Do you judge it superstition to insist on gender matching for physicians?

Particularly for certain sensitive seeming medical operations (such as those requiring uncovering of some sort). I personally judge it not as superstition (else it should equally be superstition to insist on non-sensual dressing - that we offend not). But I still wish to hear what fellow pilgrims have to say. I suspect I have a coronary artery disease that I recently attempted to have diagnosed at our local state Hospital. However, I could not honor my last appointment after learning that the diagnosis often involves partial uncovering. Fearing then that I could get cought up in a situation where healthcare providers of opposite gender are present - requiring then that I should thus voice my position lest I offend. Well while I could thus try for holiness' sake, I fear state healthcare providers should be less likely to meekly receive such requests - as opposed private providers (so I reckon) since the pacient pays the bill to the latter. And so reckoned it wisdom to thus dishonor the appointment. Of cause running the risk of sudden and perhaps fatal attacks while prayerfully looking for valid alternatives. As I still do not know what exact medication I should be taking (currently taking daily nitrate + asprin - which were seemingly recommended as a test treatment from one visit and appeared to help to a fair degree).

I am now looking at going via a private healthcare center - to at least try and have the diagnosis done (yes this route is often harder on budgets - with surgery prices being essentially unspeakable for those of low income). But all this, I reckon, could be patiently undergone as long as one is fully assured that it is their only valid option at the time as far as hevean is concerned. The peace of God be upon all that are his.

You are asking a very good question. I have undergone a procedure where the doctor was male but his assistant was female. I had no problem with it.

Sexual sins are matter of heart even though you sin against your body. The nudity in the case of medical procedure is not a sin as only your body is involved and not heart. Trust me when you see those needles and lights, sexual arousal is the last thing in your mind.

The verse I can think of is, Titus 1:15 - To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. If we could get the procedure done with clear conscience then it is not a sin.

Other than fear of sin, if you want to avoid the procedure due to feeling uncomfortable, then you can always try requesting your provider about it.

duplicate it seems

May I add that my main concern is the pacient (myself in this case) being seen uncovered by a healthcare provider of the opposite gender - who may then possibly go on to have lustful thoughts in their heart/mind (thus falling into sin). Do not you think I should also be held accountable of having voluntarily served a stumbling block to such a provider?

Hi Kervin:

I think Sree is right, it is no sin.

Nevertheless, Paul made it important not to violate your own conscience. If you cannot do it in faith, in short you cannot do it without sinning.

But Paul's answer to conscience interfering with liberty was knowledge. Truth is, God's revealing to your mind it's acceptable, ok, permissible to undress in this situation is really a matter of study and prayer for you.
Do you want the liberty Sree (and myself) have? Then you will need to look at the scriptures and pray until you are convinced of liberty.

But, you cannot let yourself be ruled by another man's conscience, if you have no interest in this liberty (as I call it to undress in this kind of situation) then abide as you are so that your faith and conscience together can glorify God in all things.

I pray God give your health, be at peace in whatever decision you make.

It may or may not be helpful to know that drs and nurses see hundred and thousands of patients if both sexes naked on a regular basis.

That being said, I would not want a physical from a female dr. But if I was knocked out on an operating table I could care less, nor would I care less in an emergency scenario.

I trust you are right, dear Todd that providers must see a lot of uncovered pacients on daily basis. The problem is that many of these are not Christian belivers and thus would have no holiness issue even if they may have lustful thougts in each occassion. But I understand that your position is essentially that it should be no issue before God to thus be uncovered.

I understand further that the position of dear Sree and Marvin is that God treats this situation as different from that of careless/sunsual dressing for example.

What I am struggling to understand is exactly how God would draw a line between the two cases. Does he maintain that we were cought up in a situation that demanded it? I suppose this is dear Marvin's actual position (if I am not getting him wrong).

P.S: And yes I trully have no business insisting on what God does NOT insist upon. So I am here truly looking to understand God's position on the matter - never that my position should be established to be that of God.

Kevin is in South Africa, so it is possible that some of their thoughts/perspectives on this could be a little different than ours. I respect his thoughts very much, and I am grateful he even considers this. God Bless You Brother

True dear Bill I am from South Africa - but should not Christian practices be standard across all nations?

Hmmm ... never enters my mind to make the gender of a physician the primary consideration.

I am concerned about their skill level concerning the procedure regardless of gender.

May I add that my main concern is the pacient (myself in this case) being seen uncovered by a healthcare provider of the opposite gender - who may then possibly go on to have lustful thoughts in their heart/mind (thus falling into sin). Do not you think I should also be held accountable of having voluntarily served a stumbling block to such a provider?

I am honestly not mature enough to answer this, as I have very little light in this area. Only in recent times, God has been shedding light on being a stumbling block to others, especially in sexual area. I am still relatively young though in my mid 30s.

This thread is a blessing to me, thank you for your post. It is wonderful to have an opportunity to fellowship with brothers like you who seek purity at all cost. I am thankful for SI as well.

Kervin are you saying that you do not have a choice as to what Dr to use? In a non emergency situation, here in the states we can generally pick who we want. Nurses, maybe not. But the main doctor, yes.

