Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Is Spring Arbor More Extreme than Pat Robertson?

Pat Robertson is often quoted in the media as an "extremist" Christian for some of the things he says. Personally, I don't know much about what he says except the stuff that gets trotted out by the media. So, I was quite suprised to find something on the internet suggesting that Pat Robertson wasn't against gender reassignment surgery (though he is not for it either). Here is a question and answer from the 700 Club's website (emphasis added):

"Q: I have a friend that I have known since we were kids who has considered getting a sex change. Is it wrong and a sin for a person to change their sex from being male to female or from being female to male?

A: Such an option did not exist in the Bible. Nobody could ever do such a thing. It is very radical surgery. They literally change organs from male to female and vice versa. It’s pretty traumatic. And on top of that, they shoot the person full of the various hormones, either estrogen or testosterone, to make it happen. Is it a sin? I can’t say it’s a sin, because I don’t have any biblical authority one way or the other. But the Bible says wherever you were when you came to the Lord, you stay that way. I think that probably would be closer to it, what the apostle Paul said. But I can’t pontificate on this one, but I do feel sorry for those that are in that condition."

I'm not sure what verse he is trying to bring up at the end there, but I found it interesting that Pat Robertson would have a fairly moderate stance on this issue. It seems he made an effort to research the issue before he answered, and came to a very different position than Spring Arbor's so-called Biblical position.

3 comments:

Allyson Dylan Robinson said...

Hi Josh!

The passage Robertson quotes is from 1 Corinthians 7:

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called.

The context is a question posed to the apostle by the Corinthian church about marriage, probably between Christians and non-Christians. Verse 20 seems to summarize Paul's principle fairly well. That said, he goes on to offer another illustration of the principle that would seem to bend it a bit:

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

In other words, if you're in a dehumanizing situation and can do something about it, do it.

Julie Nemecek said...

I have. :)

Allyson Dylan Robinson said...

...and inspired many others to do the same, I hope. =)