by
Andrea James
Fanatic literalist religious fundamentalists persistently preach that transgender behavior is an extreme moral failing and a sin. While trumpeted mostly by the so-called "Christian Religious Right," the condemnation also comes from Moslem and Hebrew as well as Christian literal religious fundamentalists. While we'd all prefer to ignore them as brain dead morons and hope they'll just disappear, they won't because some are sincere but seriously uneducated or misled, while for others one underlying motivation is protection of their own narrow self-interest. Regardless of their sincerity or lack thereof, they have far too much invested in categorizing gender non-conforming behavior as a moral failure to consider alternatives. Gender non-conformists are not "normal," although no universally acceptable or clear definition of "normal" is to be found in the very books of faith cited blindly by the fundamentalists. They're continually sniping, condemning and judging, using media exposure of the worst aspects of this or any other nonconforming behavior together with their narrow, literalist interpretations of books of faith to deny fundamental human rights. They further sow seeds of fear and distrust among the general public to maintain their version of a "proper" and monochromatic social order - which really means maintaining a status quo in which they dominate and the world is simple, straightforward, "black and white," and not confusing or difficult. Their condemnations cause many gender nonconformists to turn away from their true life and faith because they feel they don't "belong." The emotional void this creates for many gender nonconformists is an unnecessary and unfair burden that need not be carried along with the struggle for self-understanding, social acceptance, and fulfillment of the same basic needs felt by all humans - the need to be loved and give love.
I've concluded that the best way to deal with this threat is to become as knowledgeable as the fundamentalists are about the words they mindlessly spout when they quote their books of faith because ultimately knowledge vanquishes ignorance. I surprise most fanatic literalist religious fundamentalists by declaring my Christian faith. I see absolutely nothing incompatible with belief in the Lord and the teachings of Jesus and also being transgendered. Jesus said nothing about gender, and it is not even mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments of the Bible. The New Testament states that Jesus died for all men and women. This means exactly what it says - FOR ALL - for straight, gay, and transgendered, not just for a small self-ordained exclusive group. Fundamentalists reply that I cannot be a TRUE Christian because I am a sinner. Yes, I am sinner. I am a sinner because I have my human imperfections and all human beings are sinners. But I am not a sinner because I am transgendered.
Fundamentalists instinctively and immediately turn to rote recitation of the passage from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 22:5) as their justification. Just exactly how is that passage translated (and I emphasize TRANSLATED because everything we read is a translation from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, into Greek, and then into English)? In the stilted and archaic English of the King James Bible, Deuteronomy 22:5 reads:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord."
Fundamentalists conclude that this automatically makes all crossdressers sinners. Note which prohibition appears first! The first prohibition is against women! And while fundamentalists are convinced that this passage is intuitively obvious, is it? The fundamentalists' insistence that this (and all other passages taken out-of-context) applies literally makes millions and millions of women sinners for wearing male attire, including most of the well-meaning but terribly misguided ones who seem to be the "foot soldiers" of the fundamentalist movement. Beyond that, what does absolute literal acceptance of this passage mean for the women who serve as police officers, firefighters, and in our armed services. Certainly all of these women wear what could be classified as male attire. Is each and every one of them eternally condemned? Of course not, because no verse can be taken out of context and made a "stand-alone," universal law. All must be understood in their overall historical as well as their apparent spiritual context. So, what is the exact genesis of this passage?
Religious historians have written that the context behind this passage was to prohibit cultic behavior in Canaan where pagan religious worship of the fertility goddess Ashera included promiscuous sexual behavior where crossdressing was an important part of the religious ritual. In Canaan, cultic transvestism was seen as magic relating to fertility and the pagan gods and goddesses. The Old Testament is God's law as given though Moses to the people of Israel. The Israelites had been a nomadic people, after their wanderings during the Exodus from Egypt they settled in what was then known as Canaan. There they had many contacts with indigenous Canaanite pagan culture. Not only did the Canaanites engage in ritual behavior that included cultic crossdressing, they also sacrificed pigs to their pagan gods. Many of Deuteronomy's prohibitions were written for the specific purpose of prohibiting participation in any form of such pagan cultic rituals. The Book of Deuteronomy was the fifth book of the original five "Books of Moses," also called the Pentateuch or the Torah (Hebrew for "the Teachings"). Religious historians date its' writing to around 622 BC, during the reign of King Josiah, who sat on the throne of Judah after the civil wars that rent Israel following the death of King Solomon. There was an ongoing severe political and religious struggle between two branches of the House of Levi (Moses tribe). The schism was between devoted followers of Moses and those who followed his brother Aaron. The Aaronites emphasized limited ascendancy to religious leadership to only their sect, and very strict, explicit rules and laws for everyday life. King Josiah was an Aaronite, and it is written that he ascended the throne of Judah intent on curbing social decay back into pagan ways. His rabbis supposedly miraculously found scrolls containing the "lost laws" of Moses somewhere in the Temple in Jerusalem. They "were discovered" by "accident," not kept secure with the Ten Commandments or the other books of Moses on the Ark in the Temple (the Ark of the Covenant). From these miraculously found scrolls Josiah had Deuteronomy written to enforce his view of strict social order.
Canaan wasn't the only pagan society where religious rituals for the worship of a fertility goddess involved promiscuous sexual activity. It was common in Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and other European pagan rituals (most recently shown within the made for television story "The Mists of Avalon" in its' retelling of the legend of King Arthur, who according to that version conceived his bastard son Mordred with his own sister during a Druid pagan ritual). King Josiah's laws in Deuteronomy were intended to reinforce the structure of a crumbling monotheistic society and deter his people from polytheistic paganism.
The Old Testament included not only laws forbidding worshipping pagan Gods and participation in pagan rituals, but also a great deal of common sense wisdom. It contains many fundamental truths for me as a Christian. However, there are many other Old Testament prohibitions casually ignored today, and there are many from which Christians were freed by Jesus. But one need not be a Christian to be freed from this prohibition because many crossdressers are simply expressing a genuine part of their inner (gender) identity and as such do not fall under an Old Testament prohibition aimed more than two thousand years ago at pagan rituals. The Lord did not mean for us to ignore new knowledge or to pay blind obedience to rules applied out of their intended context.
Even the word "abomination" is not accurately or clearly translated. The original Hebrew word was "TO'EBAH" which was a traditionally cultic term for what was ritually unclean. The contextual implication had everything to do with pagan ritual - not physical cleanliness. Both Jesus and Paul (Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20) rejected such ritual distinction. The context of language is absolutely essential in grasping full understanding rather than falling into the trap of rote recitation of meaningless words. Even the Fundamentalist Journal has written that this prohibition was intended against "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleanliness" and concluded "We are not bound by these commands today."
Just a few verses beyond 22:5 in Deuteronomy we find:
Verse 8: "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house if any man fall from thence."
Are all new houses built with a "battlement" or even a fence rail around their roofs to prevent bloodshed should someone fall from them?
Verse 11: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as woolen and linen together."
Clothes are forbidden to be made or worn of fibers and fabrics mixed or blended together.
In the previous chapter of Deuteronomy (Ch. 21 Verses 18-21), we find an admonition regarding stubborn and rebellious sons:
(21:18) "If a man have an unmanageable and rebellious son, who hearkeneth not unto the voice of his father, nor unto the voice of his mother, and they have chastened him, but he hearkeneth not unto them;" (21:19) "then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;" (21:20) "and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is unmanageable and rebellious, he hearkeneth not unto our voice; he is a profligate and a drunkard." (21:21) "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die."
Is that how we deal with rebellious children today? If we don't, are we guilty of not literally following "the Word of God?"
This passage is certainly in conflict with the highest set of God's laws set forth on the Old Testament - the Ten Commandments. Commandment # 6 states "Thou Shalt Not Kill." So Deuteronomy itself is contradictory with the laws of God as set forth in Exodus and is further self-contradictory because the Ten Commandments are repeated within the text of Deuteronomy itself.
Further on in Deuteronomy (Ch. 20, verses 20:11-20:18), we find specific instructions to the Jewish people of Judah. First, these Israelites are urged to wage war on all surrounding pagan societies to further the consolidation of religious belief under the one God Jahweh. With the exceptions of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites, those people that surrendered were to be made slaves. Deuteronomy however instructs that all Canaanites, et al, every man, woman, and child, are to be annihilated. "But for the cities of these people, thou shalt save NOTHING alive that breatheth." Is that the absolute truth of the word of a compassionate God? How does that fit with the Ten Comandments?
These are but a few of many verse translations that make no sense today if they are taken out of their historical context and applied rigidly and unthinkingly as stand-alone "law" or "God's word." Fundamentalists pretend that history, development, and the advancement of knowledge doesn't exist. For them the "truth" was written once and it is unchanging and eternal. But truth is historical and its' perception changes; reinterpretations are possible and not forbidden. When Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth, the way and life," he meant that he was rejecting a set of rigid, unchanging laws that were being interpreted then as the only way to think and worship. Do the Fundamentalists forget that Jesus was a nonconformist and a rebel in his day?
Fundamentalists may claim that only they understand the "truth" of "God's word." That's exactly what the religious power structure told Jesus 2,000 years ago. He rejected their self-serving interpretations just as we must reject those of the fundamentalists today. Fundamentalists may claim that they do not judge and that they properly leave judgement to the Lord. But when they declare anyone who doesn't follow their rules to be a "sinner," they are clearly passing judgement. Do they need to be reminded that Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Harking back to Deuteronomy 22:5, just exactly what clothing or mode of dress is totally, truly, exclusively, immutably male or female? Genderal clothing distinctions are a social construction and differ across societies and time. They are neither universal, Biblical, nor immutable. A thousand years ago no one wore pants. Then they were exclusively male attire. Who decided that? God didn't. Don't women wear them today? But women were prohibited from wearing them over 100 years ago. Colors have also changed their meaning so far as gender association is concerned. Today we assign blue to male babies and pink to females. But in Victorian times, those were reversed. Pink was considered too strong and powerful a color for the delicate female child, while pale blue was considered comforting and calming. This is just one clear example showing that garments have historical context and are not fixed in eternity.
One could step through an extensive list of clothing and fashion articles. What makes any one of them exclusively male or female? That is nowhere defined in the Bible or any other religious text.
Is a skirt or a dress exclusively female attire? Everyone wore flowing robes two thousand years ago. Greek and Roman togas and robes were not much different from dresses. In the Old Testament's Book of Ezekial it says (Ch. 16) of the Lord's care of Israel "And I pass over by thee, and I see thee, And lo thy time is a time of loves, and I spread my skirt over thee, and I cover your nakedness." Accepting this literally means that God wore a skirt. Scotsmen wear kilts, which are a form of a skirt. Catholic priests wear a dress-like robe. Monks and nuns wear a semi-unisexual "habit."
Is it long hair? All humans once wore their hair at it's natural uncut length. Today women wear short, mannish styles. Is a woman with a short "mannish" hairstyle Biblically condemned?
Is it a wig? Men have worn wigs during many periods of history. Cleopatra and the Egyptian Pharaohs wore wigs over their shaved heads (they removed all of their body hair to free themselves of lice). English barristers wear wigs today - to signify their membership in a select group. Clothing is today as much an indicator of social group identification as it is a means of bodily protection.
Is it perfumes or cosmetics? Many were actually invented for men to cover up body odors and poor hygiene (although lipstick was purportedly first used by ancient Egyptian prostitutes to advertise certain oral sexual skills).
Is it high-heeled shoes? Actually, invented by and for men (France's King Louis XIV, who was only 5' 4" tall).
Is it lace and ruffles? These were considered fine gentleman's attire in 17th century Europe.
Is it pantyhose? Men wore silk knit tights 500 years ago that were little different (except for weight) from today's women's tights and hosiery. Outdoor sports outfitters today sell unisexual footed polypropylene tights for warmth and support during strenuous activities such as skiing and mountain climbing.
Is it silk or satiny undergarments? Did underwear beyond simple loincloths even exist in Biblical times? I've yet to find a fundamentalist who can tell me where to find the Biblical passage that stipulates that underpants with a fly are male and without are exclusively female.
Is a shirt exclusively "male" attire? Women wear all sorts of men's shirts today. Is this Biblically condemned?
So, while fundamentalists today take Deuteronomy 22:5 out of its' originally intended context and apply it selectively to some forms of transgender behavior, what they're really arguing is status quo social appearances and roles. Extensions of those arguments have been long based on the socio-political position that biology exclusively determines destiny. Parallel arguments were used thousands of years ago to "put women in their proper place," and deny them equal social standing and opportunity with males, who had wrested total social control through the development of a patriarchal power system. Women were denied education for Biblical reasons. Hebrew women were forbidden from studying the Talmud. The prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 was employed to prohibit women from donning male attire to study the Talmud and enter the inner sanctum of the Temple where men made all the decisions. Barbra Streisand's movie "Yentl" dealt with that. One-hundred years ago the argument was stretched to deny women entry into medical and law schools which were felt to be career roles exclusively reserved ("that which pertaineth to") males. Who decides "that which pertaineth to?" Is it intuitively obvious? It is to those who are intent on preserving their position in the power hierarchy of the status quo. But it isn't to anyone who uses the ability to think God gave us to understand things in their proper context.
The fundamentalists' insistence on a totally literal application of Deuteronomy 22:5 against transgender loses all merit because of their own inconsistency in selective and uneven application of this "rule" of "God's word" in everyday life. Either it totally applies to EVERYONE as written or it doesn't. Unable to score a "slam dunk" using a simple Biblical "one-liner," fundamentalists often next assault the transsexual "lament" of being "born into the wrong body." "God doesn't make mistakes," the fundamentalists assert. Maybe not. But if children born with myriad terrible birth defects aren't "God's mistake," how do they come into this world burdened with such afflictions and suffering? "It is because of mankind's fall from grace and expulsion from the Garden of Eden as described in Genesis," the fundamentalists reply. "Mankind brings about its' own suffering because of the continuation of sinful ways." "Furthermore," they'll continue, "another of Genesis' lessons is about dissatisfaction with what God has given you. God made you a man or a woman, and you should be satisfied with your lot." Some further assert that pestilence, famine and disease persist because of Satan's influence in providing temptation to lead mankind along continuing sinful paths. Extremists even assert that such awful occurrences are actually God's punishment for sinful ways. (If so, God must be terribly unhappy with Baptists, because they seem to suffer from the effects of tornadoes more than any other religious sect). Are we therefore to be expected to sit idly by and do nothing to alleviate or correct suffering by employing the main thing God gave us to set us above the beasts - our intelligence? Are children born blind, deaf, or with other birth defects supposed to meekly accept that as their lot in life and are their parents to do nothing? They are if the mis-logic used by fundamentalists towards the transgendered is consistently applied. Further extension of that mis-logic would preclude scientific research into the causes and cures for cancer, diabetes, leukemia, polio, tuberculosis, etc. All but the most rigid fundamentalists have abandoned the old religious condemnations that once accompanied disease and disability as individual failures of faith along with the presence of Satan in an individual, and do not oppose using medical science to cure disease and correct birth defects. The Bible itself documents Jesus curing a blind man by smearing mud on his sightless eyes (Gospel according to John, Ch. 9). New scientific knowledge and medical cures are no less a "miracle." They come from the "miracle" of God's gift to us of intelligence and pursuit of real truth.
The fundamentalists assertion that transgenderism doesn't merit such acceptance is rooted in their need for an overly simplistic view of social order where everything is "black and white." We all have to fit into one of two neatly labeled "boxes" called "male" and "female." But we know that the spectrum of light consists of a full rainbow between the absolutes of light and dark. There is simply no validity to the assumption that while God has created a rainbow of colors and species, including butterflies and fish that can morph themselves between male and female depending on the balance in their domains, mankind is limited to only two distinct and separate categories. Such limitations are imposed not by God, but by humans of limited intellectual and spiritual capacity. As a matter of fact, legitimate interpretation of the original Hebrew text of Genesis allows precisely for pangendered beings just as ancient societies clearly understood and some still recognize and openly accept (Native Americans, for example) because they have refused to bow to the myths of incorrect, simplistic religious doctrine. The original Hebrew of Genesis 1:27 does not say "So God created Man in his own image." It says "God created Ha-Adam." Not Man. The Hebrew word for "man" is "ish," not "adam." It was purely biased speculation on the part of the English translators who wrote the King James Version in the 17th century that "Ha-Adam" meant "man." There is absolutely no historical evidence for the use of the word "adam" to mean "man" in any of the semitic tongues of that day. The Hebrew verse literally says simply "God created Ha-Adam; in God's image Ha-Adam was created; male and female was Ha-Adam created." "Ha-Adam" simply means "the Adam," whatever that was. And whatever it was, it was created male and female, not exclusively male or female. "Ha-Adam" was clearly multi-gendered despite centuries of refusal by Judeo-Christian religion to accept that fact, because it was tied to polytheistic Egyptian creation myths (which were the actual origins of the stories contained within Genesis).
We have learned that the assertion that "biology is destiny" is not patently or rigidly true. In Biblical times, a child's future in society was quickly determined at birth by examination of the baby's genitals. There was no questioning the equation:
Genital Sex = Identity = Social Role
There was no concept of gender as a social role. There are no translations of that word anywhere in any version of the Bible. Sex was assumed to be completely bipolar, and it was exclusively genital sex.
Is physical sex that simple? Through use of the Lord's gift to us of intelligence, we have learned that there are multiple elements that constitute sex. They are:
External Genitalia. Does the individual have a penis or a vagina?
Gonadial Sex. What type of gonads are present, testicles or ovaries?
Internal Subsidiary Reproductive Mechanisms. Prostate gland, uterus, fallopian tubes.
Chromosomal Sex. The set of chromosomes, XX or XY, provides chromosomal definition.
Hormonal Sex. The balance between testosterone and estrogen, both of which are produced in all males and females.
"Brain Sex." The balance of hormonal, chemical, and mental activity in the brain.
We usually assume convergence of all these elements, but that is not a universal truth. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled a transsexual woman's marriage invalid because despite genital reconstructive surgery, her chromosomes hadn't changed. That ruling assumed that sex is thus fundamentally chromosomal, and fits into only one of two categories - XX or XY. But then what is a person who is chomosomally XXY, XXXY, XYY, XYYY? These combinations do occur in nature. Tula, the famous and glamorous British transsexual model, was tested to be XXXY chromosomally prior to her genital reconstructive surgery. Medical literature has reported cases of babies born with external male genitalia who turn out to be female at puberty when their female hormones kick in. There is a documented case of a male fraternal twin, whose twin sister died as a child, who developed breasts and a female figure during puberty, yet had male genitals. There are even babies born with both sets of external genitalia. Although extremely rare, those cases serve to disprove any assertion that we all fit only into one of the predetermined identity "boxes."
There are further implications underlying narrow definitions of sexual and gender identities and roles. First there is the implicit assumption that all such behavior is related to illicit and promiscuous sexual activity. Fundamentalists will quickly assert that the erotic pleasure derived by crossdressers is "unnatural" and a sin in God's eyes. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for "grievous sins" (Genesis, Ch. 18) is often brought up, although there is absolutely no archeological evidence whatsoever that either city ever existed, and Biblical text describing their locations are filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. While there is no doubt most crossdressers derive some level or erotic pleasure from the tactile sensations or autogynephilic (imagining themselves to be women) fantasies, there are absolutely no prohibitions against erotic fantasy in either Testament. Neither the word erotic nor fantasy can be found in any translations through computer searches. The Sodomite sin of debauchery meant extreme indulgence in lascivious, licentious, unbridled sexual desire. The erotic and psychological gratification associated with a transgenderist's pleasure simply doesn't fit that definition in most instances and thus does not merit blanket condemnation.
Just beneath that surface is the unspoken belief that revealing or sensual female clothing automatically signifies that woman's seeking sex and, by extension, any male crossdresser must be seeking such sex in a female role by donning such attire. Such a sexual role for a male to female crossdresser must of course be "homosexual," which the fundamentalists will instantly tell us is also Biblically condemned. They quote the same Old Testament passages regarding the doom of Sodom and Sodomite behavior being an "abomination." Yet they ignore the clear association of "abomination" ("TO'EBAH") with pagan ritual in Deuteronomy (20:18). The Old Testament prohibitions as found in the Holiness Code (Leviticus, Ch. 17-22) were clearly rejected by both Jesus and Paul (Mark 7:17-23, Romans 14:14,30). According to the Fundamentalist Journal the Holiness Code concerns only "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleanness." Even Paul's admonitions (Romans I, the "Gospel of Salvation") are clearly tied to paganistic ritual behavior when read in the context of the whole passage. Calvin Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar Marten H. Woudstra says "There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we know it today." SMU New Testament scholar Victor Paul Furnish has written "there is no text on homosexual orientation in the Bible." Robin Scroggs of Union Seminary has written "No single New Testament author considered homosexuality important enough to write a single sentence about it." It is really a false religious issue.
Strict rules for female public dress and behavior in fundamentalist societies have existed for centuries. At the extreme are societies where the woman must be garbed from head to foot in black robes that reveal nothing of a woman, not even her eyes. These rules are actually rooted in males' fear of the power of female sexuality. Females have long been considered sorceresses and sirens that could easily tempt a male away from righteous life. The sixth century Catholic Council of Macon debated if women were even human. Young males were cautioned not to let evil women drain their "precious bodily fluids." The "Malleus Maleficarum" published in 1486 by two Dominican Inquisitors in response to a Papal bull regarding sorcery led to the witch-hunts of the dark ages where women were subject to severe punishment and even death. Subsequent writing by Martin Luther and the sixteenth-century playwrights Paul Rebhun and Hans Sachs developed the concept of the "modern witch" as the counterpart to their definition of the ideal urban housewife. The binary concepts of "good" housewife and "bad wife" (or witch) were propagated among the patriarchal power elite who presided over witch trials that served to discipline women who failed to display proper docility and subservience expected of them in that societies' power structure.
Women have certainly learned to use their guile and sensuality to their benefit - because those have largely been the only tools the male power structure has left them. However, it is the male of the species who is more likely to have gratuitous sex with any cooperative partner, not the female, but such facts are ignored by the patriarchies' power brokers.
"Now you're quibbling and picking and choosing those Biblical passages that you choose to believe," say the fundamentalists, "and you can't do that. You have to obey all the words of God." Do they? Don't they pick and choose only those passages that support their personal positions? I can take passages out of context as well as they can. In the Gospel according to Matthew, in Jesus' sermon to the multitudes in which the Lord's prayer is first found, (Mathew 6:1-34), Matthew writes "Therefore when thou does't thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do….take thine alms in secret. When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy father which is in secret." How many fundamentalists trumpet their worship, and offer their prayers in public that they may bask in the glory of men? Again quoting from Luke (16:15): "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." There's that word "abomination" again, in a context where it could be interpreted to mean that profligate public religious displays are abomination to God." Does it really mean "abhorred," or ceremonially unclean and inappropriate?
Earlier in the Gospel according to Matthew, it is written that "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Where does that leave not just Playboy and Penthouse magazines, but the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue????) And "Whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery." Really? The passage makes absolutely NO allowance for a woman deserted by a faithless husband. Do all fundamentalists follow each and every one of these words and consider all marriages with divorced women to be adultery?
Further arguments often find citation from I Corinthians as prohibiting effeminacy - i.e. - males are not to take on feminine ways. I Corinthians 6:9 is translated in the King James Version as:
"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."
It certainly appears that no one who has had sexual intercourse outside of marriage or committed adultery shall ever enter into heaven. A woman whose husband deserts her is defined as an adulteress, and any man who later marries her after divorce is defined as an adulterer. Do the Fundamentalists insist on literal translations in this case? Or are they guilty of "picking and choosing? They seem to totally ignore the admonitions of Matthew.
That passage from Corinthians also serves to further illuminate something most fundamentalists find difficult to deal with - the effect of multiple translations over thousands of years. Language, its' inherent social meanings, and its' evolution over centuries are major issues. The word translated into "effeminate" in the KJV appears in the original Greek text of Corinthians as "malakos." It is NOT translated as "effeminate" anywhere else in the Bible. It is translated differently in the Darby, Young's, and New International Versions of the New Testament. It is the same word that is translated as "soft" in Matthew 11:8. Aristotle wrote in the Nicomachean Ethics that "malakos" essentially means "licentious," or unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. There is simply no question that the term was translated to suit the personal biases of the translators who prepared the King James Version of the Bible, who were doing so during a tumultuous political time in England when the aristocracy was assuming more and more elaborate and effeminate dress until the revolution instituted by the puritans who installed Cromwell as the "Lord Protector" of England.
The context of language is most significant in understanding any writing, ancient or modern, holy or secular. Words do change in their meanings over time. For example, we're all familiar with the legendary "cowboy" of the American west. The word today conjures up an image of the lean, laconic, masculine, rough-hewn hero who lived by an idealized code of honor, integrity, and bravery. How many know the true origins of that word? A first application was as the name of a brutal gang of outlaws formed from bands of Confederate soldiers who wandered west from Texas into Arizona in the early 1870s, driven by the economic expansion fueled by the conclusion of the Civil War along with other pioneers thrust into the unsettled southwest. In those days, there was no "New Mexico." The borders of Texas extended to the Rio Grande; west of the Rio Grande was Arizona. The "cowboys" operated brutally across the southwest until their defeat by the legendary Wyatt Earp in Tombstone. Yet in less than 50 years, not several hundred or several thousand, the meaning of the word took on an entirely different aspect. The exact same thing has happened to many words in the Bible as they became subject to the social contexts of the translators and interpreters.
Speaking of the "masculine cowboy," we all think we know what the words "masculine" and "feminine" mean. Aren't they also "intuitively obvious?" Are they? Here are their definitions from the Webster's and Random House Dictionaries:
Masculine: "Having the qualities or characteristics of a man; manly, virile, strong, bold."
Feminine: "Having the qualities or characteristics pertaining to a woman; weakness, gentleness, modesty, delicateness."
Is that how we see all men and women today? Or is this akin to the joke about the definition about pornography, where a judge once said " I may not be able to precisely define it, but I sure know it when I see it."
"Changing your sex or your gender is a violation of God's plan," is a further Fundamentalist variation on "God doesn't make mistakes." Transgenderists are accused of thwarting "God's will." Really? How do the fundamentalists know? Who gave them the only true insight into "God's will" or "God's plan?" How do they know that surviving the trauma of social scorn and gender dysphoria and emerging as a stronger, truer person isn't "God's plan" for any given individual, if such a "plan" exists at the individual human level.
But by dressing as a woman you're essentially lying and attempting to deceive, they'll next retort. "You're lying about who you are." Am I? I am simply presenting myself in the garb of the group with which I wish to be identified and in the social role I'd prefer to play. Clothing is as much a "club uniform" as anything else. We see it in so many aspects of daily life, from military and police uniforms to the conformity of the "Goth" or "punk" looks within their own social groups. I am not "lying" about being female - I am presenting my true inner "self" as I want that "self" to be seen.
"But you won't get through the 'Pearly Gates' wearing a disguise." Are we clothed before God? Isn't it our soul and spirit that is seen and not our outer covering? I am in no way trying to disguise my inner soul to God or for that matter any man. I am telling more of the truth about myself than most who present themselves in a variety of guises and disguises. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that it is wrong to not overtly advertise everything about one's self. The Bible documents that Jesus often appeared to people without their recognizing him; for instance, on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32), He spent the entire day with two of His followers, only revealing Himself to them in the evening. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was without sin, yet he was disguising Himself somehow from others. I'm quite comfortable that I follow the underlying truths behind the words of God and the teachings of Jesus, regardless of how I'm dressed. Jesus said nothing in his teachings about homosexuality or transgenderism, but he said plenty about God's grace to all people of faith.
Despite the fundamentalists' insistence, true faith need not be blind faith. The key word in the phrase "blind faith" is not "faith" but the word "blind." True faith delights in rational, intelligent thought, logic and reason and does not require blindness to historical and factual inaccuracies and contradictions that fundamentalists insist must be totally accepted because of "divine inspiration." The fundamentalists' requirement that all people of faith believe that each and every one of the thousands of men (and it was only men, not women) who took part in the multiple writings, editings, and translations of the Bible were gifted with pure truth and divine inspiration is absolute nonsense. The less educated and less inclined to think independently people are, the more secure they are in the absolute rightness of their beliefs. Is that why ignorance is bliss? Fundamentalists' reject the Mormon faith's claim to the divine inspiration of Joesph Smith and Brigham Young and their discovery of the "lost tablets" as their basis for the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Mormon divine inspiration is incredible and unbelievable but fundamentalists' vision is somehow different? What is the difference?
Even our Founding Fathers clearly understood the need for intelligent, reasoned faith. Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, and John Adams all wrote about it. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Peter Carr on August 10, 1787 "Question with boldness even the existence of God, because if there be one He must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
The fundamentalists' condemnations of others come from their failure to honor the true admonitions of Jesus to love each other - and their own subconscious failure to truly love themselves. They seem to insist on bringing their own fears and insecurities into others' lives by casting open the door to a host of demons of self-doubt. After all is said and done what all these arguments are really about is not the salvation of my eternal soul but rather it is about maintenance of a social status quo and power hierarchy and who makes everyday social rules. Misinterpretation of Biblical rules has been used for millennia to maintain the macho male dominated status quo against all non-members of the male power elite, who hide behind their version of "God's word." There is sarcastic bumper sticker message stating that "The Religious Right is Neither!" It is neither Christian nor right in its' shallow misinterpretations of Biblical text. They casually forget that Jesus fundamental truth was about love. They seem oblivious to the damage their thoughtless insistence on blind acceptance of myth does to faith in general because it drives intelligent, thinking people away. That was never Jesus intention, for he never intended for faith to be exclusionary. He came and he died for ALL of us. Fundamentalists also overlook the admonitions in Romans Chapter 14: (14:13) "Let us not therefore judge one another any more;" (14:14) "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself." Paul's admonitions dealt with uncleanness and "abomination" only as it related to polytheistic pagan ceremonial practices.
The multiple translations to the Bible have been written over the centuries by and for men. Beyond that, western science has for centuries skewed the "norm" towards men so that the biological underpinnings of their weaknesses and strengths have been applauded while those of women have been denigrated (women's "hysteria," for example). The Bible, while containing many historical fundamental moral truths, none-the-less allows for new knowledge. It is that new knowledge together with true faith, regardless of its' denomination or "flavor," that sets us free.
