Transgendered Member?

[Yeshua1]

Was this person saved AFTER the gender-bender? If so, we must remember that most pre-salvation sins cannot be undone. One cannot un-murder a victim. One cannot take back a hurtful word or action. Once the bomb is dropped, it cannot be recalled; it's gonna hit something.

Remember Billy Graham's theme hymn, "Just as I am".

We all were a hot mess before God saved us, just that dome of us were able to hide it better than others!

 

[MartyF]

Would you require surgery before joining?

no

 

[Reynolds]

Was this person saved AFTER the gender-bender? If so, we must remember that most pre-salvation sins cannot be undone. One cannot un-murder a victim. One cannot take back a hurtful word or action. Once the bomb is dropped, it cannot be recalled; it's gonna hit something.

Remember Billy Graham's theme hymn, "Just as I am".

This is the same discussion of do we let the child molester who repented 10 years ago join the church. There is a certain danger level that sexual sins uniquely bring.

 

[Dave G]

How odd that no one's yet brought up Scripture.

Brothers and sisters,
To me, this is an exceedingly delicate situation for any body of believers to be in.

These Scriptures come to mind:

" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ).

" Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 for which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 in the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. " ( Colossians 3:5 )

" Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." ( Galatians 5:19-24 ).

As a body, none of us can lay claim to being perfect...

We were all a "hot mess" by His standards, and no sin or "lifestyle" is outside of that.
Murderer's ( David comes to mind ), persecutors of the body ( Paul comes to mind ), liars ( Jacob comes to mind ), adulterers ( again, David comes to mind )...we are all sinners saved by His grace, not by our actions.

Put under the discipline and edification of the church, this man should be encouraged to a life in Christ.
Apart from that, if that person violates the commands of the Lord by living sinfully and genuine repentance is not evidenced when they are confronted by His word, that person should be dealt with graciously but firmly.
Admonish him as a brother, but put him out of the fellowship for behavior unbecoming a believer.

That should be a last resort.
Otherwise, it's not so much a physical matter, but a spiritual one of conduct and whether or not the Spirit's presence in his life can be determined.

Admittedly, by our societal standards it is difficult.
But by God's standards, anyone from anywhere can be called into the faith.

 

[Reformed1689]

So, at our SBC church (in a college town) we have a young man (who has had gender reassignment surgery to now look like a woman and have her parts) that has been coming to our college group for a few years now. The individual is graduating this Dec and will likely move to a different class. The person has come forward (2 yrs ago, and made a profession of faith). The person believes that their actions were sinful, but considers it done (kinda like a person who has divorced and remarried). The individual also can not afford re-reassignment surgery to go back to looking like a male again.

Few know this person had gender reassignment surgery and he is a very convincing and even somewhat pretty looking female... Which creates a whole other issue when you see youth boys fawning over this person (which this person does ignore). Further, the individual considers themselves “a-sexual” or planning to live a life of celibacy (probably because they’ve destroyed their natural hormones/sex drive).

I believe this person has accepted Christ and wants to serve Him. Would you require surgery before joining?

Require surgery? No. But continuing to live as the gender they are not? That is still living in active sin.

 

[rlvaughn]

If so, we must remember that most pre-salvation sins cannot be undone. One cannot un-murder a victim. One cannot take back a hurtful word or action. Once the bomb is dropped, it cannot be recalled; it's gonna hit something.

Right, and there are things about this that cannot be undone. Choosing to live as the opposite sex is not one of them. The person can choose to be identified by the sex which he is by birth and DNA.

He also has concerns that if he tried to live as a man without surgery he would end up looking like a grotesque monster (probably would).

This is certainly a difficult issue that must be approached with compassion. Perhaps looking at the life and ministry of Walt Heyer -- a man who had surgery and lived as woman, then "detransitioned" -- could be helpful. He has a website called Sex Change Regret. For him this is not just theory.

My name is Walt Heyer and in April of 1983 I had gender reassignment surgery. At first I was giddy for the fresh start. But hormones and sex change genital surgery couldn’t solve the underlying issues driving my gender dysphoria.
I detransitioned more than 25 years ago. I learned the truth: Hormones and surgery may alter appearances, but nothing changes the immutable fact of your sex.

