It's time to affirm, again

I wasn't affirming of my own sexuality until well into my 30s, and even then, I kept my affirmation of myself private for the most part. I knew most of my friends at the time would disagree with me, and be disappointed to various degrees, but for the most part, it didn't feel necessary to "come out." I loved (and continue to love) my life in China with the Renewal community, and to this day, I'd mainly like to talk about that with you! (If you don't know what it is - ask!)

It was when a critical mass of my friends grew into having beautiful families with wonderful kids that I thought I'd like to be a little more public about it, because I'd like my friends to affirm their kids' sexuality without reservation. So a few years ago, I wrote a post about what the bible says about homosexuality. My goal was simple - to show that a straightforward, evangelical interpretation of the bible reveals no clear reason to condemn loving relationships between people of the same sex. I was happy with the response it generated - it's opened up a lot of great conversations, and I also think it was also a step forward for me in my journey.

What's interesting is, as a young man, as I was just building confidence affirming myself after decades of interventions to the contrary, I became aware of the acronym LGBT - and I had a problem with the T, even for some years after I affirmed myself as G. I thought with some bewilderment, "I'm sorry - how did the T got thrown in here?" While I respected the transgender cause at arm's length, I wasn't sure I agreed with it myself. I had enough going on - please don't try to lump your battle in with mine!

And if you re-read my post on homosexuality, you'll see that I mainly treated the LGB - and I do believe it deserves separate treatment. But I think it's time for me to publicly affirm transgender and nonbinary people, as well as others whose gender identities do not align with traditional norms. I've been inspired by several of my friends who have transitioned and others that are supporting their children's chosen gender identities and pronouns. And it has been breaking my heart in recent months to see how some Christians have been treating this issue - most prevalent is the constant stream of silly memes to ridicule gender diversity, but this of course is being backed up by books, blogs and pulpits with theology that's clearly slapped together in support of something they've already concluded.

When you look at what the bible has to say about homosexuality, the affirming approach is basically to show that the bible doesn't speak to our modern understanding of and values around same sex relationships, so we should be allowed under the law of Christ to make up our own minds about it. But what's interesting is, as I researched the idea of transgender people in scripture, I found something that surprised me. There is actually a clear path to explicit affirmation. So let's start there, and then I'll touch on the ways non-affirming Christians tend to address the issues.

The progression

The following quote comes from the book, Letter to my Congregation: An evangelical pastor's path to embracing people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender into the company of Jesus by Ken Wilson, which I highly recommended, and you'll see I rely on heavily in my own presentation.

To set up the following quote, Pastor Ken is speaking to a transgender man bewildered in his faith due to the treatment he's received by a church:

I told him that in the Bible there is a progression regarding the treatment of eunuchs, who would be the closest equivalent of transgender people today. This progression went from excluding them from temple worship (Deuteronomy 23:1), to the anticipation of their acceptance in the Hebrew prophets (Isaiah 56:4), to the recognition of a place in the kingdom of God for eunuchs in the ministry of Jesus (Matthew 19:12) and the inclusive practice of the early church in the book of Acts (Acts 8:27-39).

Wow! I was new (and skeptical) to the idea of relating eunuchs in scripture with transgender people today. I don't want to project our modern understanding of transgender people into the ancient past and look for justification, nor do I want to project an ancient understanding of a eunuch onto transgender people. But when we take the labels away, and just look what scripture describes, there's a lot we can learn I believe is applicable today. The way eunuchs were understood and treated in biblical times offers an insightful parallel to how we can today respond to gender diversity. Just as scripture moved from exclusion to affirmation in the case of eunuchs, we can apply a similar lens to transgender people today.

Let's step through each of those scriptures recommended by Pastor Ken.

No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off may enter the assembly of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1)

There is a note on "emasculated" here in the NASB, "Lit wounded by crushing of testicles."

Clearly the subjects in view in this scripture had typical male bodies at birth. And of course they would still be biological males, but they are recognized here very early on by scripture as something other than the binary norms expressed in the creation account, "male and female He created them." The people in view here are something other than the typical definition of male, due to the modification of their bodies, whether forced upon them, by accident, or by their own choice.

No, this of course is not a direct acknowledgement of our modern understanding of non-normative gender identities, including transgender experiences. However, scripture recognizes very early on that some individuals, though born as "typical" males, no longer fit that category due to changes to their bodies.

Women were not excluded from temple worship, but they are not in view here. However, women are wrapped into the concept beginning with the next passage in the progression.

