Reddit reviews Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition

> “Wilshire Baptist Church Associate Pastor Mark Wingfield has written extensively on the topic of transgender issues and the church. An article he wrote on the topic went viral, and since then he's talked to hundreds of transgender people and has written a book called ‘Why Churches Need to Talk about Sexuality.’”

> ”‘The most astounding thing to me about Christians who condemn people for being transgender is that I cannot procure in my mind a single verse of Christian Scripture that would be applicable to this situation,’ he said.”

Mr. Wingfield seems poorly acquainted with the Bible.

Genesis 1:27 — “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Genesis 5:1-2 — “This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 — “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

1 Corinthians 11:2-3, 14-16 — “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.”

Moreover, the early church fathers clearly condemned effeminate men; pederasty; homosexual sex acts, including, but not limited to, sodomy; lesbianism; cross-dressing; and other sexual and gender-related acts, lifestyles, practices, etc. they understood to be perverse.

Throughout all of Christian history, the only morally justifiable and acceptable mode of human sexuality is chaste, loving sexual intercourse between a husband and wife (though monogamy has not always been taboo, particularly among 1st through 3rd century Christians). Therefore, when this unfortunate young lady decided to medically, and otherwise, alter her appearance, she did so knowing full well what the college’s most likely response would be. Nevertheless, she decided to continue to modify her appearance, surgically and otherwise, to resemble a man.

When one does what she did, they should expect to get what she got. This should surprise no one.

Furthermore, unless one is simply hostile to the unchanging, unchangeable Christian teaching on human sexuality and the family that has prevailed for thousands of years, one should respect Welch College’s decision, for it was made in a manner consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs. For them to have done otherwise would have been hypocritical. Secular humanists, and other anti-religious people, frequently cite hypocrisy as an objection to religion. Criticizing people for being hypocrites and criticizing them for sincerely practicing their faith is intellectually dishonest, and not a good faith approach to engaging religious people in meaningful conversations about social, moral, or other issues.

See also: Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433687925/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_scKuDb73T3SQC