Lazy Religion: Harmful to the Transgender Community; Harmful Throughout History

Tags

1st Samuel 21, Acts 10, Acts 15, anything goes, Bible, Bible Study, Blacks, Boaz, Christ, Christian, church, circumcision, condemnation, Cornelius, dead orthodoxy, death, faith, flesh, gender confirming surgery, Gentiles, God, good works, Gospel of Matthew, grace, healing, Holy Spirit, hormones, hypocrisy, Israelites, Jericho, Jesus, Jew, Jewish, Jewish leaders, King David, lazy religion, legalism, letter of the law, life, literal interpretation, loveless legalism, mercy, Messiah, messianic identity, miracles, Mosaic Law, New Testament, Peter, Pharisees, Promised Land, prophets, Rahab, Ruth, Sabbath, Sadducees, salvation, saved, scribes, Scripture, segregation, showbread, silly sentimentality, spirit, spirit of the law, Testimony, Transgender, truth

I sometimes hear negative comments about Christians who interpret the Bible literally.  My reply takes them by surprise at first until I explain.  The problem is not belief that the Bible is literally true.  It’s that those Christians who disparage the transgender community don’t read the Bible carefully enough and apply all of it as it is written.

Jesus never rebuked anyone for using too much scripture or taking it literally. He did accuse the Sadducees of not knowing the scriptures (or the power of God) when they asked Him about the woman who was widowed in succession by each one of seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-32).  He challenged the Jewish leadership by comparing scripture verses that would point to His identity as the Son of God (e.g. that the Messiah is the Son of David, but David calls Him Lord: Matthew 22:42-45 referring to Psalm 110).  He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of hypocrisy for being preoccupied with minutiae and ignoring more important matters: judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23, especially verses 23 and 24).

He accused them of ignoring the judgment of the prophet Hosea on their forefathers: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6:6.  He accused them of not understanding the message in the story of David and his starving soldiers when the priests fed them the hallowed showbread that only the priests were permitted to eat under the Law.  (1^st Samuel 21:1-6; Jesus’ teaching reported in Matthew 12, Mark 2 and Luke 6).

Jesus was grieved that the religious leaders in His time did not understand that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: that His disciples did not deserve condemnation for plucking and eating a few grains from stalks in the field on the Sabbath; nor did He deserve condemnation for doing good works on the Sabbath, such as His healing of the sick or infirmed and casting out demons (often by only speaking a word and using no physical activity at all).  Most grievous of all was the fact that the ministry and messianic identity of Jesus was confirmed by far greater miracles than displayed by Elijah and Elisha.  Yet the scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the Law, who venerated those prophets from centuries earlier, did not accept the message of Jesus for the sake of His good works.

What if legalism had stopped Boaz from marrying a foreign woman?  Then he would have never married Ruth, the Moabitess, the great-grandmother of King David.  Fortunately, the testimony about Ruth, her goodness towards her mother-in-law, her love of God and her faith and trust in the Lord, was more important to Boaz.

What if legalism had stopped the two men sent by Joshua to spy on Jericho from lodging with a prostitute.  Then those men would not have received protection from Rahab, they would have been captured by the people of that land and another generation of the children of Israel probably would have been discouraged from entering the Promised Land.  Fortunately for the Israelites, those two men were more concerned with their mission, and they also believed it when Rahab testified her belief that the God of Israel is the only God in heaven and earth.  Both the faith (Hebrews 11:31) and works (James 2:25) of this common harlot are praised in the New Testament.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17.  Human nature makes it difficult to have both grace and truth in our hearts. We tend to tilt towards one or the other since at first glance they seem incompatible.  But what is impossible for man is made possible by God.  So our Christian walk requires us to do what God enables us to do: that we so walk as to keep the two in balance at all times.  For if we heavily emphasize grace, the result is silly sentimentality and an attitude that anything goes.  But if we heavily emphasize truth, the result is dead orthodoxy and loveless legalism, driving away people from God by beating them over the head with scripture.

But don’t ever think that grace is weaker than truth.  (Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. – 2^nd Timothy 2:1.)  Now that’s even stronger than Ajax!

