problem.  I have never seen someone in a public bathroom whose genitals were in plain sight unless they were on the changing table.  In spaces where nudity is more likely to be involved, the topic is more sensitive.  (I never totally disrobe when I go to my gym, and there are private changing stalls if I ever would need to.) But even here, social custom is changing for reasons other than transgender.  When I went to my 40^th college reunion two years ago (Cornell), the dorm where my class was housed is a coed dorm.  Most of the student rooms do not have private bathrooms.  The common bathrooms (including showers) are also coed.  This is a growing trend according to what I have read.
• They distort or err on what the Bible says on the topic of transgender. I have written many blog posts countering their arguments (in conjunction with all the medical evidence that has been gathered on the nature of transgenderism).  The short version is that very little can be found in the Bible on the topic and the term is not found in the Holy Scriptures.  Of course, there are many modern terms (e.g. democracy and republic) that are not found there, either.  The closest we can come is when Jesus describes three types of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12.  The person who is born a eunuch could describe a number of situations, including someone who is transgender.  Most importantly, Jesus does not condemn any of the three examples, consistent with many instances in which the new and better covenant is more inclusive than the old.  And as to whether God defines us by our mind/spirit or our body parts, I have shown by many verses the preponderance of evidence that He identifies us by our mind/spirit.

Please understand that this is not a transgender vs Christianity issue, nor should it be.  I and a number of friends are evidence that a person can be both.  And I have many devout conservative Christians in my life who are accepting and supportive.

I know full well that there are a number of topics on which Christians are in disagreement.  And there is always room for honest disagreement.  But what hurts the most is the vitriol directed by this segment of the Christian population at the transgender community.  And even if Christianity has come under attack from some segments of the transgender community (and I will not descend into a “who started it” black hole), Christians are not supposed to return evil for evil.  We are called to a higher purpose.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. – 1^st Corinthians 10:32-33

When you read the many verses earlier in my post, you may have noticed a connection between truth and a loving attitude.  (If not, look again.)  Even if the segment of Christians who I have called out in this post earnestly believe what they are preaching about transgender people, all Christians are admonished to be “… speaking the truth in love …” (Ephesians 4:15).

God bless,

Lois

Christian Mom Encounters Transgender Woman In Bathroom: These ‘Ghastly Things’ Happened Next

Watering the Sheep

Tags

12 tribes, Abraham, Alpha and Omega, Angel of the Lord, bargainer, Because He Lives, Bethel, Bible, bride, Canaan, Christ, clay pots, Colossians 1, conjugal rights, conniver, creator, cross of Calvary, darkness, descended into hell, desperate, devotion, earthen vessels, earthquake, Easter, Emmanuel, empty grave, empty tomb, Esau, everlasting, father, father of the bride, feast, flocks, follow, foreshadowing, gave His life, Genesis 29, God, Good Shepherd, Gospel, great commission, Isaac, Isaiah 9, Israel, Jacob, Jesus, Joseph, journey, Judah, Laban, Leah, Levi, light of the world, lion of Judah, living water, Lord, love stories, Mark 16:15, Marriage, Melchizedek, Middle East, negotiator, Old Testament, Padanaram, Passover lamb, priest, Prince of Peace, Rachel, Rebecca, Resurrection Sunday, right hand of God, righteous judge, roll the stone away, romance, ruler, sacrifice, salvation, Savior, servant, seven years, sheep, shepherdess, son of David, spotless, stone, suitor, supplanter, vow, wages, water, wedding night, well, Wife, without blemish, witnessing, Word made flesh, wrestle

I enjoy a good love story.  I’m talking romance, not necessarily sex.  Perhaps I love them even more after all these years because I haven’t known much romance in my life.  I’m a romantic person who had very little opportunity to express that side of me, in either gender role.

The Bible has a number of beautiful love stories.  Some of them also had a bit of tarnish on them.  The love that Jacob had for Rachel is both beautiful and tarnished.

The eldest servant of Abraham, Jacob’s grandfather, was sent to Padanaram to find a wife for Jacob’s father, Isaac.  That wife, Rebecca, would favor Jacob over his twin brother, Esau (the elder brother by a matter of a few moments).  It was Rebecca who also suggested that Jacob personally go to Padanaram to find his own wife.  The journey would also help Jacob escape the wrath of Esau, the one that he cheated out of a birthright and the best blessing.

It was quite a journey for Jacob, a man heretofore content to stay in the camp and dwell in tents.  Most significant of all, he has a direct encounter with the Lord at Bethel and vows that if the Lord takes care of him on this journey, the Lord will be Jacob’s God.

Jacob and Rachel at the Well, c. 1896-1902, by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (French, 1836-1902), gouache on board, 10 3/8 x 8 1/4 in. (26.4 x 21 cm), at the Jewish Museum, New York (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This sets the stage for Jacob to arrive at the land of his grandfather’s people.  And when he arrives, the first woman he lays eyes upon his Rachel, not unlike Abraham’s servant encountering Rebecca as the first woman he approaches.  And both encounters take place at sources of water, a most precious commodity to the sheep ranchers of the Middle East.

