A Universalist Looks at the New Testament: Hebrews 8 and 10

A Universalist Looks at the New Testament is a blog series showing that you can make a strong case from Scripture that all will be saved. I’m going through the New Testament and pointing out verses you might not have noticed if you simply assume that the Bible teaches that sinners will be tormented through all eternity.

I’m going to finish up the book of Hebrews by looking at verses in chapters 8 and 10. Chapter 8 is a relatively straightforward passage. It’s quoting Jeremiah 31 and talking about Israel. But if everyone in Israel will be saved, why not everyone on earth? It seems like an equal miracle to me. Here’s the passage:

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.

All of them will know the Lord, from the least of them to the greatest. It’s hard to imagine that happening here on earth.

Hebrews 12 is more difficult for a universalist. But before I type it out, notice that nothing is said about how long the punishment will last. Nothing about everlasting torment. It also seems to be talking to some extent about the judgment of believers. (“The Lord will judge his people.” They’re sanctified by his blood.) Here’s the passage, Hebrews 12:26-31 —

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Let me also note that instead of “raging fire,” the Concordant Literal New Testament translates that “fiery jealousy.”

As I’ve said many times, I believe in judgment — what I don’t believe is that the result of that judgment will be punishment without end. There will be punishment — or more accurately translated, correction. This passage suggests that some believers may also encounter judgment.

George MacDonald, the writer who first convinced me of universalism, likes to quote Hebrews 12:29 — “for our ‘God is a consuming fire.'” He suggests that all of us will encounter the purifying fire of God’s love. And that fire will burn away the impurities of sin in us, a refiner’s fire.

To the extent that sin has become entwined in our characters, become a part of who we are — to that extent is how much suffering we will experience when we encounter that fire.

Again, there’s nothing here that suggests that experience will never end.

A Universalist Looks at the New Testament: Hebrews 6

In this series, A Universalist Looks at the New Testament, I’m going through the New Testament and pointing out how things look from a universalist’s perspective. So far, we’ve found that yes, there will be judgment — but nowhere does it say that judgment will be unending torment. And the Bible does say, in many places, that all will be saved and that at the end of the ages will come the restoration of all things.

At first glance, Hebrews 6:4-6 seems to be a problem for this perspective:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

I really like George Sarris’s explanation of this passage in his book Heaven’s Doors, so I’m going to quote him here.

If it’s impossible for someone who’s fallen away to be brought back to repentance, isn’t it clear that they will never enter the presence of God? If it’s impossible for them to enter heaven, where else could they be but in hell?

The writer of Hebrews is talking to people who were slow to learn.

By this time, they should have been teachers themselves, but instead they needed others to teach them. As with many people today, these teachers were stuck going over and over the same things with people who were really only interested in arguing, not in learning the truth.

The word impossible here has a force similar to what Jesus said to His disciples after He told them it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Again, notice the use of exaggeration to make a point.

The disciples were “greatly astonished and asked, ‘Who then can be saved?’ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'”

The writer of Hebrews is not saying that it’s impossible for God to bring someone who’s fallen away from the faith back to repentance. Rather, it’s impossible, and a waste of time, for Christian leaders to try to reconvert someone who’s been acquainted with all the proofs and elements of Christianity and chosen to abandon them.

Again, even though this passage implies bad consequences — there is nothing whatsoever about unending torment as punishment.

A Universalist Looks at the New Testament: Hebrews 2

I’m a universalist. I became a universalist after reading the writings of George MacDonald. George MacDonald clearly loved the Lord and loved the Bible and had studied the Bible in the original languages. He also proclaimed that the Bible teaches that all will be saved at the end of the ages.

I didn’t understand how he could make this claim. I was surprised when I looked into it to discover the Bible really does seem to teach this — If you can open your mind to a different perspective than the one you’ve grown up with.

This series is an attempt to show another perspective, the perspective of a universalist. If you are interested in this, I’ve reviewed many books that take up a straightforward case for universalism, and I highly recommend any of them. This series goes through the New Testament and points out how the plain reading of various passages looks different if you start with the possibility that universal salvation is true.

I began this series going along as my church was reading through the New Testament, but I’ve gotten a bit behind. Today let’s look at Hebrews 2.

The beginning section says,

For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?

I want to point out from this section the words “just punishment.” I know that we’ve been taught that it is a just punishment for sin, but take a different perspective for a minute. Does anyone really think that unending, infinite torment is truly just punishment for any sin that’s been done during a finite human lifetime here on earth? I believe the very idea of God being perfectly just rules out unending torment for anyone. And there are places in the Bible where it would seem to indicate that some will get worse punishment than others. That doesn’t make sense if all people receive unending torment.

But then a more explicitly universalist statement comes in verse 9:

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

If Jesus tasted death for everyone, shouldn’t everyone receive the benefit of that? Was his death ineffective?

The writer goes on about all that Jesus has done in verses 14-18:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death – that is, the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Did Jesus really break the power of him who holds the power of death – if many people are still destined to be dying eternally?

Did Jesus make atonement for the sins of the people – if many people are left out of that?

How effective was Jesus’ offering? Is Christ triumphant, or not?

I’m going to leave that question there.

Jesus tasted death for everyone. And he broke the power of him who holds the power of death.

A Universalist Looks at the New Testament: Acts 3

My series A Universalist Looks at the New Testament is about going through the New Testament and showing how it reads differently when you don’t rule out the possibility that God really might be saying that one day He is going to save everyone. Acts 3:21 has another passage like that.

Peter was preaching, and talking about Jesus when he said this:

Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Universalists believe that yes, there will be judgment. There will even be suffering as people receive punishment and correction for their sins. But one day, at the end of the ages, “God will restore everything.”

Is everything really restored if some are still suffering in hell?

Peter finishes his sermon in verses 25 and 26 —

And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.

They were the first to be blessed. But they will not be the last!

A Universalist Looks at the New Testament: The Gospel of John

I’ve been writing my series, A Universalist Looks at the New Testament, parallel with my church’s plan to read through the New Testament, but in the last few months got behind. Tonight I’d like to catch up the rest of the gospel of John.

I already covered some big themes in John that continue throughout the book. In John 3, we saw that God loves everyone and there will be judgment. But nothing anywhere in the book says that the judgment is torment that will be endless. We also saw that becoming God’s child changes our very being. It means we are no longer perishing. We also saw it brings a different quality of life. In John 5, we saw more about that Life that comes from the Son.

In John, we see that some do not believe. From John 6:64-65 —

“Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

There is more talk of the consequences of that and of judgment, but still nothing that says judgment will last forever.

In John, we see that Jesus is supremely important. From John 14:6-7 —

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

John has been teaching all along that Jesus came to reveal God to us. (John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”) And although in the book of John we see that some rejected Jesus even during his lifetime, we know from Philippians 2:10-11 that at the end of the ages “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

This is why I am a Christian Universalist. I believe that all who come to God are doing so through Jesus. The Father enables them to come to Jesus, and Jesus shows them the truth, the way to God, the way to life.

But many verses in John also give us an idea of the scope of Jesus’ mission. He gives life to the world. John 6:33 —

For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

John 6:51 —

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 8:12 —

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Here’s an all verse, John 8:32 —

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

More about the scope in John 8:47 —

For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Another all verse in John 17:2, which I’m going to quote in the context of verses 1 through 4.

Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

This reminds us that Jesus said his work is finished. Surely Jesus did not fail as he came to seek and to save what was lost?

I would like to repeat John 17:1-2 from the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Father, come has the hour. Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son should be glorifying Thee, according as Thou givest Him authority over all flesh, that everything which Thou hast given to Him, He should be giving it to them, even life eonian.

A different translation — and a translation that tries hard to exactly match the original language — does carry a more explicit meaning that Jesus is giving everything to all flesh — life eonian.

This is only a summary of what we find in the rest of John. But you can see from these verses that not only did God so love the world, Jesus came to give life to the world.

Transcending: Gracious Argument

I have a lot more to say in this Transcending blog series about what both Science and the Bible have to say about transgender people. But today I want to step back and talk about some things I’ve learned about arguing with grace while I’ve been going through this process of trying to convince my former church not to adopt a new “Christian Living Statement” as part of their constitution.

Let me say right up front that I am not good at arguing graciously. A lot of this was learned from doing it poorly.

However, I do think this process highlighted some principles I want to take away and apply the next time I disagree with someone on a matter of principle.

Like so much else, it goes back to Patricia Evans and her books on Verbal Abuse. I’ve read five of them: The Verbally Abusive Relationship, The Verbally Abusive Man, Verbal Abuse Survivors Speak Out, Victory Over Verbal Abuse, and Controlling People.

The big idea behind those books is that it is verbally abusive to define other people or to tell them they have bad motives or to tell them what they themselves are thinking or feeling or what they should be thinking or feeling.

The bottom-line reason that verbal abuse is so hurtful is that it is nonsense. We have no ability to read minds, and we cannot tell what another person is thinking or feeling or what their motives are.

One thing I like about using it as a standard for argument is that it is about the statements made.  You don’t have to attribute bad motives to the person making the statement.  But if someone says, “You hate America,” that is a verbally abusive statement, saying something they can’t possibly know, since they can’t read your mind.

