[photo by David Schrott]

Yeah, I know, I had the last post in that Transgenderism series (Part I, Part II) due today.  But, as of today, Pennsylvania has just received the most snow ever on record.  It’s pretty nuts.  So, today I’ve just been lazily hanging out with some friends from seminary and did not feel up to devoting the time and care I would have wanted to give to the post.  So, here are some things I read today that might interest all of you.  Stay warm!

• “How A New Jobless Era Will Transform America” - The Atlantic
• New Mexico might be moving the State’s money out of the large banks to small, local banks and credit unions (I love this) – The Huffington Post
• Paul Krugman, with every passing day, seems to be inching closer and closer to a nervous breakdown.  Read the fun. — The New York Times blogs
• I sympathize with many Conservative ideas, but Rachel Maddow here accurately shows Republican douchebaggery in action — The Huffington Post
• Speaking of douchebaggery, the CEO of Warner Music said that they will stop allowing their music to be played on free streaming sites (like Pandora) – BBC News
• “Google Buzzes Facebook–and the World” – The Big Money
• News on what it would take to end the disastrous way the filibuster is currently used in Congress – The Huffington Post

Looking at this issue from a systematic theological perspective, I would first turn to Genesis 1:27 which says: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he female he created them.” It seems that gender is unique in that it seems like it is more fundamentally inside-out rather than outside-in. Gender, according to this passage is rooted, primarily, in the “image of God” within us. Gender is an expression of that image and our physical embodiment is meant to be an expression of that gender. Now, we live in a fallen world, so anywhere in that process, something good can (and probably will) get twisted in some way. In Romans chapter 1, when it is recounting the story of the Fall, the first part of humanity that gets twisted, before anything else, is our sexuality. That seems to be the most fundamental basic level at which the Fall has affected us, therefore we should expect much abnormality and improper expressions and tendencies therein (hetero-, homo-, and trans-sexual alike).

But, as I said, that is using a systematic theological approach. Using a biblical studies approach (taking into account original audiences/context), one has to admit that neither the original writer nor the ancient audience of Genesis would have read that verse and taken it as some sort of ultimate statement about a modern conception of “gender “identity/expression”. It was probably a poetic statement going in line with the sexual imagery of the poetry of Genesis 1 where the Creator God is creating “mini-Creators” that will continue to fill the earth through “pro-Creation”. How do we harmonize this inevitable tension between these two approaches to Scripture? I don’t know. I’ll leave it up to better men and women than me. And all of you in the comments.

Further, even as I wrote and thought that section on gender being “inside-out”, I had two little voices ringing in the back of my mind. The first was whispering that this principle could be used to justify a whole host of other things I clearly think God does not approve of. People could sexually act however they pleased in the name of “I’m merely giving the proper external expression to my inner sense of sexuality.” The second was the voice that thinks that nearly every problem the church has ever known can go back to a Platonic dualistic view of the world that imagines a huge gulf between material/immaterial, expression/form, accidence/substance, physical/spiritual, earth/heaven and then (often) elevates the spiritual and abstract aspects over and above the physical and material parts of creation, calling us to cast off the material for the sake of some spiritual “ideal”.

I think this is so utterly wrong, damaging, and harmful to theology and the world. All these seemingly separate things actually overlap in very real and profound ways. There’s an almost “transubstantiated”, sacramental aspect to all parts of this life and world. The physical has been made and designed to reflect, hold, contain, partake in, accomplish, and put forward the divine. So how do we do this with our sense of gender? If there is a mysterious union between our physical and psychological selves, how do we approach those with Transgender issues? It seems the fundamentalist would say to them “God made you a certain way physically. That’s who you are. So try and fix the internal aspects” (that’s the conclusion of this essay by a Christian Ethics professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary sent to me yesterday). The “liberal” would say “God made you a certain way internally. That’s who you are. So try and fix the physical aspects.” I don’t think it’s that easy. Both of these are wrong. There’s something much more mysterious, beautiful, and difficult happening in all of us dealing with our sexualities and gender.

Any account we try and give as Christians must bear all this in mind and not fall to either extreme. We must take very seriously both our individual personhood and our embodiment, because God has. The Divine Personhood became embodied in order to redeem it and make it worthy and able again to contain the divine once more. And while we’re talking the redemption and ushering in of New Creation, let me ask all of you this: when time has ended, creation restored, and we have all received our glorified bodies, what kind of body do you think the Christian Transgendered person will receive? Will their external form finally match the internal, thereby giving them a fuller sense of identity; or will their minds be changed in such a way that they finally feel a harmony with the physical gender they originally born with in this life?

