Questions to Ponder

Acceptance or Condemnation

I have offered many essays on transgenderism and the Bible. And while I hoped to do so fairly, it is clear I have my own bias as a transgender woman. In the Overview, I wrote these Lessons were to help you in discerning how transgenders fit within your own faith beliefs. I make no judgment of Right or Wrong, though I feel the essays demonstrate no compelling Scripture that supports the condemnation or exclusion of transgenders from the Christian church.

Regardless of your determination, there are questions that must be addressed beyond "acceptance" or "condemnation". Let's start with Marriage.

In the previous essay, I talked about sexual orientation and how it is applied (or not!) to transgender men and women. So then, whom would you allow me (MtF) to marry? Depending on the particular state, I can marry either a man or a woman - so deferring to the law of the land is of no help. All marriage laws say only that a legal marriage is between a man and a woman - there are no other qualifications. And for this exercise I'll avoid a lengthy dissertation on transgender law - legal identification, birth certificates, etc.

Am I to marry a woman? If you hold the belief that "once a man, always a man" (in my case here), then I would be allowed to wed a woman. But that would, from all other outward and physical appearances, sanctify a same-sex relationship. The alternative then would be to allow me to marry a man. But that would then validate my existence as a woman. Which is it? There is no Biblical - or legal - construct to completely deny someone marriage, it only (presumably) defines who someone can marry. What of an existing marriage?

The next question is Atonement. This is a core belief to Christianity, that one can "atone" for their sin and thus receive God's forgiveness. In fact, this principle separates Christianity and Judaism apart from other faiths. Let's make the assumption that transitioning one's gender is a sin. How then do I, as a post-operative transwoman, make atonement? I asked that of a member of a conservative faith and his thought was "well, I guess we'd ask you to start living like a man again." How is that possible? Especially after surgery - which included breast augmentation as well? And it's not that simple. Sure, I could cut my hair, bind my breasts, stop wearing makeup, put on jeans and a t-shirt, belch when I drink beer (just teasin' guys!)....but that's just for appearance sake. I would also need to make the emotional regression as well. And that is akin to giving me the gun to commit suicide. Given the faith-based opposition to physician-assisted death, I would presume this is something that also wouldn't be encouraged.

The suicide rate among transgenders who have not yet transitioned or had surgery is estimated by some to be as high as 50%! And I've already been to that precipice. I cannot imagine what kind of emotional calamity would ensue if one were to be male, then female, then male again. More importantly, neither do you. Incidentally, the incidence of regret for post-surgical transpersons is less than 4% - I am no longer an emotional minefield.

And if I cannot repent or atone for what you consider to be a sin, then what of Communion? There are some churches that withhold the Eucharist from people who don't vote as the church deems appropriate. Transgenders don't "vote" to transition. Jesus shared the meal with Judas...knowing it was he who would betray him. Are transgenders so vile as to be lower than Judas?

What of Baptism? Oh, wait...that's already decided in the Bible! Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39). How would a church be able to withhold Baptism from the transgender?

What of Ordination? Can I minister? Can one who is a minister, then transitions, remain ordained? There are many who have done so - Rev. Erin Swenson, Rev. Malcom Himschoot, Rev. Justin Tanis. What basis would there be to deny or remove ordination to a transgender? There are some congregations that do not allow women to be in ministry. Would they accept a transman (like Rev. Himschoot)? Would they remove a transwoman (like Rev. Swenson)? Most faiths that denounce homosexuality still allow gays and lesbians to be ordained so long as they remain celibate. What pretext would there be for transgenders?

My point is that "acceptance" or "condemnation" isn't as simple as it may seem. Christian principle requires that a path (though I may not like to walk it) be made available to all. If being transgender is, in your opinion, a sin then design that path.

A word about Sexual Orientation

It's NOT about our Sex Lives!

As you have probably noticed, none of the Lessons offered include talk about Sexual Orientation. The reason for this is that transgenderism, or our gender identity, is a distinctly different issue from our sexual orientations. One is who we are, the other is whom we wish to love. Now, for those that have surgery, it certainly does affect how we experience or express our sexual lives. And it also follows that as humans, we are to be accorded a healthy sexual life just like anyone else. The common misconception though is that this is an odd expression of sexual desires. It is not.