So why do I call legalism ”lazy religion”?  Because it is much easier to justify one’s position by pointing to cold, hard facts in scripture, especially the “thou shalt not(s)”.  It takes more work to temper truth with grace, to practice speaking grace seasoned with salt instead of the other way around, and to understand the spirit of the law in addition to the letter of the law.

Those Christians who pursue legalism and the letter of the law need to heed these verses:

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 2:29 (In the same chapter, Paul warns the Church to leave condemning judgment to God because we will all be judged by Him.)

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. – Romans 7:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. – 2^nd Corinthians 3:6

That sure grabs my attention.  I can minister life to people by the spirit of the law, but death to people by the letter.  Why would I want to minister death to people?  Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (John 3:17).  He came so that we would not only have life, but abundant life. (John 10:10)

In my Christian walk, I have the same choice that God told Moses to proclaim to the children of Israel: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19

Therefore, it is a joy when I find another scripture passage that illuminates both the letter and spirit of the word; both the grace and truth of Christ: especially as relates to God’s mercy towards those people who are transgender; those of us who were born that way.

I recently came across some passages in Acts (which I have read dozens of times) during the Women’s Bible Study that I attend at my church.  The topic was the importance of evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the first Gentile converts so that they would be welcomed into the body of Christ.  It starts in Acts 10 when the Lord sent visions to the centurion Cornelius and the Apostle Peter to bring them together.  Peter was the one who needed convincing.  Had he been stuck in legalism, he would have refused to go to the house of a Gentile (Acts 10:28).  But once there, Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius, his family and close friends who eagerly desired to hear about God.  And to the surprise of the Jewish followers of Christ who accompanied Peter, they saw strong evidence of the Holy Spirit being poured out on those who had gathered to hear Peter, similar to what had happened a decade earlier at Pentecost to Christ’s disciples.

But that didn’t end the matter.  Now Peter had to go back to Jerusalem and defend his actions to those who want to know why he visited these Gentiles (and even ate with them!) contrary to the Law.  Fortunately, Peter was able to recount the whole story and convinced those who originally opposed what he had done that they would also be opposing God if they did not accept that the Lord had chosen Gentiles to be part of the body of believers in Christ.

Then people like Paul and Barnabas journeyed to preach the Gospel in the synagogues in more distant cities where Jews have settled and also to the Gentiles there.  From both groups, some believed and some did not.  And with these new Christians, both Jew and Gentile, new churches were planted.

But as reported in Acts 15, a new dispute arose.  Some legalistic Jewish Christians (mostly Pharisees) came behind the evangelistic work being done and told the new Gentile believers that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised according to Mosaic Law.  So now the early Church had to deal with legalism in relation to the Gentiles once again.  Those who were bound in the dead letter of the law instead of the living spirit of the law refused to believe that these Gentiles were already saved.

So now a new meeting of the early Church leaders was convened.  From the Bible’s “minutes” of that meeting:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. – Acts 15:7-11

The bottom line is that because of the words of Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James, it was recognized that circumcision was not required for a Gentile to be considered saved and part of the Church.  They realized that they were requiring something (circumcision as adults) that they would not have been able to handle themselves.  They saw that the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person was what counted, not the particulars of their body.  For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. – Galatians 5:6

But if legalists had their way, Gentiles would have been barred from becoming part of the Church; at the very least, they would have been required to be circumcised and even then they still might have been made to remain separated from the Jewish Christians.  This is very similar to how legalist preachers, misinterpreting scripture, tried to justify the continuance of enslaving Blacks.  Fortunately, they also did not prevail; nor did those who tried to justify segregation of the races in all walks of life.  And yet, many Christians today, almost all of whom would be considered Gentiles (and more than a few of whom are Black), misuse scripture and ignore mounting evidence, thereby forbidding transgender people the right to be something that they could not bear: denying their own identity.

Can someone get a nose job, or breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, or a cleft palate repaired and still be saved?  Yes!  Can someone take hormones to treat menopause or prostate cancer and still be saved?  Yes!  Can someone have gender confirming surgery or take hormones to treat transgender issues and still be saved?  Yes!  It’s what’s in your heart, your mind and your spirit that matters, not your flesh.  And if it applies to one’s standing as a Christian, it certainly applies to one’s standing in the human race.

