Working with a transgender coworker

[A.Joseph]

Just like people who embrace Wicca, and all these other strange identities, I think most of these people are hurting. I have seen people who embraced nihilism, atheism and the occult, eventually embrace Christianity. Jesus died for some of them as well. So it’s a fine line between the politics of the matter and the personal scenarios where grace and mercy prevail. I’ve never personally been used in such a way, at least that I’m aware of, but hopefully, God willingly, I can walk that fine line if provided extended opportunity.

 

[Susan777]

Just like people who embrace Wicca, and all these other strange identities, I think most of these people are hurting. I have seen people who embraced nihilism, atheism and the occult, eventually embrace Christianity. Jesus died for some of them as well. So it’s a fine line between the politics of the matter and the personal scenarios where grace and mercy prevail. I’ve never personally been used in such a way, at least that I’m aware of, but hopefully, God willingly, I can walk that fine line if provided extended opportunity.

Of course these people are hurting. The way of the transgressor IS hard. But mercy is never served by lying. Be as loving as you can. Share the gospel with these poor folks, be ready in season and out to give a reason for your hope. When I was a pagan I had no respect for those who were willing to grant me my paganism. I sensed that they really didn’t care about me. So we extend mercy to those who are suffering the effects of the Fall, we befriend them whenever we can. We show extraordinary hospitality to them and refrain from condemnation. But lying to them is a false kind of love. It is better to obey God in these matters and leave the consequences to Him.

 

[Solparvus]

Of course these people are hurting. The way of the transgressor IS hard. But mercy is never served by lying. Be as loving as you can. Share the gospel with these poor folks, be ready in season and out to give a reason for your hope. When I was a pagan I had no respect for those who were willing to grant me my paganism. I sensed that they really didn’t care about me. So we extend mercy to those who are suffering the effects of the Fall, we befriend them whenever we can. We show extraordinary hospitality to them and refrain from condemnation. But lying to them is a false kind of love. It is better to obey God in these matters and leave the consequences to Him.

This part ought to stand out.

 

[Ben Zartman]

The power of God resides in the gospel, not in pronouns. Be ready to share the gospel. Encourage him in Christ. Invite him to church. Satan always wants us to fight the wrong battles.

This. @RPEphesian

 

[Solparvus]

This. @RPEphesian

@KMK

Male and female representation of Christ and the church per Ephesians 5, the man representing Christ and his loving the church and giving himself for her, the woman representing submission to Christ in all things are all encompassed in those pronouns "he" and "she".

This is indeed a Gospel issue, and is a well-chosen battle.

 

[Ben Zartman]

@KMK

Male and female representation of Christ and the church per Ephesians 5, the man representing Christ and his loving the church and giving himself for her, the woman representing submission to Christ in all things are all encompassed in those pronouns "he" and "she".

This is indeed a Gospel issue, and is a well-chosen battle.

We are not in any way advocating the blurring of gender distinctions--God created them male and female. But the subject at hand is not a Gospel issue--the battle is not won or lost with pronouns, or cakes, or wedding paraphenalia, or politics: these are all things that distract the Christian from the real battle, which is the fight to the end against remaining corruption. We don't wrestle against flesh and blood--our fight is not an external one in the field of politics or society: those are things that distract many and many a Christian from the real struggle of keeping his heart. Our battle is first for personal purity, then for the purity of the church, and from there the Gospel will go to the unbelieving world, proclaiming to them not, "Naughty naughty, must'nt mix pronouns," but, "In Christ there is forgiveness of sins."

 

[Solparvus]

We are not in any way advocating the blurring of gender distinctions--God created them male and female. But the subject at hand is not a Gospel issue--the battle is not won or lost with pronouns, or cakes, or wedding paraphenalia, or politics: these are all things that distract the Christian from the real battle, which is the fight to the end against remaining corruption. We don't wrestle against flesh and blood--our fight is not an external one in the field of politics or society: those are things that distract many and many a Christian from the real struggle of keeping his heart. Our battle is first for personal purity, then for the purity of the church, and from there the Gospel will go to the unbelieving world, proclaiming to them not, "Naughty naughty, must'nt mix pronouns," but, "In Christ there is forgiveness of sins."

You seriously believe that a willingness to call he as she, or she as he, will have no impact on the lost world's ability to understand the Gospel? Especially in light of Ephesians 5? And you don't think that a willing pronoun mixup, or sodomite wedding cakes will not confirm the world in their sins? Especially if the church, which is called by Christ to be salt and light in the world--a preservative against evil--is playing along?

You cannot possibly promote the Gospel with any effectiveness if you are willing to play along with a perversion of the most tangible picture of the Gospel that exists in the world--the institution of marriage, which depends on gender distinctions, and depends on an indisputable line between male and female.

"The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you", Romans 2. What we do, say, how we act has an impact on the world, God takes notice of it, and He speaks up if the unbelieving world blasphemes the truth because of us. We are called to be salt and light in the world, preservatives against evil, even if the world does not believe. Salt that does not preserve is useless, and is thrown out.

Avoiding pronouns, I can agree to that strategy. Names, I can see a valid argument for giving them the name they want. But when it comes to calling "he" as "she", it's a straight lie. There is no Gospel coverup for that. None. It lies against natural revelation (which is God's law), it lies against special revelation. You cannot confirm someone in their lie, lie along with them, then give them the Gospel and then tell them that God demands they be cleansed from this perversion.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

How often do you use pronouns when working with someone? And if someone says their name is _____________, who are you to disagree?

I would second this advice. Avoid using pronouns so as not to participate in his self-deception, but if he has legally changed his name then that is his name. There is no deception involved in using it.

 

[KMK]

You seriously believe that a willingness to call he as she, or she as he, will have no impact on the lost world's ability to understand the Gospel?

I never advocated for calling a 'he' a 'she', BTW.

My point is that even if you prevail over a person's pronouns, dismantling their folly with steely determination, and winning them over to your enlightened opinion, they still remain in darkness.

 

[Ben Zartman]

You seriously believe that a willingness to call he as she, or she as he, will have no impact on the lost world's ability to understand the Gospel? Especially in light of Ephesians 5? And you don't think that a willing pronoun mixup, or sodomite wedding cakes will not confirm the world in their sins? Especially if the church, which is called by Christ to be salt and light in the world--a preservative against evil--is playing along?

You cannot possibly promote the Gospel with any effectiveness if you are willing to play along with a perversion of the most tangible picture of the Gospel that exists in the world--the institution of marriage, which depends on gender distinctions, and depends on an indisputable line between male and female.

"The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you", Romans 2. What we do, say, how we act has an impact on the world, God takes notice of it, and He speaks up if the unbelieving world blasphemes the truth because of us. We are called to be salt and light in the world, preservatives against evil, even if the world does not believe. Salt that does not preserve is useless, and is thrown out.

Avoiding pronouns, I can agree to that strategy. Names, I can see a valid argument for giving them the name they want. But when it comes to calling "he" as "she", it's a straight lie. There is no Gospel coverup for that. None. It lies against natural revelation (which is God's law), it lies against special revelation. You cannot confirm someone in their lie, lie along with them, then give them the Gospel and then tell them that God demands they be cleansed from this perversion.

What you're missing is that no one is deceived by pronouns--not the perverts who want to change their gender; not the people who use them to avoid conflict; not the strident SJWs who's only agenda is to bend people to their capricious will. I'm not saying we should wholesale go along with sodomy and perversion: I'm saying that the battle is fought and won elsewhere than in an insistence on semantics. When the church gets caught up in politics, in attempting to conform an unbelieving society to God's standards, the Gospel is lost and theocracy enters. The church should preach against homosexuality and perversion and lying and cheating and stealing, but a churlish insistence on terms is the wrong battle to fight.

 

[Solparvus]

I never advocated for calling a 'he' a 'she', BTW.

My point is that even if you prevail over a person's pronouns, dismantling their folly with steely determination, and winning them over to your enlightened opinion, they still remain in darkness.

I see. Agreed. Sorry for misunderstanding. What I advocate against is succumbing to the demand.

What you're missing is that no one is deceived by pronouns--not the perverts who want to change their gender; not the people who use them to avoid conflict; not the strident SJWs who's only agenda is to bend people to their capricious will. I'm not saying we should wholesale go along with sodomy and perversion: I'm saying that the battle is fought and won elsewhere than in an insistence on semantics. When the church gets caught up in politics, in attempting to conform an unbelieving society to God's standards, the Gospel is lost and theocracy enters. The church should preach against homosexuality and perversion and lying and cheating and stealing, but a churlish insistence on terms is the wrong battle to fight.

Of course not. Ultimately no. You can't go against nature and sit easy with it. Natural law in the conscience is amazingly powerful. It throws down kings and is a tormentor of tyrants. Drugs, alcohol and bullets all fail to quell the conscience.

But that makes no difference. They want it to be true. And the whole thing is a rebellion against God, His creation ordinances, and against Christ Himself. It is the world all saying against God and His anointed, "Break off their chains! Cast their cords away! We will not have this man to rule over us!" And what they want from the church is silence and compliance in the hopes of quieting conscience. As Calvin says, dogs will bark when our master is blasphemed? Is it nothing to us when our God is openly defied?

Great things have hung on semantics. At one time the difference between orthodoxy and heresy was the letter "i." Homoousios versus homoiousios. Christ has the same nature as the Father vs Christ has a similar nature to the Father. Only heretics would dare say that this was a semantic question, because the latter puts one in the class of believing a damnable heresy. The difference between these two words, that "i", is why JWs and Mormons are not brothers in Christ. It's like saying there is little difference between "yes" and "no" because they are both short.

There might be one letter difference between two very short words, he and she, but an inescapable lie and a violation of the Ninth Commandment is included in the addition or omission.

If we lose our salt Christ will throw us out. We are good for nothing. If we are a light to the world and a city on a hill, we ought to take very seriously that we have real duties to the unconverted world. If they do not see light they will perish, but we will answer to Christ for putting our light under a bushel.

And if anything, "Love your neighbor as yourself" which includes your lost neighbors, means that while you will not be an insufferable nag, it also means you will in no wise give an appearance that you condone the sin. Because one day God will judge them for this attempted perversion.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I see. Agreed. Sorry for misunderstanding. What I advocate against is succumbing to the demand.



Of course not. Ultimately no. You can't go against nature and sit easy with it. Natural law in the conscience is amazingly powerful. It throws down kings and is a tormentor of tyrants. Drugs, alcohol and bullets all fail to quell the conscience.

But that makes no difference. They want it to be true. And the whole thing is a rebellion against God, His creation ordinances, and against Christ Himself. It is the world all saying against God and His anointed, "Break off their chains! Cast their cords away! We will not have this man to rule over us!" And what they want from the church is silence and compliance in the hopes of quieting conscience. As Calvin says, dogs will bark when our master is blasphemed? Is it nothing to us when our God is openly defied?

Great things have hung on semantics. At one time the difference between orthodoxy and heresy was the letter "i." Homoousios versus homoiousios. Christ has the same nature as the Father vs Christ has a similar nature to the Father. Only heretics would dare say that this was a semantic question, because the latter puts one in the class of believing a damnable heresy. The difference between these two words, that "i", is why JWs and Mormons are not brothers in Christ. It's like saying there is little difference between "yes" and "no" because they are both short.

There might be one letter difference between two very short words, he and she, but an inescapable lie and a violation of the Ninth Commandment is included in the addition or omission.

If we lose our salt Christ will throw us out. We are good for nothing. If we are a light to the world and a city on a hill, we ought to take very seriously that we have real duties to the unconverted world. If they do not see light they will perish, but we will answer to Christ for putting our light under a bushel.

And if anything, "Love your neighbor as yourself" which includes your lost neighbors, means that while you will not be an insufferable nag, it also means you will in no wise give an appearance that you condone the sin. Because one day God will judge them for this attempted perversion.

Well, at least you feel strongly about it. We will disagree, but grace and peace to you.

 

[KMK]

They want it to be true.

I am not so sure about that, for "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). They want a great deal of things, but they know it can never be true.