If someone makes verbally abusive statements even when you explain they have misjudged you or continues in a persistent pattern, you don’t have to even speculate about their motives, but it is a good idea to protect yourself.  Unfriend them on Facebook, stop communication.

Now, using “verbal abuse” about this, although I believe it can be warranted if done persistently, has strong negative connotations that are almost abusive themselves by this definition. So I am going to try to focus on the flip side of it and look at how we can avoid defining and attributing bad motives to other people when we argue with them. When we manage to do this, we come across as arguing with grace.

In the post I called Self-Definition, I looked at how this applies to trusting transgender people to know who they are.  People do it over and over again every time they say transgender people are “confused” or even refuse to use the word “transgender” but instead talk about “gender confusion.”  But now I’m talking about how it applies to arguments about principles.

As I was arguing about my former church’s proposed policy, I found that people responded defensively when they thought I was accusing them of being unloving, but people responded surprisingly well when I assured them that I didn’t think they were trying to hurt anyone.

But there were several times in the interactions when I was told how my thought-processes were wrong or how my motives were bad.

When I look back at the interactions, I think it goes back to the definition of verbal abuse. Or said more positively, it seemed to depend on whether grace was inserted in the conversation — whether good motives were assumed and mentioned or not.

Let’s look at some actual things that were said to me.

This one came from someone outside the church when I posted on Facebook about finding a Bible-believing church that welcomes and affirms LGBTQ people:  “You care more about feeling happy than you do about truth.”

Some verses were cited along with this statement.  But I (and the church I attend now) interpret those verses differently.  And the speaker actually cannot see inside me and know what I care about.  In fact, part of what upset me so much about my former church’s new policy is that I firmly believe it is contrary to Scripture and therefore contrary to Truth.

Others urged me to read the Bible more, as if that would change my views.  I’m not even sure how I could fit more time reading, studying, and memorizing the Bible into my life.  No, my views on this are coming directly out of my study of the Bible.

I do realize, though, that those who disagree with me are also getting their opinion from the Bible.  It is possible to interpret Scripture in different ways.  That doesn’t mean they don’t care about Truth.

There were some hurtful exchanges with the leadership of my former church.  I was told I was making too big a deal of the change.  I was told I didn’t understand the situation.  I was told what I was trying to do.  (It was not what I was actually trying to do:  Show that the policy was unbiblical and would hurt people.)

I was also told that I was using “many, many words” and wanted to use “many, many more” — which came across as telling me I was talking too much and being shrill.  In the same email I was told the writer could hear me “practically screaming” a response.  Putting words in someone else’s mouth in argument is creating a straw man.  Creating a straw man of the person you are actually speaking with is not respectful.

So those were some negative things that happened.  I very much doubt that my own words in that exchange were well chosen either.

However, an interaction that really surprised me happened after the first member meeting where the policy was discussed.

I sent the pastor an email where I said this:

I’m bringing up a very small point, because I suspect you will encounter transgender people in your life, and you would like to be able to minister to them.  The point is this:
 
Every time you use the word “transgenderism” I cringe inside and draw back.
 
Because transgender people never use that word about themselves.
 
So that gives transgender people and those who affirm them a heads’ up that the person who said that has not been listening to transgender people.
 
Do you want transgender people to cringe when you speak about them?
 
If not, you should try to avoid using that word.
 
Thought I should let you know!

What surprised me about it was that even though I wrote it when I was angry, the pastor thanked me for sending it. He said that I would have to have assumed the best about him.

All I said was, “you would like to be able to minister to them.”  But I do believe that about him.

In the next membership meeting I attended, he did not once use the word “transgenderism,” nor did he even once call transgender people “confused” (though an elder did).

And that’s what I’m getting at here.  Assume the best about people.  Try to tell them so.  It injects some grace.

I do believe my former pastor that he does not at all want to be offensive.  I do believe him that he wants LGBTQ people to feel loved and respected when he talks with them.

Yes, I believe that my former church is trying to be loving and caring toward LGBTQ people.  The elders have assured me of this repeatedly.  It’s in the policy statement itself.

I also believe that making up burdensome rules not found in Scripture is the sin of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:4.  However, I don’t think the church is willfully sinning.  I believe them that they honestly think LGBTQ people are sinning — so the loving thing to do, in their eyes, is to respect and love them, but when asked, help them avoid this “sin.”

I disagree with their initial assumption.  I do not think that same-sex marriage is sinful.  And I don’t think that transgender people changing their bodies to match their gender identity is sinful.

