Coming Home Shannon Buzard November 23, 2008 Transgender Day of Remembrance Sunday Part 1: Introduction This morning I do want to give some background to at least one of the stories that was a part of Peterson Toscano's play on Tuesday evening here at our Transgender Day of Remembrance observation, but that will not be the main point of the sermon. There are a number of themes that reoccur throughout the Bible, and amongst those is reconciliation. There are the numerous times Israel is reconciled to God, and likewise David reconciled to God as well. There is Peter's denial of Christ and then his request for forgiveness. And then one can always point to Jesus' story of the prodigal son. We tend to see these always from the prodigal point of view, but there is another point of view to each of those as well. In the cases I mentioned above, there is normally some element of sin that led to the separation, someone putting something other than God as more important in their life. That is the very essence of idolatry, and the one sin I think is most prevalent in our society, but almost never recognized. We tend to think that we are not idolaters if we don't explicitly and physically bow down and worship some figurines. But consider that God's command in the Ten Commandments was to have no other Gods ahead of God. That is, to not put anything else in the way of our relationship to God. God is who we follow. Anything in the way of that interrupts our ability to share God's love with the world. We easily recognize how money and things can become those idols. But so likewise can subservience to sets of rules be also idols. God didn't give us lots of rules—10 in the Old Testament, 2 in the new—and all the rest were made by men and hence not a part of the covenant with God. To set them up as more than men's rules, can put them in conflict with our relationship with God. Part 2: Coming out means sometimes leaving those we love behind: When I first came out to my family a number of years ago, I came out to my sister Wendy first, and I left my father until absolutely last. My father was the one that I—in my own mind—deemed least likely to be accepting. To some degree I was right, and to some degree I was wrong. When I was in high school and early college age, I not for reasons of rebellion but more just by God's leading, decided to attend a different church than what my parents were attending at that time. It was as much for doctrinal reasons, but also I knew where God didn't want me, and one of those places was the church where the rest of my family attended. Now this you will probably find quite funny now, but the church I left was much, much more liberal in doctrine and philosophy than the one I went to, which was a fundamentalist protestant Bible church. But that is where God wanted me at the time. I learned much there, from both the scriptures as well as lessons about stepping out and trusting God on faith alone. I also loved the preaching of the pastor there, a fellow named Ken Hall, who has since retired from being a daily pastor and instead now counsels pastors as a private practice. Later, as some problems with conduct of some of the leadership at the other church surfaced, the rest of my family followed me to the Bible church. My father later became good friends with Pastor Ken Hall and they routinely played golf together. When I first told my father, I had already been transitioned for quite some time. My name was legally what it is now, and really the only thing that remained of my transition at that point was the physical surgery. My father's response was that he still loved me anyway, did not want to end contact with me in any way, but really wanted me to talk to someone about this—he at this point felt this was all still new and reversible; he really had no concept how far down the road God had already led me. He wanted me to have a discussion with Ken Hall, someone whose opinion he knew I respected, and who he was sure was going to talk me out of all this nonsense. I did have the discussion with Ken, and going into it I had prepared all of my scriptures relating to eunuchs and structured my arguments on paper, but in the end Ken didn't even want to discuss any of that, instead he wanted to hear about how my personal relationship with God was going and how God was leading me in this. At the end of our discussion, Ken understood that this is where God wanted me to be and agreed to explain that to my father. I would have paid a lot of money at the time to have been a fly on the wall in that discussion, but suffice to say that my father by his treatment of me after that time never really did have an understanding or acceptance of who I had become and why. Part 3: What does all that have to do with Peterson now?: At this point, you are probably asking yourself what does any of this have to do with Peterson Toscano's play on Tuesday evening? Bye and bye you will see, but let us look in detail at one of Peterson's stories that I just found fascinating. When I first saw Transfigurations back in April just after Peterson had first released the play, I was fascinated by the story of Joseph, son of Jacob, and went and did my own research. I have included these passages in the bulletin insert, and I encourage you to follow along. Genesis 37: 3-4, 14-24 Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he had made him a long robe with sleeves. But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him. So he[Jacob] said to him, ‘Go now, see if it is well with your brothers and with the flock; and bring word back to me.’ So he sent him from the valley of Hebron. He came to Shechem, and a man found him wandering in the fields; the man asked him, ‘What are you seeking?’ ‘I am seeking my brothers,’ he said; ‘tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock.’ The man said, ‘They have gone away, for I heard them say, “Let us go to Dothan.” ’ So Joseph went after his brothers, and found them at Dothan. They saw him from a distance, and before he came near to them, they conspired to kill him. They said to one another, ‘Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that a wild animal has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams.’ 1But when Reuben heard it, he delivered him out of their hands, saying, ‘Let us not take his life.’Reuben said to them, ‘Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him’—that he might rescue him out of their hand and restore him to his father. So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the long robe with sleeves* that he wore; and they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.’ Peterson's initial interest in this passage had to do with the fact that the brothers' reaction to, and what they did to Joseph seemed way out of whack with what the text in English was telling us that Joseph had done. Did Joseph seem a bit conceited? Sure! Did Jacob appear to show favoritism to Joseph? Definitely. But was that really cause to kill him? It didn't seem to fit in a time and place where you might need all of your male relatives to help you fight off hostile neighbors. So what then was their motivation? When we look up the word used in verses 3, 23, and 31 for Joseph's garment, the Hebrew word is : Kethôneth בּתּנּתּ This word in the footnotes if you are using a study Bible will undoubtedly say that we really do not understand the meaning of this word. This word is only used one other place in the Bible beside Genesis 37, in 2 Samuel 13:18, in the story of Tamar, daughter of David, being raped by her brother Amnon, and in that passage the word is explicitly defined. ‘(Now she[Tamar] was wearing a long robe with sleeves; for this is how the virgin daughters of the king were clothed in earlier times.) So his servant put her out, and bolted the door after her. Yep, it is just like Peterson said, Joseph was out in the hill country of Canaan running around in a princess dress. He was seen by the neighbors. And so now does the brothers' reaction to Joseph in wanting to kill him, and also now do you understand why their first action is to tear the dress off of him. They could just as easily thrown him in the pit with the so called "coat or robe" on him, in fact if they wanted to mock and humiliate him that would have been the natural reaction and way to go about it. But no,........they NEEDED to tear that garment off of Joseph first. Understanding that brings I think the understanding of the rest. In discussions on these interpretations of events long ago, the arguments have been made to me that 1) The word didn't necessarily indicate gender at all--it could just imply "royal". 2. There were some hundreds of years between Joseph and Samuel--any gender implication may not have carried across that time span (eg a soldier's shirt used to be called a "blouse"). 3. if it did imply gender, it still doesn't mean Joseph was trans; he could have been gay, or a crossdresser. 4. I seem to recall that Joseph had a couple of sons, which seems unlikely if he was trans 5. The garment was a gift from Jacob. While that could imply a paternal message of "We're all going to accept Joseph with her little quirks", it would seem more likely to imply that Jacob was playing favorites. I want to address each of these. In argument 2), "There were some hundreds of years between Joseph and Samuel--any gender implication may not have carried across that time span (eg a soldier's shirt used to be called a "blouse")." This requires a knowledge of HOW the Bible was written, and WHEN. While much of Genesis was written over 10th to the 7th century BCE, Genesis 37 was not written contemporaneously with Joseph, but much later. Further, after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the 6th century BCE, the entire Torah as well as the history of Israel was compiled by the priests of Israel in exile and this is WHEN the Old Testament for all practical purposes was written. THIS is the writing of the Bible as we have it today with the emphasis on monotheism. Up until that time the Israelites had still widely practiced polytheism and just exalted God as above all of the others. Archeological evidence shows up to this point other god and goddess figurines were widely found in Israelite towns and settlements. After this time, none are found. It is an important turning point in history and hence both of these passages were committed to scrolls at the same time by people who were well aware of the meaning of the word used in both places, and used it in both places intentionally and knowledgably. Since it is explicitly defined in 2 Sam it is highly likely that it carried the same exact meaning at the time when Genesis was written and RE-written over the centuries. If the meaning was not intended to be the same, wouldn't the retellings over the centuries have modified the Genesis story? Considering the modifications that were done to the New Testament that we know of because of the plurality of manuscripts, I find it inconceivable that it has not been the intention over time that the two instances of the word are intended to carry the same meaning for the thousand years or so until it was incorporated into what we now know as the Bible. As to points # 1) The word didn't necessarily indicate gender at all--it could just imply "royal". I believe that it did imply gender because of Tamar being the one wearing it, not Amnon, even if you discard the translation of the Hebrew word in the passage. As for # 3). if it did imply gender, it still doesn't mean Joseph was trans; he could have been gay, or a crossdresser, and 4), I seem to recall that Joseph had a couple of sons, which seems unlikely if he was trans, I to am trans and I have a couple of sons too, so what? Marriage and family were socio-political obligations that--in a time of where SRS was not offered--still had to be upheld and had no relation to the identity either sexual or gendered of the individual; or do we then contend that gay men and lesbian women did not exist in the 10th to 5h centuries BCE?. The difficulty is translating modern gender/social roles into a culturally different society, whether it be on the other side of the planet or 3000 years ago. I used transperson in its descriptive role relating to birth gender and gendered presentation. We do not have a descriptive list of everyone Joseph slept with, so we have no case for gay at all. But be it crossdresser or drag queen, Joseph's variance is clearly gender related making him transgender either way. Ahh, #5, yes let's consider WHO gave Joseph the garment. Jacob, "sissy boy" who "dwelt amongst the tents" rather than going out hunting like his brother Esau. A man who had lived with a feminine side and the prejudice that would have accompanied that expression throughout his days. Who better to be a doting and understanding father to a young trans who desired to dress female? Is that not exactly the person who would indulge the feminine son's desire to crossdress? Remember, it would be another 400 years or so before the laws of Leviticus would be written, thus Jacob would have no religious reasons to prohibit his "son" from wearing women's clothes other than the social prohibitions; and Jacob would have felt he could protect Joseph from his position of power(rich and influential in the surrounding countryside). Part 4: Reconciliation: It's funny how God works things out. Romans 8:28, We know that all things work together for good* for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. You may recall that in the end of May this year, I was in a bad situation. I had no daycare for Matt and Kevin and requested your prayers. It would have been easy to see that as just another tribulation, but it turned out as anything but a tribulation. Recall the story of Joseph AFTER he had been in Egypt, had interpreted Pharaoh's dreams, and been promoted by Pharaoh to 2nd in command over all Egypt. During the time of drought, Jacob sent his sons down to Egypt to buy food. Not recognizing Joseph, Joseph made several demands to get his brother Benjamin finally sent to Egypt. What must Joseph have been thinking? Did they also treat Benjamin the way they treated me? Then he saw how loving and protective they were of Benjamin and Jacob. In Genesis 45:1-9 we see Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers. Then Joseph could no longer control himself before all those who stood by him, and hecried out, ‘Send everyone away from me.’ So no one stayed with him when Joseph made himself known to his brothers. And he wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard it, and the household of Pharaoh heard it. Joseph said to his brothers, ‘I am Joseph. Is my father still alive?’ But his brothers could not answer him, so dismayed were they at his presence. Then Joseph said to his brothers, ‘Come closer to me.’ And they came closer. He said, ‘I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are five more years in which there will be neither ploughing nor harvest. God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God; he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. Hurry and go up to my father and say to him, “Thus says your son Joseph, God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not delay. Was Joseph the one who had done something wrong? No, but he was wise enough to see that in spite of what had been done to him, God had a plan in all of it. In Genesis 46:28-31 we see the reunion of Joseph and Jacob which is the ultimate reconciliation Israel sent Judah ahead to Joseph to lead the way before him into Goshen. When they came to the land of Goshen, Joseph made ready his chariot and went up to meet his father Israel in Goshen. He presented himself to him, fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while. Israel said to Joseph, ‘I can die now, having seen for myself that you are still alive.’ Joseph said to his brothers and to his father’s household, ‘I will go up and tell Pharaoh, and will say to him, “My brothers and my father’s household, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me. Part 5: Conclusion: For a transperson, there can be no more moving a moment than when you find out that your family accepts you for who you are, and conversely if they do not, there can be almost no worst time in your life. When I explored alternative child care for Matt and Kevin for the first two weeks of June, God led me to the realization that for what I would pay a stranger, I could just as easily pay for a plane ticket for my stepmother to come out and watch over the grandkids for a couple of weeks. When I asked her, she said yes, but that my father wanted to come along. I was surprised and apprehensive, but I trusted that God would work it all out, and so I said yes. From the time of my coming out until they arrived at Seatac for the first ever visit to me in Seattle, I had spent no more than 15-20 minutes talking to my father, and only perhaps a couple of hours to my stepmother. Through all of that I had expected them to understand this change and to understand the person God had led me to be, without ever me seeing the illogic of my expectations. Now they spent two weeks living with me daily, seeing my life, seeing my life with the kids, and seeing me for the first time. They came to me struggling with pronouns and not feeling any reason for calling me by female pronouns. They left without the pronoun problem, oh they may slip from time to time, but they understand now. They have seen me again for the first time and I find myself not accepting them back into my life because they have made up for some past sin, but rather loving the fact that they are again part of my life and loving the way God put us back together—seeing how our limited vision of things can make so much look like trial and tribulation, but which are the blessings of God that we cannot even recognize. Peace be with you. |
June 3, 2007, "Many Faces, One God"
June 10, 2007, "Called to Rise"
June 17, 2007, "The Company We Keep"
June 24, 2007, "The Lawless Bunch"
July 1, 2007, "Called to Freedom"
July 22, 2007, "It's Martha's Turn"
August 12, 2007, "Expectant Living"
August 19, 2007, "Life in the Clouds"
August 26, 2007, "All You Need is Nothing"
September 02, 2007, "A New Pair of Shoes"
September 09, 2007, "Counting the Cost"
September 16, 2007, "Extragagant Love "
November 11, 2007, "Ch Ch Ch Ch Changes"
February 03, 2008, "You Gotta Have Faith"
June 08, 2008, "The Gospel Feast"
November 23, 2008, "Coming Home"