God bless,

Lois

Advertisements

O Holy Night

Tags

abolitionist, Adolphe Adam, anticlerical, atheist, birth of Jesus, break chains, Catholic Church, Christian, Christian church, Christmas carols, Church service, coming out, condemnation, deliverance, exclusive, France, freedom, fulfillment of Scripture, Gospel, gracious, heal, humble, inclusive, Jewish, John Sullivan Dwight, Josh Groban, justice, legalistic, loss, Love, Luke, narrow-minded, O Holy Night, open-minded, oppression, peace, Placide Cappeau, racial prejudice, rejection, Roman Catholic, Roquemaure, salvation, Savior, self-righteous, slave, socialist, Son of God, Transgender

Any discussion of Christmas carols is bound to bring out varying opinions as to their relative merits and each person’s very favorite.  Perhaps the most beautiful carol and the one that shows off superior vocal talent the best is O Holy Night.  A link to a recording of the song is included at the end of this post.  You can judge for yourself and hopefully will enjoy it as part of your celebration of the Christmas season.

But for now, I am focusing on the lyrics and a bit of the history of the carol.  After all, my blog is about ideas in the areas of Christianity and transgender.  I am not a music critic or a professional musician of any kind.

There are a few ironies in the origin of the carol.  In 1843, the lyrics were written first as a poem.  The poem was written at the request of the parish priest of Roquemaure, a little town in the wine region of south France.  But the poem, without music, was to be part of a celebration of the recent renovation of the church organ.  The name of the parish priest and his reason to commission a poem instead of a hymn or carol to be played on the organ are lost to history.

Also intriguing was the priest’s choice to write the poem.  He asked Placide Cappeau, known more for his interest in wine as a merchant and minor official than for his interest in church.  In fact, during his life he held anticlerical and atheist views.  But he was also known as a poet and in this small town of only a few thousand people, perhaps was considered the best.

Cappeau found inspiration for the lyrics in the account of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, the most detailed description found in the Bible.  Despite his personal views, not only did he write these beloved lyrics based on his imagination of what it must have been like to be present on that night on that most holy occasion, he soon came to believe that his poem deserved to be set to music.

Cappeau had no musical background, perhaps in part due to the fact that his right hand was amputated due to a childhood accident.  So he enlisted the help of a composer.  Considering Cappeau’s beliefs, his choice of his friend, Adolphe Adam, was not surprising.  Adam was known for his popular music written for the vaudeville houses of Paris, as well as being a prolific composer of operas and ballets during his career.  In addition to O Holy Night, he is probably best known for his ballet, Giselle.

There is one other ironic fact about the choice of Adam as the composer of this beautiful hymn.  While every indication is that he was quite secular, his ancestry was Jewish.  Even though he neither celebrated Christmas nor believed that Jesus is the Son of God, he quickly accepted the musical challenge of setting the poem to music.

The carol made its debut in Roquemaure at the Christmas Eve mass in 1847, just three weeks after the work was completed to the satisfaction of Adam and Cappeau.  It is no surprise that the beautiful carol soon became popular with the French public and was quickly accepted within the Roman Catholic Church in France.

That acceptance evaporated when Cappeau publicly walked away from the church to become part of the socialist movement and Adam’s Jewish heritage became known.  Suddenly, narrow minded Catholic clerics were denouncing the carol as bad music with irreligious lyrics.  Their attempts to besmirch the song were unsuccessful.  The French people couldn’t be fooled and they continued to enjoy singing and listening to O Holy Night.

The popularity of the carol spread to the northern part of the United States when it was translated into English in 1855.  The translator was John Sullivan Dwight.  Trained as a minister, the Boston native quickly turned his career interest toward music as a critic and journalist in the field, helping to shape American tastes toward European classical music.  He was also an ardent abolitionist.  It was the third and final verse that caught his attention as bearing a message consistent with the abolitionist cause.  (Sometimes, the second verse is omitted and this powerful verse becomes the second and final verse.)  His translation reads as follows:

Truly He taught us to love one another;

His law is love and His gospel is peace.

Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother;

And in His name all oppression shall cease.

Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,

Let all within us praise His holy name.

In my lifetime, and particularly in the last two years as I have come out to people within the Christian community and debated with some, I have learned that there is a wife rift in the Christian church regarding transgender.  As we looked at some of the history of O Holy Night, we have seen that rifts like these are nothing new.  Will the church be narrow-minded or open minded?  Exclusive or inclusive?  Self-righteous or humble?  Oppressive or working for justice?  Enslaving and legalistic or freedom-loving and gracious?

Some Christians got it that slavery is wrong, but some didn’t.  Some Christians got it that racial prejudice is wrong, but some didn’t.  Some Christians understand that we should oppose the oppression of other people, but some seem to think that the Christian church should oppress other people.  And some Christians understand that it is wrong to oppress and be prejudiced against transgender people.  Still some do not.

Quite frankly, it puzzles me how many Christians over the years have not understood why the Son of God came to earth.  He was quite clear about it when He announced His ministry in His home synagogue in Nazareth.  He announced it by reading from the prophet Isaiah.  As it is recorded in Luke’s Gospel:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. – Luke 4:18-21

Most Christians can quote John 3:16 by heart.  But do they know the next verse?  It also speaks to the purpose of Christ’s ministry.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

And yet too many Christians are quick to condemn, or to turn their backs on the needy, or to be indifferent to the plight of marginalized people, or to wound rather than heal, or to bring oppression rather than seek deliverance.  Quite frankly, one is too many, but there are far more than one.

Three years ago when I began my transition journey, and for many years before that once Internet searches became meaningful, I was able to find only one other transgender Christian to communicate with.  And she is still deep in the closet.  But now, I am beginning to hear from others who reside in the precarious penumbra of the planet Mercury, that narrow band of the Venn diagram where these two communities overlap.  And I am hearing from devout people of other faiths whose religious communities rebuke them for being transgender.  The letters are heart wrenching in terms of the oppression and rejection and loss these people face.  I hope and pray that I am helping each one in a meaningful way.  I will discuss this further in another post soon.

Eventually, most Christians understood Christ’s message about slavery.  Eventually most Christians understood Christ’s opposition to racial prejudice.  More and more Christians are understanding that Christ does not want His church to oppress people, but instead promote justice for all.  I also hope and pray that most Christians will understand that those of us who are truly transgender are born this way, that there is no sin involved and absolutely no reason to rebuke and reject us on this basis.

For now, please enjoy this beautiful carol.  I cry tears of joy to hear it.  I pray it will become as much of an anthem to the cause of transgender justice as it was for the abolitionist cause some 160 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zh-yR0pbmU

God bless,

Lois

Guest post from My Longing: Matthew 23:1-12, The Humility Required of Teachers

Tags

Amoraim, Apostle Paul, assigned gender, children, Christ, condemnation, Council of Jerusalem, father, Francis of Assisi, Gemara, Gentiles, God, God's approval, God's covenant with Noah, God's love, Gospel, Gospel of Matthew, Halakah, humble, humility, indictment, inner things of the heart, Jerusalem, Jesus, Jews, justified, learning, master, Matthew 18:6-7, Matthew 23, Mosaic Law, Moses' seat, My Longing, New Testament, Oral Law, outward appearance, People's approval, Pharisees, Rabbi, Rabbi Shammai, Romans 2, Sadducees, scibes, self-justification, socialization, teacher, Torah, Transgender

I am going to work smarter, not harder, to make this post.  I am providing a link to the blog post of my friend, a pastor in Northern New Jersey.  The teaching in this post touches on two very important points: the relationship between Jesus and the law, and how are transgender people faithful to the way God created us.  In particular, it addresses how transgender children respond to the messages they receive that would have them conform to the way the world sees them on the outside rather than who they are on the inside.

I have only one note to add.  The pastor refers to how the word “Jews” is used at times in the New Testament.  According to my lexicon of Greek words in the New Testament, the Greek word used can refer to either the Jews collectively as a people or the Jewish leaders.  It is the same way we might say that America did such and such, meaning the U.S. government, not the collective American population.  Therefore, at times “Jews” will refer to just the Jewish leaders.  How it is used can be discerned by the context.

Without further ado, here is the link:

http://mylonging.net/?p=2561

And here is the KJV text of Matthew 23:1-12:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 

God bless,

Lois