Things Get Ugly at the Extremes

As I said in an earlier post, I think there is a lot of room for differences of opinion within the Church on the issue of what to think about the Transgendered. It isn't easy to define a solid position for or against it based on clearly applicable scriptures. There are a lot of verses at the periphery of the issue, and if you pick from those, you can come up with very different theologies. So, in light of that, it really bothers me when Christians resort first to attacking other Christians for their different interpretations. I'd challenge anyone who thinks that their theology captures all that God is to reconcile with Romans 11:33. Or, as Shakespeare would say: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Two clergy have taken up opposite extremes, each bashing the other, and I wanted to make it clear I don't think either of them are helping things.

The first is the "MadPriest," an Anglican priest from England. He posts the article from the CitPat with the heading "Today's Complete and Utter Bastards Are: Spring Arbor University." From perusing his blog, I think he is intentionally over the top, but I don't think it is helpful to having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate his support for my Father, but I don't think he has to bash fellow Christians to do it.

The second may be worse than the first. This one comes from the superintendant of the southern Michigan conference of the Free Methodist Church, Pastor Tom Ramundo. He tries to tar my father by association in noting that the whole thing "seems very carefully orchestrated" to advance the gay agenda. My dad's not gay, and he'll be the first to tell you there is a difference between being transgender and being gay (or maybe he'd be the second to tell you, and my mom the first, I'm not sure which). The article continues to quote him: "I know that university really well, and I know its leadership," he says. "I am sure they have endeavored to treat him in a redemptive way." The Free Methodist superintendent describes the situation as "just one of those issues where there’s that tension between love and purity, and the school’s just finally having to take a strong biblical stand." Of course, he doesn't say what makes this position "biblical" (they continue to be silent about what the Bible has to say about things). It just seems very arrogant and reckless to me placing his confidence in his personal relationships with the walking saints that apparently govern Spring Arbor. The facts: they told him to lie; kept him from relating with his fellow colleagues; and did everything they could to keep him out of sight. I don't see how this is meant to be redemptive. I could go on about the attrocities commited in the name of "purity" but that might be unfairly lumping someone together with something they are obviously not, and I'm trying to avoid that.