Q. "Do you judge it superstition to insist on gender matching for physicians?"

A. Absolutely not.

Q. "should not Christian practices be standard across all nations?

A. Yes. Absolutely!

Morality ought never to be compromised. Remember, our adversary the serpent is the most subtle and crafty enemy.

-------

Proverbs 7

A woman came out to meet him,with the attire of a harlot and cunning of heart.

With her great persuasion she entices him;with her flattering lips she lures him.

-------

Kervin,

Your conscience is steering you in the right course. Follow it!

@Solomon101: I fully understand your position

@Sree: Thank you for your additional reply

@Savannah: Thank you for your reply

@Todd: I believe we are allowed to thus choose. I have no guarantee however that such request can always be granted at state owned hospitals for two reasons though (may be a different case in the USA and others): (1.) A Christless provider will likely take personal offense (especially once you give details behind your request and they know they deal with both genders even in extreme cases) as you shall thus be condemning them as well. (2.) If the hospital do not have a provider of the desired gender at the time. I never saved the link but read somewhere online that hospitals are not obligated to always ensure that there are healthcarers of both genders at all times. I thought this applied to all nations but again I understand that in the USA perhaps there is always sufficient supply even in state owned hospitals.

Because you do not pay the bill at a state/public hospital, the provider may, while thus condemned, abuse their powers in many ways. Including telling you that you had better forget to have such request honored - even if it may be possible to reshadule you for a day where a provider of your desired gender may be available (if indeed there is non at hand at the time). With a private center however, this is not easy as the patient's fees pay the provider's salary. So even if they may thus be offended, they may have little to no choice but to assist you as per your request I reckon.

I do not mean to make the thread longer than it may be necessary but I am aswell moved to believe that we may be nearly (if not equally responsible) to make any possible preparations against emergency cases where we can resonably help it. But yes we can only look at this (if possible) once we are confortable with non emergency cases.

One other thing to remember is that people still die even in the hands of the best physicians. This then meaning that thus compromising (if we conclude it to be) may not always help us recovery anyways. But still die and go to meet the same God who demanded the virtue at our sick stage. Making it wiser to rather seek to know God's position on the matter rather than allow to be biased by a wish to save our lives or good health.

Is it that I take death any day? Certainly not! The very thought of death experience (and it associated pain) has been dreadful to me long before I was thus diseased. Never mind the thought of having to leave my 3 sons (oldest is now 7 and the yongest approaching 1). For the death concern I have at sundry times continued to plead with God for a painless one if at all affordable. And for the sons'concern I have been suplicating for grace that would overtake them even in my absense (should the Lord ever judge it wise to thus call me earlier).

So brethren may already see how unready to die I must be (humanly speaking) - and how I would rather exhaust all valid help I could get. But I understand that I am not allowed to compromise at any stage - even if it should be unto death :( Hence my starting the thread here to try and understand if I am not drinking a bitter cup that was never at all necessary. Never that I am just indifferent because I am just ready to die. Nor that I find being ill any fun feeling (as all may already know there be no such).

By the way I called my local private center and full Cardiologist checkup fee is twice+ the price I had in mind (around half of my monthly income). Yet another reason why I would gladly go with a state (public) hospital if it were not for the concern at hand. Apologies for a long and perhaps not perperly edited reply.

After reading over your words and seeing the different and somewhat conflicting replies you’re getting to your humble inquiry.... as a brother and fellow servant it behooves me to remind and encourage you to let your faith lead you not your fear 🙏🏻 Fear of any kind is powerful but an existential fear eliciting a self-preservation response is by an order of magnitude more powerful and difficult to manage so simply confess your weakness unto the Lord, and be reminded that it is in our weakness that His strength is made perfect 😇

Regarding your initial question of a medical professional who happens to be a female who might see your genitalia in a medical context (knowing during their training they had seen multiple) is indeed superstitious to believe that she would somehow be "tempted to lust” because she accidentally glimpsed your genitalia while conducting/assisting in a medical procedure. That is by definition superstition -

Be encouraged in this -
In Christ there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew,...
submit yourself to the Lord, resist the devil and he will flee from you 🙏🏻

But dear Fletcher, would you argue that those who are enslaved to perusing uncovered images (with a p word) ever gets used to it? Would not they soon or later cease and break away from such yoke due to disinterest? No but I hear of many who even seek thirdparty assistance to break away from the same yoke. And I fear many Christless providers must be enslaved to the same - and that as they thus deal with you, it may be another chance to endulge.

A husband remains essentially helpless before his wife even long after the wedding day. My argument is that I do not believe one can be trained enough to be fully immuned to lust. I understand females are said to be less vulnerable than males to uncovering but what about a case of a male provider and a female pacient then (given a man's greater vulnerability)? Does that perhaps better present my concern.

But yes when all earthly help fails, it is a perfect time to commend oneself wholly to celestial help. Be it for devine healing or for favor for needed medical care funds. Yes neither is this route guaranteed either though - but depends largelly on God's ultimate will - though that is no excuse for not supplicating I understand.

Hi Kervin: It seems we don't have any medical professionals on SI to chime in on the discussion, it might be insightful if there were a few to give their opinions.

