I’ve transcribed the following from Affirmation’s Transgender Press Conference at GC2008, the audio of which is available on RMN’s GC2008 blog:
<Question – the identity of the questioner is inaudible>
Drew, there are some petitions to the General Conference, um, that your case at St. John’s has kind of brought to the forefront. Um, some are wanting to clarify and define transgenderism as a psychological disorder and say that such folks are not qualified for leadership. How would you respond to that?
<After Drew Phoenix’s response, Diane DeLap (spokesperson for Affirmation) added the following….>
One further note that I’d like to make is that one of the issues that I’m concerned about is that the church is interfering in what is basically a medical decision. A doctor and a patient come together and conclude that a method of treatment for a particular situation that exists in this person’s life needs to be undertaken. And it’s not the church’s place to interfere with that and say that medical treatment is not acceptable to us. Because it’s the doctor’s decison, it’s the patient’s decision, to make that appropriate decision for what’s right for each individual. It’s the church’s position to support their members and to help them through these kinds of difficulties. We all make medical decisions in our lives with assistance of our doctors, and this is one more. Um, so, and there are lots of medical conditions that exist between parents and children, where a parent needs to make a decision about a child who is/has some medical problem and we wouldn’t see it as appropriate the church would step in and say, “No, you shouldn’t do that.” But some of the legislation appears to take that kind of approach where they’re saying this is wrong. And they need to view it from the standpoint of the relationship between the doctor and their patient.
UM News Service included a portion of this response in its report; I found DeLap’s response so unbelievable that I had to listen to it in full for myself (thus the transcription above).
In the same UMNS report, Karen Booth (of Transforming Congregations) draws a parallel between Affirmation’s position and the heresy of Gnosticism (i.e. mind/body dualism of transgenderism).
I would like to call attention, however, to the fallacy committed here regarding an absolute distinction between fact and value, a fallacy that upholds the authority of the medical doctor over against the authority of the Church. DeLap has drawn an absolute distinction between fact and value, one which is in itself “incompatible with Christian teaching.” She too easily assumes that, as a scientist, the doctor’s authority is absolute and that, as a moral witness, the Church is subservient.
The Church does not affirm; it loves. There is a difference. The Church does not defer to individual medical professionals; it calls them to discipleship. The Church does not support every medical decision simply because it may be difficult; it provides a discipline to help us in our decisions. When the United Methodist Book of Discipline does not address a particular issue–and given the particularity of the created world, such situations will naturally and inevitably arise–we are to join together and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the task which the UMC faces during this General Conference. But to accuse the Church of overstepping its bounds by providing moral guidance altogether…that is not of the Spirit.
Without making a moral claim myself regarding the definition or status of transgender persons in the UMC, I would simply like to call attention to this kind of fallacious language and reasoning. If those in Affirmation or RMN hope to dialogue with the rest of the Church, then they need to begin speaking theologically. DeLap is not speaking the language of the Church; she is attacking it, challenging its witness and mission. This is the difference between unholy politics and Holy Conferencing.