 

[righteousdude2]

If this person NOW believes their decision was a sin, so be it! It is and he/she has come to understand the sin of his/her transition! Still, it is eventually up to God as to how this person will be ultimately judged, but as for me, I would be willing to permit them to worship with us, but with the thought that his/her surgical choice must not openly shared with the congregation. This person must be willing to keep their sinful choice to themselves, and not share it with others because that kind of information is a poison pill for the congregation that accepts him/her into the fold!

This is truly an excellent question, ans I would be willing to take them in under the strict guidelines to protect the overall congregation, and especially any in the family toying with the same sinful desire to change sex.

I pray you have the wisdom to make the right choice. But, as I write this, I have to wonder if ANY choice would be right? I'd love to hear back from you pastor as to what you do, and if you permit them in the flock, how it works out. Keep in mind, the devil has a job to split and destroy the church, and this is ike taking in a box of dynamite that could blow at any time!

There are congregations for transexuals. Not that many I'm sure, but that may be worth trying to research and locate for this person to find fellowship with!

 

[righteousdude2]

Right, and there are things about this that cannot be undone. Choosing to live as the opposite sex is not one of them. The person can choose to be identified by the sex which he is by birth and DNA.
This is certainly a difficult issue that must be approached with compassion. Perhaps looking at the life and ministry of Walt Heyer -- a man who had surgery and lived as woman, then "detransitioned" -- could be helpful. He has a website called Sex Change Regret. For him this is not just theory.

This is a well thought out response to a serius problem facing your church! Give this writer your shoulder to lean upon. He may be of assistance as you move forward!

 

[Shoostie]

That homosexual crossdresser must be laughing, with his friends, at the SBC church. "They let me dress as a woman in their church just because I said it's inconvenient not to."

 

[agedman]

I'm going to take a completely different view, because considering the situation, it is my opinion that some have missed the high calling of God.

First, this person has had emasculation that cannot be "undone. He is (without doubt) no longer male, and was never female. What is done cannot be "undone."

Second, there is no reason that in what manner this person dresses should impact his fellowship with believers. That is just purely grasping upon that which is not required by Gentile believers. The single Scriptural presentation of the physical body is that of modesty. And frankly, the way both men and women in the modern church dress, little is left to imagination, so this person dressing as a woman is certainly no violation of NT Scriptures.

Third, the believers have no right to make demands upon this person suggesting that some damage or potential harm can be done by this person to the assembly. More damage is done by the little controlled men and women than what this person has done or probably would ever do in the assembly. There is nothing wrong with this person living the life of eunuch, dressing how they please.

Lastly, this person is not "damaged goods," as some posts would seem to imply, in which such characterizations as molester, pervert, drunkard... that can be attached is just so very wrong. They are a sinner, undeservingly redeemed by God for His purpose. Frankly, this person could bring great help to the ministry.

As long time posters on the BB know, I am about as conservative as any when it pertains to the Scriptures. I just do not find NT Scriptures that require anything more than is required of ALL believers to bring this person into the assembly as a member.

According to the OP, this person has been honest, and accountable, even a life history example willing to be displayed as an example of the power and damage of sin.

MOST SBC assembly members have been less honest, shun accountability, and desire to have their life history be paraded out for all to inspect as this person has allowed.

One final point.

This person should undergo no closer scrutiny than any other assembly member. If this person's life is under constant review, all should be. If this person's life is to be hindered in service, then all should be. If this person is to be considered a pervert, then all should be.

Unless this person (as some do and have done) is shown to be a sexual predator (and predators do not announce their presence), then there is no Scriptural cause for restriction of service and worship.

 

[Shoostie]

First, this person has had emasculation that cannot be "undone.

First, your statement is completely irrelevant. We don't know if this man emasculated himself. If he has, he already made the decision never to have children, whether or not he transitions back. And, whether or not he has, makes no difference to whether his cross-dressing church should be allowed.

this person dressing as a woman is certainly no violation of NT Scriptures.

You speak with a forked tongue. This young man is in violation of a number of NT verses, and OT verses, too. Here are a couple of examples, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him." The "effeminate" and homosexuals will "not inherent the kingdom of God."

Third, the believers have no right to make demands upon this person suggesting that some damage or potential harm can be done by this person to the assembly.

Believers have a right and an obligation to uphold biblical standards in their churches.