While it is possible that all the 'lusting' which some infer may take place, it's also plausible that no such lusting is taking place. Medical professionals have seen and touch the human body in myriads of situations and untold numbers of people.

It is a slight on them to suggest that their profession is something of a lust trap, when the gender-mixed office is far more a trap than a surgery.

Is anyone getting naked in the office? No, but they don't need too, you might also consider that medical professionals are neither curious or aroused by their patients, they are in fact working and serving.

So while it is possible for anyone to lust, God gifts and graces individuals to do their jobs not because they are perfect in holiness but because they are his people.
Even when they are not born again, God is still ruling.

It's a trap to try and conceive of God's mind in all the varied situations because you simply don't have the knowledge he does to make the judgments he makes.

It is better to be simpler, entrust your self to God, trust that your actions are in obedience to him, you can really do no more.

Apologies if I so seemed to suggest. By God's mind I meant what he demands from us in the given case - just as with all other expectations he has from those he redeemed through Christ.

I agree there must be much lusting in setups such as offices - but this must again largely be because many factors such as sensual dressing and seductive conduct (above the fact that man is simply prone to this) exist and directly promote the same. And of cause for the carnal/Christless this is more of a privilege than an issue to be concerned about.

Yes a male may lust over a female who is decently covered - but this is never an excuse for females to neglect covering themselves sufficiently as then they are also being a stumbling block I understand (same goes for females to males). But again the Christless do not have these obligations for example.

I do not think it an issue (fault on my part) if any female may see me walking down the road and somehow begin to have lustful thoughts - as long as I am certain that I did not voluntarily or negligently pave a platform for such by my dressing or conduct. But I fear this is different in a ward where I voluntarily uncover.

And yes I agree the providers may not literally lust over each pacient but because lust is a thing of the heart, you never know if you have been amongst those they lusted over after your visit. I believe there is hope on a Christian provider (as opposed to Christelss one) when it comes to overcoming lust. But I have yet to hear/see a Christian provider say without blushing that they can handle patients of all genders in all various uncovering extents with no problem.
Brother L.Ravenhill found a fault in a young man who confessed to be struggled with lust after discovering that the same hangs around the beach (crowded with ill covered folks amongs whom as females) at sundry times. Why you might ask. Well becuase that, dear Marvin, is a lust trap - one more farocious than an office enviroment I would maintain. Why then cannot we say the same of a ward? So far, I am convinced providers who handle all genders even in sensitive cases simple lack discretion :(

All that said, I am still open to a well supported justification that gender matching is not necessary in a healthcare ward.

HI Kervin: Thanks for the great response. We're on the same page in regards to all the points you made in your several posts.

The last statement..."All that said, I am still open to a well supported justification that gender matching is not necessary in a healthcare ward".

This seems to step away from matters of your conscience into the conscience of others who may as a nurse or doctor work/examine/attend opposite gender patients.

I don't recall restrictions placed upon the general medical practice. Specialized ones as well, male doctors attending the birth of children has been normative since who knows when.
Yes, we all know there are specialized ones according to gender but not for the reasons you've stated.

As I said, you cannot be ruled by anothers conscience, nor can you circumvent sin in another after you have been obedient to what you know.

"I am still open to a well supported justification that gender matching is not necessary in a healthcare ward."

Kervin,

No man is able to offer "a well supported justification that gender matching is not necessary in a healthcare ward."

It cannot be justified before our thrice Holy LORD God Almighty.

The only account we have of the delivery of children in the Bible, we find that it was by midwives.

Truth be told, most christian men would not have their wife behind closed doors examining another man.

I suggest that we all meditate upon His Word in
Romans 12:2;

"And do not follow the customs of the present age, but be transformed by the entire renewal of your minds, so that you may learn by experience what God's will is, that will which is good, well-pleasing and perfect."

@Savannah: I also dispair that the case may be otherwise. For which my prayer, through Christ, is that God vindicates his name and give grace to as many of his own that may be left stranded due this compromised healthcare system at any time (the woe of Godless rulers - sigh).

@Marvin: The hope was for just in case I was unaware of some facts that renders uncovering in a medical ward excepted/permissible before God. Which would then hopefully alter the state of my conscience with regard to the matter - just as it is with every matter we suddenly realize we have had a misapprehension of. But as stated above, I indeed dispair that the matter may be any different to what I had previously understood it to be.

And I trust you will agree with me that there exist many practices that have been nomative for years that are plain abominable before God. This then must suggest that normativity is not a safe standard to measure Christian virtues against. I am also convinced that literal widwifery was once nomative (even amongst the heathens because our very nature asserts to this) - until succeeded by 'midwive-by-proffession' comprising of indivuduals of both genders. How this transition came about should be the same way any other vile transition occur in this world. But Christians should indeed not blindly 'comform to customs of the present age' but weigh all things against the Holy Scriptures (God's revealed truth).

Hi Kervin:

I think before you believe yourself to have found the whole health care profession a bunch of compromisers and lusters, I would check my audacity at the door.

Because you find a check of conscience in yourself and Savannah happily gives you a blanket statement to validate your beliefs, you really should question yourself rather than everyone else, the multiplied thousands of Christians who have gone into Doctoring or Nursing by the plan and will of God according to their own consciences. Yes I said conscience because the word of God does not specify work profession by name for each individual.

Do you know better than they themselves? Have you found a few verses to undo the role of Doctor and nurse because your conscience cannot undress in front of the opposite gender?
Maybe you've not heard of the massive push towards homosexuality in our country? Maybe gender issues, transexualism and lesbianism have escaped you. Let me say first, these sins find their way into the medical profession as well, boy scouts, girl scouts, anywhere traditional gender roles have been normative, they are now invaded by sodomites.

In short you may think yourself safe, but maybe you are not at all safe from the causation to lust in another and that of the same sex which your conscience validates as the 'only' biblical route for medical care.

Rounding up a few proof texts against lust and non-conformity is really self-serving bible reading and it shows in its condemnation of vast multitudes of others who have served God faithfully in those professions...and don't consider themselves compromisers or lusters or sinful because their calling and service is something you cannot do yourself.

As I told you earlier, if conscience is not enough, then your flesh will find legalism and false accusation better suited to call everyone else who is not of your opinion "compromisers", "ungodly", "and misapprehended their understanding of health care".

It is a fallacy to think that because someone in the health care profession might lust, that a blanket condemnation of their profession as "compromisers" is due to them. Because pastors have put their hands in the money pot, should we forsake them as well? The same simplistic thinking that condemns one, condemns the other profession as well.

I am making no argument for going against your conscience in this situation, I am saying your conscience is no one elses rule even if you can get a few amens from those who would agree with your summation of Doctors and Nurses.

I do not mean to accuse you of forgetting but do please allow me to emphasize that I am happy to be convinced otherwise if my position is indeed off. But so far I feel there has not been enough support to warrant the contrary view on the matter.

For example, I do not think God would hold me accountable if a male provider (who is homosexual) lust over me as I feel there is no neglect on my part.

From the little I know about our weak nature around lust (females included), I cannot imagine a Christian provider who does all genders in all uncovering extents to serve even a week without feeling like renouncing either their position or their Christian steadfastness/intergrity and begin to endulge lust.

You shall remember, dear Marvin that Job had to make a covenent with his eyes - and he was not even a physician I understand. And the sin of David and poor Uria's wife is a good account to remember while on lust traps.

While I assert that a pastor who is being unfaithful should be excominicated or forsaken in the worst case, I feel the case at hand is a bit different. For example, my argument is that I do not think there is any ernest Christian provider who (knowing the ruins of sin - including lust) can choose to do both genders in all respects. Therefore my greatest condemnation goes particularly to the Christless providers who are not under the yoke of Christ and therefore must see nothing wrong with lust - and yet doing a great dealing of making the system in question an acceptable norm.

I read of a case hear on SI I think (if not directed herefrom) about a boarding school that had to keep and educate missionary children. One of the last place you would expect to hear of sexual offenses - but many and sad reports of the same evil were heard from the school years after. How much more would those offending men have been motivated to carry out their evil works had the victims been frequetly ill covered if at all before them? A man may be seated alone and get these ideas. How much more if there are strong stimulus present?

My wish as well would indeed be that an honest Christian provider would hereon comment to assert that all these concerns are without grounds and that lust is well managed even in operations that requires most extreme uncovering. But I guess we must own that non of the 450+ thread views so far are from users in the medical field :|

Kervin,

The following is from a journal of a medical university;

A glimpse into history demonstrates that until very recently, pelvic examinations in women were handled by females, likely to ensure comfort and privacy all the while preventing improper interactions from male counterparts.

The oldest medical text known to man is the "Kahun Gynecological Papyrus", written by the Egyptians around 1800 BCE. The papyrus provides a glance into early gynecological medicine and unveils the traditions of reproduction, conception and delivery in ancient Egypt.

Due to compliance with religious doctrine, men were not allowed to be present at births or at other rituals that dealt with the intimate parts of a woman. Instead, it was the role of the midwife to take care of women and to assist them with their gynecological needs. Interestingly enough, the "Kahun Papyrus" provides some of the earliest evidence of midwifery in history.

Similarly, in the middle ages, it was often the norm for a woman's sexual organs to be examined by midwives, nurses or other females who previously had had similar problems to the patient's. By the early 1800's, with the advent of modern medical degrees and physical examinations, the pelvic exam began to be performed by male physicians, as women were not allowed to enroll in medical school. However, this examination was a variation of the modern version as it consisted of a "compromise" in which the physician kneeled before the woman but did not directly inspect her genitals, only palpated them. In addition, it was during this period that the use of a chaperone became a part of the clinical examination. The chaperone's role was to emotionally support and reassure the patient during a procedure that she found embarrassing or uncomfortable. The chaperone also acted as a witness in cases of malfeasance by the physician. Today, in many parts of the world where religious and cultural precepts often discourage female encounters with male physicians, chaperones still attend gynecological examinations.

By the 1970's, only 9% of enrolled medical students in the United States were women. The numbers have drastically increased since then: now 58% of medical students are women , yet there are still disparities in gender among the specialties. In Obstetrics and Gynecology, female residency enrolment rates have quadrupled from 1978 to the present, leaving men in the minority.

Hence, it is well observed that throughout history and up until recent years, the male role in gynecology has been absent, indirect, or directly overlooked by a third party.

Brother Caleb,
That was a very well stated closing remark !
" After all, the fruit of the Spirit is "self control”, not "others control”.

It registered immediately in my spirit and brought with it the awareness that we are all "naked” before our Father-
Nothing is hidden from Him and there is every reason to rejoice in that.

Brother Kervin,
Your sincerity of heart and the integrity with which you are pursuing this matter of conscience is an example in itself and your love of the truth is very encouraging and I believe that the Lord will honor that 😇

Praying for you to receive the clarity you so earnestly seek 🙏🏻
Because being a witness to His presence is the reality of our common salvation and when we have a dilemma that produces a "crisis of conscience” often our focus will shift away from beholding Him, our first love.
(For me) this has often produced a "Martha” instead of a "Mary”
Where my mind was "busy with many things”.

Looking forward to your input on other subjects as your love for the truth is a blessing to all :)

@Caleb: Ah I shortly after realized that I may have been in error on the view counter interpretation and accordingly went back to amend my statement so as to try and accomodate the same possibility. With regard to clean conscience, I can only hope that all who hold the opposite view should still be able to handle medical cases of their own thus with a clean one - in spite all that is set forth here in support to the need for gender matching.

@Savannah: Thank you for your relevent findings - sufficient to fill in (if not settle the matter) while we hopefully wait to see if we might have a contemporary Christian provider thus chiming in to input (amongst others' further input).

It is important to observe how while a champeron may be sufficient for a Christless female pacient (for safeguard against physical assults), a Christian female must remain concern of offending as a male provider may, while thus exposed to a stimulus, silently lust after her in his heart (equivalent to physical act before God I understand) without her or the champeron knowing it. Does not this then mean that this system is not fitted to work for saints - but only the world?

@Fletcher: Thank you for your kind remarks. As noted above, I can only hope that none of the arguments put forth to support the need for gender matching will leave those holding the contrary view doubtful in their conscience when a cup (a medical case) shall be set before them to drink - and that without trampling Christian virtue underfoot. Otherwise, I fear every uncertain heart must make effort to prayerfully meditate on this matter until it can, in good faith, seat comfortably thereon.

P.S: Because one other important factor to note with conscience (particularly in areas where we may be wrong) is that while one may indeed be able to look up to God and say I did not know and did it in a clean conscience, God might look back at you and say you have been in the Christian faith long enough to know this. But you were preocupied with other matters (Marthas) and therefore remained a babe a lot longer than is permissible. And therefore be found blameworthy as it were with the Hebrews. Therefore one must be sure that not only are they doing something in a clean conscience but that they are also not idle but prayerfully and actively seek to come to the fuller knowledge of the will of God. And thereby giving God a continued platform to reveal to them any vile thing that they may be holding onto in good faith unawares. Psalm 139:23-24

You wrote / Therefore one must be sure that not only are they doing something in a clean conscience but that they are also not idle but prayerfully and actively seek to come to the fuller knowledge of the will of God. And thereby giving God a platform to reveal to them any vile thing that they may be holding onto in good faith unawares. Psalm 139:23-24 /

Yes and Amen!!
And the absolute only way to do this in the New Covenant (not being bewitched like the Galatians) is to abide in Him (His presence) :)))
And the "vile thing” that the Lord reveals is how our view or beliefs have distorted the Truth and ultimately serve a lie, wether this be to our indulgence or an asceticism (which we are also admonished to be mindful of as an entrapment) .... as it can go both ways, which is why brother Calebs summation, really is that.

Just because it’s "true” for one member of the body of Christ doesn’t necessarily mean it is for all... for example the Romans 14 food law and how that is a matter of our own conscience yet we are to take consideration of our brothers conscience as well but not seeking to control or amend it, simply not offend it by our liberty. There are sure aspects of that principle that would apply here or in any matter of conscience.

To be honest I can appreciate your transparency about your bias to believe this as an already decided subject and basically seeking if someone can "best” the arguments you have used to cement yourself in this particular view. However is this the Lords will for His children?? That they should walk around in a perpetual state of anxiety that someone may accidentally glimpse their genitalia (which itself seems an unhealthy preoccupation) and thereby be drawn into lust because we somehow were not restricted enough in our own actions to prevent it while seeking medical attention??
I mean no offense brother but am sincerely asking you if this concern was born in heaven and if so then there’s your answer,... if not then all the confirmations in the world from Savannah citing the traditions and of men to myself coming into concordance with your view would not make it true...
So I’m hoping to suggest the way and means of God bringing His children into a fuller knowledge of His will is primarily (in the New Covenant) the role reserved for the ministry of the Holy Spirit 🙏🏻

Thanks for your reply, dear Fletcher. I commented the way I did largely because I fear we may be abusing the 'clean conscience' based liberty here (perhaps it is my misaprehension). Are we saying that a believer who engages in sexual relations for example with his bride-to-be prio to the voiwing day (because he was told it was okay) is justified and may continue to do so simply because he is then doing it in a clean conscience? Do not he instead have to come to know that such is aborminable and should be forsaken? I believe only a handful of Christian observations may apply to certain group and not another - while the rest of them should be standard across all Christedom. And in fact this line of difference 'seems' to be drawn by spiritual maturity rather than the nature or significancy of the doctrine. Else non should perish due to deception as long as they are following their deception in a clean conscience. But no the Bible has several warnings against deception.

