Transgender man can keep post as pastor
October 31st, 2007The highest judicial body of the United Methodist Church announced Tuesday that a transgender man can remain pastor of a congregation in Charles Village.
The ruling by the Judicial Council affirms last spring’s decision by Bishop John R. Schol to reappoint the Rev. Drew Phoenix — formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon — to St. John’s United Methodist Church.
Schol’s action had been appealed to the Judicial Council by several local clergy in the Baltimore-Washington Conference, who have raised questions about the proper role of transgender people within the church.
well at least he chose a really cool name: Drew Phoenix. Sweet.
I wonder if he/she still wears the same robe.
“The highest judicial body of the United Methodist Church announced Tuesday that a transgender man can remain pastor of a congregation in Charles Village.”
Its unfortunate that the highest authority in the UMC is apparently no longer the scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ. Wesley must be turning in his grave.
This is the first decision I’ve heard in quite a while that actually makes me feel quite happy about being a Methodist.
Of course, I’m still mulling over what some people might think “the proper role of transgender people within the church” should be, exactly.
And as far as Jesus no longer being the highest authority in the United Methodist Church (I actually always believed it was the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost … with a special nod going to God because, well, seems like He’s the oldest!): What, exactly, does Jesus have to say about transgendered people? I honestly believe he would welcome them, with open arms … along with certain other cast-offs and rejects that others would rather turn their back on.
What, exactly, does Jesus have to say about transgendered people?
I’d start here: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
Gender is not just a matter of having indoor vs. outdoor plumbing, it’s a function of our creation that is determined by God. A man who undergoes a sex-change operation is still a man, because that’s what God made him. Moreover, the deliberate destruction of healthy, functioning organs for non-medical purposes doesn’t square with the Christian theology of the body (see 1 Cor 6:19, for example).
We should welcome - as Jesus would - transgendered persons into the community of the church and call them to repent and believe, just like we would anyone else. We should not allow someone to sin without repentance in a highly public way while remaining in a position of leadership. The UMC blew this one.
Also, we must remember that all of scripture is God-breathed (II Timothy 3:16) so Jesus’ words are not just the words in red in the New Testament but all the words of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. This would include Deuteronomy 22:5:
“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Jesus welcomes repentant sinners of all strip but he tells them ‘go and sin no more’. Someone reveling in his or her sin and calling what God calls evil, good, is not repentant.
Here’s a related question since Larry brought up deuteronomy.
Although we are no longer under Mosaic law, we still hold to some of the items in Leviticus and Deut, etc. Some we do not. Like we don’t go to a priest if we have an infection. Or ‘If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.’
The question: how do we know what parts to uphold and what to let go?
“The question: how do we know what parts to uphold and what to let go?” — Zoner
Clearly, we uphold the parts of the Bible that we agree with and let go the parts we don’t … or, at the very least, we let go the parts which no longer make sense, at least in terms of our modern-day sensibilities.
I still wonder, though, what JESUS had to say about being transgendered. I don’t recall ever reading anything on the subject attributed specifically to him.
“I’d start here: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’ (Genesis 1:27)” — Peter R.
So, if God created man in his own image (and I don’t doubt that he did, by the way), male and female, then men and women are both created in the image of God. Therefore, Peter, if “gender is not just a matter of having indoor vs. outdoor plumbing,” then perhaps it IS possible — from creation — for someone to have the inner workings of the heart, the mind and the soul that don’t quite match up with the so-called plumbing.
Beyond all that: How do you explain someone who is born a hermaphrodite? Would that person be considered “in the image of God,” or is that person deemed some kind of genetic mishap — destined to be a sinner if the surgeon cuts off his boy parts and “she” realizes shortly thereafter that she is a “he” (or vice-versa)?
I’d like to think that all churches would welcome someone who is transgendered, but I highly doubt that they would. I continue to applaud the UMC for taking a huge step toward acceptance — not only amongst other denominations but in society as a whole.
Beyond all that: How do you explain someone who is born a hermaphrodite?
If Di was playing chess, she’d be required to say, “check.”
perhaps it IS possible — from creation — for someone to have the inner workings of the heart, the mind and the soul that don’t quite match up with the so-called plumbing.