At this time in her life, Rachel is the keeper of her family’s flock, a shepherdess.  As she approaches the well, Jacob is conversing with the men about the proper procedures of sheep (cattle) ranching.

And he said, Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together: water ye the sheep, and go and feed them. And they said, We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and till they roll the stone from the well’s mouth; then we water the sheep. – Genesis 29:7-8

Notice that the men of that place are not rolling away the stone.  They are waiting for “they” to do it for them.

But when Rachel arrives with her flocks, Jacob himself rolls away the stone from the well and waters the sheep.  (This is the reverse of the encounter between Abraham’s servant and Rebecca.  At that time, Rebecca gave the servant a drink and also watered the servant’s camels.)

Having impressed Rachel with his gallant gesture, Jacob goes to Rachel and kisses her.  (Okay, I’m enhancing the text here a bit, romantic that I am.  But he did kiss her.)  Then he identifies himself as family.

This is where the love story of Jacob and Rachel begins.  And here is where it quickly gets sullied.  Jacob’s Uncle Laban, father of Rachel, gets involved.  Perhaps Laban has gotten wilier in his older years.  Perhaps he realizes he is dealing this time with a suitor, not a servant.  Perhaps both.  But it soon becomes clear that Jacob, the conniver and supplanter, is from the same gene pool as Laban.  However, Laban is more experienced and Jacob at first appears to have met his match.

Jacob’s bargaining skills are blinded by the stars in his eyes for Rachel.  He agrees to work for seven years for Laban to obtain Rachel’s hand in marriage.  And Jacob’s love for Rachel is so strong that seven years seem like only a few days for him.  Ladies, could a suitor be any more devoted than that?

Here’s where Laban gets the better of Jacob.  Apparently there was no formal wedding ceremony in those days where the bride and groom stood together before someone to marry them.  As a wealthy man and father of the bride, Laban has a feast and then delivers the bride to the groom for their wedding night.  But lo and behold, when Jacob awakes the next morning, it is Rachel’s older sister, Leah, next to him.  Laban wants to marry off his oldest daughter first, and he tricks Jacob to do so.

Jacob works seven more years for Rachel, although this time Laban doesn’t make Jacob wait more than a week.  Apparently Leah was entitled to a conjugal week.

Now we have the advantage of hindsight to know how the story turns out.  After another seven years, Jacob wants to take his growing family and return to his home in Canaan.  This time Laban is in the position of desperate bargainer.  For fourteen years, he has seen how the Lord has blessed whatever Jacob does.  He doesn’t want to lose Jacob and that blessing on his ranching operation.  So now Jacob can name his price.  And at first it looks like Jacob is a poor negotiator once again.  But it gives Jacob the opportunity to fleece Laban this time.  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun.)  And soon, Jacob has accumulated great and healthy flocks of his own to go back home with.  And when he sees that Laban and his sons are starting to turn against him, Jacob decides that it is time to get out of Dodge.

Through all these machinations, Jacob eventually fathers the twelve sons who become heads of the tribes of Israel.  And on the way back to meet up with Esau once again, Jacob has another encounter with the Lord (a wrestling match this time: how many people would be more afraid of their brother than the creator of all things?) that leads to him being given the name by which the nation would be known: Israel.  Regardless of why God chose to have things happen this way, they happened.

It was by Leah that Levi was born, becoming the tribe of priests.  Leah’s fourth son, Judah, named for her praise of the Lord, would become the ruling tribe.  When peace finally comes, all the people shall be gathered unto him.

It was by Rachel that Joseph was born.  He was the one who emerged from prison to save his people and forgive his brothers.

Almost all the pieces of the picture, the foreshadows, are present in this fascinating, imperfect love story.  But it never comes to full fruition, never comes together in one person: not until Jesus, the lion of Judah, the son of David, the Prince of Peace, Emmanuel, the Alpha and the Omega from everlasting to everlasting.

Jesus is the Passover lamb, the perfect lamb without spot or blemish, whose sacrifice once forever saves the people from their sins.  But He is also the Good Shepherd.  His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

Jesus is the priest after the order of Melchizedek, without beginning or end.  But He also sits at the right hand of God the father.  The scepter never departs from His hand and He shall be the righteous judge of all.

Jacob, in fathering twelve sons, was in a sense the creator of the nation.  He is another picture that points to Jesus:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. – Colossians 1:16-17

In addition to being the sheep, the shepherd (Rachel), the priest (Levi), the ruler (Judah), the savior (Joseph) who also preached to the spirits in prison (1^st Peter 3:19), the sacrificial love (Jacob for Rachel) that gave His life for us while we were yet sinners and at enmity with God, the way to the Father (Bethel) and the creator (Jacob/Israel), Jesus is also the life-giving water in the story.  Jesus is the living water: those who drink of Him shall never thirst.  Water is also an image associated with the Word of God.  Jesus is the word made flesh to have free course: those who partake of it will never hunger.

