What Gender or Sex is God?

As the media coverage lessens, I wanted to focus a little bit more on some issues of theology as it relates to transgenderedness. I'll look at some of the issues that surround the topic, and as much as possible present all the ways the verse might be interpreted, not just those that would support one side over the other. If you have a verse or issue you'd like me to look at, leave it in the comments section and I'll try to get to it.

I thought I'd start with the question "What Gender or Sex is God?" The question is relevant as we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); called to be transformed into the likeness of His Son (Romans 8:29); and are being transformed into an image of His glory (2 Corinthians 3:18). First off, it is possible that Genesis 1:27 tells us nothing about God, as we do not know to what degree we are made in His image. We could be made in his image in terms of character, but not in our sexual or "engendered" natures of male and female. I would have some real problems accepting this view, as verse 27 itself refers specifically to male and female forms. Also, some specific verses (like 1 Corinthians 11:7) seem to draw a specific connection between sex and the image of God (although I'll be the first to admit that verse is difficult to interpret).

Excluding the possibility that our sexual natures are something not related to the image of God, we are left with two interpretations. The first (I'll call it the "Traditional" interpretation) is that God is masculine. The second possibility is that God transcends descriptions of sex and gender. The first interpretation is better supported if the Hebrew "Adam" in Genesis 1:27 is translated as "man" not as "mankind" (different translations treat this word differently). This interpretation would consider man as made in the image of a masculine God, and woman made in the image of man (not as an image of God in her own right). This also seems to be the line of logic suggested in 1 Corinthians 11. Of course, if you take this viewpoint on scripture, a number of dictums naturally come with it, such as male headship in the church. Based on the very few female clergy in the Free Methodist Church, this may very well be the position they take. Of course, then the question of "what does it mean to make ourselves transform or conform to the image of God?" becomes quite problematic. Are women supposed to be more like men to better reflect the image of God? I have heard nobody who suggests such a thing, but it seems to follow from the above logic. That is unless of course, you mean that women are supposed to be like God only in character and are doomed to inhabit a body which is not made in God's image.

The second position is that God transcends gender. If you are asking why I don't include the possibility that God is strictly feminine, it is simply that it goes against too much of what you find in Scripture to really be supported ("Our Father, who art in heaven . . . " etc.). Oddly enough, 1 Corinthians 11, which I said above seems to take the logic of the first position, also contains things which might support the second (Hey, I warned you it is hard to interpret). 1 Corinthians 11 describes God as the originator of all things, in the same way that man "originates" from (is born of) a woman. God certainly has many attributes that we might call more feminine that masculine, such as compassion and grace. If you take this view, conforming or transforming to the image of God is something that people may pursue with their whole being, whether masculine or feminine, male or female.

I'm sure some stumble over the fact that Genesis 1:27 says God created them "male and female" and that anywhere "in between" is anathema. To that, I'd say, this was a verse referring to before the fall, and now we have very hard to dispute middle grounds, like true hemaphrodism. I don't know anyone who would claim that Christ didn't die for hemaphrodites, though I'm sure there are some extremists out there. If transgenderism, is "hemaphrodism of the brain" can we not accept it at the worst as a result of the fall? At best, it might be an expression of the image of God.

Some Responses to Media Coverage

A number of articles have followed a wrong thread in an early AP article which suggested that I was showing up as a woman on SAU's campus in 2005. Other than my long nails and modest make-up, I have not been on SAU's campus as me. At their insistence I have cross-dressed (bearing false witness) and appeared as John.

I was surprised and deeply disappointed in Rev. Ramundo's omniscient declaration (2/13 article in the Jackson Citizen Patriot) on behalf of the entire church concerning my "sin", especially since he knows better. I met with Rev. Ramundo to discuss some earlier false gossip about me that was attributed to him. He apologized and indicated that he was "misquoted". He never called my need to follow the prescribed medical treatment for my medical diagnosis a sin. In fact, he was suprised when I told him that the Free Methodist Book of Discipline (which despite Rev. Ramundo's proclamations is the official voice of the church) talked about gender identity issues. In section A/331.5 it calls gender identity issues an "ethical dilemma: along with such things as "allocation of finite resources, organ transplantation, end-of-life concerns". Nowhere does the Free Methodist Book of Discipline identify my medical diagnosis or treatment as sin. Rev. Ramundo knew all of this, but decided to portray his own prejudice as the teaching of the church. For shame.

I need to correct Spring Arbor University's characterization of me as having escalated the situation. I did file an EEO complaint, but that came after the university suggested that wearing a university T-shirt to the store or golfing with SAU friends could be considered contract violations; an escalation will beyond the already clearly illegal conditions of my contract. To date, the university has still refused to identify the "Biblical principles" I have supposedly violated. I remain in full support of SAU's statement of faith.

Finally, Pastor Leo Cummings' letter to the editor (Jackson Citizen Patriot 2/13) is helpful. A rational, loving dialogue on the Bible and medical science might be helpful. It would have saved the life of Galileo, helped avoid slavery, and saved the lives of many women in Salem. Is our view of the authority of the Bible so fragile that we must react defensively to scientific truths that question our long-held beliefs? I don't think the Bible will be proven wrong, but our beliefs about what the Bible teaches have many times been shown to be in error. Most churches are now willing to acknowledge that the Bible doesn't teach that the earth is flat. Some may still be debating the fact.

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.