According to the aforementioned Scriptural view of gender, no it is not possible. Due to the Fall of Adam and Eve, which brought physical, spiritual, and psychological death into the world, it is possible. All physical and mental disorders are a result of the effects of sin built up over the millennia.
But then again, in this day and age, it’s considered “offensive” to say someone is mentally disturbed if a person has this mental perspective.
As to a hermaphrodite, yes, this person is created in the image of God, with an obvious effect of the Fall manifested in their body.
If Di was playing chess, she’d be required to say, “check.”
And no, this is not a “check” situation. Scripture shows that humanity has already been “checkmated,” and as such cannot make any other moves.
First of all, we’re not talking here about someone with a birth defect called hermaphrodism. Everyone recognizes that as a defect and that’s why surgery, etc. is done, just as with other birth defects, to correct the situation as best as possible. That’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
As for the OT versus NT issue, we retain those OT commands which are moral in nature (as opposed to ceremonial or that were unique to Israel as a national Theocracy) as well as those which are either reinforced in the New Testament (homosexuality for example) or that were instituted prior to the giving of the law and therefore apply to all mankind (requirement of capital punishment for murder for example).
I would put the admonition for men and women not to take on each other’s identity (in dress or other ways for that matter) in the last category, harkening back to the created order, proper roles for men and women, etc. However, the truth that there are God-ordained roles for men and women is reinforced in several places in the New Testament as well.
I still wonder, though, what JESUS had to say about being transgendered. I don’t recall ever reading anything on the subject attributed specifically to him.
This is a very tired argument. We don’t have scriptural support that Jesus didn’t said anything against rape, incest or pedophelia during His earthly ministry either. Can I take from that you would be OK with people who do those things being accepted by the church and even serving as minsters without the need for them to change their behavior?
If you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, by definition the entire Bible is attributable to Jesus.
Therefore, Peter, if “gender is not just a matter of having indoor vs. outdoor plumbing,” then perhaps it IS possible — from creation — for someone to have the inner workings of the heart, the mind and the soul that don’t quite match up with the so-called plumbing.
No. Prior to sin, human beings were without defect. Stephen addressed this quite will.
As for the mismatch you describe, the important question is what is disordered, and what needs fixing? In the case of the hermaphrodite, there is a problem with the physical body that requires a physical solution. This is a red herring. In the case of the Rev. Ann Gordon, we have a person with healthy, functioning female sex organs. They work just fine, there’s no medical reason to remove them. The problem is in her mind, heart, and soul, and the problem remains no matter what is done to her body.
Ah, Larry F., good one: Playing the pedophilia card. I was wondering how long it would take for that topic to be thrown in, as it seems to be the go-to strategy in almost any discussion of sexuality and now, apparently, gender-related issues as well. (Speaking of tired arguments …)
Moving on:
I certainly don’t equate hermaphrodism with transgenderism; however, in the example I mentioned, what if, during a surgeon’s attempts “to correct the situation as best as possible,” he makes a mistake and picks the wrong gender? What, then, is this now-transgendered person to do?
“In the case of the Rev. Ann Gordon, we have a person with healthy, functioning female sex organs. They work just fine, there’s no medical reason to remove them. The problem is in her mind, heart, and soul, and the problem remains no matter what is done to her body.” — Peter R.
I do not know the Rev. Drew Phoenix, now or when he was previously known as the Rev. Ann Gordon. I do not know what struggles this person has gone through, but I’d bet anything that “having a sex change” was not the easiest solution to his “problem.” Nor do I believe that Rev. Phoenix’s life will be any simpler, now that he has a body that matches the gender with which he identifies.
Such is the nature of life. It ain’t easy.
Some might argue that this transition makes Rev. Phoenix nothing more than just another sinner, and that he has absolutely no business being in the pulpit, but I expect this experience — and especially the criticism it has drawn — will make him an even better minister.
Which affirms, for me, how a truly amazing God does, indeed, work in wondrous ways.