As long time posters on the BB know, I am about as conservative as any when it pertains to the Scriptures. I just do not find NT Scriptures that require anything more than is required of ALL believers to bring this person into the assembly as a member.

You made three points. The first is irrelevant. The second point is a lie. And, your third point is hypocritical, because you say it about his dress, but you wouldn't say it about a neonazi coming to church in his uniform. How quickly you can blow a reputation about being conservative with scriptures.

According to the OP, this person has been honest, and accountable, even a life history example willing to be displayed as an example of the power and damage of sin.

How do you know he's been honest? If he were being honest, he wouldn't be dressing as a woman after claiming to regret the transition. Oh, honest about being a man? LOL!!!!

"I'm such an honest lady. I told them I was born a boy. Otherwise, they never would have known."

 

[agedman]

First, your statement is completely irrelevant. We don't know if this man emasculated himself. If he has, he already made the decision never to have children, whether or not he transitions back. And, whether or not he has, makes no difference to whether his cross-dressing church should be allowed.

Did you actually READ the OP?

You would certainly not have made this statement if you had.

He did not "cross dress" as a pretender. These kinds of thoughts come from one who hasn't read the OP though, and missed some vital points.

You speak with a forked tongue. This young man is in violation of a number of NT verses, and OT verses, too. Here are a couple of examples, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him." The "effeminate" and homosexuals will "not inherent the kingdom of God."

1) You have no idea the length of the OP presenter's hair, the person in which he posts length of hair, or even if I have hair. Such presentation is totally irrelevant to the thread.

2). The Scriptures state, "...AND such were some of YOU." That "you" includes you. Yet, you would dare to bring accusation against another believer's salvation? There is one accuser of the brethren, and that has already been assigned to another.

Believers have a right and an obligation to uphold biblical standards in their churches.

Certainly. Like I posted.

Just not man made standards.

You made three points. The first is irrelevant. The second point is a lie. And, your third point is hypocritical, because you say it about his dress, but you wouldn't say it about a neonazi coming to church in his uniform. How quickly you can blow a reputation about being conservative with scriptures.

This discussion is not about someone who embraces an anti-christ. This discussion is about a believer. That you cannot distinguish such does not present me as being, irrelevant, a lier, and a hypocrite.

I am not certain what your posts present you as being. Perhaps hateful, uncaring?

How do you know he's been honest? If he were being honest, he wouldn't be dressing as a woman after claiming to regret the transition. Oh, honest about being a man? LOL!!!!

How do you know the person is not?

But let's make this comparison. Just who else in the assembly really knows the heart?

Do who else willingly laid out their whole sensual life before the assembly?

Even at the basic personal level as if applied to our own self, at what level would the typical believer allow others to gauge just how true to the faith they are based upon dress, their total se#ual life, what attractions and what lusts are harbored in the heart? In comparison, just how open and honest are any believers?

 

[Shoostie]

He did not "cross dress" as a pretender.

Do you think I've said he crossdresses to pretend? I don't even know what you mean by that.

1) You have no idea the length of the OP presenter's hair, the person in which he posts length of hair, or even if I have hair. Such presentation is totally irrelevant to the thread.

Dressing like a woman is totally irrelevant to a thread about whether a crossdresser should be extended church membership?

2). The Scriptures state, "...AND such were some of YOU." That "you" includes you.

You capitalized the wrong word. "...and such WERE some of you."

This discussion is not about someone who embraces an anti-christ. This discussion is about a believer. That you cannot distinguish such does not present me as being, irrelevant, a lier, and a hypocrite.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Crossdressing wasn't common enough in those days to make the short list list, but the principle applies. Because he calls himself a brother, he should be judged more harshly. He wakes up every day and chooses to dress as a woman, and enjoys the attention of young men. With such a man, do not even eat, let alone extend church membership.

Perhaps hateful, uncaring?

You judge me for telling the truth. You don't judge him for being effeminate. You should fear God who can throw your soul into Hell, rather than fear men who call you hateful but can't do anything more than kill the body.

But let's make this comparison. Just who else in the assembly really knows the heart?

How stupid to accuse me of thinking I know his heart. I know him crossdressing. You're the one who thinks you know his heart. I am pretty sure he's a homosexual who enjoys the attention of young men, because that's how he acts, not because I'm a heart-reader. But, you think he doesn't want to wear dresses, and that he's sooo honest. If not for insurmountable minor inconvenience, he'd put on pants.