Another issue in talking about sexual orientation for transgenders is that the commonly used labels - straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual - don't really apply. In my own case, I was a birthed male. Growing up and through adulthood, I was attracted to women - the classic definition of "straight". Following my transition and surgery, I remain attracted to women - which would seem to be the classic definition of being "lesbian". Yet my "orientation" has not changed...only my body. I freely accept the label of "lesbian", but I don't feel I've gone from "straight" to "lesbian" simply because of surgery. As such, I will usually portray myself not in today's current words, but to say that I am "oriented toward women".

Transgenders, like everyone else, hold all variety of sexual attractions, which further confuses most people. We are male-to-females (MtF) who like women...who like men...who like both...and who are not sexually active/interested at all! And we are female-to-males (FtM) who like women...who like men...who like both...and who are not sexually active/interested at all! Expert opinion is that our sexual orientation is immutable, and I agree. Which is why it is odd to suggest I was "straight" and now I'm "lesbian". Again, I don't mind having that label, but it does connote the suggestion of a change in orientation. Only my body changed.

Now let me muddy the waters a bit here. In her book "She's Not There" author Jenny Boylan offers a comment from her surgeon that it was his anecdotal observation that some (perhaps as much as a third) post-surgical transgender women do experience a bit of a shift in their orientation. I personally acknowledge that since I transitioned, I see men in a much different light now and could entertain a relationship with the famous Mr. Right. I've never had an interest in men before. I am faithfully married, so this won't happen.

One last comment is about our potential partners. If this was sincerely some sexual pursuit, then the joke is on us. Once one has gender reassignment surgery, the pool of possible partners drops dramatically. Most straight men are not interested in a transwoman because we "used" to be men. Gay men are not interested in a transwoman because we now look female and have female bodies - things that do not attract them. Most straight women are not interested in a transwoman for the same reason as the gay man. And many lesbian women are not interested in a transwoman for the same reason as the straight man. The same situation applies for transmen. As a result, many transgenders are sexually inactive. And many are asexual - for this is not about our sex lives!

Next Lesson: Questions to Ponder

This is God's Plan for Me

Psalm 139:1, 13-16

"O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

As I freely acknowledged at the outset of these lessons, I am not a theological scholar and I had not been in a church for my own spiritual pursuits for nearly four decades. I did not read the Bible, I was very much Scripturally illiterate - and with no intention of ever correcting that status. So it was only two years ago, in my new life, that I finally came across this passage at the urging of a friend. I cried. It now made sense. This is why I'd never heard God's voice until after I had transitioned. My days had been ordained and unless, or until, I accepted this plan, there would be no message of "Welcome Home, Donna". Yes, I most resolutely believe now that this was God's Plan for Me all along. That God's Plan meant I would spend part of my life as a man, and part of my life as a woman. Upon my acceptance of my transition, I would then receive God's acceptance.

Native American cultures referred to the transgender as "Two-Spirited". Many other pre-Christian faiths also speak of gender transformation. It is interesting to note that Christianity and Judaism are basically the only major world religions or faith beliefs that have no narratives about gender transformation. That is outlined in a later lesson. The point here is that transgenders - or eunuchs - or two-spirits - have been part of the human experience from the start. Somehow we must be part of God's Plan. And Psalm 139 speaks to that issue.

Ironically this is also a passage that some use to argue that we must remain in our birthed bodies. That God knit us in our mother's womb...and that upon exiting our mother's womb we were born one gender or the other. Or intersex. And that changing that birthed sex is unraveling and re-weaving that which God had already knit. I guess it all comes down to how one looks at one's ordained life. The Psalms, like poetry or song, are designed more to speak to the heart than the head, the meaning to be "felt" not "analyzed". It was a bit of a challenge for my head to accept me in a church...until my heart heard the song of Psalm 139. Then it all made sense. Yes, This is God's Plan for Me. And it is this plan that now motivates the undertaking of Chrysalis Mission.