But the motives of my former church are good.  They are not being hateful.  They are trying to help people they love avoid sin.  They’re trying to build a relationship close enough that they will be asked for help.

But let’s mention that my motives, too, were good.  I honestly was trying to keep the church body I loved from falling into the sin of the Pharisees.  I thought I had some extra insight into the situation because of having transgender people in my life whom I also love deeply.  I have also studied the Bible in depth on this topic and hoped that would give my words some weight.

And after it was all over, I did get some acknowledgement of that, which does help ease the hurt.  But please, when you’re arguing with me, don’t dismiss my argument because you don’t think I understand or you think I don’t care about the truth.

And I will try hard to do the same about people I disagree with.

Most of my friends have good motives.  Most of them want to be loving and caring in their interactions with others.  We may disagree about how that can be accomplished, but their hearts are in the right place.

When we can admit that about people on the other side of an argument, we’ll cause less pain.  We can insert some grace into the conversation.

And that’s what I’m trying to say in this installment of my many, many words.

Transcending: Saying Farewell

I’m writing a blog series Transcending: They’ll Know Us By Our Love, about the church and LGBTQ people, beginning with transgender people.

In The Situation, I told why this is personal for me. My church was considering changing their constitution to include a “Christian Living Statement” that marriage is defined as uniting one man and one woman (thus ruling out same-sex marriage) and that transgender people dishonor God’s design when they make any physical changes from the gender they were assigned at birth (not using that language, of course).

I disagree with the changes and have attempted to explain why in this blog series.

We voted on the changes this past Sunday, and the new policy passed. So it is time for me to say good-by. Fortunately, it doesn’t look like I’m going to have any difficulty finding an inclusive Bible-believing church where I can worship.

But I am grieved that my former church has taken this step. I’m going to copy out the letter I wrote resigning my membership to explain why I must resign my membership.

I will take out the name of the church, but here is the letter I sent to the pastor and the elders. There are more friends I haven’t gotten to talk with personally about this, so please consider this a letter to you, too:

Dear Friends,

It is with deep sadness that I am resigning my membership at [Former Church].

I’ve been a member for almost 13 years, and folks from [Former Church] brought me through the devastation of my divorce, took care of me when I had my stroke, and rejoiced with me as I served on the Newbery committee.

At [Former Church], I learned to listen to what God had to say to me — and not be apologetic about that. I see people with a heart for others — people who radiate God’s glory.

I’m still convinced that the number of times God uncannily spoke to me through a sermon or a song in the service is evidence that [Former Church]’s leadership are listening to God’s guidance as they plan each service, and that God’s Spirit is deeply present.

I am, though, deeply grieved about the new Christian Living Statement. You all know that I am convinced that the transgender paragraph in particular is not remotely biblical.

But the reason my conscience will not allow me to keep my membership at [Former Church] is that I also believe it is deeply hurtful toward a vulnerable group of people — a group that includes people I love. I would be ashamed to tell my kids I was a member of a church that adopted this policy, and it violates my conscience to have my name associated with it in any way, even by implication.

Know that I respect your desire to follow Jesus and your deep commitment to love everyone — including those you think are sinning. I am not for a moment saying that you are trying to be hurtful.

But I think it’s a very sad thing to tell people it is sinful to express the person they truly are, whom God created them to be. That is what transgender people say is happening.

Details: [Here I include ministry areas I’m resigning from.]

I am planning to attend [my friend]’s baptism this summer, and hope to find my way to [Former Church] for other special events. But I do feel like God is leading me to find a church home that is more inclusive toward all the members of Christ’s body.

But [Former Church] will always have my deep affection, love, and gratitude! You have been a supremely important part of my growth these last 13 years.

Much love,

Sondy Eklund

Transcending: Gender-Expansive Children

I’m writing a blog series Transcending: They’ll Know Us By Our Love, about the church and LGBTQ people, beginning with transgender people.

The Situation told why this is personal for me.

Creation looked at what the Bible says about gender and how what transgender people say about themselves matches that.

The Science looked at the considerable scientific research that also matches both what the Bible says and what transgender people say about themselves.

Self-Definition looks at why we should believe people when they tell us who they are.

What Does the Bible Say? looks at what the Bible says about transgender people changing their bodies to match their gender. Spoiler alert: It says nothing against it! And has plenty to say about supporting and accepting who they are.

Not Conforming to the World looks at how transgender people are a marginalized group of outsiders – and the church should not be piling on.

Choice and Non-Choice looks at some evidence that LGBTQ people are born that way.

Interpretation points out that concluding homosexuality is sinful is by no means the only reasonable interpretation of Romans 1 and other New Testament passages.

Today I’m going to look at gender-expansive children and how pediatricians recommend that we respond to them.