For this is what the Lord says:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold firmly to My covenant,
To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be eliminated.
(Isaiah 56:4-5)

Here, the "eunuchs" who perform spiritual service will be given a name "better than that of sons and daughters." Isn't that beautiful? Is this not recognition that these individuals would not be referred to as "typical" sons or daughters, but there would be an even better descriptor for them? And I find the inclusion of "daughters" here really interesting. It suggests the possibility that, regardless of one's sex at birth, there was some flexibility - or at least ambiguity - in how individuals who did not fit the traditional categories of male or female were understood and named.

Now let's take a look at the passage Pastor Ken referred to in the gospels:

For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it. (Matthew 19:12)

I think the context here is the pharisees were trying to somehow trap Jesus regarding divorce. In this case Jesus said that marriage was forever and could not be undone for any reason except sexual immorality. Interestingly, he used the phrase "male and female" from the first chapter of Genesis here as part of his defense, indicating that God made humans ideally to permanently pair up thusly. In response to this, the disciples said, "If you're going to be so harsh, isn't it better to just not get married in the first place!?" And it seems Jesus was being intentionally idealistic here - I'm not sure exactly what the pharisees were up to, but it sounds like they'd heard Jesus had a transformative view of the Law and wanted to trap him in some loose interpretation. Jesus sensed that his response should reflect the highest ideal vision of creation, where men and women were created as pairs to live in perfect marriages forever.

What's interesting is in what follows here Jesus directly acknowledges intersex people ("eunuchs who were born that way"), and he acknowledges that other individuals have had their bodies modified by force ("made eunuchs by people"), and others still have chosen to modify their own bodies ("eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs") to become the fullest versions of themselves, capable of their utmost spiritual service. In other words, his reply to the disciples was basically, "Not only should you consider not getting married, you should consider becoming a eunuch and committing yourself to a higher purpose."

So let's be clear, Jesus was not only making an exception to the ideal of "male and female," but he was praising this exception, even though it meant preventing the ability to reproduce. While I believe Jesus' primary point here was about celibacy, his recognition of different categories of eunuchs - including those who made themselves so - suggests an awareness that gender and body are not always rigidly fixed. His statement affirms the dignity of those whose lives do not conform to the "male and female" binary of Genesis.

And finally, the reference in Acts:

But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Get ready and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) So he got ready and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading Isaiah the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:

“He was led like a sheep to slaughter;
And like a lamb that is silent before its shearer,
So He does not open His mouth.
In humiliation His justice was taken away;
Who will describe His generation?
For His life is taken away from the earth.”

The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he ordered that the chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:26-39)

Of course this passage is not going to be a surprise or challenge to any evangelical Christian worth their salt. They'd say, "We'd be happy to receive anyone, with whatever past experiences they've had, and in whatever physical state they come in as long as they are willing to surrender their lives to Jesus." Fair enough. But what I love about this passage is it sounds like Pastor Ken speaking to that transgender person who is skeptical of Christianity. And it beautifully completes the trajectory - so characteristic of the law of Christ - in which eunuchs in the Old Testament were originally forbidden entry to the assembly, but here, the eunuch, even though they do not fit the definition of typical male in Genesis, is granted full access to fellowship. The full progression regarding eunuchs is astounding and inspiring: through the Law, prophets, gospels, and the church age.

The retrogression

And finally, let's take a quick look at the few scriptures I've heard non-affirming pastors and writers use...

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

We've already addressed this one in part above. Let's first acknowledge that Jesus' interpretation of this was that ideally, male and females should pair up in marriage forever. But even when looking at the direct context in the creation account, we see general categories that clearly have exceptions that aren't mentioned. Meagan DeFranza (who I mentioned in my previous post) points out that frogs don't quite fit the general categories of either sea creatures or land creatures. Mentioning the typical, normal or ideal categories does not necessarily exclude everything that doesn't perfectly fit.

And then I've also heard this...

A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

You can also see my treatment of Old Testament law in my post about how the bible treats homosexuality. In summary, whatever distant relevance this passage on cross-dressing even has to the issues at hand, it does not apply to Christians today. It is, however, evidence that cross-dressing has been around for some time.

Conclusion

Just today in my Facebook feed, I've seen several more memes and posts intended to ridicule and shame people who take on non-normative gender identity including transgender people. Even if you disagree with someone's choices, this doesn't seem like a loving path to conversation - neither, by the way, does chasing families out of town because they can no longer legally provide the care they desire for their children. I hope you'll take your own fresh look at scripture, and please feel free to challenge mine. I'm not an expert in either theology or gender studies, but I think my presentation here is reasonable and straightforward.

And above all, if you or your kids have claimed, want to claim, or might claim one or more of the LGBTQIA+ initials know I'm behind you and ready to support you however I can!

Notes and references

Quotes from the bible are from the NASB.