Furthermore, Jesus is the light who has come into the world.  Whether as the pillar of fire by night or in the burning bush (for example), it was always God who brought the light to the scene.  This is also true figuratively, as when God enlightened Joseph with the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams.  Nothing physical in the story of Jacob, Rachel and the children of Israel could be a foreshadowing of the light that illuminates the darkness.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. – Isaiah 9:2,6-7

In order for there to be the victory of Easter, there had to be the hope that was born of Christmas.

When Jesus hung on the cross of Calvary, the sun was darkened.  Earthquakes tore the veil of the temple in two and opened the ground, including graves that saw their occupants come to life.  A couple of days later, another earthquake rolled the stone away.  No person had to do so this time.

As dawn’s light filled the sky on that Resurrection Sunday, so too did the Gospel message have valid proof.  “An empty grave is there to prove my Savior lives.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJL4TJcwDRA

The stone has been rolled away.  It is time to water the sheep.  It will be time to water the sheep until Jesus returns.  As Christians, we are to be the clay pots to carry the water to the troughs.  Whatever else our lot in life may be, this is our first responsibility, our great commission.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. – Mark 16:15

God bless,

Lois

Related articles

• Your Word for This Day: “Blessed to be a Blessing!”

Letter to my previous church – Part 2

Tags

Agape, appropriate, authentic, Bible, Bible Study, blend, Christ, Christian, Christian walk, Christianity, church, conservative Christians, conversation, coping, correction, discussion, evangelical Christian, evidence, fellowship, female, female friends, female identity, female voice, feminine appearance, feminine comportment, freer emotionally, friendship, God, God speaking, God's superiority to man, God's will, Holy Spirit, humor, imperfect, inerrant inspired and infallible, interpretation, Jesus, joy, mannerisms, passable, pastor, pastoral counseling, peace, prayer of agreement, reconciliation, refreshed, return, reunited, revelation, Scripture, sense of humor, sisterhood, theological issues, Transgender, transparency, Transsexualism, understanding, women's clothing

A continuation of and conclusion to my post of 3/25/2016:

Now this might sound all well and good.  Yet some might ask, “What about theological issues?  What does God have to say about this?  What does the Bible say?”

The detailed answer is another book, not a letter.  But I am not dodging the question.  I deal with these sorts of questions on this blog (started in November 2013).  I would always welcome a discussion on these topics, whether one on one or with a group, Bibles open.  Based on growing evidence that I and many others like me were born this way (this is not a choice), combined with the many verses that show how God identifies people and how we were formed before we were born, I feel more strongly about this now than I did in November 2012.  I still uncover other verses from time to time that support this viewpoint.  Since you found this letter on my blog, you will find other blog posts where I expound on this topic.  Look for the page “Key Bible Verses”, or blog posts under the category “The Bible on Transsexualism”.

I said that I would get back to Pastor, and this is the appropriate point in the letter.  I will not mislead you by letting you think that he endorses my opinion in these matters.  We have not discussed this topic recently, so he should be the one to weigh in on where he stands at this time.  But one of his best qualities (and why you are so blessed to have him as your pastor) is his transparency.  My understanding is that his willingness to continue to fellowship with me is based on the following: that Christians are called to love one another; that he considers the totality of what he knows about me and my Christian walk, not just one item, albeit a significant one; his awareness that just as I am not perfect, he is not perfect; his awareness that while he believes his position to be right, that he is not inerrant.  And if I have misspoken on any of these or omitted anything, I trust that Pastor will make the necessary corrections.

When I met with Pastor and his wife in January 2012 to inform them of this development in my life and to ask for counseling (which eventually was handled solely by Pastor), he admitted that he did not have a theological knowledge of the topic.  He did what he needed to do to get up to speed and I talked to someone he recommended that I talk to.  Most importantly, our prayer of agreement was that God’s will for my life be revealed.

With the guidance of the Holy Spirit and affirmation from many (but not all) people: strangers, family members, friends, clients and best of all, solid, conservative Christians, I believe that His will for my life is being revealed.  And I believe that I am living that will as best I can, especially in this matter.

New people in my life who I have not told accept me as female and most of the people who I have told accept me as female.  Some people who have known me for a long time tell me that “if they didn’t know, they wouldn’t know”.  People who have met me recently tell me that they find it hard to believe that I was ever anything except female.  Even a number of people who met me for the first time during my last year at CBC are now telling me that they have only thought of me as female.  And I was wearing male clothes when I met them.

There are two minor areas of disagreement that I had with Pastor.  I am sharing them with you to show how my understanding continues to progress.

One was when I made a statement that there was no verse or combination of verses in the Bible to back a certain point of view (I am pretty sure it was on whether we are born with gender identity and genitalia that always match).  Pastor’s reply was to the effect that there are some things that are so universally accepted that they do not need to be included.  I let his point stand at the time.  Later on, I realized that such a belief does not agree with the evangelical Christian position that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God.  If anyone should go to the Bible with any question, and if an answer cannot be found whether by direct statement, induction or deduction from the entire word of God, then the Bible has failed on that point.  But it cannot fail and be infallible at the same time.

The other was when we exchanging positions and points of view based on scripture.  I would say something from the Bible.  Then Pastor would answer it from the Bible.  Then I would answer it with something else from the Bible.  It was a lively, respectful and friendly discussion, sometimes continuing for a couple of counseling sessions.  Finally Pastor threw in the towel (still in good humor) and said that I was smart enough that no matter what he told me, I would always find a way to counter it with something else from the Bible.  I also let that stand.  But later on, in correspondence with another Christian, a similar remark was made.  However, it was not in good humor.  And that got me to thinking about the implication of that statement.  And it wasn’t long before I rejected it.  No matter how smart I am, God is a whole lot smarter than me.  There’s no comparison.  Now if God finds me in error on this topic, wouldn’t He be able to come up with verses and an explanation that I wouldn’t be able to counter?  And wouldn’t a God who has spoken through a donkey and heathen kings be able to speak through a godly Christian pastor or another dedicated servant of the Lord?

More important, Pastor’s continued and steadfast friendship has been highly prized by me.  He has always treated me appropriately, in accord with my presentation.  He is genuine.  He values me as a person and as a Christian.  He takes time for my concerns when he derives no tangible benefit from doing so.  It is hard enough to find those qualities in anyone, let alone someone who disagrees on such a significant issue.

Now that I know that my transition is no longer secret, I would recommend CBC to anyone in the area.  Of course, I would recommend my own church as well!

I will close this by leaving you with two sayings that I have lived by since I started to come out and then a final wrap up.

• If I want to be understood, I need to be understanding.
• If it took me fifty years to deal with this, I can’t expect you to understand this in fifty minutes.

Yes, my presentation (my clothing, voice and mannerisms) has changed somewhat.  I am somewhat freer with my emotions and in worship.  I cherish the more open friendships that I have with some women now that a glass wall has been removed.  I enjoy the private smiles that I receive from other women when we pass by each other with that quiet acknowledgement of our shared sisterhood.  But for the most part, I haven’t changed that much.  I can still do math, I can still parallel park, I still have a great sense of direction, I still have the same crazy sense of humor, I still like sports and I still love the Lord.

If anyone would like to contact me or meet with me, I would be delighted.  If I was ever invited to speak or attend a function at CBC, I would be honored.

Please know that you are prayed for often, loved always and missed very much.

That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed.  Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. – Romans 15:32-33

God bless,

Lois Simmons

Related articles

• Love Is???

Letter to my previous church – Part 1

Tags

authentic, body of Christ, born again, career, Christian male role models, Christian ministry, Christian walk, Christian witnessing, church, church finances, church list, church split, college, community outreach, congregation, connection, coping, despising shame, fear, female, fruit of the Spirit, GCS, gender counselor, Gender Dysphoria, God, Holy Spirit, imaginary friends, innate gender identity, joy, letter of resignation, Lois Simmons, male immersion, male-oriented activities, Margaret Thatcher, new name, offering counting, operation, pastor, pastoral counseling, peace, persistence, pocket testaments, prayer, prayer partner, reality, red kettles, Salvation Army, self-control, SRS, stray animal, survival, Transgender, transgender community, Transsexual, wanting vs knowing, Women's Bible Study

When I left my previous church (by mutual agreement with the pastor) in November 2012, I wrote a letter of explanation to be shared with the congregation, but it did not include information about being transgender.  When I found out recently that they had been told anyway, this is the letter I would send to my church if I could.

To my dear sisters and brothers in Christ at CBC,

It isn’t often that a person gets to say goodbye twice, or needs to for that matter.  But I believe that I need to.  For when I said goodbye the first time, while I did not lie to you, I also did not tell you some significant details.  I have only recently learned that you have been told those details.  But I would like to tell my own story.

First, let me say that now that I know Pastor’s reasons for telling you, I am in agreement with his reasoning.  I do wish that he would have trusted me enough to tell me he was going to do that, but it is a minor issue.  The bottom line is that both of us had the best interests of the body of Christ at heart.  I was concerned that I might cause a church split, whether I stayed or even if it was known that I was not immediately told to leave.  I never considered the fact that in light of my significant involvement in the handling of the church finances, my sudden departure for vague reasons might raise questions.  Pastor, with his years of experience and leading from the Holy Spirit was sensitive to this issue.  I am grateful.