In my first Science link, I only referenced one professional organization of doctors. Even though I do not believe that the Endocrine Society has any reason to be biased in favor of offering treatment that is not helpful, I’ve been challenged about this, so have done some research about other professional organizations of medical doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists. It turns out that most national and international organizations of these professionals have some sort of statement, if they interact with transgender people at all. And they offer links to peer-reviewed studies and yet more scientific evidence on the effectiveness and helpfulness of treatment.

I want to look at more of these links, and I’ve decided to look in more detail instead of looking at them as a group – there’s so much information, it can get overwhelming.

It’s interesting to me that random google searches don’t necessarily gather this information, but if you’re looking specifically for professional organizations, you can find them, including those crucial links to research.

I’d like to start with a comprehensive paper compiled by the American Academy of Pediatrics called “Supporting and Caring for Transgender Children.” This paper was prepared in conjunction with the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

I’m going to highlight some statements in the paper, but I do highly recommend reading it fully, if you have any interest at all in understanding transgender children and the things they are dealing with.

Before I go through the paper, I want to make some comments. People who believe that using hormonal therapy or surgery to alter ones bodies is “opposed to God’s design,” and people who think transgender people are “confused” or perverting their sex drive or simply highly suggestible and led astray by counselors – have trouble explaining why young children would ever claim to be transgender.

With children, it’s definitely not about sex. That throws off the idea that being transgender is some kind of sexual perversion. On a child’s level, it’s about who they are and other people calling them the wrong thing.

Most transgender adults who came out as children now tell us that they explained to their parents that the parents were getting their gender wrong, not the other way around. This wasn’t about gender stereotypes or what colors they liked or what they wanted to play with, but was somehow about who they are.

Personally, this fits my belief that God created people “male and female,” and gender identity is something you are born with. Gender identity is biologically located in your brain and won’t always match your external organs, just as chromosomes don’t always match your external organs and internal organs don’t always match your external organs. That even children claim to know their own gender despite what people tell them seems to be strong evidence that gender identity and genitals don’t always have to match.

But let’s look at the American Academy of Pediatrics paper, “Supporting and Caring for Transgender Children.” I’m going to go through it in detail, but do recommend reading it yourself.

They begin with a story, mentioning Jazz Jennings, one of the youngest people to publicly come out as transgender. She is now eighteen years old and has had gender confirmation surgery and is still happy with her journey. But the point of mentioning her is that she testifies that she had a safe and happy childhood.

The purpose of the guide is clearly stated:

This guide is designed for anyone who knows a transgender or gender-expansive child, plans to write about children who transition, or simply wants to learn more. It reviews what medical and education experts know about transgender children, explores some myths about gender transition in childhood, and offers suggestions for adults with a transgender child in their life.

The focus is on children who have not yet reached puberty, approximately ages 5 to 10.

First, they explain terms. They tell about gender-expansive children, who don’t necessarily follow norms for gender expression.

Occasionally, a child consistently asserts a gender identity inconsistent with the sex they were assigned at birth. Jazz, for example, insisted she was “really a girl,” despite being told she was a boy. These children may also express discomfort with their sex, such as a desire to be rid of their genitals or a wish that they’d been “born in a different body.” They will often say “I am…” rather than “I wish I were…” Children and adults who identify with a gender and/or sex different than what they were assigned at birth are known as transgender. Transgender children are a subset of gender-expansive kids.

They cite a study that most gender-expansive children do not grow up to be transgender adults. Being gender-expansive is much more common than being transgender.

The first advice they give is not to pressure children — one way or the other.

Although families and communities may struggle with uncertainty, pressure (either to transition or to stop gender-expansive behaviors) can be harmful, so their patience and support are immensely important.

It is not uncommon for a child to feel pressure — at home, school or elsewhere — to hide their gender-expansive traits. This social pressure, when it exists, can be intense and very painful, leading children to hide their “true gender selves” altogether. Families may even encourage the child to do so, hoping to protect them from bullying. Unfortunately, hiding one’s identity or gender-expansive traits can cause serious problems during childhood and later in life — including depression, anxiety, self-harm and even suicide.

Just like the studies the Endocrine Society linked to, the Pediatricians also assert that gender identity cannot be changed by others (with links).

Although social experiences help to shape a child’s gender identity, neither families nor professionals can change that identity, and trying to do so can be extremely harmful.

Next they discuss gender dysphoria and transgender children. I want to highlight that for children, they are not talking about medical intervention.

Depending on the child’s age and signs of distress, “gender-affirmative” counseling or therapy can help manage gender dysphoria. However, in many cases, the remedy for dysphoria is gender transition: taking steps to affirm the gender that feels comfortable and authentic to the child. It is important to understand that, for children who have not reached puberty, gender transition involves no medical interventions at all: it consists of social changes like name, pronoun and gender expression.

While acceptance and affirmation at home can help a great deal, children do not grow up in a vacuum, so even children with supportive families may experience dysphoria. Nonetheless, families and doctors of transgender children often report that the gender transition process is transformative — even life-saving. Often, parents and clinicians describe remarkable improvements in the child’s psychological well-being.

They mention, as I’ve read other places, that a child who is transgender will be insistent, consistent, and persistent about their gender identity, with little or no ambivalence.

The paper explains that even without medical intervention, transition is not simple, and they’ll need medical, psychological, family, and school support.

I love this paragraph about how that transition typically goes for the child, despite all the challenges:

Despite these difficulties, a child’s gender transition is almost always a positive event. Often, the child’s debilitating gender dysphoria symptoms lift, diminishing difficult behavior that came with them. Dr. Ehrensaft calls this the ex post facto (“after the fact”) test: a dramatic reduction in stress, and blossoming happiness for the child and family, indicate that social transition has been the right choice. Along with joy at this renewed well-being, families are often thrilled to find that gender transition removes the emphasis on gender in a child’s life. With their gender identity no longer in conflict, the child can focus on the important work of learning and growing alongside their peers. Many children feel relief, even euphoria, that the adults in their life have listened and understood them.

(This is exactly what I’ve heard about from so many mothers of transgender children in my Facebook group.)

The article does touch on what’s going to happen when puberty hits. Usually transgender children will take puberty-blockers to give them more time to be sure whether they want to fully transition as a transgender adult. These are fully reversible.

Another important section sums up what we do know with very good evidence at this time (and it’s heavily footnoted):

Experts who work with transgender children, adolescents and adults generally agree on some important points. First, transgender adolescents and adults rarely regret gender transition, and the process (including social and/or medical changes) substantially improves their well-being. Second, some children express a strong transgender identity from a young age and grow into transgender adults who can live happily and healthily in their authentic gender. Third, discouraging or shaming a child’s gender identity or expression harms the child’s social-emotional health and well-being, and may have lifelong consequences.

A very important section follows, where they look at the strong evidence that gender-affirmative therapy (“focusing on what the child says about their own gender identity and expression, and allowing them to determine which forms of gender expression feel comfortable and authentic”) is the best approach, as opposed to reparative therapy, which attempts to “correct” gender-expansive behaviors, or delayed transition, which “prohibits transition until a child reaches adolescence or even older, regardless of their gender dysphoria symptoms.”

While researchers have much to learn about gender-expansive and transgender children, there is evidence that both reparative therapy and delayed transition can have serious negative consequences for children. While some groups promote these strategies in good faith, many use misleading descriptions of research or even outright misinformation.

This section describes the theory and evidence behind each approach. It explains why clinicians have embraced gender-affirmative care, and outlines what we have yet to learn about caring for transgender children.

Right now, my church is considering a policy that says that any “attempt to change ones birth sex” is “opposed to God’s design.” Since that amounts to saying that gender-affirmative therapy is opposed to God’s design, they’re left with reparative therapy. Please, please, take a look at the statistics here which show great harm can come from reparative therapy. Follow the links and look closely before saying that transgender children must use this approach, against the overwhelming consensus of major medical organizations.

There is no scientific evidence that reparative therapy helps with gender dysphoria or prevents children from becoming transgender adults. Instead, experts and professional organizations believe that it inflicts lasting damage on children. In particular, it harms family relationships and makes children feel ashamed of who they are. Sociologist Karl Bryant, who as a young boy underwent therapy designed to make him less stereotypically feminine, wrote in 2007 that “the most enduring residue [of the treatment was] the shame of knowing that those I was closest to disapproved of me in what felt like very profound ways.”

They then look at Delayed Transition and the problems with not treating children individually, but setting rules for all children based on age.

That section has some lovely conclusions:

Gender-affirmative clinicians emphasize considering each child individually — and in terms of their developmental stage, not their age. They advise that transition should take place when the child indicates that they are ready, rather than when adults dictate it.

With affirmation and support, many transgender and gender-expansive children mature into happy, healthy young adults. These young people are remarkably resilient to the challenges they face. Emerging research reports that transgender children whose families affirm their gender identity are as psychologically healthy as their non-transgender peers.

The paper finishes up with advice to parents and with lists of resources (and of course the 98 footnotes). They don’t want anyone to rush to assume their child is transgender (most gender-expansive children aren’t), but they do want parents to assure their children that they are loved unconditionally, “however they express themselves and whoever they grow up to be.”

Growing up transgender or gender-expansive can be difficult. By supporting families, sharing the facts and practicing gender-affirmative attitudes with all children, each of us can make life a little easier for these unique, resilient kids.

Transcending: Interpretation

I’m writing a blog series Transcending: They’ll Know Us By Our Love, about the church and LGBTQ people, beginning with transgender people.

The Situation told why this is personal for me.

Creation looked at what the Bible says about gender and how what transgender people say about themselves matches that.

The Science looked at the considerable scientific research that also matches both what the Bible says and what transgender people say about themselves.

Self-Definition looks at why we should believe people when they tell us who they are.

What Does the Bible Say? looks at what the Bible says about transgender people changing their bodies to match their gender. Spoiler alert: It says nothing against it! And has plenty to say about supporting and accepting who they are.

Not Conforming to the World looks at how transgender people are a marginalized group of outsiders – and the church should not be piling on.

Choice and Non-Choice looks at some evidence that LGBTQ people are born that way.

I’d been meaning to finish talking about transgender people first, but tonight I’d like to talk about same-sex marriage.

My church is indeed pursuing adding a policy to its constitution stating that transgender people changing their bodies to match their gender identity dishonors God’s design and that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. In the first members’ meeting to discuss this, the pastor read from Romans 1 and said that the plain meaning is that homosexuality is sinful.

[After that, he admitted that there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against transgender people changing their bodies to match their gender identity. But said we can conclude it’s wrong because of creation. I covered that reasoning in Transcending: Creation.]

I will grant you that reading Romans 1 in English in 2019 does give the impression that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

But what if one of Paul’s contemporaries who was a native Greek speaker came forward in time? If we explained same-sex marriage to that person, would they think it had anything to do with what Paul was talking about?

Look more closely at what Paul is saying. It’s not a prohibition. It’s all in present tense. Paul is saying, “Look at how terrible our society has gotten!”

I recently read Paul Among the People, by Sarah Ruden, an expert on Graeco-Roman literature. She writes about what people were doing in that time period. It was commonplace for men to prove their manhood by preying on the weak – slaves, boys, men of lesser standing. It was even part of their idol worship, especially of Priapus, an idol of sexual aggression. She points out that Paul’s attitude was completely different from other writers of the time:

Paul could have, like generations of Greek and Roman moralistic and satirical commentators, lit into passive homosexuality, into the victims. But in Romans 1 he makes no distinction between active and passive: the whole transaction is wrong. This is crucially indicated by his use of the Greek word for “males,” arsenes, for everybody; he does not use the word for “men,” as the NRSV translation would have us believe. The Classical and New Testament word for a socially acceptable, sexually functional man is aner. In traditional parlance, this could mean an active but never a passive homosexual. But Paul places on a par all the male participants in homosexual acts, emphasizing this in Romans 2:1 and clearly implying that they are all morally degraded and that they all become physically debilitated from the sex act with each other. Such effects were unheard of among the Greeks and Romans when it came to active homosexuals: these were thought only to draw their passive partners’ moral and physical integrity into themselves.

This has nothing in common with a loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationship.

What if couples in same-sex marriages are not sinning? What if the act of homosexuality is not sinful unless you’re hurting someone?

For that matter, does the New Testament call anything else sinful that doesn’t harm anyone – either the person doing it or someone else? If Paul was talking about preying on weaker people, then it makes sense for him to condemn it. But how does a committed same-sex marriage hurt anyone?

If we exclude people in same-sex marriages from membership in our churches, aren’t we saying to a part of the body of Christ – “We don’t need you”?

For that matter, we agree that everyone who comes to Christ comes as a sinner. We expect, after they accept Christ, for His Spirit to work in their lives and that He’ll help them overcome sin. Christians are not under Law, but under Grace – in the past, my church has let the Holy Spirit decide what sins other people should work on. The important thing has been that we’re a gathering of people who have accepted Jesus as the Lord of our lives.

There are verses about coming alongside Christians who are trapped in sin – but always gently and with humility. And those verses never call out a specific sin ahead of time. There are many, many more verses about how important it is not to judge others. Remove the beam from your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your brother’s eye!

If we add a Code of Conduct (even if it’s called a “Christian Living Statement”), we’re saying that these particular sins have to be cleaned up before you can be a member of this church. And it’s questionable whether they are actually sins.

And that’s the biggest problem I have with calling same-sex marriage sinful. The only reason to do so is because you believe one particular interpretation of the Bible – an interpretation that many, many other Christians don’t agree with. But it doesn’t harm anyone. In fact, same-sex marriage, like heterosexual marriage, is all about love. Isn’t Love a good thing?

