We track blogs, and track what the fundies write over at transgendernews. Scanning the web’s blog engines, we found a post last February from a man named Charlie Ray — someone who labeled himself and his blog Reasonable Christian. The blog entry was titled Christianity Today’s, “The Transgender Moment,” Misleads.
When a Christian takes on the name Reasonable Christian, and writes in the About Me section of his blog…
Learn to do right! Seek justice, relieve the oppressed, and correct the oppressor. Defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord.
More than one wrote comments to the blog entry asking for the scriptural basis for his beliefs, to which he answered:
[After the fold, Charlie doesn’t post opinions that differ from his — Reasonable Christian doesn’t actually do any reasoning with folks who disagree with him.]
…just off the top of my head I can think of several dozen prooftexts. How about God created them male and female? That would be in Genesis 1:27. I could also mention several passages in the Gospels spoken by Jesus Himself.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7; Ephesians 5:31.
It goes without saying that all sexual activity outside God’s purposes in creation is sinful and unnatural. That would include self-mutilation involved in the gender reconstructive surgery and the resulting sinful sexual activity with the same sex. Homosexuality is still homosexuality.
He adds in another comment to his own blog entry:
As for me? I have a brain and will continue to use reason.
The short of it is that the Bible on the one hand condemns transgender behavior and on the other hand natural or general revelation and pure reason refutes the transgender movement as well. Either way you go, it is irrational and just plain immoral.
I submitted this on June 15th, as a comment to his comment section comments:
I agree that God is perfectly able to speak himself in the Bible.
In Isaiah 56:3-8, and in Matthew 19:12, God speaks about those whose were born with genitalia that either didn’t, at birth, conform to male and female norms, and to those who through action of man changed the shape of their genitalia beyond circumcision. And in Biblical times, of course, changing one’s genitalia beyond castration wasn’t possible, and wasn’t spoke about within the Bible’s text.
In both of the scriptures I referenced above, it should be noted that the message from God is that he welcomes those folk with variant genitalia into The Kingdom of God (Or otherwise described as The Kingdom of Heaven).
And, in quoting scriptures on marriage in a comment in this thread, the implication is that we are all called to lead lives in a married state based on our sex at birth. Well, 1 Corinthians 7:1-9,25,26,32,33,39,40 speak to benefits of celibacy.
And beyond that, there is a possible belief that transgender and/or transsexual people transition for reasons regarding sexual orientation — for sexual intimacy as a member of the transsexual’s target sex. Per the book True Selves (by Mildred Brown), about 25% of transsexuals identify as asexual; per surgeon Marci Bowers (in the show Sex Change Hospital), 40% of transsexuals never use their new “plumbing” for sexual intimacy.
I’d make the argument that changing one’s genitalia, in and of itself isn’t immoral, based on scriptures in Isaiah, Matthew, and 1 Corinthians.
Reasonable Christian didn’t post my different take on the scriptures. I’m not arguing from my own sincere beliefs, but I am making points that argue the theological perspective of Christian transgender people I know.
Zoe Brain, over at AEBrain, has documented her difficulties of attempting to have reasoned discussions with Charlie within his blog based on what scientific studies have indicated about sex and gender — with equal luck to mine in getting an online sex and gender discussion with opinionated Charlie going within Charlie’s Blog.
If one calls oneself Reasonable Christian, and were actually reasonable and “interested in systematic theology and in philosophy”, then I would reason that one should have assumed others might actually want to engage in reasoning with you to discuss differing theologies and philosophies to yours. In other words, calling oneself reasonable seems to imply that one wants to “reason together” about differening philosophy and theology, vice only discussing it on one’s own terms and from one’s own perspective.
But in Charlie’s case, reasoning seems to done in accordance to a one way sign. He has his opinions, and he accepts no serious challenges to the underpinnings about what he believes — whether scientific or scriptural.
And isn’t this anti-intellectualism what we’ve seen throughout the pantheon of conservative Christian spokesmodels? — such as Matt Barber, James Dobson, Peter LaBarbera, and Donald E. Wildmon, among many others?
When it comes to conservative Christianity, apparently even self-labeling oneself as a Reasonable Christian doesn’t mean you actually are reasonable — Heck, apparently it doesn’t even imply that one actually does any reasoning at all.