Next: A word about Sexual Orientation

It Doesn't Matter?

1 Samuel 16:7

"..the Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (NIV)

Galatians 3:26-28

"You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV)

After all this discussion of male (Adam) and female (Eve) - and those not mentioned such as the Intersexed. After all this discussion about nothing in the Bible that proscribes transitioning from one gender to the other. After all this discussion about the acceptance of eunuchs. We come upon these verses and find out It Doesn't Matter!

Both Samuel from the Old Testament and Galatians from the New Testament suggest that God doesn't consider our gender to be a factor at all. Those baptized into Christ - and in our last lesson we learned there isn't a litmus test for baptism other that acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God - are accepted. All. A sentiment echoed in the well known verse of John 3:16. Whosoever. No other pre-qualifications. No exclusions.

It is thus argued that our bodies, in terms of God's love, are wholly irrelevant. God doesn't see the color of our eyes or the color of our hair, whether we are tall or short, right handed or left, male or female. It is only our heart - our Soul - that matters. Transitioning one's body from one gender to the other not only does not diminish the Soul, it in fact enriches the Soul. Surely God does not find fault with that.

But what of the earlier text from Corinthians - that our bodies are God's temple? Our bodies - in which the "spirit of God lives" - is acknowledged by all to be a temporary home for the Soul. The Soul endures, the Body does not. And Corinthians talks about "destroying" the body, which gender change does not do as was talked about in that essay. God knows the body is but an ephemeral shelter for the soul, which fully explains the message of Samuel. And return to the first essay from Genesis and the suggestion that in "God's image" is not a physical representation, but a spiritual incarnation into man. You see, when it comes to our physical being, our bodies....It Does Not Matter!

Next: This is God's Plan for Me

Baptism! No Questions Asked.

Acts 8:26-39

"Now an angel of the Lord said unto Phillip, "Go South to the road - the desert road - that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Phillip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Then Phillip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Phillip asked. "How can I", he asked, "unless someone explains it to me?", so he invited Phillip to come up and sit with him. The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: ~~ He was led like sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his Descendants? For his life was taken from the Earth. ~~ The eunuch asked Phillip, "Tell me please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Phillip with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Phillip and the eunuch went down into the water and Phillip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing" (NIV)

Many are aware of the frequently told story about Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch, but I've included the entire passage anyway. And while the title of this essay is "Baptism! No Questions Asked.", according to Bible Gateway, some later versions contain a passage at verse 37 that says "Phillip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This would then be the only "question" asked of the eunuch prior to baptism.

This narrative is one to which theologians refer for the importance of Baptism as a Christian rite. It is also cited by some who believe full immersion is necessary for a proper Baptism. And it is also one basis for the need for a verbal declaration of Christians that Jesus is the Son of God. But no one discusses the person who is baptized in this phrase, the Ethiopian eunuch. In fact, there is precious little theological scholarship or discussion about the role eunuchs play within Scriptures. Why were they mentioned? Why aren't they talked about in confirmation or catechism classes? We hear of the leper, the prostitute, the blind, the lame....but when it comes to the eunuchs, most clergy start to tippy-toe. And yet they are mentioned in the chapters of Kings, Acts, Matthew, Isaiah and Esther. Such is the "invisibility" into which modern day transgenders are frequently cast.

To the verse itself. When I first took a serious study of this story, my first reaction was "How did Phillip - or at least the author of Acts - know this person was a eunuch?" Since the manner of dress was essentially the same for men and women, it would seem that there wouldn't be anything obvious in the Ethiopian's visible presentation that would indicate to everyone that he was a eunuch. The verse outright describes him as a eunuch, he does not "out" himself to Phillip. So just what was it that made it so "obvious"? Some of today's transgenders - especially male-to-females - have difficulty "passing" in their desired gender. If the Ethiopian was truly that obvious to Phillip, then the Baptism that was performed - No Questions Asked - is extremely significant for transgenders, passable or not. This, after all, was a mission ordered from God. The angel told Phillip to do this, and when the job was done, Phillip was taken away for another task....he wasn't "taken to task" for his performance. What more is required to prove God's affirmation and acceptance of the transgender/eunuch?

It should also be noted that this eunuch was an important, powerful person within the court of Candace, Queen of Ethiopia. This reinforces the earlier commentary that not all of the eunuchs of the day were punished slaves or people to be shunned or condemned. This eunuch was in charge of the finances of the realm he served. Anyone in business or in government is acutely aware of "the power of the purse".

And let us consider another earlier essay...is the Ethiopian one who "made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake"? He was baptized at the direction of God who would know of the Ethiopian being a eunuch. There was no requirement of contrition or atonement for his being a eunuch. The baptism was performed No Questions Asked. As a personal aside, it bothers me that there are those who deny baptism to some based on a church specified litmus test. That clearly did not happen here, it shouldn't happen to anyone who accepts Jesus as the Son of God.

The next lesson: It Doesn't Matter?

A Better Place Than You!

Isaiah 56:3-5

"...nor let the eunuch say 'Here I am, a dry tree". For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths and choose (the things) that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off." (KJV)

"And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant - to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off." (NIV)

Again I offer both versions as there is a slight difference, perhaps, between the two. In the King James Version, God's "house" could be the church, or it could be heaven itself. In the New International Version, it more specifically mentions the temple. But remember, this is the same temple from which those with "wounded stones" were to be denied entry. This, then, is completely the opposite suggestion contained in Deuteronomy 23:1. To understand, one must know more about Eunuchs.

In a clinical sense, a "eunuch" is a castrated male, but in ancient times, the term likely also included any male who could not procreate. We have come to believe that the eunuchs were slaves, forcibly castrated, to serve the pharaohs and kings within the walls of their homes and castles. This ostensibly - though medically incorrect - rendered them "harmless" to the women of the court. In fact, there were slaves who were castrated, but there were also those who sought out the positions in the court that were frequently held by eunuchs. They did so under their own need or free will as these were positions of power and respect. That suggests that the eunuchs of the Bible, were in fact, transgenders. It is only better medicine and better surgical skills that distinguishes me from them. Accepting that notion is critical to much of what follows not only in this lesson, but of other verses that also cite the eunuchs.

That said, does this mean what I think it means? A place in Heaven (or at least the Temple) for transgenders better than men (sons) or women (daughters)...everlasting? When I discuss other faith beliefs, we'll learn that many hold transgender souls with some sort of mystical esteem. Perhaps this is what Isaiah wishes to impart as well. In a strictly theological view, Heaven is Heaven - there aren't areas or partitions or some places that are better than others. Still...it is an interesting promise nonetheless!

Of course, this segment falls flat if you do not accept the notion of eunuchs being the ancient word's transgenders. And thus this definition from the Bible itself:

Matthew 19:12

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from (their) mother's womb; and there were some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (KJV)

Could this be any more plain? "So born from their mother's womb", to me at least, indicates an acknowledgement of the Intersexed. Intersexed people existed then as now. Certainly the people of the time were aware of them. "Made eunuchs of men", to me, speaks to those who were forcibly castrated to serve the powerful. "Made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake", to me, means me - and all other transgenders. Recall the earlier lesson in which I argued that it is impossible for the transgender to be whole and authentic - thus fulfilling God's plan for us- without transforming our gender role and presentation. In fact, there are many that would offer that "from their mother's womb" also pertains to transgenders in addition to the Intersexed, since the condition of gender identity is felt to be from birth.

Initially I wasn't going to include both KJV and NIV texts for each verse - that would help shorten the essay - but when I went to read the NIV version of Matthew a glaring discrepancy arose: "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." This is why it is extremely difficult to accept the Bible in literal terms. "Renounced marriage" is not something that is part of the definition of the eunuch. There was many who "renounced marriage" in that day...and there are certainly plenty of modern day people who have "renounced marriage", or are not married, who are not also transgender. This translation clouds the text and alters its meaning dramatically. On the other hand "because they were born that way" is a much more direct explanation than "from their mother's womb". Yes, transgenders are "born that way".

Taken together, these verses from Isaiah and Matthew (the KJV text especially) seem to contradict, if not completely negate, those of Deuteronomy. Both come much later in the Bible, Isaiah being near the end of the Old Testament and Matthew is the initial book of the New Testament. There are other instances where "newer" verses are said by many theologians to supplant, or override, "older" ones.

Next lesson: Baptism! No questions asked.

Your Body/God's Temple

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

"Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred and you are that temple" (NIV)

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple is holy, which temple ye are" (KJV)

I have offered both NIV and KJV text on some of the other lessons, but this one clearly has two different contexts. In the New International Version, the word used is "destroy", yet in the predecessor King James Version the word is "defile". Those are two entirely different words, at least as they are used in the modern sense. Such are the hazards of interpretation - something that continually frustrates Biblical study and meaning. But let's not quibble....

As offered, many suggest that altering one's body to fit their self image of gender is "destroying" or "defiling" God's temple. And yet the Bible requires me to do just that! We'll discuss that notion later in this lesson.

This particular passage has been cited for a variety of things. For many, it is directed at suicide - not gender transformation. You'll have to forgive me for a moment while I digress a bit. Like many transgenders - most even - I contemplated and, in a weak effort, attempted suicide. I was fortunate that my effort did no physical harm, though the emotional damage was quite evident. As I talked with a dear friend, he told me about his near-death experience. I don't believe my friend to be particularly religious - I've known him for nearly four decades and I've never known him to attend church. But his message to me was "from God" in a way. Whether you believe in near-death experiences or not, the message remains valid. He told me that as he exited his body - which he could see below - he saw the Light that many recall, and he also encountered several people from his past. These people were not those who were particularly close - a forgotten co-worker from many years ago, a school mate who wasn't much of a friend, etc. It was these people who said they were "stuck", they would not ascend to heaven because they had taken their own lives. This was the one unforgivable sin in the eyes of the Lord. He then made me swear that I would stay safe. We've never discussed God or religion since. And I have affirmatively taken the message given to me by my friend to heart.

Back on topic, this text is also thought by some to preclude any medical intervention whatsoever - no surgeries, no medication, no blood transfusions, etc. It also is cited as a prohibition to the use of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs. In the more general application however, we do not condemn the repair of a child's birth defect. We do not condemn the setting of someones broken leg. We do not condemn the healing from flu or cancer or...or...or...in fact many of us offer sincere praise to God for the healing powers that has been given to our means of medicine. In my own personal belief, I do not consider transgenderism as a birth defect, or an illness...it is a medical situation, however, than can be cured. I also do not consider that I have "corrected" God's mistake. I am not a mistake, and as I said earlier, God does not make mistakes. This notion, too, will be explored in later lessons. Allow me to be frivolous or flippant...I did not "defile" or "destroy" God's temple....I just did a little "remodeling".

Yet let's consider that "remodeling". Our current society accepts, perhaps even encourages, a wide array of plastic surgeries that are intended solely for the improvement of our appearance. Tummy tucks, face lifts, collagen shots, Botox, breast augmentation/reduction, hair transplantation....all this to make us feel more comfortable with our bodies. Surgery for the transgender is no different in its goal.

But I said the Bible required me to do this......

Mark 9:43-47

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hand to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." (NIV)

Transgenders will tell you that their body - and most specifically the genitalia with which they were born - causes them to sin. God wishes us to be authentic unto ourselves, that we strive to be whole. For transgenders, that isn't possible without corrective surgery. I'll refer you to one of my earlier posts that explains that, at least for me, I never heard God's voice until after I had transitioned. I'll also reiterate a statement from an earlier lesson that I didn't "cut it off" - a commonly repeated phrase applied to male-to-females that is factually incorrect.

Your choice - Am I prohibited from "defiling" God's temple...or am I required to excise the body part that causes me to sin. One seemingly precludes the other. Another one of those Scriptural anomalies in my opinion.

The next lesson: A Better Place Than You!