Ok so a lot of people seem to think I’m a walking contradiction, but I’m trying to walk that as truthfully as I can on both sides of this divide. My lgbt friends are all like “we accept that you are trans but i dunno about this whole ‘Christian’ thing” and my Christian friends are all like “we accept that you are Christian but i dunno about this whole ‘trans’ thing”

So in attempting to reconcile all this, I came out to my pastor. In doing so, there’s still a pretty big chance I’ll be kicked out of my church, but that remains to be seen. But my pastor, my wife, and I have been chipping away at a document, back and forth, for like a year now. I don’t know how to edit this into something resembling a blog post, and I don’t agree with my pastor’s assertions, but leaving out his response seemed unfair to him. Our conversation hasn’t stopped, but we pivoted to talk about how this looks in reality instead of focusing on the nitty gritty theology, so there isn’t a written “my response to his response” part, but there was a verbal part to that, both of us poking holes in each other’s logic, it got very heated. Feel free to ask specific questions in the comments, I’m doing this for full transparency. So at the risk of losing some readability I’m going to try to keep this document in its true final form here, with as few edits as possible to still read coherently like some kinda blag post…

I’d like to get it out here on the internet, where maybe it can do some good and let some trans people know that their transness isn’t keeping them from God, and help some Christians know that trans folks aren’t the enemy, but some fellow broken humans that Christ calls us to love… and maybe the rare trans Christian will see this and can come out to whichever side they may be lying to.

I think that’s enough ado.

---

What does the Bible say about being transgender?

Opening note from my pastor: This is a response to your more exegetical explanation of the topic from your perspective. I’m trying to be brief and objective, but I don’t want that to be mistaken as unfeeling. You will see that I disagree with the reasoning put forth, but you know my care for you. I’ll quote your main statements (giving them names for ease of reference) and then summarize and respond to the core arguments in each.

---

The poetry argument My statement: “The main argument I see used against trans people is that God created Man and Woman, and the natural order doesn’t allow anything outside of that. My argument against that main argument is that Genesis 1 is poetry, and is not using binaries literally. If we say that Genesis 1 doesn’t allow for anything outside of Man and Woman, then we have to say that Genesis 1 doesn’t allow for dawn and dusk and bogs and beaches and fog and frogs and bats. Much of the theology of what it means to be male and female is built upon verse 21, and functionally adds an “only” to the text, that God created only male and female, and leaves no room for grey area. If there is no “only” then an intersex condition that doesn’t require medical treatment and doesn’t affect quality of life isn’t necessarily a product of the fall.

My Pastor’s response: The argument could be summarized this way: The binaries God created on the first days of creation have unmentioned transitional states (dawn and dusk, bogs and beaches). Therefore, the binary of man on the last day of creation could also have unmentioned transitional states (such as intersex). First, it should be stated that, at best, this only argues for the possibility of transitional states between male and female, not the certainty of those states. In other words, it is not conclusive proof. To argue for the existence of anatomical trans-individuals as part of God’s perfect creation would require other evidence, such as “in the image of God he created him; male and female, and combinations thereof, he created them.” That would settle the issue definitively. But there is biblical evidence that argues against this conclusion. I’ll point out three observations from Genesis that argue for the binary male and female as God’s only intended design for our biological sex. The nature of male and female is different than the nature of the other pairings. Day and night are cyclical phenomena whose transitional states (dusk and dawn) are the necessary outcome of an earth that rotates with respect to the sun. So also land and sea necessarily have transitional states (bogs and beaches) where the two meet. But there is no necessary transitional state between male and female (as in intersex for example). The binary couple is sufficient to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it”, which is what they are commanded by God to do (Gen. 1:28). In fact, even after the fall, this is reaffirmed in the flood account, where only male and female couples boarded the ark to replenish the human race, and the command was renewed.
So, the relationship between male and female is not directly comparable to the other pairings in the Genesis account. This makes the created binary of the last day unlike the created binaries of the other days. The assumption that it should have transitional states is unjustified on those grounds. Second, we have a direct report that when God rested from his creation, there was only the binary of male and female, with no transitional states. When God said in Genesis 1:27 “male and female he created them” he was referring to Adam and Eve, no one else. And as if to double down on this fact, Genesis 2 recounts the creation of man in more detail, describing how God created the one man and then the one woman from that man. It is these two individuals who then sinned in Genesis 3 and were cast out of the Garden. This argues against the possibility that God intended to make transitional states of male and female. The actual result of creation before the fall was a male and a female, not intersex. Most importantly, Genesis 1 highlights in several ways that man – male and female – is God’s crowning achievement, unlike anything else he has made. First, God uses a term to describe man – male and female – which he uses for nothing else. Only man is made “in his own image” (Gen. 1:26-27). The terms “in our image” or “after our likeness” communicate that man is more like God than anything else he has made. This is why he is given dominion over the rest of creation. Man is to reflect the character and creative capacity and benevolent rule of God over everything else. Man, created in his image specifically as “male and female he created them” is like God and accountable to God, which is restoring man to the image of God (Romans 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) is the focus of the redemptive work of Christ.

The repetition of the term “created” also points to man’s uniqueness in creation. The description that God “created” something only happens once before man’s creation, which was the creation of the land creatures. But when man’s creation is described, it is with a thrice-repeated emphasis: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. In other words, everything else was “created” but man was “created, created, created!” This is like bold face and underlining to signify unique importance. Also, the progression of the value statements from ‘good’ to ‘very good’ reflect this unique creation of man. Everything that was created in days one through five received at best what we might call a 4-star rating, namely “And God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:9, 12, 18, 21, 25). But only when God creates man as male and female does he give it a 5-star rating, namely “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). What made it very good? The creation of male and female. They are special in God’s creation. Everything else that was made was made was for them so they could “fill” and “subdue” the earth. The earth was like a stage set for the actors to arrive. What we can responsibly conclude from all that has been said above is this: There is no evidence for the existence of anatomical trans-individuals in creation; in fact, the evidence is strongly against it. What makes more sense is the simple solution, that the ‘poetic’ binary language in Genesis 1 is chosen precisely to build anticipation for the ultimate binary which is male and female in God’s image.

---

The variety argument My statement: “God created the world, and in his infinite intelligence he made it extremely complicated and messy and there’s always more to learn in any scientific pursuit, we never find the bottom or the top of Creation. We point Hubble at a dark patch of sky and find things we never imagined, we break apart subatomic particles and find things we don’t have names for yet. Any argument that hinges on downplaying the intricate details and incredible nuance that everything in Creation has, is missing a view of a God who loves variety.”

My pastor’s response: The argument could be summarized this way: God made a world of great variety and complexity, the depths of which we continue to discover. To deny that he could have created trans-individuals downplays his creativity and amounts to a downgraded view of God. Again, this only argues for the possibility of transitional states between male and female, (i.e. a creative God could have created physically trans-individuals as part of his creativity). But this is unconvincing for the simple reason that God decides what shape his creativity takes, and what shape it doesn’t take. After all, he is the potter and we are the clay (Isaiah 64:8, Rom. 9:21). Who are we to tell him what he made and how it should be made? We aren’t downgrading God’s creativity or love of variety by appreciating an individual work of art that is unlike all the others. Man as male and female is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14), his greatest work of art. The variety argument assumes God’s creativity must include intermediate states of human biological sex. But it does not. The variety of the species (dogs and frogs) does not necessitate gender variety within a species. From this it makes sense that conditions like intersex are the result of the fall. After the fall, the world is like a corrupted hard drive, with brokenness both of body and mind. Gender dysphoria and the blurring of biological sex is part of the corrupted hard drive. Therefore it can’t be relied upon as a picture of what God intended for man. Only the uncorrupted hard drive tells us what God intended to create. And that is man as male and female, in his image. Binary. Everything else is a deviation from God’s will.

---

The argument from texts prohibiting gender confusion My statement: “Smaller argument against: Prohibitions against confusing gender by one’s physical appearance apply to its practice in idol worship (Deuteronomy 22:5) or they address specific cultural situations and are not universal in scope, like the length of hair and covering or uncovering the head during worship in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15.”

My pastor’s response: Let’s say for the moment that this is true. And as far as I know, these are the only two texts that specifically address confusing gender by one’s physical appearance. If this is the case, here is what we have: The only texts in the Bible speaking of confusing gender appearance are both prohibitions. The prohibitions are in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The prohibitions are in the context of both idol worship and Christian worship. There are no positive affirmations of confusing gender appearance in the Bible. Now, if we are looking for what the Bible says about this issue, is it reasonable to conclude from the above that it affirms confusing gender appearance? Certainly not. The much more obvious conclusion is to say that the Bible doesn’t affirm this in any context, which is why the prohibitions are there. And that would be entirely consistent with what was said in previous points, namely that God created us male and female and he wants what he created to remain distinct according to his design. It could also be argued, I think appropriately, that the texts communicate a universal prohibition, not just a local or cultural situation, because both prohibitions are unqualified. But as you say, this is a “smaller argument”, so I won’t pursue that.

---

The inclusivity argument My statement: “My main argument for God allowing/affirming trans folks is: Who were the “gender non conforming” people of biblical times, and what does the bible say about them? The eunuch! Isa 56:3-5 - God has a place for us, a name for us. A promise of inclusivity. This also is the verse that finally gave me a place to stand in my theology and tell people what I was going through. Matthew 19:12 - Jesus giving a positive affirmation of the eunuchs, including those who make this choice themselves. I recognize this is in context talking about not being married, but it’s the only time Jesus talks about the eunuchs, and he does so in a positive light. Acts 8:36-37 - The Ethiopian Eunuch is culturally as far from Philip as possible; he is of different social status, skin color, nationality, and gender presentation. He asks Philip what is preventing him from being baptized, and Philip sees past all their differences and baptizes him. Gal. 3:28 - Paul’s statement that there is “no longer male or female” is one example in a list of things that describe people, but should have no bearing on their status in the family of God. It suggests an affirmation of gender nonconformity, since it appears the Lord is downplaying sex identity as well as social standing and Jewishness.”

My pastor’s response: There’s a lot in here to address, but for the moment I’m out of time to do justice to each Scriptural reference. So let me focus on a common theme in your argument. I would put your thoughts this way: God is inclusive of all kinds of people from all different backgrounds, including ‘gender non-conforming’, with the eunuch being the prime example. He speaks of them in an affirming way. This posture means he affirms their gender non-conformity. First, let me say that I have seen no convincing argument that a eunuch (as in Matthew 19:12) is anyone other than a man who is unable to marry and bear children due to: genital deformity (“eunuchs who have been so from birth”), castration (“eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men”) or voluntary celibacy for the purpose of gospel ministry (“eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”). Jesus is speaking of all these men in the context of marriage, which is the subject of the previous verses. The disciples were aghast at the restrictions on divorce and exclaimed “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Mat. 19:10). Jesus then says, “Not everyone can receive this saying [that it is better not to marry], but only those to whom it is given”. To whom is it given to not marry? It is given to eunuchs, because they are men who can’t marry for the three reasons he mentions. This is not an affirmation of gender non-conformity; it is an affirmation of the sanctity of marriage as a bond not to be broken. You mention from the Isaiah 56 passage that it is a promise of inclusivity, and it seems to me that this strikes at the heart of the pain you feel. You want to be included, you want to know that God loves you and that there is a place for you in heaven. Those are all good desires which God intends to fulfill through the gospel. But it seems that your concept of inclusivity means more than that. It seems that inclusivity also means God’s affirmation of your self-perception as a female in a male body. You want his approval of your gender non-conformity as essential to your sense of his love. The Isaiah 56 passage does not affirm that. Rather, it is one of many passages where God simply affirms that no matter what a person’s brokenness is, they will be redeemed through faith in him. It is inclusive in the sense that anyone can be saved, but it does not affirm the brokenness itself. God loves his people, but not their brokenness, which is what he intends to save us from. Let’s look at what Isaiah 56 does say. Isaiah 56:4 For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant… Observation: The eunuchs here are men who are unable to marry and bear children, and they are faithful God worshippers who want to please God. They are the objects of the promise that follows. Isaiah 56:5 I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Observation: The promise is that even though the ‘name’ of the eunuchs won’t continue in this life – because they have no progeny – they can be encouraged. God has a name for them that is everlasting. Because they trust in God, their name will be established forever in the life to come. This doesn’t affirm their ‘eunuch’ status as a good thing. Rather he gives consolation for their broken state. I would say the same thing about the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip baptized him because the man believed the gospel, and anyone who does that should be baptized, regardless of their background or brokenness. All may come to the living waters and be washed by the blood of Christ. God affirms us in his Son, but that does not mean he affirms our brokenness itself as a good thing. That is especially true for our sins. After birth, there needs to be growth in holiness. This is sanctification. The Galatians 3 passage is on similar ground. The subject matter in that passage is about who is justified before God and heirs to God’s promises. Answer: “In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Gal. 3:26). Faith is what connects us to Christ, who makes us sons of God in union with him. And who is “in Christ”? Answer: “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Faith expressed in baptism is how we ‘put on Christ’. And are there any restrictions on who that can be? Answer: No, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). This is not a text about gender nonconformity as a good thing, or a downplaying of the very real differences between people. It is an affirmation that anyone can become “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29). The main point here is that God’s affirmation of those in Christ is not an affirmation of the brokenness and sin that made us need salvation in the first place. He loves us, but not the things that break us.

---

The dualism argument My statement: “Secondary argument: Dualism! I have less riding on this, but this is what it feels like to be trans. The mind/soul and body don’t connect properly. So is it ok to adjust the body to fit the mind? 1 Samuel 16:7 - God looks at the heart. He knows the real me, not the physical me that everyone else sees and judges me for. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 - Transitioning your body to align with your heart may not be sinful, but may even be a positive step in taking care of yourself, which we are commanded to do. I have trouble taking care of this temple of the Holy Spirit and would take better care of a more feminine me.”

My pastor’s response: We can affirm that God looks at the heart and knows our inner life (1 Sam. 16:7 as an example). We can also affirm that God created us with souls and bodies, the immaterial and material ‘you’. The immaterial ‘you’ is referred to in Scripture as heart/mind/soul/spirit. But the question is this: when the heart/mind doesn’t agree with the physical body, which one is most likely to be right? In other words, what is most likely to be the positive step of taking care of yourself? Do you change the body or change the mind? Scripture says we change the mind, not the body. Here’s why I say that. One of the frequent descriptions of how we are fallen is in our hearts and minds, in how we perceive things, what we value, and what we believe. For example, Ephesians 4:17-18 “…you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” This is a sweeping indictment of man without God: our hearts and minds are fallen. We also have commands not to trust our heart/mind, but to trust the Lord’s word over our own understanding. For example: Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. Proverbs 28:26 Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, These and other texts show us why we can’t trust our own thoughts about who we are: we need God to tell us who we are. And he has said what we are: male and female and nothing in between. Our biological sex is what God created; it is not a result of the fall. So if our bodies and minds don’t agree, the body is telling the truth, not the mind. That means transitioning your body to align with your heart would not be a positive step in taking care of yourself, for it is contrary to God’s will for how he created you. Rather, through the word and the Holy Spirit, we gradually are transformed by the renewing of our minds.

---

The asthma argument My statement: “Asthma Test/Sliding Scale of Medical Care What sin is being committed by transitioning? Lying to oneself? Idolizing one’s appearances? I’ve never seen a good answer to this question. Only people saying It’s a sin because they think it is. Is body modification like tattoos/piercings a sin? Why or why not? What about altering one’s physiology like taking asthma medicine?”

My pastor’s response: Here I think we need to make a distinction between the categories of sin and disability. Asthma is a disability that is a result of the fall. It is not sin itself, and the pursuit of alleviating the pain is not wrong. God intends to heal us from all disability in the new creation. We are aligned with his will when we use the common grace of medicine for that. But biological sex as male or female is not a result of the fall; it is not a disability. It is God’s design. If a person is born with a distinct bodily gender as male or female, that is not brokenness; that is “fearfully and wonderfully made.” That is not a ‘condition’ that needs to be treated. [Intersex might be, but that is a disability and not a case of gender dysphoria.] To intentionally change one’s biological sex to the opposite sex would be to reject God’s design. And as a side note, tattoos and piercings don’t change a person’s gender, so that is not fundamentally a sinful thing to do. That brings us to the big question: What sin is being committed by transitioning? It would be twofold. First, it is sin to reject God’s design for our life, to reject his choice of our gender. That is like saying to God, ‘You made a mistake, and I am going to fix it.” And that cannot be. Second, it is seeking from transitioning something that can only be found in Jesus Christ: rest for your soul (Matt. 11:28-30). That makes it idolatry, for it is seeking life from something you can do rather than from what God has done, which is to send Christ to die for you and to dwell with you by his Spirit. Consistently the Scriptures point us to Christ and all that we have in him to alleviate our distress. And many people who have taken that path to alleviate their pain, even gender dysphoria, have found the help they needed. I believe you will also.