Tomorrow I’ll give my proposed answers to many of these questions, but like I said, these will reflect where I’m at right now. I’m very willing to be swayed in other directions. I just wanted to write this post to give people a framework. Any answers we try and give must take all of these things into account. Real hearts, lives, and souls are on the line in this issue and we can’t afford to offer simplistic, naive, knee-jerk “solutions” to the people that need to hear them the most. This does injury, injustice, and insult to the Gospel–a Gospel that promises to adequately address all issues of life and salvation with nuance, care, grace, and sufficiency.

So what do you think? How would you harmonize the tension between the conclusions of systematic theology versus biblical studies? Do you agree that both the Fundamentalist and liberal approaches are inadequate? If so, what “third way” might you propose that might be more nuanced?

[painting by Sandorfi]

UPDATE: Part 2 of this series is up now.

A couple of days ago, a friend of mine shot me a facebook message asking me for a Christian perspective on, of all things, transgenderism. For many reasons that will be explained later, this will be a topic of increasing pertinence that the Church will have to give a theologically-informed account for at some point. We need to have answers for questions like: “Did God make them that way?”, “Are they just confused?”, “Should we support many people’s desire for surgical alterations?”,”What hope for ‘healing’ can we expect in this life?”,”Is it something that needs to be ‘healed’ in the first place?”, “Is it a sin?”, “What does a Christian with transgender issues look like?”, “Is that even possible?”, among others.

To be honest, I don’t feel like I have a rock solid answer to any of these questions. Every time I feel like I do, I talk to someone and they show me a new dimension I hadn’t seen before. So, I’m very open to ideas, which is why I’m writing this on the blog. I would love everyone’s feedback and opinion as to how one should answer these questions.

But first, what are we talking about? Technically speaking, transgenderism is different from transexuality. A person is considered “transgendered” when their personal gender identity does not match the gender that was assigned to them at birth–that’s it. A person is considered a “transexual” when they actually seek to change their physical gender through surgery or hormone therapy. Individuals can be transgendered based on genetics (genetically they’re one gender; physically they’re another) or psychology (their gender identity does not match the gender role assigned to them by culture and society based on their physical gender; they don’t “feel” like the gender they physically are). I’m not sure if my friend was asking about both these issues or if they were in fact, drawing a distinction, but many of the same issues are involved in both.

By the time I was done writing out my whole response to these questions, the essay was about six pages long. It’s done, mind you, I just don’t want to throw all of that at all of you at once. So I’m going to spread it over the next three days in three separate posts. Then, next week, I’ll probably put them back together into one long article and post it on Reform & Revive. But please respond to this post and this series. I would love all of your thoughts. Below you’ll find the schedule and topics to be addressed. Look at what I’ll be talking about in the next couple of days and see if your comment or question might be more appropriate in the days to come.

• Today: The Questions of Transgenderism
  • some questions, definitions, and all of your thoughts
• Tuesday: A Prolegomena of Transgenderism
  • how others have approached this and what we need to remember (but often forget) when trying to address this
• Wednesday: A Theology of Transgenderism?
  • a brief theology/history of gender and sexuality and how do we deal with this theologically and practically in the Church?

Your Turn

So, what are your thoughts on this? If you’re not a Christian, how do you think Christians should approach this issue? How have they not done a good job in the past? How do you approach it? If you are a Christian, what’s your immediate gut reaction to this issue? Is it reasonable? Does it follow the other aspects of the Gospel that you know? How do you think Jesus would approach this? How were you raised to approach this topic?

Really?

First, the medium.  You’re really going to put up — of all means of communication — a tweet?   Not knowing how many women might have sat down at their computer after having been told of the marital infidelity of their husbands in front of a computer screen for the millionth time, you’re going to tell them that if they watched a movie recently where there was nudity in it, they shouldn’t complain?  Using 140 characters or less, with no space to add nuance or pastoral care,  you’re going to make a statement that will inevitably make many women internalize on themselves the feelings of hurt they may be feeling?  To make such a loaded statement over such a “micro” platform is the height of thoughtlessness, callousness, and insensitivity.

Second, the message itself.  The Bible is sexually charged at times.  Sexuality can be beautiful, even necessary, to push forward a narrative (as we see in the Bible).  This means that there are movies where sexuality (yes, even nudity) can be beautiful, purposeful, and not simply gratuitous acts to keep men engaged.  So just the simple act of watching of these movies is not tantamount to navigating your husband to a porn site and then telling him to have fun.  Does the same go for art?  Would Piper say “Wives, if you see art with him containing bare breasts and fondling, don’t complain when he does porn by himself”?

Also, nudity and sex scenes (that are gratuitous and unnecessary) are found in nearly every movie adults watch nowadays.  You can try and filter the bad ones out, but inevitably a few will get in.  Should the wife “not complain” if her husband does porn after that? I’m sure Piper’s not saying this.  It’s just that this is subtle legalism at work, where the problem with the sin and the struggle is something that they’re doing.  Struggling with porn? Stop doing this, doing that, and start doing this, doing that.  It’s a subtle works-based system of sin and righteousness.

He has probably counseled countless couples struggling with this very issue.  Surely he doesn’t say this in counseling sessions, does he?  There has to be better ways to say the little bit of truth in this: Perhaps, “don’t be surprised when he…”; “try and help your husband by not watching movies containing…”; “if he does porn by himself, ask if you two are watching movies with…”?  These are more helpful ways of saying the kernel of truth in there.

Ever since becoming increasingly theologically egalitarian (I’m not all the way there.  I call myself a “progressive complementarian”), I have struggled with the hardcore complementarians out there like Piper and Driscoll.  I’m quite confident that it’s bad biblical exegesis, but I have really tried to believe that it doesn’t inevitably lead to chauvinism and insensitivity toward women.  And I know Piper doesn’t advocate for that.  But this tweet scares me.  I’m angered by this and I hurt on behalf of all the women out there that should be appalled by this.  There should be no circumstance that you should not feel the freedom and right to justifiably “complain” about and hate the sin of your husband for his online marital infidelity toward you.  It is not your fault in anyway that would remove your right to do this.  I really hope Piper gets a lot of criticism over this, such that he is able to publicly apologize for this.  He’s done it before for other things he has said.  I hope this is one of those times.

What do you all think?  Was Piper off-base?  Why or why not?  How would you phrase this differently?

[This is a repost of the last in

My exploration of motives for Christian involvement in politics began to shift when I realized that the same Paul and Peter that preached a political worldview of simply obeying the laws were the same Paul and Peter that when told by authorities not to preach, they refused to obey.  What’s going on?  Apparently there’s some other principle at work that creates a depth, complexity, and dynamism within this issue: God and His Nature, Christ and His Glory.  More on this in the next post.

I then started looking not just for Paul’s statements about politics but also how he politically viewed himself in a political world.  Paul was a Roman citizen, the ancient equivalent of being an American citizen.  It came with the same privileges, rights, and disdain we as Americans experience today.  So when did Paul pull the “Roman Citizen” card?  In short, when it furthered his preaching of the Gospel.  He pulled the card a few times in the latter part of Acts, each time to talk to a successively higher authority in the Roman government.  Acts ends with Paul waiting in prison to talk to Caesar himself after using his citizenship to appeal his charges to the emperor.

So, as for conclusions, here’s where I’ve landed (at least for the time being).  God’s concern for the political actions of His People does not ultimately rest upon what is done.  Rather, He is concerned that His Bride act from transformed hearts that effect why they are doing, voting, advocating as they are.  Paul used the rights and privileges offered him by his nation to further enable his continuing work and service of the Gospel.  Not to create external structures that do this work for him.  So, I’m all for advocating and seeking legislation that furthers our freedom to do the work of the Church.  I think there’s an absolute Biblical precedent for seeking the support and freedom for the individual to do the work of a Christian.  Our defiance to the laws of this land begin where this freedom ends.  Where the laws and statutes in place hinder us from doing the work that Christ has called us to, that is when our defiance starts.

Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was, then his followers would fight to free Him from Pilate.  His Kingdom is a spiritual, not temporal reality, hence our weapons to usher this Kingdom are spiritual and not temporal.  Laws, states, and politics don’t do it; rather love, service, and preaching do.  This being the case, all our political maneuverings should be to free us to do those things.  We will do them regardless, mind you, but it is (or is meant to be) in the interest of the prosperity and stability of a country to support and free Christians to act like Christians – not push them or even create incentives for them to, but create the welcoming environment in which they can serve, love, preach, and suffer for the benefit of those around them with no hindrances.

So what frees us to do the service of the Gospel?  I think this is where personal leadings, preferences, discussion, and discourse come in.  Perhaps making gay marriage unconstitutional will actually ultimately hinder our work as Christians rather than facilitate it.  So what if it “made a statement”?  At what cost?  Perhaps being in favor of the war would hinder your evangelism to Muslims.  Perhaps being against the war would not free you to take advantage of the new open environment there now is for missions work in Iraq.  Perhaps (and I really stress the “perhaps” on this one) making abortion illegal would hinder our freedom to act like Christians.  I will unpack all this in my last post.  Don’t freak out over that statement.  I just want the conversation opened up and founded upon the biblical basis for our activism: putting the weight on ourselves to be the Church rather than on the country to reflect the ideals of the Church, because Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world.

