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.

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

Permanent vs Temporary

Tags

1st Corinthians 15, A Christmas Story, blood of the Lamb, Christian, earthly stains, Jean Shepherd, Lamb's book of life, Los Angeles Dodgers, monologue, permanent record, salvation, spiritual body, spiritual stains, stain of sin, temporal body, transistor radio, Transsexual, Vin Scully, WOR-AM

A modern television classic of the Christmas season is “A Christmas Story”, authored and narrated by Jean Shepherd.  The oft-repeated memorable line from the story is “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid.”  It is likely that you have seen it at least once.  Perhaps you even saw it this year.

My memories of Shep go back long before the show made its television debut in 1983.  He was a master of monologue.  Without guests and stopping for only one commercial break 15 minutes into his 45 minute show during weekdays (an hour longer on Saturdays when he broadcast live from The Limelight in Greenwich Village), he wove humor, human nature, Americana, personal memories and insight into a spellbinding tale that somehow he always managed to bring full circle just before his theme song brought the show to a close.

Through much of high school, I spent many a night listening to his radio show on WOR while I was supposed to be asleep.  It was a highly developed art form practiced by me and my brother, soon after we received our first cheap transistor radios (back in the days when “Made in Japan” meant cheap).  Yes, they came with earpieces.  Those were the cheapest part of all.  The flimsy wire would invariably break at the point where it went into the part you inserted into your ear.  They would last maybe a month or two.  A replacement bought at Lafayette Radio was just as fragile and used part of our scarce money supply.

Eventually, my brother and I became accomplished at knowing the right volume and position under our pillows so we could hear the radio, but our parents could not.  That was easy when we were listening to New York City stations with their consistent broadcast signal.  The challenge was listening to the Dodger games, as we were both fans of that team.

When the Dodgers played the Mets, there was no challenge.  And Los Angeles was too far away to pick up the rest of the games and listen to the magnificent play by play of Vin Scully.  So we found out the flagship stations of the other teams and practiced our dexterity with the radio dial to zero in on that station at just the right point that the neighboring station signals would not bleed over and interfere with the broadcast.  We would tune in KDKA in Pittsburgh, WLW in Cincinnati, WSB in Atlanta and KMOX in St. Louis when the Dodgers did battle with those teams.  Ironically, Philadelphia was impossible to get as the Phillies games in those days were on a weaker station right next to an NYC station on the dial.  Houston was too far away, but it was a great coup when I discovered that we could pick up the games on the New Orleans station on the Astros’ radio network, WWL (“studios in the Roosevelt Hotel”).

Even with experience, it was a daunting task trying to keep the station in tune (and also keep Mom from coming in, angry when it was loud enough to wake her).  KMOX had a tendency to fade in and out, almost a stroboscopic effect.  Sometimes atmospheric conditions would change in mid-broadcast and you would either be able to pick up a game that was elusive earlier or vice versa.  And there was always the danger of signal drift on AM.  Trying to recapture it and hitting a much louder station was what often got us in trouble.

Another station we picked up was WGN in Chicago for the Cubs games.  That was very convenient for me.  It was one number away on the dial from WOR.  And since the end of Jean Shepherd’s broadcast at 11 PM (in the years I listened to him the most) coincided with the start of the Dodger games in LA, it was an easy move on the dial from one to the other.

One of Shep’s stories involved being disciplined while in grammar school.  In particular, he talked about one of the most feared tactics employed by school teachers and administrators to keep the children in tow.  I can still hear Shep intoning the school principal employing the threat, “Do this again, and it will go on your permanent record.”  And Shep would follow that with a long, shuddering, “OOOOHHHH”, the same one he narrates after the “double dog dare” in A Christmas Story.  And then, stepping back to childhood, he would imagine his future: “Mr. Shepherd, I am sorry but we cannot hire you.  We just discovered that in third grade, you hit Mrs. Shields with a spitball.  It’s in your permanent record.” And Shep would then say, “Oh no, my permanent record!  It was true!”

We know there is no such thing as a permanent record kept of our school misbehavior.  In fact, it is just the opposite with almost anything we do as a minor expunged.  But the point is, pretty much everything we call permanent really is not.

The curl eventually comes out of a home permanent but goes into a permanent press garment.  We classify jobs as permanent or temporary, but they are just relative terms.  In reality we mean a period of indefinite employment versus one of a fixed period.  Even Vin Scully, who started announcing for the Dodgers in 1950 before I was born and was just signed to announce about 100 regular season games for them in the upcoming 2014 season, will someday be absent from the broadcast booth.

Names written with permanent markers in our clothing eventually fade away with washing.  In fact, sometimes the only thing that seems to be permanent is a stain.  Maybe they should make permanent marker ink from blood, chocolate, chlorophyll and maybe a little egg white (Shep regularly talked about the dried egg stain on his mother’s chenille bathrobe, worn as a mother’s badge of honor.)

But even earthly stains will pass away eventually.  Decomposition rates vary but everything succumbs eventually if not kept in good repair.  Beyond that, the Bible talks about that day when the old earth and heavens dissolve and are replaced by a new heaven and new earth.

Spiritual stains are another matter.  I can remember commercials when I was a teenager that touted their laundry product’s “bluing for extra whiteness”.  It made no sense to me that bluing would make things whiter, not bluer.  My mother’s inability to properly explain it made it even more frustrating.  (I now know the reason why it works.)  And yet, it was even more amazing and wonderful when I realized that only the blood of Jesus can remove the spiritual stain of sin from our lives, even though human blood causes one of the hardest stains to remove.  But even though it might not make sense, it works “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men;” (1^st Corinthians 1:25a) and because there is divine power in the blood of the Lamb when it comes to spiritual stains.

Indeed, there is one thing that we want to be permanent: the assurance that our names are written in the Lamb’s book of life and is not blotted out.  “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” (Revelation 3:5)  Only these things are truly permanent: God, our souls, eternal life and eternal torment.

Our physical bodies will also pass away.  “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.”  (1^st Corinthians 15:50-58)

This is a beautiful passage that describes what will happen to all who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.  But herein is also something ignored by those Christians who rebuke transsexuals.  By focusing on the temporal (our body), they look at the part which matters least, for it will pass away and be changed.  Our flesh and blood will not survive.  It will not make it to heaven and everlasting life.  But something will survive.  That which survives is the part that lives within.  It will be cleansed of stain, and restored without blemish by the master cleaner; it will survive when flesh and blood is gone, in the presence of God for all eternity.

Which brings us back to Jean Shepherd.  While his voice lives on for now in a Christmas special, broadcasts of his old shows on at least one radio station and saved in various Internet archives, he breathed his last on October 16, 1999.  His body went the way of all flesh.  As to that of him which survives, only God knows.

How much of our memories will survive in eternity?  Only God knows that as well.  But we have memories while we live and our minds are still sound.  In honor of the fond memories from my youth that Jean Shepherd planted, and hopefully having done a fair job of creating a Shepherd style full circle monologue in this post, I close the way he closed his show.

Shep used the same theme music at the opening and closing of his show, just like he brought his stories full circle.  I remember him describing why he chose this particular piece of music: The Bahn Frei Polka by Eduard Strauss.  He explained that, just like our lives, it starts off impressive and promising but in the end doesn’t get very far.  (How true that is when you only consider life on this earth.)

Shep used the version recorded by Arthur Fiedler and the Boston Pops in 1958.  For your enjoyment and enlightenment, here is a link to that exact piece of music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg-26ggUq2g

Ta da!

God bless,

Lois