Tuesday, February 21, 2012

M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 2

Welcome to the second instalment of my interviews with M.K. I would like to share my gratitude once again to M.K. who has graciously been willing to partake in these interviews, especially given his very busy schedule these days. While I can't say I speak for all of them, I believe it's fair to say that most of the readers of this blog share opinions that are much different than M.K. As such I ask that you once again extend to him the respect M.K. deserves, especially given the nature of the conversation. However, I'm sure he would love your questions and feedback and on his behalf I'm inviting you to submit your own questions in the comments section. Part 1 can be found here.



You recommend the book "The End of Sexual Identity." What is the main thrust of the book? 
The main thrust of Paris’ book is that we as Christians have simply given in to accepting the social constructions made by society, this happens in a multitude of ways. 
How does the author aim to frame the debate? 
She specifically focuses on how we as Christians have simply accepted the current system of sexuality as something that has always existed.  In her mind, it is improper to think of heterosexual and homosexual as fixed eternal categories. Ultimately all our desire should be pointed toward God, and our identity is to be found in Christ, not in who we are sexually attracted to.  
How has this changed your view?
Having studied a lot of gender theory related works; I was finding myself in agreement with her on basic concepts. Our current system for understanding sexuality and identity is just that, our current concept that fits our worldviews. 
This is of course not to say that LGBT individuals have an invalid identity, as it is impossible to completely separate ourselves from our social and cultural contexts and worldviews. And LGBT persons have a rich history of existing in many cultures and places throughout history, but they most likely did not understand themselves in the same way we may know. 
If I had to say that her book changed my view in one specific way though, I would say that it really did convince me that there are other ways to discuss these debates than the current framework we seem to be using of all or nothing.  
How have we used sexual identity in ways that are unhelpful? What are some better alternatives? 
I think that most people are missing out on seeing just how much variety there is in personal identity. We should not be forced to pick either straight or gay, and more people should be encouraged to find their identity outside of relationships-whether straight or gay. 
I would like to note, that from personal conversation with Paris, that both she and I would believe that the Transgender discussion in the Church needs to happen separately and independently from discussion of gay and lesbian issues.
If the transgender discussion ought to be separate from the Gay and Lesbian issues, perhaps it would helpful to clarify what Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender all mean, and how one may be distinct from another.

In a basic distinction, lesbian gay and bisexual all relate to sexuality, where as the transgender umbrella of terms relates to issues of gender identity and personal gender expression.
A lesbian is a woman attracted to women, someone who is gay is a male attracted to men, a bisexual person may find themselves attracted to either sex. A term which is gaining steam in the LGBT community is pansexual, which means you are more attracted to individuals and their personalities than their gender or sex. I like to jokingly say that it means that it all pans out when you find the right person.
Transgender is an umbrella term. Before getting into type of transgender individuals, you must understand four terms. Sex is the biological pieces that you are born with. This would be the physical categories of male and female, as well as intersex. Gender  and gender expression are the social rules and concepts which relate to how we express ourselves and also relate to gender identity, which is how we identify ourselves as male or female (or something else entirely)
So, someone who is transgender could be an individual who express themselves as a cross dresser, but does not have any disconnect between their gender identity and sex. Or individuals whose gender identity does not match their biological sex, and choose to either express this in some way, or if the disconnect is bad enough, some will desire to physically transition sexes.
I hope that is a helpful start to understanding a wide world of terms.
Can we still use terms heterosexual and homosexual as merely descriptive? 

I think even in light of Paris' thoughts, we still can use the social terms that are at our convenience. We are social creatures, and we cannot completely detach ourselves from our modern world views. 

Every culture has set its own norms, taboos, and expectations for Gender roles. But are gender roles arbitrarily dictated by the culture?

This would relate to the term gender expression that I mentioned earlier. Gender and sex are intimately related. Personally I  think that there is an innate nature of some level of gender identity, whether as male or female, or something androgynous. We in turn may find out whether this relates to our biological sex, and based on our societies and personal feelings we will choose how we express it. So in my opinion, gender is both innate and built by society.
Do you see certain Biblical expectations toward being a man or a woman? 

Personally I would say not. I do think the bible can speak into cultural expectations, and can speak to us as people enmeshed in our societies gender roles. However, in my mind much of the gendered discussion in scripture is more related to cultural concepts of the time and pointed towards a wider biblical vision of equality between all people. To me a key verse is Paul saying in Galatians that in Christ there is no male or female, and that distinction was as trivial to our christian identity as Jew and gentile.
I recently wrote a paper for an independent study where I attempted to examine redemptive history from a transgender standpoint, and to understand how we read a lot of gender assumptions into scripture. It was a very rewarding paper.

Paul speaks to the Galatians about our true identity being found in Christ rather than our ethnicity, our status in society, or our gender. By doing so he demonstrates that our identity is given by grace alone through faith alone rather than some inherited, achieved, or innate status. In your opinion, what are some ways that gender has negatively effected the way we read about redemption?
The first thing that comes to mind is Mark Driscoll. He is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about. Many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal. The biblical ideal is that we are one in Christ, and that should never be used as a way to claim authority over another human being.
I don't know if I would say that it has caused us to understand redemption itself improperly, but our gender ideals often get in the way of the church and community functioning in a more biblical and healthy way.

I know you to be someone who supports gay marriage. Why have you chosen this position? Would you consider it a "right?" Why or why not?

It is true that I support the right of marriage equality. In doing so, I am speaking from the perspective of a citizen of the USA, and in the context of our politics, my answers may not speak into other political contexts. I believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.
I do not believe this infringes upon Churches either. Churches are allowed to set up their own standards to "discriminate" on who they marry. For example, when I was married in a Catholic church, I had to go through a certain amount of counseling and such before being allowed to be married. Churches can marry whom they want, and deny others, as long as it is not just a random standard.
In fact, I think it is a triumph of the concept of marriage to see that gay couples desire the life long commitment that marriage means.
The historical Christian consensus is that homosexuality (as a behavioural pattern) is a sin. In other words, it's a question of whether it's intrinsically right or wrong. Agree or disagree, and why?

I will admit at this point that I have put far more effort into studying biblical issues relating to transgenderism than I have researching into the biblical issues surrounding homosexuality. However, I have a lot of people who I know have put serious time into researching it, and come away believing that one can be gay, in a relationship, and Christian, and I would agree. 



No comments:

Post a Comment