Married man and father of two sons becomes a woman

A transgendered person is one who self-identifies with a gender role that does not match his/her biological sex. The video above tells the story of such a man who “transitioned” himself into a “woman.” Even though he was married with two small sons, he wanted to stop being a man and become what he always felt himself to be—a female.

A couple of things to note about this video:

(1) NBC presents this story simply as “the changing face of the American family.” In other words, this is supposed to indicate the new normal. They are showing us this family so that everyone can understand that this is just the way things are. Deal with it. There are absolutely no questions about the morality of what this man did to his family. As long as nobody gets hurt, then obviously “transitioning” to become a “woman” is okay. See, everyone’s just fine. So obviously there’s no relevant moral concern here. As the great philosopher Sheryl Crow once put it, “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad.”

(2) This is the logical consequence of feminism and mainstream gender theory. It is taken as axiomatic that gender is something that you learn, not something that you are. Masculinity and femininity are simply roles that we are socialized into. They have nothing to do with what we intrinsically are. That’s what the spirit of the age says, in any case. This view of manhood and womanhood directly contradicts what the Bible says. In the scripture, there is a normative connection between biological sex and gender identity (e.g., Gen. 1:26-27; 2:18; Eph. 5:21-31). In a fallen world, men and women will sometimes gravitate toward a gender identity that doesn’t match their biological sex. That is why creational norms are so important. The right thing to do is dictated by those divine norms, not by someone’s subjective impression of their gender identity. But this truth has been lost on the man in this video, and his family is now living with the consequences of his sad decision.

70 Responses to Married man and father of two sons becomes a woman

  1. Julie Anne May 5, 2013 at 11:36 pm #

    Denny, We’re on the same page as far as the morality issue, but how are you defining feminism? When I read it in the context here, it seems to imply something different than what it means to me (ie, the rights of women in socio-economical terms: voting, equal pay for equal job, etc).

  2. Dallas Goebel May 5, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

    Language has lost all meaning. “Love,” “family,” “normal,” “forgiveness,” “he,” “she.” Christians have their work cut out for them. We’re not simply in a battle over the nature of gender, we are in a fight for the meaning of every significant word in the english language. This is truly sad—sad, understood rightly.

    • Lynn Burgess May 6, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

      Dallas: “Our work” is to be salt and light and share the beauty of our Savior and his sacrificial saving love with the lost. I am increasingly persuaded that we have confused saving our culture and our historic American way of life with the great commission, indeed, “our work,” as our Savior left us the assignment.

  3. bravelass May 6, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    Hi Denny,

    Here’s me quibbling again ;-0

    Gender *is* something you learn. You learn the culturally appropriate behaviors and mannerisms that belong to your sex. Sex is biological. It cannot change. The rest of point 2 is spot on.

    That said, I think you cede too much to the reigning paradigm when you write that this is, “a married man who “transitioned” himself into a woman.” He was, is, and will remain a man. If law enforcement were ever to find physical evidence at a crime scene, the DNA would tell them they were looking for a man. Even though he has had his bits chopped about and re-formed, his body still knows he is a he — as evidenced by his new lifelong hormone regimen. And, while the surgeries are getting better and better, those of us who have been around transsexuals can often spot the tell tale signs that belie the attempts to pretend to be something other than they are.

    • buddyglass May 6, 2013 at 9:19 am #

      Not sure I’m willing to leave DNA as the sole determinant of biological sex. For instance, what do you do with someone who has all the external characteristics of being female yet who has androgen insensitivity syndrome and who happens to have a Y chromosome? Male or female?

      • bravelass May 6, 2013 at 12:49 pm #

        Buddy,

        There’s an old saying, not strictly apropos but it helps make the point:

        Hard cases make bad law.

        It’s not called a syndrome because it is good and right and normal. Did you notice the language in that Wikipedia article you linked? Even Wikipedia, recognizes that child is male.

        I guess we are pretty confused about sex in the healthcare field. Silly docs. About the first thing they do when a baby is born with, say, ambiguous external genitalia is order chromosome studies.

