Joan or John? My Answer: Part Three
— Wednesday, May 27th, 2009 —
Again, this is part of a series, so read the question I’m answering, and then both the first and second post before you tread on into this complicated scenario.
So “Joan” is willing to forsake her life as a woman, as “John,” and embrace his identity as the man God created him to be. What does he do about the fact that his young daughter has known him only as “Mom”?
This is, admittedly, the most difficult part of this puzzle. A friend said including the daughter in the narrative was the “evil genius” part of the whole thing. For my students at Southern Seminary, the daughter was the most heart-wrenching part of the whole question, and those who had difficulty typically had difficulty at this point. I’m glad that such is the case. The compassion for this daughter, having her entire spectrum of reality turned over, is a mark of a Christian, and certainly a necessary trait for a sheep-herder of God’s flock.
First, let me say that I’m aware that “Joan” becoming “John” will wreak havoc on her daughter’s life and psyche. I think such havoc will be unleashed either way, and that honesty at this point is less destructive than continuing the illusion. The question, at this point, is not whether the daughter will have a normal life or a traumatic one. The question is whether the people of Christ will be with her through the trauma. I would counsel Joan to tell her daughter at an appropriate (but not unduly delayed) time.
This will be difficult, and John will need his pastor there, along with many godly women from the congregation who are willing to spend hours with this young girl. John should tell her that years before she was born, he was confused, and felt like he was a girl instead of a boy, and that he had spent the last thirty years trying to be a girl. He should tell his daughter, though, that something had changed, he was born again in Christ Jesus, and that means that he gets a new start. He should tell her that he loves her just the same, and that he’ll always be here, but he wants her to know that Jesus is putting his life back together, as a man.
This will be confusing and disruptive, but, with the wise counsel of his congregation and its pastors, John can visibly demonstrate before his daughter what regeneration and sanctification actually looks like: slow, painful, but, in the end, worth it for the sake of the gospel.
So, if John follows through at this point, what’s the expectation of the church, and the responsibility of the congregation, for change in the life of a man who once thought himself a woman? I’ll take that up in the next post.
8 Responses to “Joan or John? My Answer: Part Three”
Trackbacks
- Christian Ethics: Joan or John? - Delivered By Grace | Theology Blog
- Russ Moore on How the Gospel Ministers to Transgender People | Christ Community Church
- Blog Patrol (June 2, 2009) « Wayne’s Random Thoughts
- Moore to the Point by Russell D. Moore
Dr. Moore:
I appreciate your thoughts and agree with your conclusions whole-heartedly (especially the conclusion of your friend that you have an evil genius side). However, in your question you required your students to “[u]se Scripture, Christian theology, and wisdom to demonstrate not just your final decisions, but how you arrived at them.” Your use of Christian theology and wisdom is clear. I am not aware of any Scriptures dealing with this issue, but, in the next part of your answer, can you provide us with a little more Scriptural reference similar to your answer in part 1? Thanks.
Steven
Reply
Incredibly complex and interesting! Thank you for some clear and biblical thinking on a very muddled situation. The constructs of your case, though, naturally lead to the solutions offered, as John already sensed his need to return to his created gender-identity. According to my view of things, this is a demonstration of a genuine work of grace in his life.
If you wanted to further demonstrate your “evil genius,” then after the class affirmed the “John” solution, change the question - now Joan doesn’t feel inclined to return to John at all, but still expresses a desire to follow Christ as Lord and to unite with the church. Does anyone then doubt the first view?
You hinted at this, but a decision on the gender-identity issues would have to be settled before presenting the candidate to the church for baptism and membership. However, would you ignore the issue and focus on the need for repentance in general, hoping that the Spirit would change his mind post-conversion? Or, would you make the gender issue key to repentance and conversion as Jesus’ seemed to do with wealth in his exchange with the rich, young, ruler?
Reply
You are overcomplicating the whole thing.
Repentance is heeding the call of Jesus, following henceforth, and making restitution where justice demands it. Her repentance is just like mine or yours: Change course and follow Jesus.
Who says that people born male must be called by masculine pronouns? Who says that if I have surgically or chemically altered my body that I must tell my daughters? I may have confusedly or even sinfully had some surgery, but the pronouns and pinafores are merely a matter or convention.
Repentance is not going back to replow every acre you ever planted. If nobody was injured by John-Joan’s previous sins, then there is no restitution to do. You strongly imply that in order to be “honest” today that I must make “the church” aware of the specific sins of my past…but do you apply this reasoning to other categories of sinners? Do you require the people who have slept three-to-a-bed to disclose that to the church, in the name of honesty? Or is a man who once did it with other men now a liar among the faithful merely because he’s repented and came into the fold?
You have described a person living an orderly and admirable life, even against the tide of whatever drove them to the strange act of “trangederizing.” The truth of the whole matter is that John-Joan is exactly what he-she is right now.
“Honey, your Mom is really a man and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Just thought in fairness to you that I should force you to deal with that fact. Hope that give you closure. Goodnight Sweetheart, see you on Labor Day!”
That might make some pastor or professor feel good about themselves, but does it really have anything whatever to do with the righteousness that is from God through Jesus Christ?
Reply
@Joe B, in the 4th paragraph you say “if noone was injured by J’s sins then there is no nedd for restitution”. However, the way i read that, it overlooks that all sins are primarily against God, maker and sustainer of creation and the one and only God.
We can’t ever make atonement with God, not by ourselves. The only way that those sins are dealt with is through Christs substitutional atonment. Even our most righteous deeds are “filthy rags”, so clearly our own actions have little worth.
I agree with you in that repentance is not going over every patch again. It is a process wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Some in the past have broken repentance onto 2 categories, Specific Repentance and general repentance.
General repentance is recognising that you are sinful and need to submit to God’s way to live.
Specofoc repentance is asking God for forgiveness in a specific area. The number of these is never ending, but identifying your sins and asking God to reorient you is an avenue for growing in the faith.