People say that they believe same-sex marriage is wrong because the Bible says so – so this way they can be proud of how faithful they are to the Bible. But please be aware that this is your interpretation of what the Bible says, and it is by no means certain. And it doesn’t fit well with the rest of the Bible message to love one another, to include all parts of the body of Christ, and not to judge.

Judging others indeed does harm. And it’s so much easier to judge about things you’ll never be tempted to do. As I covered in Choice and Non-Choice, there’s plenty of evidence LGBTQ people are born LGBTQ people. Do we really believe that God’s best for every single one of them is a life without a committed, loving, monogamous partnership? And we’re basing that on one interpretation that’s quite weak if you look at the historical context.

Transcending – Choice and Non-Choice

I’m writing a blog series Transcending: They’ll Know Us By Our Love, about the church and LGBTQ people, beginning with transgender people.

The Situation told why this is personal for me.

Creation looked at what the Bible says about gender and how what transgender people say about themselves matches that.

The Science looked at the considerable scientific research that also matches both what the Bible says and what transgender people say about themselves.

Self-Definition looks at why we should believe people when they tell us who they are.

What Does the Bible Say? looks at what the Bible says about transgender people changing their bodies to match their gender. Spoiler alert: It says nothing against it! And has plenty to say about supporting and accepting who they are.

Not Conforming to the World looks at how transgender people are a marginalized group of outsiders – and the church should not be piling on.

Today I want to say something about choices. Often when I talk to people who condemn transgender people, I get the impression that they think being transgender is either a delusion or something people choose on a whim.

For example, after my last post, someone asked me: If transgender people have a suicide attempt rate of 37% — so much higher than in the general population – aren’t you afraid to have your child be transgender? Why would you ever affirm that?

This person was forgetting the other part of the statistic. (These are from the 2015 U. S. Transgender Survey of 28,000 transgender people.) For transgender people with nonsupportive families, the suicide attempt rate was 54%. You better believe I’m going to be supportive!

Now, I grant you – nobody has statistics about people whose families were nonsupportive who decided not to come out as transgender after all. But I have a very hard time believing that group has very many members. You might hide who you are because of your family, but you can’t change who you are.

Transgender people keep telling us, This is who I am.

In fact, as I mentioned in my Science post, Science keeps telling us gender identity is something you’re born with. And even though we try, people have not figured out a way to change someone’s gender identity.

I am going to eventually do a lot more posts about scientific and research studies. I’ve discovered that at least a dozen major medical organizations have position statements about transgender people. But in the meantime, I ran across this summary of studies on human sexuality and gender, put together by a doctor and her husband, a librarian.

The author of the webpage summarizes her literature review as follows:

Our LGBTQ community has consistently told us that sexual orientation and gender identity are not chosen, and cannot be changed. Based on the consistency of their stories, the available scientific literature, and the complete lack of evidence in any opposing viewpoints, it is time that we believe them.

I found another literature review by following the link in the Endocrine Society Position Statement on Transgender Health. It’s called Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. With the help of google, you can download and read the actual article. There is lots of evidence that gender identity resides biologically in our brains and is something we’re born with. It doesn’t necessarily match our genitalia and doesn’t necessarily match our chromosomes. The best way to be sure which gender someone has is to ask the person who lives in that brain.

Just today, a friend announced that her spouse is coming out as a transgender woman. I love the way her spouse put it in her Facebook announcement:

I have been living with something for most of my life that I’ve kept fairly well hidden until now. I am a transgender woman currently in the process of transitioning to present as a woman. I know this will come as a shock to most of you reading this as I don’t come across as very feminine (and have been told this by those who already know). Please know that this is something very real that I’ve lived with since high school and it was only in the last few years that I felt I could start the transition process and begin to live as my true self. It’s been a personal challenge coming out to family and close friends but everyone has been loving and supportive and now I’m ready to come out to the wider world.

Listen to what she says! Yes, she had a choice whether to present as a woman, whether to come out as transgender. But she didn’t have a choice about the fact that she is a transgender woman. She is courageously saying, “This is Who I am!

No one’s going to take lightly a choice to change their body and their appearance. But choosing which gender we are? We don’t actually have that choice.

And I’m never going to make a blanket statement of what people should do who know they are a gender different from the one they were told they were all their lives, the one that matches their external genitalia.

But please, churches, let’s not make a blanket statement either. Sometimes, what honors God’s design is for transgender people to use current medical science to make their appearance and body match the true gender they know themselves to be.

Who you are is not a choice.

How you present your body to express who you are? That choice should be yours and yours alone.