Indeed, I now believe that one of the reasons that the Lord led me to CBC about ten years ago was that Pastor was precisely the right man to be my counselor at this critical time of my life.  I know a few pastors who I sat under who would not have handled the situation well.  But I am getting ahead of myself.

I have known of my true gender identity since age 7.  That is about the average age at which those who are known as either transgender (more recent terminology) or transsexual (older terminology) discover this information about ourselves.  I believe that the main reason I didn’t know sooner is that until that age, the primary division in people for me was between adult and child.  By the time that I was three or four years old, I was becoming aware that I was considered smart and could do things mentally well beyond what most kids could do.  Yet I was still very limited in what I could and could not do.  So I wanted to be an adult.

Yet I didn’t want to be female.  At age 7, I knew that I was.  So I am very aware of the mental difference between “wanting to be” and “knowing I am”.

This didn’t become particularly problematic for me until I was 10 going on 11. In sixth grade I left public school to go to a private school that had grades six to twelve.  I feel that the combination of a maturing body, changing voice and seeing the gradual progress of my school mates from children to older teens was the reason.  My future was becoming clear to me, and it was not what I wanted.

It was around this time that I started to pray that God would change my body while I slept and I would wake up with a girl’s body.  Surely my parents, teachers, doctors and the church couldn’t argue against that, could they?  It was also around that time that I came up with a new name for myself.  It was perfectly logical to me at the time, and I was surprised to find that very few of us change our names that early in life.  I know of no one else who did it the way that I did.  To my way of thinking at that age, if I was going to “reverse” from a boy to a girl, then I would reverse my name.  And so, with a few tweaks and permutations, I came up with the name by which I am known today: Lois Simmons.  (Much later I added the middle name, Elizabeth, to honor the maternal side of my family.)

Have you ever been in a situation where a child brings home a stray?  If the parents don’t want to keep the animal, they do everything in their power to prevent it from being named.  They know it will be much harder to part with “Fluffy” than with an unnamed stray cat.

In that same way, naming myself was a tether that kept me even more connected to my true identity.  For most of my life, I kept considerable distance away from the transgender community.  That was especially true in most of the years after I was saved.  And even when I did explore on the Internet, my contact with others was either minimal or none at all.  So that extra connection was very important to me.  The fact that the name survived for fifty years, waiting for me to stop denial, is significant to me.  My imaginary friends disappeared by the time that I also knew that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny were not real.  Lois Simmons is the real me.

Even if you start my story from the time that I went away to college and started to live on my own, that story is 42 years long until the time that I started living full-time as Lois, six days after I last attended CBC.  All the details would be a book, not a letter.  But I can summarize it by saying that my true gender identity survived a decade of struggle to start a career after graduation from college.  It survived the disappointment of a failed marriage of less than a year (over issues totally unrelated to gender) and then further disappointment when that person seriously came back into my life and departed again while I was attending CBC in 2006-7 (as some of you may remember).  It survived the long hours of hard work that it took to gain clients and build a financial business that at one time included investments, insurance and financial planning.  It survived 11 years of extreme poverty that came from a failed second business that was a money pit, a poverty that had ended shortly before I started attending CBC.

My gender identity endured after I was born again and began to grow in my Christian walk.  It endured through all my service to Christian ministry (you know which one, name omitted in obedience to not link its name to outside activities) and whatever church I was attending regularly (four during my adult life, including the one I attend now, the Spring Valley Corps of the Salvation Army, where I am an adherent member).  It endured despite all the wonderful Christian male role models I met in Christian ministry and in those churches.  It endured despite all the other male activities I took part in, whether sports, two years as an engineering major, a male-oriented profession as a stock broker or men’s groups in churches.

It also endured all the years I tried to deny who I really am out of fear: fear of losing my career, fear of what the church would say, fear of what God would do, fear of losing my family, fear of what kind of life I might be forced to live, fear that I would look like a freak or a “guy in a dress”.  It endured all the times over the years that I would pray for the Lord to take this away from me.  (My previous praying for God to change my body stopped after a couple of years.)

It is important to note that as an adult, I have never prayed for God to “make me a woman”.  Nor have I asked that of any person.  No operation or anything else can make that happen.  Either someone’s innate, core gender identity is female or it is not.  As Margaret Thatcher has been quoted, “Power is like being a lady… if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”  When my gender counselor asked me why I was requesting her services, my answer was simply that “I want to know the truth.  And I don’t want to make a mistake.”

I have been grieved by some of the things that I have done over the years in my exploration of my identity, especially from late spring to the beginning of autumn in 2011.  (When you started to see me clean-shaven, and with longer hair and nails in at the end of 2011 and in 2012, I was already well along in my healing and seeing confirmation that this is who I really am.  R. M., thank you for the compliment you gave me.)  I am grateful that I never involved anyone physically and never led anyone into a sinful lifestyle online.  (In December 2011, I even started to witness to one husband & wife couple who I met on an adult website!)