No I do not mean to insist that our position be established simply based on supporting information and arguments (you will rememeber I did advise that I was open to both though thus positioned). It's just that currently presented evidence (including scriptural backing) seem to suggest that the inferered conclussion is the case and therefore worthy of acceptance. The Appostles sat around to discuss the matter of circumcission and were happy with the conclussion reached afterwards. More so because they probably trusted that the Holy Spirit was in their midst to guide and enlighten them on the matter. Can I boldly say that this was birthed in haeven? I dare not to say as it was not a devine revelation. But as it seems to have been with the apostles, I would like to take it that this is the conclusion the Holy Spirit is happy to bring us to.

But as addedd on my privious reply, let as many hearts that may be left uncertain given the presented arguments prayerfully look up to the Father throught Christ until set at ease. Then shall no man say: I was driven astray by another. No I do not believe that this is one of the Christian doctirnes of which we may say to apply to one group (of belivers) and not another.
Yes it is infact my prayer too as admonished by the quoted Psalm that God would bring as many of us (that he may find truly open to him and worthy) to clarity accordingly if the inferred conclussion be a miss. I say worthy becuase it appears God does not make it his duty to reveal further truth to any one guilty of failing to observe other obvious and fundamental precepts that they already know.

I am still a bit weary and was already when I wrote my last reply. May I be forgiven if some parts of it (though written from sincere heart) be crude, unkind, unevangelical or lake coherency. I fear I may also have read dear Fletcher's reply in haste as well. I aim to have another look once refreshed (God willing) and make amends where necessary. I also hope to tell of how enlarged the whole discussion got me - even though my position seems to remain unchanged (including my healtcare access problem). May it be the Lord who is glorified in the end and not man. The Lord's grace abound on as many as love him in truth

1. I admit that this is a sensitive matter and may God forbid that I should found causign unnecessary stir amongst his people.
2. While not at all sympathizing with the bitter cup before me (healthcare access difficulity) I feel evidence at hand demands of me to retain my position.
3. No I honestly do not believe that this is a matter that may apply to some Christians and not to others. But do assert that there exist such observations that may be conditionally applicable - with no urgent/real need to be amended.
4. Since the inferred conclusion was not devinely revealed, I agree and do indeed challenge each and every affected heart to look up to the Father through his Christ for confirmation (or rejection?) through his Spirit. Yes I agree that once we should all view the matter with the help of the Spirit, we should all be on the same side of the same matter.
5. I am fully persuated that if lust is as ruinous as any other vile sin, then that we must need flee every lust-trap like setup as we would a plague. And equally that we should avoid uncovering in situations where we may be sighted and 'evil lusted' upon (and thereby be found guity of being stumbling blocks in our neighbour's paths). Let us not forget the mile stone on the neck and the casting into the sea.
6. There is good hope for private consultation funds now I should say. I would like to further note how very much enlarged I got as this thread unfolded, dispite my continued difficulty (of illness and yet having no imidiate access to valid healthcare). I felt more at peace and could much easier take the dreaded death. For I got a fair chance to reflect even the more on the fact that having to thus resist sin was no new thing - but every Christian's portion. So I heartily thank every one who participated in ernestness and pray that God would make it his delight to show them more grace in their earthly pilgrimage.
7. What if this is indeed the case - the need to insist on gender matching? What could Christians do to try and keep sane in the midst of daring health issues? Well I believe what will have to be done should be no different from other relief measures used for other distress types. Let he who afford stick with private providers as often as 'need be'. Keeping in mind the Lord's capable and devine healing hand. And let the same saintly member of a Chrurch that could not help finance a private consutation when a low income member fell ill now see that state owned centers can no longer be a valid option where unsure if gender requests can be successfully made (if necessary). Let the desolate widow pray. Otherwise we, above all, shall have to resist unto blood (or death) I fear. The Lord vindicate his own Word in his great mercies and for his own glory - Amen.

NB: No this reply should by no means be viewed as a thread closing remarks from me - though oddly formated. Edification-intended and ernest replies remain very welcomed. Including those that seek to challege the inferred conclusion to the glory of God. May the peace of the same God be with all that love him in truth.

duplicate post

Kevin this thread has definitely blessed me so much. Here is my take now after meditating on your question in the presence of our Lord. Remember I refined from answering your question earlier.

1. The statement made by people here that doctors and nurses would have seen many nude males, so they will not lust is not appropriate. Though there is a certain element of truth about it, it cannot be generalized. I am aware of nurses who had affairs with their own patients. So it is not our job to judge whether a healthcare provider will be lustful or not. Perversion has no limit in this corrupted world.