Do who else willingly laid out their whole sensual life before the assembly?

What don't you understand about he's a man wanting to wear women's clothing and makeup in church? It has nothing to do with his "whole sensual life." And, yes, if we did know how was living with another man, with a boy tied up in the basement as a sodomy toy, I'd judge that too, but not you.

 

[agedman]

Do you think I've said he crossdresses to pretend? I don't even know what you mean by that.



Dressing like a woman is totally irrelevant to a thread about whether a crossdresser should be extended church membership?

Does God look upon the outward appearance, or the heart.
When the OP states that the person knows their old life was sinful, and cannot be repaired, (as Nicodemus could not be born from the flesh again), then states, "Further, the individual considers themselves “a-sexual” or planning to live a life of celibacy (probably because they’ve destroyed their natural hormones/sex drive)." then it follows that however that person dresses, is of little importance.

They are not dressing to deceive, nor are they dressing to draw attention to themselves.
Unlike, the typical man and woman who dress to deceive and dress to draw attention to themselves.

It would cause more disruption and inappropriate behavior in the workplace, and more shame to the name of Christ, should this person in both the work place and the assembly try to be what they are no longer.

You capitalized the wrong word. "...and such WERE some of you."

And just as this man, such were some of them. "WERE" is not limited to a specific time of only those Paul wrote, but is also that which applies to everyone who is a believer.

This is validated in the passage that starts, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." NO condemnation means.... no condemnation.

This person WAS male, became female, and is no longer either, but content to live as neither.

Should such determination not be presented as admirable?

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Crossdressing wasn't common enough in those days to make the short list list, but the principle applies. Because he calls himself a brother, he should be judged more harshly. He wakes up every day and chooses to dress as a woman, and enjoys the attention of young men. With such a man, do not even eat, let alone extend church membership.

You are assigning attitude and motivation to what the OP states is not existing in this person.

They being "a-sexual" do not dress for attention of either sex..

They dress for comfort and modesty. That is what the Scriptures present is appropriate.

The NT didn't share about men dressing as men and women dressing as women. That folks were clothed and worshiping in their right mind was a huge change from what was typical of that day's worship in the heathen places of idols.

The typical heathen worship would make the activities at the the Texas Chicken Ranch blush. Cross dressing was just one of the enticements of the heathen idolatry. Why would you have considered that time of any lesser evil and not common in the Hellenistic and Roman times? The god of this world hasn't changed.

You judge me for telling the truth. You don't judge him for being effeminate. You should fear God who can throw your soul into Hell, rather than fear men who call you hateful but can't do anything more than kill the body.

That person is not a "him." That person is a-sexual, a eunuch. They do not have gender specific hormones as a result of having the male parts and the chemical interventions. Even as Daniel determined to live for God, this person is as far as desires of the flesh - according to the OP is so desirous. Do you condemn Daniel? Daniel didn't have the hormonal intervention this person has had.

How stupid to accuse me of thinking I know his heart. I know him crossdressing. You're the one who thinks you know his heart. I am pretty sure he's a homosexual who enjoys the attention of young men, because that's how he acts, not because I'm a heart-reader. But, you think he doesn't want to wear dresses, and that he's sooo honest. If not for insurmountable minor inconvenience, he'd put on pants.

You have only assumptions based upon your own perspective which is based upon your own hormonal driven desires. But, when one is a eunuch, certainly sensual desire may be a part of them, and they may even engage in fulfillment of that desire. However, when there is no part in which such desire may be fulfilled, and one has determined to set aside such desires as remain, it is not to be dishonored by your assumptions.

What don't you understand about he's a man wanting to wear women's clothing and makeup in church? It has nothing to do with his "whole sensual life." And, yes, if we did know how was living with another man, with a boy tied up in the basement as a sodomy toy, I'd judge that too, but not you.

Amazing!

You now are suggesting that the person is perverted and aligned with devastating dead deeds.

The OP originator as that you read the posts, and it is obvious that wasn't taken seriously.

There is no testimony that this person in which the OP presents is at all of the character and depravity of life in which you are basing assumptions.

And it is totally based upon your assumptions that you are making judgement concerning fellowship and believer standing in Christ.

 

[xlsdraw]

His choice to alter his body does not change the fact that God made him a man.. It is living a lie to present himself as a woman. It will be found out and will be a source of confusion for that church.

This man is an unrepentant effeminate. We are what God made us. We are all sinners, But a Christian must not willingly continue in sin claiming his sin is not sin.

John 14:6 Jesus is the TRUTH.

John 4:24 God seeks those that will worship Him in Spirit AND IN TRUTH.

There will not be scriptures found justifying what this Man is doing.

These are not judgements, these are clear facts of scripture.

 

[rlvaughn]

This person WAS male, became female, and is no longer either, but content to live as neither.

Brother, on this count you are wrong, as xlsdraw writes,

His choice to alter his body does not change the fact that God made him a man.

That person is not a "him." That person is a-sexual, a eunuch. They do not have gender specific hormones as a result of having the male parts and the chemical interventions. Even as Daniel determined to live for God, this person is as far as desires of the flesh - according to the OP is so desirous. Do you condemn Daniel? Daniel didn't have the hormonal intervention this person has had.

Biblical usage will show the inspired scriptures still speak of eunuchs such as Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, the eunuch of Ethiopia in the masculine gender. For examples:

Daniel 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Daniel 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king.

Acts 8:27-28 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

 

[righteousdude2]

I can hardly wait for the Judgement of God to come forth! Until that day, we must continue to watch in disgust and shake our heads. Society is sliding quickly into the mire of sin.

 

[Shoostie]

Does God look upon the outward appearance, or the heart.

Are you God? I have to go with what I see.

it follows that however that person dresses, is of little importance.

Then it should be no problem for him to put in men's clothing. Just tell him it's of little importance, because he's argued it's important.

They are not dressing to deceive, nor are they dressing to draw attention to themselves.

Are you really so insanely naive? The OP notes, "youth boys fawning over this person". You don't think he's trying to get that attention?

And just as this man, such were some of them. "WERE" is not limited to a specific time of only those Paul wrote, but is also that which applies to everyone who is a believer.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "were". Yes, it's limited to a specific time, the past.

This person WAS male, became female, and is no longer either, but content to live as neither.

He's a man living as a woman. He's not a neither dressing as a neither.

 

[agedman]

His choice to alter his body does not change the fact that God made him a man.. It is living a lie to present himself as a woman. It will be found out and will be a source of confusion for that church.

This man is an unrepentant effeminate. We are what God made us. We are all sinners, But a Christian must not willingly continue in sin claiming his sin is not sin.

John 14:6 Jesus is the TRUTH.

John 4:24 God seeks those that will worship Him in Spirit AND IN TRUTH.

There will not be scriptures found justifying what this Man is doing.

These are not judgements, these are clear facts of scripture.

The choice to alter his body was made before becoming a believer according to the OP, and also according to the OP is willing to live with the consequences, not attempting to undo.

Is this not in accordance with the Scripture, “Go, sin no more?”

According to the OP, the person is not engaging in deceitful coverup, but has admitted to the sin.

The sin consequences has far reaching significance, but reversal at this point is not only medically hazardous, but not even suggested in Scripture.

A murderer does not undo the murder.
The fornicator does not undo the fornication.
The pervert molester of children does not undo the damage to children.

Yet folks would actually require this person to make great and highly risk filled and job jeopardizing efforts to undo a long ago sin in which they must face everyday.

Frankly I am stunned by the callousness.

The murderer, the fornicator, the pervert lives as a changed person in the assembly as an example to others of the love, grace and mercy of God.

Yet, no love, mercy, grace can be extended to this person because they must put health, life, livelihood and all such on in jeopardy just to get something from an assembly that is supposed to be worthy of emulating Christ?

What happened to Romans 8:1?

If there is no condemnation from Christ, what do you think separates the relationship according to Romans 8?

 

[Reformed]

What has been lost in many of the responses in this thread is what the OP alluded to. I quote:

"Few know this person had gender reassignment surgery and he is a very convincing and even somewhat pretty looking female... Which creates a whole other issue when you see youth boys fawning over this person (which this person does ignore)."

There as more at stake in a situation like this than just the individual who is taking on a false gender identity. What of the youth in a church where this situation is taking place? What does it say to them? Have compassion for the person who repents for their sinful choice and lifestyle? Absolutely. But not at the cost of putting others in the body of Christ at risk.