        • buddyglass May 6, 2013 at 3:01 pm #

          Wiki is actually specific in saying”genetic males”. I’ll agree with that usage. DNA is the arbiter of genetic maleness. In terms of “God created them male and female” though, I’d suggest that someone who develops as a woman despite being “genetically male” could reasonably be viewed as having been “created female”.

          That’s not the case with the guy who’s the subject of this article. I’m more responding to the suggestion that it’s always possible to draw a “bright line” between male and female.

          • bravelass May 6, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

            How can someone who develops as “A” be said to have been created as “A” despite having the raw material, as it were, of “B”?

            Sin and the Fall have brought us a lot of things – cancer, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s and Down Syndrome as well as Klinefelter’s syndrome and androgen insensitivity syndrome. That doesn’t preclude God’s having created bright lines.

            There’s nothing so predictable as our culture’s penchant for sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal.

            • buddyglass May 6, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

              “How can someone who develops as “A” be said to have been created as “A” despite having the raw material, as it were, of “B”?”

              The “raw material” with which this person was created, despite including a Y chromosome, also includes the genetic trait that nullifies the presence of that Y chromosome for the purpose of inducing male development.

              “That doesn’t preclude God’s having created bright lines.”

              Sure. Regardless of whether the reason for the line being blurred is the fallen nature of creation, the fact remains that (in some cases) the lines are blurred. I’m not willing to blast someone with a Y chromosome (who has nevertheless has developed physically as a woman) for living as a woman instead of as a man. (Again, not the case for the guy who’s the subject of Denny’s article.)

              “There’s nothing so predictable as our culture’s penchant for sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal.”

              You obviously disagree, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. From my perspective, it’s as if you’re saying, “The undeniable laws of the universe state that the sun always rises in the east”, when, in fact, in some rare occasions the sun actually rises in the west.

              • bravelass May 6, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

                It doesn’t “nullify” the presence of the Y chromosome, it prevents its proper expression.

                You might want to change your perspective 🙂 alternatively, you might give me an example in which anything medically designated as a syndrome is also said to be good, right, or normal.

                • buddyglass May 7, 2013 at 8:57 am #

                  Here’s a hypo constructed to be as difficult as possible. You have a daughter. She seems to be female in every way. You raise her as a girl. During puberty she develops hips, breasts and other external sexual characteristics. She wears dresses, has crushes on boys and dreams of what her wedding will be like some day. She never starts to menstruate, but she’s also into sports so you chalk it up to that. She goes to college, meets a young man and marries him. After having trouble conceiving, the couple undergoes genetic testing as a preliminary part of fertility treatment. Turns out your daughter has a Y-chromosome.

                  Do she and her husband divorce because their marriage is revealed to be homosexual? Should she have a double mastectomy, take enough synthetic testosterone to overwhelm her body’s insensitivity, have surgery to approximate male genitalia and start lifting weights in an effort to emulate male physical characteristics? If she wants to continue to live as a woman and her husband is a believer, should he divorce her? For that matter, is their marriage even valid in the legal sense?

                  • Julie Anne May 7, 2013 at 10:09 am #

                    buddyglass – It makes me wonder whether some of these folks would believe a woman you describe is made in the image of God. They will need to find the proper box to fit her in debating/discussing which is the right one.

                  • Lynn Burgess May 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

                    Buddy: What are the odds of this happening? It could happen, yes, but it is very rare and clearly is part of being fallen like all birth defects. Whoever said bad cases make bad law was correct. This hypothetical is not relevant to the core issue at hand. Your argument is somewhat like those who argue for abortion in the case of rape; it happens so rarely that it really is a non-issue, a red herring if you will.

                    • buddyglass May 7, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

                      It’s relevant to the core issue insofar as folks have suggested that the presence of a Y chromosome renders one unquestionably “male”. The hypo I constructed brings that universal statement into question. For my part, I’d classify the individual in my hypo as “female” and would not pressure her to change.

