Wednesday, February 20

More on ChristToday

In the previous post, I nitpicked all the errors and misleading language used in a Christianity Article today article on transexuals. I didn't recognize there was an accompanying mini-article written by the same author. You read this article online as well.

This one is much better; no need for a long list of my corrections. I think if the article was more than half a page with fewer outside quotes and stories Kennedy would have made just as many mistakes. But he didn't, so I'm happy.

This article does upset me greatly in its attitude of the relationship between the Church and trans people.

Cumings and the elders wrestled at length with many questions: Is it right to reject an isolated, deeply troubled person who is seeking the Lord? Is it wise to allow other members to walk out if they can't handle accepting what they perceive to be an exhibition of perversion? "We tried very hard to walk a fine line between biblical authenticity—faithfulness to our understanding of the Bible—and compassionate concern," Cumings says.

I hope Cumings was seriously questioning whether to reject " an isolated, deeply troubled person who is seeking the Lord." Isn't that Church 101? Don't reject people? Hopefully that was some poorly executed literary technique.

But Cumings seriously considers he has some duty as a pastor to keep his church members isolated from anyone who, at best, challenges their morality, at worst, makes them uncomfortable. I always thought Church should challenge people and make us and make us comfortable. God does. Let's say it is perverse. But perversion is all around us and, while it will and should offend us, it won't really hurt us until we affirm it. I know it's contrary to popular Christian belief, but physical proximity to transexuals won't hurt you! But the Church is believing she must do more than just not affirm it - but it can't figure out what. If only she'd realize that. Maybe without her obsession for action, we could gather at the Table and really talk this thru.

And I always wonder, what about those allies who affirm trans people but are not trans themself? Would the Church discipline them like they discipline trans affirming people who are trans? Like deny leadership roles? In what I've seen, she doesn't discriminate between those who affirm and those who don't affirm, unless the affirmer is themself trans. Thus she's acting not on the belief, but the person - exactly what she denies. That is, the Church says she denying Nemecek her job and ordination not because she's trans but because she's trans affirming. I suppose isn't the combination which results in behavior the Church works against. Somehow someone's theology is far less important than what she does. Yes, I suppose that's it. I just needed to think out loud.

No comments: