What follows promises to be short and sweet. Whether you take offense is a personal choice, and something you might have to work out. I do not claim to answer every point any community asks, but there will be a couple of issues that I will point out, as they flow through this topic
First, it would appear sexuality, male and female, was created on the Third Day with the introduction of the plants and dry land, and that reproduction and the spread of creation requires male and female interacting one with another.
Now, the exceptions aside where gender switch happens in biology, which happen to be a gross minority, and understanding that many of those switches occur in order to create a male/female binary, most of creation by a wide margin requires both parts interacting one with another.
G-d created them male and female, and G-d intended that generation and multiplication happen across the board. This is His design, and well beyond any counterflowing viewpoints.
Second, while conversing with my wife about the transgender issue, and following a conversation with a brother who came out of the transgender arena and back to relatively healthy masculinity, something occurred to me that this brother helped bring to light.
Those who adapt different sexual identity from how they were designed mostly do so with a pick-and-choose system. There is rarely consistency of any sort. That is, trans people generally seem to execute a cafeteria masculinity or femininity.
And the L-rd has made us for more than merely to pick and choose. He did not intend for us to walk in confusion.
Third, I had a conversation with a pastor friend of mine, and he postulated the following question, in light of Matthew 19:12, which reads:
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Matthew 19:12 ESV
What if we get used to either marriage or sexual deviance as the only two acceptable options, when there might be a third option that few are willing to entertain? Namely, the calling to a life of eunuchhood.
And what if we are forcing people to choose between this (marriage) and that (deviance) when their real expression should be celebacy?
It is an interesting concept to consider.
I do not think healthy and close same-sex friendships are a bad thing. As a Redemptive Gift of Mercy, I have a few of those that I would consider close friends, maybe some intimate.
What I have an issue with is….
…when we think that closeness and intimacy and physical touch means we were meant to embrace a solution that violates all kinds of principles that have been clearly laid-down and later uncontested in the canon of Scripture.
And when He gives principles, and law, and statutes, He does not do it to be a killjoy, but to protect us and to keep us from destruction and from paths that are dead-ends and will keep us from walking out the greater purpose for which we were created.
Gang, being taken into a place of frustration because we think marriage or deviance are the only two acceptable and G-d-ordained possibilities, and we force people into relationships rather than permit them to entertain a lifetime of singleness can rob us of some fine treasures the Father wants to express.
G-d did not make us to solve one problem by creating twelve others.
And perhaps we would do well by letting and celebrating G-d’s design in expressions that are other than the norm and that do not violate cause and effect.
I have seen much destruction when we present or we allow the culture and the SOTA (Spirit of the Age) to teach us and our children what helathy relational expression looks like.
And lest we forget, a man or a woman will reap what they sow. His design for relationships is for relationships where the possibility of multiplication and fruitfulness is a real possibility. Engaging in sexual relationship structures that guarantee both a lifetime of frustration and zero chance for multiplication was never his intent.
For those who wish to pick this apart by marshalling the argument of barrenness (“well, barren people are not able to have kids. Are you condemning them as well?”), then you missed the point and the nuance of what I am saying.
For the barren couple, the possibility of childbirth is very real, and repeatedly we have seen throughout Scripture the L-rd speaking about and dealing with barrenness.
So, no, I am not going to insert the barrenness red herring into this discussion.
What I am saying, is that when our expressions of sexuality violate the fairly-clear cause-and-effect relationships pertaining to human sexuality that the L-rd gave us, we find ourselves in a dangerous place.
And when we fail to recognize or we purposefully neglect other of His principles, such as the principles pertaining to eunuchs in Matthew 19, we will likely increase the chances of our frustration.
Perennial frustration and powerlessness and futility are not the portion of the child of G-d. Seasons where we have a bit of testing and refining and difficulty are. But G-d did not create us and destine us for permanent powerlessness.
So, as you consider masculinity and femininity, be sure to embrace ALL of that which pertains to you, and I implore you to deeply consider whether or not you are allowing woundedness, deception, offense, or buy-in of a cultural system to chart the course of your relational expression.
Those legal/moral passages in Scripture, regardless of the testament in which they are found have a purpose, and they form a fence and boundary markers and building blocks that protect us and with which we can build.
So, build well and defend well what He has given to your charge.
Be blessed, gang.