                      It’s interesting that you bring up rape and abortion. I agree that the rate of abortions that are sought because of rape is pretty small, but I also note that it’s not “zero”. IMO it behooves pro-life advocates to deal with the rape issue head-on and not portray it as irrelevant due to its rarity.

                    • Lynn Burgess May 7, 2013 at 6:21 pm #

                      Buddy: Remember that I said the issue at hand is EQUAL to the argument that abortion must be legal because of conception due to rape IN QUANTITY OF ACTUAL CASES, NOT IN MORALITY. I do not know the answer in the present debate and although I may read up on it at some point, it is not pressing for me because until now I have never heard it discussed and I have never known of a real live case.

                      There is no question about the immorality of murdering an unborn child in the womb, no matter the circumstances of conception. These articles illustrate that truth beautifully. Begin with the last link if you are short of time and then come back later for the rest.

                      Every Life Is Precious, No Matter How He or She Was Conceived

                      http://www.epm.org/blog/2013/Jan/18/every-life-precious

                      94-year-old woman reunites with 77-year-old daughter conceived by rape

                      http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Jan/16/94-year-old-woman-reunites-77-year-old-daughter-co

                      Woman meets child born out of rape, given up for adoption 77 years ago

                      http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1109804–woman-meets-child-born-out-of-rape-given-up-for-adoption-77-years-ago#.TwTDijZvCfY.facebook

                    • buddyglass May 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm #

                      I don’t disagree with you that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape. So, no need to convince me.

                      As an aside, unless I’ve misinterpreted what you wrote, this is a good example of something conservative-minded folks often do that drives me up the wall. They seem prone to assuming that when a person disagrees with them on one thing (e.g. whether the presence of a Y chromosome always implies “maleness”) that the person disagrees with them on most everything else. In your case, you seemed to assume that I consider abortion to be ethical in cases of rape.

                    • Lynn Burgess May 7, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

                      Buddy: I was not assuming anything, I was responding to the words your wrote, “IMO it behooves pro-life advocates to deal with the rape issue head-on and not portray it as irrelevant due to its rarity.”

    • Michael Sweet May 6, 2013 at 9:26 am #

      I need to put some thought into this subject, but I do not agree that gender is “learned”. It is my opinion that boys and girls are born with certain propensity (not sure if that is the correct word) to certain behaviors.

      I also believe that if you are a Christian family, and you have a son that is overly effeminate, then he has sin issues that need to be dealt with appropriately.

      • Tom Parker May 6, 2013 at 10:49 am #

        Michael Sweet: You said:”I also believe that if you are a Christian family, and you have a son that is overly effeminate, then he has sin issues that need to be dealt with appropriately.” Do you really believe it is that simple?

        • Akash Charles May 14, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

          yeah cause it is – just as you would correct a son who lies!

      • bravelass May 6, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

        Propensities, yes. But don’t little boys still need their fathers to model proper masculine behavior? And girls need their mothers?

        In Europe, men customarily cross their legs with their knees together. Here in the States, it’s knees apart and knees together is often considered effeminate. It is said that telltale sign of differing gender behavior is how some of our spies were caught in WWII. Another example is a biblical command which is still practiced in the now Muslim countries of the Middle East, but here is considered effeminate – men greeting each other with a kiss on the cheek.

      • Lynn Burgess May 6, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

        Michael: Your statement about sin, although it could be an issue, is likely mostly fundamentalism gone amuck (otherwise known as self-righteousness). I have known artistic creative men who seemed effeminate by the standards of men who drive Ford F-350 trucks and live to hunt, but I would suggest to you that they are not effeminate by biblical standards.

        I have heard a certain pastor speak of a father’s need to teach “effeminate” sons to be masculine and it scared me a bit when I thought he was speaking of his own young son. But in fact, he has taught him in a very balanced way what it means to be a man while allowing him to be his natural sensitive self and he is just now reaching the age of 12. There never was a sin issue.

        • Michael Sweet May 7, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

          If I could edit my comments, I certainly would. My use of the words “effeminate” and “sin issue” was far more clear in my mind than what came out. I’m not going to attempt an explanation as I don’t want to dig the hole I’m standing in any deeper.

  4. Tom Parker May 6, 2013 at 6:39 am #

    Denny:

    You said:”This is the logical consequence of feminism ”

    How do you define feminism?

    • Denny Burk May 6, 2013 at 11:14 am #

      Tom,

      It’s not how I define femnism that is the issue but how feminists define gender. Both feminism and gender theorists in general hold in common a certain definition of gender. Here’s a representative example from Baker’s Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics:

      “The use of the term gender as distinct from sex came to prominence within contemporary feminist literature wishing to emphasize the social constructedness of male and female roles and images… A new literature and a new discipline of gender studies have emerged that comprise the study of social constructions surrounding roles that might once have been thought to be biologically prescribed…” (p. 323).

      Second and third wave feminists by and large hold to the social constructedness of gender. This is standard fare in the literature.

      Denny

      • Julie Anne May 6, 2013 at 11:44 am #

        Denny: My question is the same as Tom’s (1st comment). I think if you are going to use the term “feminism,” it’s important for your readers to know what your understanding of the term is. I don’t want to know how feminists define gender, but how YOU define feminism – especially how you came to the conclusion that a person becomes transgendered as a result of feminism.

      • Tom Parker May 6, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

        Denny:

        I really would like to read how you define feminism. My thanks in advance.

        • Denny Burk May 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

          Which wave?

          • Julie Anne May 6, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

            Denny, Who was your 4:01 comment directed to? I can’t tell. It feels like you are intentionally avoiding Tom’s and my question. In general, how would you define feminism? Surely there is some commonality among “waves” that you can personally define.

            • Julie Anne May 7, 2013 at 9:38 am #

              Oh Dennyyyyyyy, where are you? Did you forget this question again? I’m still waiting.

          • Pam Jones May 7, 2013 at 10:13 am #

            Given you’re so familiar with feminisms, I’d love to hear your opinion on the critiques from majority world feminists that first world feminists use of western paradigms serves to silence the voices of non-white feminists and paints cultural difference as a problem to be overcome, rather than legitimate differences in values and views of the world.

          • Tom Parker May 7, 2013 at 10:26 am #

            Denny: I will take any wave.

            • Julie Anne May 7, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

              Well, Tom, I’ll “wave” to you 🙂 It seems like we’re getting no where here.

            • Denny Burk May 7, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

              Dear Tom and Julie,

              I’m a little surprised that you are insisting on a definition of feminism. I really don’t think it advances the discussion here if we are going to descend into pop quizzes.

              My main point was simply that second and third wavers have adopted a radical redefinition of gender norms. They hold it as axiomatic that gender is a social construct, not something with a normative connection to biological sex. That claim would be completely uncontroversial among feminists of all stripes today. So I’m wondering why you are disputing the claim.

              Again, I don’t have time to write an essay defining feminism. Here’s a thumbnail sketch (though certainly more could be said).

              1st Wave – Concerned with women’s suffrage and social justice.

              Key Figures: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Seneca Falls Conference

              Key Themes: Women’s suffrage, “Declaration of Sentiments”

               

              2nd Wave – Concerned with gender equality, it identified patriarchy as the source of female subjugation and inequality. It sought to undermine patriarchy at every level of society so that women could leave the domestic life and become full participants in the professions.

              Key Figures: de Beauvoir, Friedan, Steinem

              Key Themes: Gender as a social construct, consciousness raising, birth control pill, abortion,

               

              3rd Wave – Critiques the second wave for being focused on the concerns of middle-class white women. It also is closely associated with queer theory and radical redefinitions of gender.

              Key Figures: Judith Butler

              Key Themes: heteronormativity, gender theory

               

              Thanks,
              Denny

              • Velvet Voice (Susan Donroe) May 8, 2013 at 9:16 am #

                Denny, have you read the Seneca Falls conference document? I would be in favor of all that. How many men agree?

              • Julie Anne May 8, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

                Hi Denny:

                I feel like I need to clear the air.  I think we got a bad start after the moderation issue.  I would like to publicly apologize for that.  I should have waited longer and e-mailed.  I’m sorry, Denny.  

                Back to the topic of feminism.  I’m not sure if you thought I had any agenda when I asked you to define feminism, but it was genuine.  Back in the mid-80s when I was a young mom, I remember hearing James Dobson and Phyllis Schlafly talk about feminism only in negative terms.  In my simplistic mind, I labeled it as “bad” and busied myself with what mattered most to me:  my kids and their education as a homeschool mom. 

                You said: “I’m a little surprised that you are insisting on a definition of feminism. I really don’t think it advances the discussion here if we are going to descend into pop quizzes.”

                Your definition of the word actually does help me to “advance the discussion” as best as I can while trying to understand your scholarly vocabulary.  BTW, can you give me an idea of your target audience (I saw you’re a professor and pastor)?  I wasn’t sure by your response if you were only expecting responses from high-level academicians, however, you’re making me want to go to college!  I feel like I missed out on something by marrying young and having babies.   I was trying not to feel stupid, but admit that if I were to fully understand your response, I’d have to dust off my online dictionary.  No prob.  I’m willing to do that.  🙂     

                Ok, back to the real topic – when you refer to the waves of feminism  (BTW, that was completely new and interesting information to me) – the waves seem to be quite diverse and rightly so considering we’re talking about a span of 165 yrs (from the link you provided).  So how is a reader to identify which wave fits your definition – or are you identifying all three into your definition?  Which brings us back to our original point, Denny, what exactly IS your definition of feminism?  A timely response to the original question would have served us all much better.  I find obtuse responses on a blog which openly invites discussion to be puzzling.  
                ~ja

                • Lynn Burgess May 8, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

                  Julie Anne: I want to thank you for the humility, transparency, and genuine inquiry reflected in your post.

                  As a woman near 60 and attending college fulltime I want to encourage you in this… A woman can attend college at any time in life, but she can only have babies when she is young. Many American women have opportunity to “do it all” in life, but they cannot do everything at once. Contrary to the report of some, Superwoman does not exist (smile).

                  Remember that all “higher education” does not happen in college, and like you said, in many ways the internet has brought a world of knowledge to our computer monitor where once we had only the library (oh yea, only the library) (smile).

                  Still, if there were no internet, or if China were to take it down tomorrow, and you never have opportunity to attend college, you dear friend have chosen the best thing and great will be your reward.

                  • Julie Anne May 8, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

                    Thank you, Lynn, for your kind words. Right now God seems to have used a very negative church experience and created a ministry for me which is keeping me quite busy. We’ll see if college happens. I have graduated from the school of hard knocks and am always learning regardless of the lack of initials behind my name. Bottom line is I am His and He is mine and those initials probably don’t mean a whole lot in the bigger scheme of things 🙂

                • Denny Burk May 8, 2013 at 10:59 pm #

                  Dear Julie,

                  I appreciate that good word. I also appreciate your taking time to read and comment.

                  I was addressing all interested readers, not necessarily scholars. In my original article, I referred to feminism generically because most people today will understand some version of the second or third wave when I feminism (even if they don’t know that terminology). Both waves define gender as some kind of a social construct. Gender roles have no necessary connection to biological sex. In the third wave, things have gotten even more loose with some writers questioning whether biological sex may not be a social construct as well (e.g., Judith Butler). All of this contradicts biblical revelation which teaches that God has made men and women different, both biologically and with respect to gender roles.

                  If you want to read a more extensive take on this from me, I would direct you to my chapter in this book: Don’t Call It a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day.

                  Thanks again for the interaction.

                  Sincerely,
                  Denny

  5. Julie Anne May 6, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    I am troubled that it took 8 hours for my original comment to get posted. I am especially disturbed that commenter Tom Parker asked the same question as me and his question was posted, but mine was not. Can you please help me to understand why my comment was delayed for so long when it was the same question? I’m sure my readers would be interested to know, too.

    • Denny Burk May 6, 2013 at 11:59 am #

      I’m troubled that you posted this comment nearly 30 minutes after I answered the same question in a private email.

      • Julie Anne May 6, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

        Sorry, I hadn’t read the e-mail at the time of this posting.
        Thank you for your e-mail, btw. I am satisfied with your response and have been busy updating my blog to reflect that.

        I am commenting through WP (and not your site) at the moment, but I hope you will take the opportunity to address my comment (beneath Tom’s comment). It’s an issue that has confused me for years. Maybe you can shed light for me. Thank you.

  6. Thomas Kunkel May 6, 2013 at 11:36 am #

    So let me get this straight… according to modern thought one is born irrevocably gay and it should be against the law to change sexual orientation but gender itself is flexible and society should embrace paying for the transformations with tax dollars?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    • Lynn Burgess May 6, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

      Thomas: Reprobation… seeing the world upside down… backwards… and inside out…

  7. Hannah Lewis May 6, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

    This post is so full of ignorance on both the issues of feminism and gender identity. Being a transexual is the logical consequence of feminism? When in doubt, blame things you don’t agree with on women, right? That seems to be the standby argument of the religious right. Brilliantly done, sir.

  8. Hannah Lewis May 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    May I add how absolutely EXHAUSTED I am of the church-as-morality-police paradigm? Here is someone who has struggled with their gender identity, has faced who knows how much discrimination and judgment and downright HATE because of their status as a sexual minority in our culture and they’re HURTING. This person has experienced possibly a great deal of trauma and personal anguish and hurt and they have found, whether we agree with it or not, a measure of peace about it through gender reassignment – in itself a very difficult and costly decision not made lightly. I can’t even begin to IMAGINE the level of personal trauma this person has experienced. I have no reference point for what this person has gone through. And that makes me sad that someone has gone through that in their life. It makes my heart ache to even think about it.
    And you know what? Jesus loved the outcast more than possible anyone else. Jesus has a very special relationship with outcasts, with people whom culture says “don’t come near me, you are unclean and unacceptable”. Those are the people Jesus went towards and loved. And here in your blog is what? A response that has become all too much the expected and standard Christian response: Judgement. Condemnation. Cries of “Oh what evil walks among us!” This is the kind of response that has caused so much hurt for this person in their life.This kind of response simply adds to their burden and their anguish. And that, frankly, makes me extremely angry.
    This person, transgender issues and all, is a PERSON, with a heart and soul and feelings, and is well loved by Christ. He would readily go to this person to spend time with her, eat with her, and love her. There is more than enough room for her at Christ’s table and in His kingdom. I would be honored to have her there.

    • Michael Sweet May 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

      Jesus would also call this person to repent.

      • Hannah Lewis May 6, 2013 at 5:17 pm #

        You sure? You might want to check out the number of times in the gospels where Jesus didn’t call for repentance in his interactions with people. Particularly as a condition for his love or for people to follow Him. Unless it was the religious people. I remember He had a big issue with them.
        And if there is sin to be addressed in her life, then that’s God’s business. We all have sin. We’re all equal there. Enough stone-throwing already!

      • Jim Talbot May 6, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

        Specifically, Jesus is calling him to repent. With the terrible tenderness that only He can so mercifully extend.

        • Julie Anne May 6, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

          Did Jesus tell regular folks to repent? Please identify a verse for me, Jim. I’m having trouble locating one.

          • Lynn Burgess May 6, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

            Julie Anne: Sometimes Jesus does not use the word repent, but that is His message… go and get your husband (to the woman at the well)… go and sell all you have (to the rich young ruler)… spoke to the heart of their sin that He was confronting quite boldly but tactfully (something we often lack).

          • Jim Talbot May 7, 2013 at 8:55 am #

            Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” He does not call “regular folks” to repent, he mercifully calls sinners.