People who have stayed in my life tell me that I am happier now.  That is a wonderful blessing but that isn’t why I did it.  I did it to be authentic and that is what I feel I am now.  I have more joy, more peace and more self-control.  Those are part of the Fruit of the Spirit, which Satan cannot counterfeit.  Therefore, they are more important to me.

In some ways, it is better that this information comes to you nearly 3½ years later.  Now I can report to you on how things have gone in my life, not on what I hoped they will be.  And while I had no idea that this would have ever happened, transgender has become much more visible in society within the past year.

Being part of and serving in the Salvation Army has been a wonderful experience for me.  The Lord has honored me by allowing me to become a part of two of the largest worldwide Christian missionary outreach organizations.  I am too old to go through the process of becoming an Army officer, but as an adherent member I go out on community outreach up to three times per year, I help with counting the kettle offerings at Christmas and I maintain a list of Rockland churches for the Spring Valley Corps.  It was one of the duties I had in my other Christian ministry and it was easy for me to step up and take on that role when I heard that there was a need.  For about 15-20 weeks a year, I participate in the Women’s Bible Study at the Corps.  Most of the participants have graduated from the Officers Training College and really know the Word!  I have learned a lot, and I am blessed that my contributions to the discussions are highly esteemed.

Now when I transitioned, as a person under authority, I willingly resigned from the other Christian ministry.  I was making a public declaration that I did not qualify because one of the qualifications of membership is to be male.  It would have been hypocritical for me to try to claim the right to remain a member, and despicable if I had followed the advice of a few who wanted me to fight for the right to remain a member.  (I dismissed such talk immediately.)

Even here, the Lord has blessed me.  One of my remaining friends in the ministry told me that an affiliate program started in 2014.  There were no qualifications to join.  I became a prayer partner and I donate $10 per month. Because of my regular donation, I received a book on witnessing and occasionally receive some free pocket testaments.  And I can also buy more testaments if I run out of the free ones.  I recommend it to anyone who would like to increase their witnessing for Christ.

Best of all, I witness and give out many more copies of God’s word one on one now than I ever did as a member previously.  No longer carrying around secret shame, I am not encumbered in connecting to others.  Slowly the Lord is bringing along my witnessing skills.  I praise the Lord for His mercy and grace to me.

I have more to share with you in part two.  But it is customary for me to close my blog posts with scripture.  Because today is Good Friday and also because I am no longer despising myself in shame, this is the verse that comes to mind:

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. – Hebrews 12:2

God bless,

Lois

Where are the Victims?

Tags

Adolf Hitler, anti-transgender laws, Arkansas, assault, biased studies, Brynn Tannehill, Charlize Veritas, Christianity, Deuteronomy 19, disfigurement, false accusations, Family Research Council, fringe of society, Huff Post, humor, in the closet, injustice, innocence, Jacie Leopold, James Dobson, lies, marginalized, Martin Niemöller, military officer, misreprentation, Nazism, parental support, Paul McHugh, pilot, research study, scientist, South Dakota, stock broker, stories, successful transition, tax preparer, Transgender, transgender children, U of Washington, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Navy, violence, vulnerable, Wall Street, writer

I am no longer a stock broker, but I am still part of the financial world as a professional tax preparer.  Since this is my busy season and the Lord has been blessing me with an unusually large group of new clients (with complicated tax situations) early in the season, I am relying on two guest contributors to flesh out my postings.  But I will still be the one who ties them together.

Having been a stock broker for 20 years, I heard many of the stories and sayings of Wall Street.  One of those stories is about a man who had recently attained considerable wealth.  He went to Wall Street to meet with the most prestigious financial planners to choose which one would manage his wealth.  At one of these meetings, held high above the city’s financial district, the planner brought the wealthy man to one of the large windows in the conference room overlooking the river.  Thinking it would impress his prospective client, he made a grand gesture towards certain boats on the water’s edge and said, “Those are the brokers’ yachts!”

The wealthy man had a different idea of what was important.  “Where are the investors’ yachts?” he wanted to know.

The two stories I am sharing look at two major ways that transgender people are attacked in the United States (and in many parts of the world).  The first talks about physical attacks of violence that injure, disfigure and sometimes murder the victim.  The hateful perpetrators of this violence use fists, blunt objects, knives, guns, and a variety of other methods to carry out their attacks.

The second story talks about legislative acts of violence that makes it easier for perpetrators of physical violence to target transgender people.  They might even encourage them.  These laws are proposed (and now passed in South Dakota) in the name of Christian morality and defense of straw man victims.  Sadly, this puts Christianity in a bad light, putting a selfish interest (prejudice) ahead of concern for the wellbeing of innocent people who are put into clear and present danger on a regular and ongoing basis.