I know I have overstated my case.  I have repeated myself and rephrased myself in more ways than perhaps necessary.  Some of that stems from all this being fairly fresh in my mind, and it probably comes out in my writing.  The rest of it though comes from my conviction that this worldview is essential for so many reasons.  The American Church is impotent today and has little impact on the culture it finds itself in.  Much of this comes from the recent fanaticism of Fundamentalism in light of post-modernity becoming the reigning philosophy of the day.  Fundamentalism just doesn’t work anymore.  The rest of the watching world has already filed Evangelicals away as completely out of touch and irrelevant in today’s modern world.  Historically, the Church has been a small movement that has toppled nations.  Now it is a massive creature with absolutely no impact whatsoever on the people, communities, and cultures around it.  Remove the Church in America and very little would change.

Conclusion:
Our goal in our legislation should be this: we should seek and advocate for any legislation that give us the Church more freedom to do what the Church was always meant to do (heal the sick, feed the poor, clothe the needy, teach the uneducated, love the outcast, and accept the foreigner). We should strive to free ourselves to be and act like real Christians that in doing so we serve the people, communities, cities, and nations around us to such an extent that they would suffer without us.  We don’t try and make them act like Christians or have a Christian worldview when they’re not, in fact, Christians.  We must fight for the freedom to be the Church.  And it is in this that the watching world will see a Gospel that proclaims that there is a God through Whom all things were made and find their sustaining life so that this God has a just and rightful claim on the lives of His creatures.  They will then see that this God has moved upon individuals on the basis of this claim to change them radically to love those around them in a way that no one else does.  And it is by seeing this that they will behold our Beautiful Christ and Savior who loves His Bride to love His world so that His world might love Him as it was always intended, and will surely be.  And the country will change.

I hope this helps.

What are your thoughts?  Is this helpful?  What do you think this looks like in practice?

One of those newfound traditions that is really becoming a major part of my life is the Church Calendar. According to the calendar, we are currently in the season of Epiphany, where the church celebrates the travel of the Wise Men to see Jesus, therefore declaring him King and Lord among all the nations, and today is the Church Holy Day on which we celebrate Jesus’ presentation by His parents in the temple (forty days after Christmas) (Luke 2:22-40). As I went through the Daily Lectionary this morning, I found that focusing on this event and meditating on it bore some very real personal fruit that I wished to share.

The first reading for this day was from Malachi 3:1-4. In it, God tells his people that he is sending a messenger (who would be John the Baptist) who would prepare the way for God to come to his people (in Christ). He says he “will suddenly come into his temple” (hinting at both his presentation in and judgement over the temple). Lastly, He says that “then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord…”. Did you catch that? God himself promises to come to us and accomplish for us that which will then make our sacrifices actually pleasing to Him. He says He will do it. And He has. And that commissioning began at that temple presentation. But why?

The next reading was from Hebrews 2:14-18. A very precious passage for me. My greatest fear is death. I know it’s absurd and theologically illogical, but there’s a part of me that (a) still clings to wanting to make a name for myself here in the old creation rather than seeking a world to come, and (b) struggles with doubt about life hereafter. This passage speaks of those who “through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” and how Christ became human and conquered death to deliver all those people form this slavery to that fear. It is precious to me. This passage talks about the mysterious union of God and man that took place within Christ–that same Christ which I am now mysteriously in union with as well.

The implication for the temple presentation? Well, Christ had to become like us so he could undergo on our behalf all that we must go through–all that was necessary for a truly human individual to go through. So he was presented to his Father at the temple by humans, so that he might present his human People to the Father at the end of time. So, in this mysterious union of Christ and Bride I find myself on reserve to undergo the truer substance of that presentation that will be found int he New Creation. Furthermore, as certain as I must believe it was that Jesus would make it through the pains of labor into that world so he might be presented to the Father, so is it just as necessary that God’s children will make also it through the pains of labor that this creation is going through to bring us into the Creation to come–that we might be presented to the Father. This further soothes my soul about my mortality. If Jesus was sure to come through into this world, I am just as secure in my passage into the world to come. Indeed, when old Simeon sees Jesus being presented at the temple, he bursts out into this song, perhaps feeling the same peace I do over this:

Lord, you are now letting your servant depart in peace,
according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation
that you prepared in the presence of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.

