Joan or John? My Answer: Part Four
— Thursday, May 28th, 2009 —
If you’re just joining this discussion, read the question I’m answering, and the previous three posts (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) before you dive in here.
In saying that I don’t think Joan can continue to live as a “woman,” I am not saying that regeneration will mean that he suddenly “feels” like a man. John is telling you the truth when he says that he has felt all of his growing-up life like a woman trapped in a man’s body. He will probably not suddenly turn into a lumberjack. He will probably grapple with this issue for the rest of his life.
I was saved from, among many other things, covetousness. Coveting seems natural to me. Not coveting is unnatural to me. There’s not a day that goes by in which coveting isn’t the easier, more natural thing for me. But I fight against covetousness because God is conforming me into the image of Christ (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18). He does this through suffering, through discipline, and through the warlike struggle of the Spirit against the flesh, the new creation against the satanic powers (Rom 5:3-5; Heb 12:5-11; 2 Cor 2:11). Your testimony is the same, if you’re in Christ, with any number of sinful patterns and weak points in your life. The same will be true for John. Don’t give up on him if he has setbacks, and don’t give up on him if he still “feels” like a woman for the rest of his life. Keep pointing him to the gospel, and to the faith that hears and acts.
John’s presence in your congregation will probably mean that some Pharisaism will emerge. Some people will find John “freakish.” Some of the men will be revolted by the whole idea, and will think they are asserting their masculinity by mocking or marginalizing him (even if just in subtle, eye-rolling sorts of ways). The responsibility of the pastor is to lead his people away from this destructiveness. John’s life in the congregation can be a visible signal of the mercies of God. This means the church should, immediately upon receiving John as a repentant sinner, announce that his sin (not in part but the whole!) is nailed to the cross of Christ, buried with Jesus, and obliterated by his resurrection power. This means any ongoing gossip or judgment of John’s sin or John’s past is itself violence against the gospel, as well as divisiveness in the congregation, and will be disciplined as such.
The shepherds must lead your people to receive John, as they were received by Christ (Rom 15:5-7). The pastors and leaders of the church can help people to see how they can help bear their brother’s burdens (Gal 6:2).
This means, first of all, that women in the congregation will be needed to help show his daughter what it means to be a godly woman. Some of them will want to take her into their homes and lives, being mothers and grandmothers in Christ for her (Titus 2:3-5). This also means that the men in the congregation should make a concerted effort to disciple John, receiving him into their circle of friendship, and showing him what it means to follow Christ, and what it means to be a man. For some of them, it will be awkward. So what? It seems awkward for the Lord Jesus to spend time with drunkards, prostitutes, and Gentiles like us, but he did it, and does it even now.
I’ll have some concluding thoughts in the final post, coming up next.
10 Responses to “Joan or John? My Answer: Part Four”
Trackbacks
- The Walters 5 » One tough pastoral situation
- Blog Patrol (June 2, 2009) « Wayne’s Random Thoughts
- Gospel to the “Transgendered” « RockStar PeterSon
- Transgendered Converts: How Should We Respond? « Theosophical Ruminations
This is the best post on the subject yet because we suddenly realize the immediate practicality of it all. Whether or not John spoken of here is a member of our church, there are plenty of other men and women in our churches who have been saved from sin and who are in need of the same love, fellowship, and discipleship. The church must act in this way every day, not only when a situation such as this comes to light.
Reply
This has been a fantastic series–looking forward to the concluding comments.
Reply
Let’s follow the thread where Joan senses no desire to become John, but has made a genuine profession of faith in Christ, following a legitimate confession of sin and recognition of brokenness. In other words, “this is my sin, so what’s your’s.”
In the OT, God disapproves divorce, but allowed it because of the “hardness of men’s hearts”, per Jesus. The Gospels Jesus, says, “no divorce”, then there are allowances for “adultery”, then with Paul, “let the unbeliever go”, you are no longer bound.
In a tribe that practiced polygamy… the chief has multiple wives (against biblical teaching), but becomes a Christian. Should he “put away” all but one wife, exposing them to rejection, shame and poverty along with the children? Or keep the wives, preserving their lives and children’s legitimacy, being clear that this is not God’s ideal, but the wives did not sign up for divorce?
In the same way, once John physically became Joan, and chooses to stay that way, living a life of character in every other way, could the church embrace her, love her and her child, helping the child grow. Mom would stay Mom, preserving chaos and confusion from overwhelming the child.
There is no longer a “best” answer to make everything all right. There is only owning the decisions and sin and moving forward with a decision that John/Joan can best live a life of integrity. You admitted that likely John would struggle the rest of his life with gender identity.
This would likely be the case with either direction… Sometimes because of the “hardness of our heart” or “brokenness” , is there possibly a a time to draw a double line and begin again?
Reply
Have we considered the role of the State in this scenario? Do we know whether or not periodical check ups are done by a state agency? How would they react to such a thing? Would they intervene to take the child from this man? Would a friend or relative that is upset over this decision turn them in to child protective services? The daughter may very well be ripped away from this home. Would you still attempt to minister to this child if they’re placed with a different family that may not want you around them? This could become quite complex.
Reply
Pastor Moore,
This series, and this post in particular, is one of the single-best things I’ve read on the transforming power of the Gospel in a long time. If this is what the young pastors in your care are being taught, then perhaps all is not lost for the church in America.
In a short time you would persuade me to act like a Southern Baptist. :)
God bless you.
Reply
One day the world will hear God’s message of redemption to all, not some, who have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory from my pulpit. This I can assure you. I will be living testimony of the power of God, who possesses both male and female traits, to transform not only the physical body but, the soul as well. The transformation is of course, with the grace of salvation through our savior Jesus Christ and coupled with salvation from doomed sinner to a saved saint. This is my calling. For you see, God is incapable, being a perfect God, of creating imperfect creatures, humans included. By definition, God created two, and only two perfect humans—our first ancestors. After sin entered God’s creation, perfect man became imperfect man. He populated the earth with imperfect, defective descendants born with, physical and other birth defects including the birth defect of gender incongruency. Spiritually, none of us are in possession of race, gender, or other superficial earthly attributes. God’s perception of his creation is not from human eyes limited by earthly illusion, but from a divine perspective whereby he perceives only good and evil. Both males and females were created in the image of God. Conclusion: God, that is the family of God, consists of both male and female traits. Both males and females are in need of salvation. Conclusion: being neither male nor female in and of itself is a characteristic of good nor evil. Therefore, the attribute of gender, and the physical correction thereof, serves neither to save nor condemn—shame on you for even perpetuating this logical fallacy. If I, you, or any other living person, sinners in the eyes of God, were ourselves created by God rather than products of human reproduction, then there would be no need for the savior. Descendants of reproduction that we are, we are tainted images of God. God has given us the wisdom to correct physical maladies including gender abonormalities borne as a product of sin. I have promised God, as thanks for correcting my gender malady, to serve him in the ministry proclaiming the Good News to all disenfranchised from churches such as yours that have strayed from God’s divine truth. God clearly specifies that which is sin—-being transgendered is not one of them.
Reply