Both stories from a lofty perspective point out some of the victims of violence against transgender people.  Like the prospective client in our Wall Street tale, we wonder, where are the victims of violence done by transgender people?  Indeed, where are victims of violence done by people pretending to be transgender?

Summary of the first story: For Jacie Leopold, a trans woman in the latter stages of physical transition, the night of her company’s Christmas party in 2014 was the night that the lights went out in Arkansas. Since then, a phalanx of backwoods Southern judges, lawyers and police officers have denied her justice. She has no job and no car, but the medical bills don’t go away.

With thinly veiled irony, Charlize Veritas, a trans woman and the author of the following Huff Post piece, comments that Jacie is “very lucky”. This sort of thing still happens all too frequently, and sometimes it leads to the victim’s death. Even so, there is a loud chorus of voices blaming the victim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlize-veritas/the-dangers-of-being-transgender—-the-attack-on-jacie-leopold_b_9173816.html

Summary of the second story:  Before I talk about the story, I will say a few words about the author.  Among Brynn Tannehill’s many accomplishments, she graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis with a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and then earned a master’s degree in operations research from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology; served her country as a Naval Officer for nearly 17 years, much of that time as a pilot, flying over 450 combat missions and over 700 hours on non-combat missions; has continued to serve her country as a senior defense analyst and technical scientist for private firms; came out as a trans woman; writes brilliant articles highlighting transgender issues in our society of who we are and what we face.

The title of her article plays on Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote that succinctly describes how failure to defend others from unfair attack led to Adolf Hitler’s rise to absolute power in Nazi Germany where no German citizen could stand against him and be safe.  Brynn brings to light a systematic plan advanced by the Family Research Council that targets members of the transgender community to make us less than second class citizens.  As a backlash against the recent advances that help us to live as freely as any other citizen enjoys, it would eventually lead to such a hostile environment that would either force us into the dark underbelly of society or keep us cowering in the closet.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

(Brynn knows something about music, too.  Just as I alluded to Vicki Lawrence’s “The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia”, she quotes a phrase from Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Boxer”.)

Brynn also gives special attention to the targeting of transgender children at the forefront of this attack strategy.  If there is any group that highlights the innocence of transgender identity, it is these precious and courageous children who are daring to step out at a time of life when most of us feared to tread.  The FRC and others who support this plan know that these children are the most vulnerable part of the transgender community.  If they can effectively drive this generation of transgender children back underground, who knows how many generations it will be before the transgender community can once again emerge from the Dark Ages.

I need not rewrite Brynn’s article for her.  She does a magnificent job on her own:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/and-then-they-came-for-tr_b_9258678.html

As a Christian, I am deeply saddened by the central role played by the Family Research Council in attacking the transgender community.  I can remember many articles of sound advice from their organization, mostly from the pen of Dr. James Dobson.  (I make no claims as to whether it would be different if Dobson were still at the helm of this ministry.)  It’s almost like another close Christian friend turned against me, as some did when I came out.

But there is also good news tonight.  I have one more link to share.  But rather than a story (I said that there were only two), this is a report about a research study out of the University of Washington that was released Friday (2/26).  The study suggests that parental support is a major factor in the success of a child’s transition.  In other words, it is not the gender issue that leads to problems; it is the lack of support.

The researchers honestly admit that more studies are needed to test for other reasons for the findings.  But while their methodology was somewhat different, the study’s finding are consistent with an Ontario study of a few years ago with a much larger data base of trans youth age 16-24.  I referred to this study in my blog post of 1/6/16, “A Dream Deferred … or Worse”.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-transgender-children-identities-positive-mental.html

As these findings mount, they are poking huge holes in the failed arguments of doctors like Paul McHugh who base their beliefs on their own prejudices, biased studies of their own commission and disingenuous reporting of other studies which arrived at vastly different conclusions (while failing to acknowledge those conclusions).  Hopefully these accurate studies are coffin nails that can finally put these failed beliefs to rest and bury them where they belong.

Meanwhile, those Christians (and others who take their authority from scripture) who lie about transgender people would do well to consider the Old Testament penalty for falsely accusing someone.  It is the negative counterpart to the New Testament teaching that with the measure by which you forgive, so shall you be forgiven.

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. – Deuteronomy 19:16-19

God bless,

Lois

Change Hearts … and Laws

Tags

1972 Education Amendments, Acts 9:1-20, anti-discrimination, Antonin Scalia, Apostle Paul, Armor of God, Bathrooms, change, children, Christian, court rulings, David Omdahl, Dennis Daugaard, Dina Nina Martinez, discrimination, Discrimination in the United States, divided country, Employment discrimination, executive orders, Fred Deutsch, HB 1008, hearts, Holy Spirit, laws, lawsuits, legal process, legislation, light of Christ, Los Angeles, Madison Wisconsin, minds, political process, politics, prayer, reasonable accommodation, Saul of Tarsus, school districts, South Dakota, South Dakota Attorney General, Title IX, trans-friendly, trans-hostile, Transgender, transgender discrimination, U.S. Supreme Court, Winston Churchill

We have been seeing great strides recently in legislation, court rulings and executive orders that have made it illegal to discriminate against transgender people.  I consider this to be transgender anti-discrimination law, not transgender rights, for just about everything that we have been fighting for has been to be treated like anyone else: the right to safely use a bathroom that corresponds to our gender identity; the right to gain employment based on merit and so on.

We are also seeing backlash, not just in increased violence but also at the ballot box and in state legislatures.  A number of laws that legalize discrimination against transgender people have been blooming: weeds among the flowers of gain.  Most of them have been killed with common sense herbicide.  But South Dakota’s recent weeds have proved to be a resistant strain so far.

State Seal of South Dakota. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

South Dakota State Representative Fred Deutsch has sponsored HB 1008 that would prohibit transgender children from using school bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity and gender presentation.  It includes language that requires “reasonable accommodation” for those students that can demonstrate being transgender, said accommodation being various forms of facilities that are either designated as unisex or segregated from the rest of the student population.  I am open to such bills being debated openly and fairly with all the relevant facts presented.  After all, when no accommodation at all was being provided to transgender students, developments such as the ones in HB 1008 were considered a great advance until application of Federal Title IX (1972 Education Amendments) found that such accommodation did not go far enough.

The bill will now be debated in the plenary session of the South Dakota State Senate on Tuesday.  It is predicted that the State Senate will also vote in favor of this message (the South Dakota House passed it by a 58-10 vote) and that Governor Dennis Daugaard will sign the bill into law.  Then we shall see how many lawsuits arise in Federal Court.  (The bill promises that the South Dakota Attorney General will defend school districts against such lawsuits and will pay all resulting legal bills, including any penalties and awards to the plaintiffs.)  This is politics in America as it has been for centuries: two sides, two positions using legal and political processes.

However, it is sidebar remarks by South Dakota State Senator David Omdahl that disturb me far more.  His recent remarks from a “legislative coffee” in the district he represents (Sioux Falls) drew gasps from the audience when he called transgender people “twisted”.  Then he repeated the tired remarks of needing to protect the children.  Which children and from what, Sen. Omdahl?  The ones who are never attacked when transgender students are allowed to the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity, or the transgender students who are bullied and attacked merely for going to school?

http://www.argusleader.com/story/blogs/danaferguson/2016/02/06/lawmaker-trans-community-sorry-youre-so-twisted/79933180/

Yes, adults want to protect children.  And knowing the GIGO rule, flawed information will yield flawed legislation and outcries.  But what about transgender adults?  Surely we don’t need to protect cisgender adults in the workplace from us, do we?

Here we have seen a number of recent victories for transgender people who were wrongly terminated from their jobs or were discriminated against in the workplace simply based on their gender identity.  But what happens to transgender individuals who find themselves out of work and in need of employment?  Discrimination in the hiring process is much harder to prove.  The following story is sobering, for it doesn’t take place in the Deep South or the Dakotas.  It takes place in Los Angeles and Madison, Wisconsin.

Once Dina Nina Martinez fully transitioned with name change, appearance and ID with her true gender, the job search became easier.  But while in transition, she faced rejection after rejection.  And even after living full-time as female, she was rejected from opportunities simply by virtue of being transgender.  And now that she has changed locations, the dreaded task of finding a job, difficult enough under any circumstance, is many times more difficult because Ms. Martinez is transgender.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dina-nina-martinez/job-hunting-while-trans_b_9095068.html?utm_hp_ref=women&ir=Women

The question is not whether the country can survive being part trans-friendly and part trans-hostile.  The question is whether trans-hostile attitudes will become rigid in some states.  Will there be some states in the United States where I know I cannot freely travel and therefore should cross off my list?

Laws that are voted in can be repealed.  Court rulings can be overturned when the composition of the court changes (as we have been reminded again with the death this weekend of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia).  The same is true of executive orders when a new chief executive has been voted into office.

It is much harder to change hearts.  But once they have been changed, it is even harder to change them back.  There are some who say it isn’t worth the bother, that our opponents will never change their minds about us.  We will never reach their hearts.

But in the words of Winston Churchill: “Never, never, never give up.”  As long as I have the ability to think and convey my message, I will never give up on changing hearts so that trans-hostile people will see us as people too, not as threats or “twisted”.

And I am reminded that one of the greatest champions of Christianity, the Apostle Paul also known as Saul of Tarsus, at one time was its greatest persecutor.  I do not attempt to change hearts based on my strength alone.  I do so while walking in the strength and power of the Holy Spirit, covered by the armor of God, bathed in prayer that in everything I communicate the light of Christ will shine.

Someday, one of our greatest detractors will become one of our greatest champions.  I hope and pray that I live to see that day.

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.  And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. – Acts 9:1-20

God bless,

Lois