Let's Not Forget About "Normal"

I attend National Community Church in Washington DC. The church is starting a series entitled "Battle of the Sexes" talking about sex and gender roles. My church is a little unique. They have some tremendously dedicated people working for them, and a commitment to reaching people for God "in the middle of the marketplace." What this looks like in practice is seven services in three locations, all Metro-accessible. Two of the services are on Saturday night at the Church-operated coffee house on Capitol Hill, Ebenezer's ("Coffee with a Cause"). So, I attended tonight's service not sure what to expect. Obviously, I've been thinking a lot about sex and gender roles recently, and I was someone wondering if I might come away a bit upset with something the pastor had to say tonight.

I knew ahead of time from checking the Pastor's latest blog post that the sermon would focus on Genesis 1:27 (copycat ;-) ). In a message designed to set the tone for the coming series, Pastor Mark scoped the issue pretty well. He acknowledge off the bat that there is a continuum when it relates to gender, but that he would be focusing mainly on norms and tendencies. With occasional strange facts from biology and neurology thrown in ("women have 40% more neurons in the corpus callosum than men"), the sermon enumerated a lot of the differences between men and women as a population. It ended with a call to be better men or women after God's own heart. It was a sermon for general consumption, so the statistical outliers like transgendered, hermaphrodites, etc. were ignored. That's okay by me. It was refreshing to be reminded of, and focus on the mean in the male bell curve and female bell curve.

Of course, it does leave me to wonder, will the church ever talk about the "outliers" if not forced to do so by circumstances? I understand it is a tricky thing to talk about, but I'm sure a much more sane conversation could be had in the absence of an immediate conflict. I agree that the church needs to talk about the differences between men and women. We don't talk about that enough, and it does matter. I guess I could say in general, The Church needs to spend more time talking about the issues it talks about least.

If you are interested in hearing the sermon, it should be made available in audio and video form later this week at the church's website.

I learned from taking Abnormal Psych that if you focus too much on abnormalities, everyone seems crazy. Of course, the same can be said of looking only at the statistically normal people. After all, statistically speaking, the average human being has one developed breast and one testicle.

Can Any Good Come of This?

The title above is my attempt to paraphrase a number of critics who think my dad should just "pack it in and find a new job." I responded earlier today to someone expressing similar sentiment. Right after replying, I found an e-mail in my inbox from a pastor who is close to what is going on with my father. I can't say whether he'd support my father or SAU (possibly neither), but here is what he had to say:

Last week I sent a letter to my people, explaining the situation and my response in detail. Yesterday we spent the day dealing with this issue as a congregation. In the morning service, I used my own experience to explain our Christian responsibility to love those who are hurting. I wrestled with God over this message the whole week. By Saturday night I was defeated, but I didn't have time to write the sermon. So, I had to preach without much preparation. I think I broke nearly every rule of preaching. However, it was clear that God was moving in our hearts. I confessed my own failure and anger. I pleaded with the people to learn from my sin and love instead of hate. I took a risk and put myself out there to be beaten and bruised. I was overwhelmed to see the congregation respond with one heart. Instead of criticism, anger or pain, they loved. There was confession, and hugging and a sincere desire to face our fears and love others. Many, including myself, were afraid this news would divide the church. Instead, we have been revived. One person said this would not have happened years ago. It was a refreshing and healing morning.

In the evening we had a short meeting, but I had announced that anyone who had questions could come after the meeting. I promised to stay until every question was answered. We talked and faced some hard issues together. We examined God's word and we expressed our true selves -- no more Sunday masks. After two hours, everyone had an expression of awe. The word "wow" was heard throughout the building. People stayed after and talked, cried, and hugged. One young lady said "I don't ever want to leave here no matter what happens."

This is just one instance of God using this situation to change people in a positive way. I'm inspired by this pastor's courage to face the situation with brutal honesty and integrity.

A few other points to make regarding the titular question:
1. God decides what happens in the future, we don't. As Romans 8:28 says: "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose." Claiming that this situation will bring terrible things to SAU, or "the body of Christ" flies in the face of God's promise. Be careful of underestimating God's power.
2. You can only live your calling. The actions of others may be hard to understand, and even seem detrimental, but it is God who takes our sacrifices and makes them good.
3. If you find yourself in a situation that you can't find any good in, do what you can to make some. Jesus raised the dead. He turned funerals into joyful celebrations. In the Old Testament, Benaiah pursued a lion into a snowy pit and killed it. How's that for making a bad situation good?

Going Public, or Why I Blog

Someone anonymously posted a question that basically said "Why go public with this?" I thought I'd respond with a post, because I'm sure it is a common question. While I can't speak for my father, I know why I am writing this blog, which I think is a related question. This is not the first time a transgendered person has been discriminated against by their employer, and it probably won't be the last. However, if we draw attention to it, people will at least be aware of the issue, and may act to prevent a similar situation where they work. This might happen at a Christian College or University, where they take steps to define where the stand on the issue in advance, so that they might have a BFOQ. Or the issue may cause them to seek to understand more about what it means to be transgendered, and they might put affirmative policies in place. Either way it prevents illegal discrimination. While we can't eliminate these types of situations entirely, we can hope to lessen them.

If you think Spring Arbor University has taken a stance that is incorrect, publicity might help to change their minds. I assume SAU makes decisions like these with some regard for what their supporters (financial and otherwise) might think about the issue. If they have taken a position that is different than what these supporters might wish them to take, the only way for them to hear that is to make the story public. Most of those that care about this situation probably now know about it. If enough contact SAU, they may choose to moderate their stance and be more open to a reasonable mediation (even a reinstatement?), preventing this from having to go to court. Of course, many people will not make up their minds immediately upon hearing about the story. Those open-minded individuals will want to hear from different perspectives. That is what this blog is about: having a discussion.

In revealing this story to the press, some activist groups may try to claim that this story in fact supports their cause. This is what activist groups do. They spin a story and try and use it to further their own cause. Honestly, I think many activists have tried to spin this story to support their cause against the facts at hand. For instance, my father is not gay. We can't stop an activist group from doing what they will with the story, but we can be true to the facts of the case, and state how we view the issue in situations like this. The point of going public is not to rile up activist groups, but to hopefully further understanding and allow open-minded people to decide on the facts. Activist groups are pretty close-minded, so there is really no purpose in trying to have a discussion with them.

The anonymous poster noted that (paraphrasing) "it is easy to make scripture say what you want it to." I agree that there are ways of "proof-texting" for many arguments, but that is far from being a "Biblical stance." Acceptable methods for interpreting scripture will not look at a single verse, but also the verse in relation to other verse which might address the issue. When you look at all the verse that might apply, you may find you still can reach different conclusions. If the Bible does not decide an issue, we as Christians may take different viewpoints, but we should be gracious with those who disagree. There are many things that are "non-essentials" in the Christian faith, and I'd put whether it is acceptable to wear jewelry or not in the same category.

Another side note: I've seen more anonymous commentors then I typically do on other blogs. That's okay. I understand that this is a difficult issue to talk about, and I hope the ability to comment anonymously allows more to participate in this discussion. If possible, though, I'd ask that anonymous commentors use some way of differentiating themselves from the other anonymous commentors, so that we know you're not really all the same person.

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.