2. The question here is not whether the healthcare provider will Lust or not. The question is if they lust, will I be held accountable for making them stumble? The answer I got for this is NO. Again it is an act of faith, to him who thinks it is Sin to them it is sin. It is not a sin to me. I do not present my body to a healthcare provider for them to lust but for them to treat. If they lust then I do not believe God will make me accountable for it. Sin is always a matter of the heart; if my heart is clear then it is not a sin.

3. The question considers people of opposite sex being healthcare providers. What about male doctors and nurses being Gays (homosexuals)? Then what if they lust after you during the examination? Will God count you accountable? If we start thinking in this way then where do we draw the line? It will be a never-ending debate.

4. I know a woman who was had serious complications during her pregnancy. All most all gynecologists were unwilling to accept her as a patient. But she found a male gynecologist who was a specialist in dealing with her case. In fact, He only accepts patients with complications like hers. He was a Christian by faith and an elderly black American. He did an excellent job and God clearly blessed her with normal delivery. She had a blessed experience and was also recommending that doctor to other sisters in Church with similar complications. Even the other sister as well had a similar experience and was eternally thankful for this doctor. Now having witnessed this blessing that God provided in her life via a male doctor, how in the right mind can I tell that God will not allow a person of opposite sex to examine?

Sorry it took me longer to notice the added reply. I intend to reply in details in a few hours' time.

@1: I understand your agree, dear Sree that lusting is to be expected from providers (though with some exceptions, so I further understand).

@2: True - the main concern is indeed whether the patient should be found guilty of neglectfully casting a stumbling block in the path of the provider. And I understand your position is that God should not find a fault on the patient's hands as long as they never have intentions to allure. To this I would like ask if you would consider any Christian female guiltless who, due to hot weather and need to refresh, goes and spend some time half-clothed at the beach - simply because she had no intention to allure any male stranger who may see her thus half-clothed and lust over her? Should she not be charged of hideous neglect and evil carelessness?

@3: Dear Marvin had this wonder as well. And my understanding is: while such lusting should still be as vile to God as that of a 'straight' provider, I honestly do not see how there may be valid grounds of neglect on the side of the patient. But instead understand that such a case is to be treated alike with one where a male may lust over a well-clothed female for example. Where the female cannot be guilty of aught as there was neither evil intent nor neglect on her part.

@4: I still wish to encounter a provider (of proven/provable Christian piety) vouching for the possibility of this. Especially since you will agree with me, dear Sree that simply professing to be Christian is never sufficient. For example you can be disturbed at how many professors of Christianity are guilty of the very basic precepts. Making it necessary therefore to as well ascertain that any provider vouching for this possibility (of serving all patients in all circumstances with reasonable ease) indeed leads a Christ-like life.

--------------------------------------

With all the above said, I remain at wonder if we are thus stumbling on this because of our spiritual bankruptcy or simply infancy. That we should thus seem to be shaped by the world (as condemned by dear Savannah's findings - that suggest that this was not always a norm even amongst the heathens). Or have we not the great Physician by our side - one whom the world cannot look up to and therefore are left to desperately exploit whatever they would to avail good health? But we can look up to him whenever all "valid" earthly help fails?
Yes I am left yearning for a greater enlightening over the people of God. That as many of us may be awaken 'if indeed thus asleep' or be brought to full age "if indeed in infancy still" so that we can repossess privileges that are our potion - the gift of miracles, the gift of healing, etc. Then would we have fewer reasons to be perplexed by the same concerns that perplex the world.

Above all remembering that the Bible does not teach (directly or otherwise, so I understand) that saints are permitted to compromise doctrines as long as it is for the good of man - his breath even. Else would the poor be permitted to steal necessities as it is for their survival. But the Bible instead infers that a poor man should be disposed to die (of hunger, malnutrition, cold, etc) if he cannot avail relief the justified way. A call to resist sin unto death...

My condition has essentially been an on and off one lately. And I have on occasions felt moved to humbly to ask the LORD to rather close by book at once than that he should let me thus suffer. Yes I suffered much at times - enought to warrant an ambulance call (but could not for the said concern). Well at one time as I layed thus suffering, I went to do an online search for any official statement of rights of patients in South Africa and found the following (Amonst other stated rights). "Everyone has a right to choose a particular health care provider for services or a particular health facility for treatment provided that such choice shall not be contrary to the ethical standards applicable to such health care providers or facilities and the choice of facility is in line with prescribed service delivery guidelines." While this brought abought a lot of hope over the public hospital option, I felt that the dreaded possiblity of opposition from unbelieving providers as well as the mental strain already layed on health care providers by Covid-19 generally, still made it a not very easy one. I for this reason could not get up and accordingly give it a try at once but held back still. May I addd, while on the effects of Covid-19, that I could not avail the funds I said to have hoped for due to the complete lockdown South Africa faced last month. It turns out the income I lost during that period affected the daily sums that the bank I hold my main account with use to estimate my monthly income (being self-employed and not registered). From these estimations the bank periodically offers me pre-approved small loans (about $500) which I then pay back over a period of 6 months (And I had just settled the one I took in Dec 2019). There is hope however for these sums to be adjusted for the better early next month but my condition has not appeared as one that can wait longer lately.
 