: )
“If Di was playing chess, she’d be required to say, ‘check.’” — Cineaste
I beg to differ, Cineaste! First of all, I don’t play chess (I much prefer Boggle, Risk or a good game of spades … and, of course, tennis). Secondly, I don’t look at any of these discussions as necessarily having “winners” or “losers.” All any of us can do is speak up for what we believe, even — and perhaps especially — if it differs from what others believe.
Still: I appreciate the sentiment. (I DO like to win .. when I’m playing those aforementioned games!)
: )
Di,
We certainly don’t want to make anybody feel like an outcast, but at the same time we don’t want to tell someone that God won’t do for them what He’s done for others. God is healing people everyday from these kinds of sexual identity struggles.
I believe that, Roger.
I also believe that the transition Rev. Phoenix has gone through is part of his healing. And that’s part of the reason I continue to be in favor of the decision made by the UMC.
Di,
see Matthew 12:23-30
God will not transform some from a lifestyle and then contradict Himself by leading others deeper into it.
God is healing (transforming) people everyday. He is doing that for His glory. Let’s not fall for the Devil’s lies about who we are, who God is and what He’s capable of doing for us.
what if, during a surgeon’s attempts “to correct the situation as best as possible,” he makes a mistake and picks the wrong gender? What, then, is this now-transgendered person to do?
Take advantage of the available options for therapy and/or surgery. This kind of scenario is exactly why waiting until the child is older before making physical changes is becoming more common. In any case, it’s not relevant to the case of Pastor Ann because the good Reverend decided for herself.
I do not know what struggles this person has gone through, but I’d bet anything that “having a sex change” was not the easiest solution to his “problem.” Nor do I believe that Rev. Phoenix’s life will be any simpler, now that he has a body that matches the gender with which he identifies.
I don’t envy the struggles of someone who feels trapped in a body of the wrong sex. Certainly, radical surgery is not an easy option, and I never said it was. The fact remains, however, that destroying perfectly healthy body parts to fix a mental or spiritual disorder doesn’t fit within the bounds of a Christian understanding of the human body.
Some might argue that this transition makes Rev. Phoenix nothing more than just another sinner, and that he has absolutely no business being in the pulpit, but I expect this experience — and especially the criticism it has drawn — will make him an even better minister.
None of us are anything more than “just another sinner”, but a lack of repentance and/or a confused view of moral issues disqualifies us from leadership within the church.
This is why I am glad to be leaving the UMC.
I don’t look at any of these discussions as necessarily having “winners” or “losers.”
Neither do I. But you made, and continue to make, a strong point with hermaphrodites, “check” simply acknowledges that. In these conversations, certainly we all move our arguments around strategically to better express our beliefs and opinions. Some are better at it than others. In my opinion, you’re good at it. Anyway, If I really thought there was a there was a “winner” the proper term would have been “check mate.”
Which affirms, for me, how a truly amazing God does, indeed, work in wondrous ways.
A Hindu would say, karma.
Or maybe samsara.
Di,
I was not equating this issue to pedophelia (you’ll notice I listed a couple of other examples that you ignored) the point was your argument from silence is invalid. Virtually anything can be condoned if we take the fact that we don’t have any “red letters” in the New Testament condemning it as proof of it’s validity. A ridiculous concept.
Larry: I didn’t think you were equating this issue to pedophilia. I was merely pointing out that, in so many discussions involving gender and/or sexuality issues, sooner or later (usually sooner), someone tries to make a comparison of someone who happens to be transgendered or gay or bisexual to someone who molests children … and, as I said, that is a very tired argument, in addition to being one that I find to be inaccurate, hurtful and offensive.
(Not that I find being compared to someone who commits rape or is involved in an incestuous relationship to be any less offensive or hurtful or wrong.)
In regard to me wondering what Jesus had to say about someone who is transgendered: I truly was wondering what, if anything, he had to say about it. Just as I wonder — and would ask him, if I ever had the chance — what his thoughts are on a whole range of issues.
I don’t necessarily think that anything in the New Testament trumps the words that are found in the Old Testament; however, as The Zoner pointed out previously in this thread, there are parts of the Bible that we no longer hold on to. How do we truly know which parts are OK to let go?
Di-
We are still obligated to uphold the moral laws of the old testament (ie do not murder, commit adultery, etc.) as they are the standards for righteousness in the lives of Christians. The only parts of the Bible that we can “let go” as you put it are the ones that call us to follow the ceremonial and dietary Jewish laws. Our pastor wrote a very informative paper on this subject:
http://www.bethanycentral.org/resources/docs/996-the_christian_and_the_ot_law.doc
“or, at the very least, we let go the parts which no longer make sense, at least in terms of our modern-day sensibilities.”
I disagree. God’s Word is timeless.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Heb 13:8
“In the beginnning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning…….The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen His Glory, his glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jn 1:1-1, 14
Jesus Christ is the Word according to Jn 1 therefore the Word never changes, it is constant and inerrant yesterday, today, and forever. With that in mind, I’d say the UMC blew it.
Emily
Di, I’d like to direct you to a Jesus quotes that might shed a bit of light on the gender issue:
Mark 7:20-23 - And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
This quote contains some pretty good descriptors of the thoughts and desires of those who are sexually or gender “confused.” What is striking is that Jesus calls them “evil” and “defiling.” Especially considering the Jewish understanding of sexual immorality, which seems cast a pretty wide umbrella over all non-heterosexual behavior. That Jesus affirms this understanding speaks volumes against the “I wonder what Jesus would have said” argument.
Stephen: I don’t see where that particular quote contains ANY “good descriptors of the thoughts and desires of those who are sexually or gender ‘confused.’”
These aren’t “evil things” that necessarily come from homo- or bisexuals or transgendered people; these are things which come “out of the heart of man.” Man — and woman — in general, apparently without specific regard to gender or sexuality.
Regarding the “Jewish understanding of sexual immorality”: I’m not Jewish. I don’t necessarily care about that “pretty wide umbrella,” unless that means we’re going to subscribe to every Jewish law regarding sexual “morality.”
In that case, I think we’re probably all in some serious trouble.
Di -
I don’t think, at least I’m not, saying to condemn the pastor that had the operation, but there has got to be a line at some point that says, “ok, I understand you’ve made this decision, but that also affects you here (fill in the blank).” I don’t have a special revelation from God or anything about this, but all the discussion has been how would Jesus react to this person? I think Jesus would probably approach them much the same way that He did when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Him. With forgiveness and compassion. However, Jesus did tell her to “sin no more.” There was repentance involved as well. I don’t know all the reasons God has commanded us to do all the things that He has, but that doesn’t make it ok for me to decide that since I disagree with a certain issue that God must have been wrong. Jrazz made a rather humorous mention of God, (I’ll paraphrase) commanding the Israelites to bury their poo. I’m sure they thought this was crazy and had to wonder why they had to do this. Looking back now, we can make the case that their was a point in doing it, that God was trying to protect His people from disease and teach them hygiene. (ok, strange tangent, back to the point at hand). Or in the case of this pastor, “God made a mistake in how He made me and I really should have been the other sex.” However, we often don’t understand or make the connection that just because we tell someone that a decision they have made in the past disqualifies them from a certain position in the present, it does not mean that we don’t genuinely care for them. In the area of God’s forgiveness, we are all sinners, and a sex change operation is as much of a sin as anger or lying or etc. (and I can confess it often is a struggle to walk the walk of Christ daily). Sin is sin, but the consequences aren’t always the same. Any true Christian would openly admit that they are simply a sinner that has received the grace of God and His forgiveness. However, I understand that while God can forgive, my actions do have consequences. I believe such is the case here. God’s grace is overpowering and all encompassing, for sure, but God does ask for a humble and repentant heart. I work at a center for troubled kids and see everyday that for some reason “NO” is related to “I don’t care.” They can’t always understand that the staff there are trying to take care of them by not allowing them to do certain things. To me that is more the issue in all this, that people think if you hold a consequence to their action, that you don’t care about them and should just let them do whatever they want no matter how it affects everyone else. Just some thoughts, as usual hopefully this came across the way I intended, and hopefully not too rambling. I was watching Mission Impossible while typing so its quite possible I rambled quite a bit. Its interesting to be able to throw the Jrazz “bury your poo” reference in there though. But, as always, my comments weren’t meant as an attack on anyone.