I have tried to keep politics separate from this blog.  However, an issue that I have been wanting to address was given the perfect segue thanks to a tweet from the White House.  Before I go any further, I want to make two things clear.  First I have a political bias as most gay New Yorkers do.  This bias will influence my thoughts on this subject.   Second, as stated prior I am not a schooled theologian. This is not going to be a rigid exegesis into a biblical passage.  I want to compare this post to what our assistant rector once said about parables.  He said that parables were used to “engage the mind in active thought”—parables can’t just be passively received, they must be analyzed.  This post is trying to do the same thing in terms of engaging active thought.  You may disagree with my political bias or my interpretation, but even a disagreement is better than no discussion.

Last month, the White House made an announcement that transgender people would no longer be allowed to serve in the military.  One of the reasons put forth for this pronouncement was the idea that medical costs for transgender people would be greater than the non-trans sector of the military and would negatively impact a tight budget.  Putting aside the subsequent analysis that showed that to be an overblown statement, when were we ever told that the love and acceptance we show to others should be based on how much it costs us?  I think Jesus showed that he was more than willing to expend all kinds of capital—economic, personal, political—particularly for those who may cost a little more.

If one reads the New Testament purely as a sociological/historical account, one cannot escape the inclusion the Jesus preached and showed.  Jesus touched lepers, made friends with tax collectors, welcomed the “fallen” women and showed loved to the poor.  Any of these folks would probably have “cost” society a little more to be taken care of or rehabilitated.  Jesus didn’t see dollar signs, he saw pain and the chance to practice redemptive love.  He wasn’t concerned about a welfare state but a well-ness state.

For some it is relatively easy to accept the “normal” sinners and unfortunates as they are people who have fallen on hard times—“there but for the grace of God go I”.  But when we are challenged with stepping outside our comfort zone and asked to accept people fundamentally different from us (beyond color, race or creed), we often fall short.  The White House fell short with their pronouncement because the new policy wasn’t really about finances but about concerns with social mores and what people deem acceptable.

Jesus didn’t cut the world into acceptable and un.  His was a world open to all.  Jesus didn’t specifically talk about transgender people because they simply didn’t exist in biblical times.  Even with an infinite understanding of the challenges that humans would face over the years, Jesus wouldn’t have been able to talk about the topic with the people around him as they simply didn’t have the context for such a topic.

Yet there are places where I believe Jesus was asking for us to be more apt to accept than exclude.  An interesting example of this occurs in the book of Matthew and includes a reference to a segment of the population that existed outside of “societal norms”.  In the 19^th chapter of Matthew, the Pharisees and disciples get into a conversation about the laws around divorce and weighing the challenges of a potentially unhappy marriage.  Jesus states that marriage is not an institution for everyone but that doesn’t make marriage a superior or inferior situation.  He specifically acknowledges three groups of people for whom marriage is not the intended path—those who are born eunuchs, those who are made eunuchs by others, and those who chose to live as eunuchs (interpreted by some scholars as meaning celibate).

I want to be careful to not read too deeply into these words and interpret them through a modern lens as it might relate to current understanding around sexual and gender identity.  But I think Jesus was being very specific about using this example when he was talking about the role of marriage.  He clearly points to people whose physical or mental make-up doesn’t follow the “norms” of the society around them.  More importantly, he doesn’t make distinctions.  He doesn’t split hairs trying to create degrees of separation.  I believe he is saying it is not up to us to judge a person based on our understanding of what should be, it is up to us to understand that there are different paths based on the people that we are.  In this situation, I think Jesus was telling the disciples to worry about the state of their lives and what they were called to do, versus trying to make a conclusion that would apply to everyone.

At the end of the day, there will be people on both sides of the argument that will try to use biblical passages as a way of attacking or defending their point of view.  I firmly believe that when our lives are reviewed and weighed, our worth will not be measured on whether we accurately judged those around us.  It will be measured by whether we loved those around us regardless of whether we shared the same path.  Jesus did not give us an out.  He did not say that if it was difficult or hard or costly to love a group of people it was okay for us to exclude them.  He simply told us to love.

I personally would be scared to serve in the military.  And anyone who is brave enough to volunteer to do so, regardless of who they are or how they identify, deserves our respect, our admiration, our thanks and, most importantly, our support.