Because of this aparent urgency, it became necessary to consider and explore further the public hospital option. After much pondering, it appears the process could to be helped a little if I could seek first from the Ambulance paramedics an advise on exactly how these request types are to be best made. This is provided I get over in an Ambulance. But if on the other hand I could get a little better enough to warrant a walk-in attempt, then I could try and seek guidance (on how to proceed with the request) from the OPD doctor I should have to consult with first. Especially since the same matter caused me to default my last appointment - which I expect them to follow up on. Perhaps I could as well keep a written request for those cases where it may be the best medium to communicate the same. The whole am I looking to attempt as soon as possible (could be as soon as tonight) as I have long lost hope in continuing thus with just the nitrates and aspirin. As for the possible opposition at large, I reckon I shall have to take it as an appointed bitter cup before me.

Well, while thus hopeful a little about finally availing medical health care for my condition, I feel mocked still by yet another situation - where a prayer for a miracle (even that of devine healing) is demanded from me still. I have a bother-friend who may have of late even become a brother in Christ (a little about him on this appeal https://bit.ly/3gBxpxr - under the Updates tab) who is on an HIV dying bed. Of cause given upon by earthly physicians (as many others in his shoes). A situation that cares very little if at all about the subject of this thread as there is no longer hope in eartly medicine for him anyways (save for the feeble little that the ARVs can offer). While I could gladly let the Lord thus call him over (especially since he thus have expressed hopeful signs of conversion lately), he has a 12 year old son who could use a godly upbringing (of cause the Lord can still show the lad mercy in his absence in the extreme). This then became the main reason for me to wish for him (the dying brother) extended years from the LORD. The lad's mother is still in little better health but she has not yet showed as much hopeful signs of conversion as the brother though she contends to be under the same yoke (from the conversations we have with them at sundry times). I therefore feel like I shall not be off the hook yet even if I may finally get my own condition diagnosed and treated through medical means. But that I shall still need to continue to lift up my heart to the Lord for possible mercy on his health. How I long for earnest men of God on whom he had bestowed his gifts of miracle and healing (not the sad folks on TVs whose doctrine do not align with the one for the Chist by whose name they claim to heal - whose healing power therefore cannot be vouched for or easily be ascribed to the God of Jacob). Then would we mocked less by health complications. No I am sadly not convinced to have any of these two gifts though I have been moved to desire that LORD for the same lately (particulary after having to taste the cup of serious and extended illness personally). O that the Lord would show mercy!

No I did not end up availing healthcare as hoped on my prevous post. After suffering a rather severe chest pain one night, I felt compelled to finally try to consult as hoped the following morning. However for some reasons, the emergency call center made it so hard for us to avail an ambulance - so much that I again felt compelled to give up. Afterall, I was still unsure if I was ready for the war I felt I should anticipate - thought thus willing fight.
Since then I have continued to suffer various sysmptops at sundry times (todate) - some mild while some would appear to threaten life. And all I could attempt (it seems) would be to consult with GPs (both in person and online). And of cause not much could be found out due to equipment limitations.
Howevereve there recently has been a rather interesting realizing on the matter - that may/must warrant availing of sensitive healthcare even in mixed-gender setups (provided the patient is comfortable for their own sake - else to pray for possible alternatives). It appears healthcare providers are thus found in these questionable setup due to lack of discretion (on both their part and that of their institution's management). In fact it appears gender matching is not even a major deciding factor for those without the fear of God - but wages/RIO instead (amongst others). Which then thus result in carelessly stuffed/allocated healthcare providers.
But for the patient, all this proves to be a case of wrong people (mismatched-gender healthcarers) in the right place. A case of female showers and a male cleaner seems to be one good example. The sisters may feel uncomfortable but does such a setup warrant just condemnation on their part as well - is lack of discretion not on the part of the cleaner (who thus ended up in the wrong place)? Again a sister may feel uncomfortable paying for hear private garmets at a male cashier - but should she be condemned therewith for being a possible stumbling block (of impure thoughts) to the cashier? Has the cashier as well as his seniors not failed to exercise discretion of allocation. Yes unfortunately some of our actions may directly promote a wrong doing by others - but it is important to check if such actions justly warrant condemnation on our part. I may give a poor man food and he then (from the ernegy derived) go on to offend another in some way. A man without discretion may have lustful thoughts over a well dressed sister walking down the road - but should the sister feel condemned for having walked that road at that time - since her action is directly attributable to the sinful lust? I find not.
I have for days been minding to post this update for the perusal and judgement of brethren - and there it is. And am looking forward to finally attempt a formal consultation via a public hospital thus with a clear conscience. Yes I have sought to kept all this before God - that he might accordingly advise should I be deceived.

As for the noted HIV+ brother, I came to learn of an "undetectable state" status (essentially an equivalence of a negative status). Not sure how much of a chance he still stands but my hope on his health (outside a miracle) has ever since thus revived - and we have been attempting efforts toward the same. But this is another topic on its own. The grace of God abound over all that seek him in truth.