During Christmas, my church in Richmond was doing a sermon series called “Songs of the Story” going through each one of the songs that surrounded Jesus’ birth. The last sermon, given by Robert Greene, was one of those turning point messages in my life. It was covering the song of Simeon (traditionally called the nunc dimitis) that I just mentioned. After the sermon, the church usually puts up reflection questions for you to ponder before taking Communion. That particular week there was a question something along the lines of “We see what emotion was evoked within Simeon at seeing Jesus. What do you feel in the present of Jesus?” I realized then, perhaps for the first time, that the fundamental things I feel when I think about/experience Christ is an overwhelming sense of insecurity and “not being good enough”.

That sermon/realization brought me into the spiritual season I’m currently in, where Christ is addressing the ways that I seek this security and affirmation from other people/places, and how my first reaction to every shortfall is to try better and just “will harder” so I might receive credit before God and then be accepted, then feel secure, then be able to rest.

The meditation today reminded me of this, the process God has taken me in the past couple of months, and it showed me once more just how beautiful this whole Story of Redemption is. And God freely brought it about, that we might partake in His goodness and mercy. If Christ was presented at the temple, as this day celebrates, then in that is part of my hope that I will be taken into the scarred hands of Savior, my Lord, and presented to my Father above when he has established his new temple, namely the New Creation. This brings me joy, hope, humility, and rest. May it do the same for you.

Alleluia.

What does Jesus’ presentation at the temple say to you?

Which is why I’m so happy to have Jiffy Lube in my life. I love that company. There’s never really been a time I’ve gone to one that it wasn’t an actually enjoyable experience. Which is weird. Are you supposed to enjoy an oil change? I don’t know. Here’s some of what’s so great:

• They keep track of your manufacturer’s suggested maintenance time tables and your record of everything you’ve ever had done at Jiffy Lube.
• These records stay consistent among every Jiffy Lube in the country, so no matter where I go, they have a complete history of maintenance on my car and can give informed suggestions.
• If you could get the same work done elsewhere for cheaper, I’ve had several mechanics suggest where to go to get it done.
• Every employee there always seems to be in a genuinely good mood, and they are always eager to share any knowledge they may have about your vehicle or maintenance in general.
• They are really fast. Almost frustratingly so, because I can never seem to get as much reading done in the lobby as I was hoping.
• They will check your “Check Engine” light for free (some dealerships charge $75!)
• Their prices are really stinking good, and they seem to always have some sort of special going on.

And now onto the inevitable “bigger point” of all of this:

As we move further from a “service economy” into what B. Joseph Pine, II and Jim Gilmore (the economist, not the former Virginia Governor) calls an “experience economy“, the customer “experience” matters more and more. Technology and service are becoming ubiquitous and cheap enough that most any company can offer pretty much the same technologies, prices, and services as another. The difference, as we move forward as a society, will increasingly be made based on the experience of the customer–the smell of the coffee in the coffee shop, the music playing at the bar, the customer service of the phone company, and the smile on the face of the mechanic. These will all play crucial parts in the economics of the present and near future.

And Jiffy Lube has won me over. If I get even one person to get one oil change there, I will have done my job in this post. So go get one. There’s most likely a location very close to you. Thank you for reading. And thank you, Jiffy Lube (I wish I could give a Chuck-Norris-from-Dodgeball thumbs up right now).

Has anyone out there had a similar experience with a Jiffy Lube? Or maybe you’ve had a horrible experience with them? What’s your best/worst customer experience with a copmany?

I hate that it’s been almost two weeks since my last “real post”.  I’m sorry.  I need to be okay with using this blog actually as a blog and not a magazine where I’m the sole writer.  I want to engage you all more.  As has been my unattained desire for the past year, I want to do shorter posts, more audience engagement.  I know my track record sucks, but I really do have other platforms more appropriate for my larger writings, and I’m so infinitely frustrated at myself for how I treat this blog, that perhaps, maybe this time, I just might be able to make blogging a bit more of a regular habit that you all will want to read and actually comment on.  We’ll see.

Sorry for yet another filler post.  Starting Monday, I’m hoping to blog your faces off.  Until then…

I sat down last night to write an article on health care, politics, and economics last night to try and post it here today.  But, as is typical for me, I’m not even done with it and it’s already six pages long.  So, in my ever-failing attempt to put up shorter posts here, I’m going to see if that full article might work if I submitted it to some other sites.  If not, I’ll whittle it down to a manageable size and post it here.  I don’t know that it’s that profound, but there might be some substance there.  So, for my apology for not having any new material today, I’ll just pot the song/EP that have been going on repeat on my iPod.

Ladies and gentleman, I give The Civil Wars performing “Poison & Wine”.  Lyrically, one of the best relationship songs I’ve heard in years.  Musically, (at the risk of sounding cliche) it’s haunting.  Enjoy:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfzRlcnq_c0]

(Live version here)