            Also, as it seems that you come from a feminist world-view I would recommend to you the autobiography of Rosaria Butterfield. A more compassionate and gospel-saturated take on the many of the areas being discussed in “these days” you will not find.

            For he who has ears, let him hear…..

            Blessings!

            • Julie Anne May 7, 2013 at 9:05 am #

              Jim, Since Denny is doing such a fantastic job of evading my question. Let me try with you. You are assuming that I am coming from a feminist world-view. Can you please define the word for me? I’m a bit amused how quickly you put me in a box. I think if you got to know me, you might be surprised.

              Interesting you mention Butterfield. I just listened to a lengthy interview of her yesterday. What a story.

            • Julie Anne May 7, 2013 at 9:42 am #

              Jim, I have to add – you gave me the biggest laugh of the day with the thought that I come from a feminist world-view. You might be surprised to know my background as a veteran conservative Christian homeschooling mother of 7.

      • Hannah Lewis May 7, 2013 at 11:50 am #

        “We can get a lot of attention in the media by self-righteous grandstanding, but wouldn’t it be better to follow the example Jesus sets here? Rather than telling people caught in desperate sin how far their sin has removed them from God, why not invite them to come to worship? Think of how much difference there is between saying “Stop being such a sinner” and “Be holy.” Between “You worship the wrong way” and “Come worship in spirit and in truth.” Between “You are hated” and “You are known, and loved.””

        http://sojo.net/blogs/2013/05/06/what-jesus-didnt-say/

    • Don Jackson May 6, 2013 at 7:58 pm #

      Hannah: We come to Jesus as we are, but He never leaves those who truly come to Him in saving faith unchanged. The church can be sinfully self-righteous, but “church-as-morality-police” is appropriate when the true “police” is the Word of God and not the people themselves.

    • bravelass May 6, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

      May I saw how exhausted I am of the progressive counter-morality police telling the church off for doing what she has always done? Indeed, for doing what is required of her?

      I don’t know how old you are, so please forgive me if I misjudge your age, but I’d be willing to bet I’ve been familiar with sex re-assignment surgery longer than you’ve been alive. Since 1974, if I am to give a hint about my age. I’m also en ex-feminist. So, although Denny and I have our disagreements and I hope I can count him a friend with whom I disagree agreeably, I can tell you that in the broad outlines of feminism and morality, he is absolutely correct here.

      • Hannah Lewis May 6, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

        My apologies. I mistakenly assumed we were of the same Church, and that a cry for a moment of compassion and breadth of feeling might be heeded in a Christian blog. My mistake.
        Congratulations on your extended familiarity with sex re-assignment surgery.

        • bravelass May 6, 2013 at 11:22 pm #

          Hannah, what you wrote wasnt a plea for mercy, it was dripping with disdain for those who hold fast to the orthodox, catholic and historic teaching on sexual morality.

          Love doesn’t preclude judgment. Rather love requires we make these judgments. Jeremiah has a word or two about that.

          Seneca, thanks for that example. It is not a rare outcome.

        • Lynn Burgess May 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm #

          Hannah: Without dissecting the details of the article you linked, I would like to agree with what I think is your primary point. Christians who come to evangelism from the perch of self-righteousness most often do more harm than good. That was me for many of my years.

          I learned in Nouthetic Counseling and in a more reformed view of theology that approaching the lost as an equal sinner is much more effective and palatable to them than speaking as the righteous to the beggar. It can actually be quite disarming because it is so unexpected.

          I have also often been guilty of “doing my Christian duty” more than actually loving the person I am seeking to win to Christ. We hear people say that confronting sin is the loving thing, and theoretically, that is true, but very often sin in confronted in self-righteousness and not in love.

          Jesus truly loved/loves the sinner (both past tense in His human life on earth and yet present tense today). He often spoke with gentleness that reached the heart, although sometimes He spoke harshly. However, He always spoke with wisdom and to each person and circumstance individually in words that were unique to them. He did not have a packaged one-size-fits-all “program,” and always He truly loved.

          I hear you saying that you believe that we sometimes (maybe often) lack wisdom and love in our dealings with the lost, and I agree with you.

  9. Ryan Szrama May 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

    You had me at Sheryl Crow.

  10. Scott Tsao May 6, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    In stark contrast, one may wish to view another person’s Journey of Grace that provides deeper insight into God’s redemptive work even in today’s fallen society of America.

    The full interview is also available here on YouTube.

    “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)

  11. Seneca Griggs May 6, 2013 at 7:19 pm #

    Working in a psych ward years ago as an aide I had a patient who had undergone a sex change; hospitalized ultimately because they had become seriously suicidal. What appeared to happen was that instead of becoming the opposite sex of which they were born, they had become NEITHER. No longer wholly male, no longer wholly female.I worried that somewhere down the road they would someday successfully commit suicide.

  12. Lynn Burgess May 6, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    Wow, does this bring a new dynamic to same sex marriage or what? Who could have guessed this whole issue would take us down that path?

    When I watched the video, the thing that struck me is Jim’s selfishness. He was willing to risk losing his wife and kids for the sake of “his dream come true (and) he was giddy to get something he had wanted all his life.…” He says his greatest fear was for his kids, but actually, he was willing to sacrifice his kids for the sake of self-gratification. How often our hedonistic society, which all too often includes professed believers, justifies self-gratification with that line, “I’ve wanted it all my life,” as if that somehow makes self-indulgence justifiable. This is maybe the ultimate self-indulgence, but it is actually a very common theme today. If I want it… who are what is to deny me?

    • Lynn Burgess May 7, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

      To the moderator: Could you correct this last line in my above post please… “This is maybe the ultimate self-indulgence, but it is actually a very common theme today. If I want it… who are what is to deny me?”

      It should end with “who AND what is to deny me?”

      Thanks.

  13. Ken Temple May 7, 2013 at 4:16 am #

    One more step toward the destruction of normal civilization and the blurring of the lines of right and wrong . . . getting weirder all the time.

    The wive’s calmness about the whole thing and accepting him this way was really weird and seems to be put forward as a way to validate this whole thing. There is so much that the camera does not show and cannot show about all the negative things, that audiences need to remember. That they continue to be married is weird, when she said she is not a lesbian. She hinted at their intimate relationship a little, that is was different, etc.; but no details.

    Denny wrote:
    In a fallen world, men and women will sometimes gravitate toward a gender identity that doesn’t match their biological sex.

    What is the Biblical position on what those desires and feelings are? (the feelings and desires that one’s “soul or spirit is female, trapped in a man’s body” – mental and emotional confusion?

    The key seems to be Denny’s phrase, “in a fallen world”. How do Biblical Christian’s evaluate this phenomenon? (besides calling it weird, perverted, twisted, against nature, against the way God created the man, etc. ?) Where do those feelings/desires come from?

    The only Biblical answer seems to be, is that that happens to some people as part of the fall – Romans 8:2-22 – that is part of the “futility” and “bondage to corruption” and decay and perversions and brokenness (like birth-defects) that God judged creation with, after Adam and Eve sinned. (Genesis 3)

    “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

    How can a man who has male chromosomes, etc. get those desires? It is so weird that other men cannot relate to this phenomenon at all.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. What is the Big Deal about Feminism and Christianity? | Spiritual Sounding Board - May 6, 2013

    […] is one of many whom I follow on Twitter and tonight I came across a tweet to his new article:   Married man and father of two sons becomes a woman.  This is a controversial subject with moral implications to be sure.  The article features an […]

  2. A Better Way to Engage Feminism, Faith and Sexuality | Natalie Trust - May 7, 2013

    […] dinner was in the making, I read this post by Denny Burk in which transgender author, Jennifer Boylan, was hollowly criticized. Denny linked to an NBC […]

  3. A La Carte (5.21.13) | familylifeatccc - May 21, 2013

    […] Married Man and Father of Two…Becomes a Woman: “Even though he was married with two small sons, he wanted to stop being a man and become what he always felt himself to be—a female.” […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes