- What Does it Mean to Be Trans?
- What the Bible says about this.
- What the Bible says and also
- What Our response should be towards the LGBT Community?
6. The Bible and Cross-Sex Behaviour
Scripture prohibits cross-sex behaviour. Scripture doesn’t often mention people publicly presenting themselves as the opposite sex. But when it does, it always prohibits such behaviour.
For instance:
Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.”
A few interpretive difficulties surround this command. The most important one is whether this command applies to Christians or whether it’s only part of the old covenant law that’s no longer applicable to Christians.
I believe that this command carries lasting relevance for followers of Jesus.
Now, we must understand something, that clothing and gender colours are a social construct. It was not that long ago that all babies were clothed in dresses in this country. Pink and blue as feminine and masculine are social constructs, again a fairly recent development in society.
So, it goes deeper than clothing. This goes to behaviour too.
Paul affirms the OT view.
1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.
The verse include ‘sexually immoral’, which meant those who had sexual relations outside of marriage.
The verse mentions those who commit adultery, which means those who have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse.
The verse includes the term malak (“soft, effeminate”), which is the combination of two Greek words, meaning those men who have sex with men, one acting as a male and one acting as a female, taking on the characteristics of a female.
Most scholars recognise that the term primarily describes men who act like or identify as women. And by “act like,” I don’t mean they couldn’t throw a ball. One of the most common ways that malakoi would “act like women” was by engaging in same-sex sexual activity with men. This sexual role is probably what Paul has in mind here but also a man acting in an effeminate way as a way of imitating a woman.
The Corinthian church had gone down the route of love over the Word.
None in this list, who are defined as outside of the Kingdom as there is no fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
We need to readjust the bar, not holding gay or trans people to a higher standard than heterosexual sins, but raising the bar on heterosexual sins too!
Paul also highlights sex and gender distinctions in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, some of it cultural, but nevertheless a distinction is expressed. Whether you read the passage as complimentarian or egalitarian, almost all interpreters agree on two things. First, Paul maintains sex differences—even emphasises them—as something that should be upheld and celebrated in public worship. And second, he appeals to creation (Gen. 1–2) to do so.
Now, remember, Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, where all manner of sexual behaviour was embraced (even incest, 1 Corinthians 5.) He is saying no, this is not for Christians. He makes a distinction between those in the Church and outside of it.
However, it is also clear that the door to the local church was open to those of different gender identities:
- They were present in the church in Corinth.
- Some of the members of the Corinthian church left that way of life when they met Jesus: And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11)
Romans 1:26–27 also speaks negatively about same-sex sexual relationships, and Paul’s logic is rooted in God’s creational intent for males and females.
7. Jesus’ Incarnation Reaffirms the Image Bearing Status
The incarnation of Christ affirms the goodness of our sexed embodiment.
Genesis says that all humans bear God’s image. But the New Testament adds a significant climax to this truth: Jesus is the image of God:
Colossians 1:15: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
2 Corinthians 4:4: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
And we are being transformed into His image:
2 Corinthians 3:18: And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. If you want to know what we are like and what we should become, look at Jesus. The image of God is a “Christological reality in which we have been invited to participate.” (Sprinkle)
8. Differences Remains After the Resurrection
Resurrection is fundamental to Christian ethics and hope. That’s why we often see biblical writers refer to our future existence as the basis for current living.
What we will be like then provides a moral basis for how we should live now.
I want to be very cautious here. I think there’s a good deal of ambiguity in what exactly our resurrected bodies will be like but think there are some good biblical and theological reasons for believing that our sexed embodiment will continue to be part of our eternal identity.
- First, not only is sex difference part of God’s pre-fall creation (Gen. 1:27; 2:18–24), it’s a central part of human personhood and integral to how we mirror God’s image (as we saw above).
- Since Jesus was male before his resurrection, and since the sexed body is a significant part of personhood, we would expect such embodied personhood to remain in the resurrection—unless, of course, there’s explicit evidence to the contrary, which there is not.
- Third, Jesus’ resurrection is a model for our own resurrection: ….But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2b).
- Fourth, Paul’s most detailed description of our resurrected bodies (1 Cor. 15:35–58) draws extensively on Genesis 1–3, affirming the goodness of our bodies.
Paul does talk about some differences between our earthly bodies and our future resurrection bodies. The difference, though, is not between sexed earthly bodies and sexless resurrected bodies but between our corruptible earthly bodies and our incorruptible resurrected bodies (see especially 1 Cor. 15:50, 52–54).
We can safely say that the Bible has a very high view of our sexed embodiment and considers our male and female biology to be a significant part of human identity.
- What About Eunuchs?
Some say these are as close as the Bible comes to a trans person.
Jesus mentions three kinds of eunuchs: (1) those who were born eunuchs, (2) those who were made eunuchs by others, and (3) those who choose to live like eunuchs.
Matthew 19:12: For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
We don’t know anything about the internal psychology, or what we might now call the gender identity, of eunuchs themselves.
The common denominator among all eunuchs is that they were biological males who were infertile, most often as a result of some impairment in their sexual anatomy from birth or through castration.
What do we know about the three different types of eunuchs Jesus mentions? In the context of Matthew 19, the eunuch is primarily a symbol of singleness.
In other words, the eunuch exemplifies Jesus’ high view of singleness. Is it “better not to marry”? In some cases, yes; just look at the eunuch.
Does Jesus accept, affirm, and celebrate godly men who can’t throw a ball and who cry while watching Downton Abbey? Absolutely. Jesus values godliness, not gender stereotypes. But does Jesus use the eunuch to show that a person’s internal sense of self is more definitive than their biological sex when there is incongruence between the two? No!
Eunuchs were biologically male, and it seems likely that Jesus regarded them as part of the “male” category in God’s good creation even if others considered them to be un-masculine.
Being a man is not about being masculine. It’s about being godly. Non-feminine women are still women.
- What About Galatians 3?
Galatians: 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Some people quote this verse (the part about “nor is there male and female”) to show that Paul downplayed sex difference and was seeking to move beyond the created order of Genesis 1–2.
Nothing in the context of Galatians 3:28, nor in the letter as a whole, nor in any of Paul’s letters, suggests that sex difference is no longer important.
We would be hard pressed, in fact, to find any other reference to sex difference being a bad thing, or an old thing done away with in Christ, in the entire New Testament.
It’s unlikely that Paul would randomly drop a bomb here in passing—one that conflicts with his own statements upholding sex differences between men and women (1 Cor. 11:2–16; Rom. 1:26–27)—without further comment. Paul is most certainly deconstructing social hierarchies associated with sex difference.
The phrase “male and female” should be understood in light of the other two preceding pairs: “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free” (Gal. 3:28). If sex differences are being done away with, then we’d almost have to conclude that the other differences—Jew and Gentile, slave and free—are also erased. But the fact is, after becoming Christians, Jews remain Jews, Gentiles are still Gentiles, slaves are (unfortunately) still slaves, and free people are very much free.
Paul’s entire argument in Galatians 3 is that Gentiles can become Christians as Gentiles. They don’t need to become Jews in order to be saved.
Paul is boldly declaring that women (who were usually treated very poorly in the first century) are given status equal to men in God’s kingdom.
- Summarising the Bible’s Teaching
First, our biological sex is connected to our status as image bearers of God. “In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).
Second, the cross-dressing prohibition (Deut. 22:5) and Paul’s words about maintaining male and female distinctions (1 Cor. 11:2–16) add weight to viewing transitioning as a moral question.
Paul doesn’t believe the body to be a morally neutral canvas.
Third, an overarching biblical theology of sexed embodiment—one that looks back to creation (Gen. 1–2) and forward to our resurrected state—suggests that our sexed bodies are a significant part of human identity and personhood.
- Is The Bible is Outdated?
At the time the Bible was written, some well-known and very public figures were biologically male yet expressed themselves as female (or vice versa).
For instance, we know that in ancient Mesopotamia there were cult functionaries known as the assinnu, kurgarrû, and kulu’u who blurred male/female distinctions. They were “men … by birth as regards their physiology, but their appearance either was feminine or had both male and female characteristics.”
Their appearance corresponded to the god(dess) of their worship, Ishtar, who was known for “transgressing conventional gender boundaries.”
Around the time of the New Testament, we see similar cult functionaries in Phrygia known as galli, who served the goddesses Atargatis and Cybele. Galli were castrated men who dressed up as women and basically took on a feminine role in society.
Writing just prior to the birth of Christ, Ovid tells a tale about a biological girl, Iphis, who was raised as a boy by her mother.
As far as we can tell, the Roman emperor Elagabalus (reign: AD 218–222) wanted to be, or believed he was, a woman. The Roman author Dio Cassius tells us that Elagabalus had sex with women so he could learn how to act like a woman in bed.
We could explore other examples, but suffice it to say, the biblical authors were probably aware of biological males identifying as or expressing themselves as female (or vice versa).
While we shouldn’t flippantly map modern-day experiences and questions directly onto biblical material, we also shouldn’t assume that the biblical authors’ context was completely different than ours.
If a Trans Person Comes to Church
We can get the Bible right—but if we get love wrong, we’re wrong. Equally, we can get love right and the Bible wrong, and be wrong.
But if we are asking an ontological question—who are we?—I don’t think gender should override sex when there is incongruence. Part of discipleship is learning to embrace our bodies as important aspects of our identity, learning to see them as gifts from God and part of how we bear his image in the world.
And if a trans* person comes to ANCC, they should be welcomed with open arms and accepted. Not just accepted, but embraced, delighted in, listened to, learned from, honoured, loved, cared for, and shown the heavenly kindness saturated with compassion.
And yet, accepting people doesn’t mean believing that such people have a flawless view of God, the world, humanity, or themselves. Christian acceptance is always acceptance into a flawed community seeking holiness and repentance.
Acceptance is the first step of discipleship. And Christian discipleship is about pursuing the image God created us to be.
Discipleship includes inviting God to tell us who we are and who he wants us to become.
- What should the church’s response be?
Embodying God’s kindness (Rom. 2:4) is an essential part of Christian discipleship, especially toward those the church has shamed and shunned (Sprinkle).
To sum it up, a person is biologically either male or female based on four things:
- Presence or absence of a Y chromosome,
- Internal reproductive organs,
- External sexual anatomy,
- Endocrine systems that produce secondary sex characteristics.
Our interpretations of sex and sexed bodies might be socially constructed, but sex itself is not socially constructed.
From a Christian perspective, relieving the suffering of a fellow Christian should go hand in hand with helping them embrace the divine image they’ve been created in. Good, godly, faithful people sometimes walk through life with a thorn in their side. Sometimes God takes it away; other times he doesn’t.
Now, I want to be clear: we shouldn’t make ethical decisions based on pragmatics, arguing that “the end justifies the means.” This approach is more formally called “utilitarian ethics,” and it’s not really a Christian way of making moral decisions.
Faithfulness, not effectiveness, is what Jesus calls us to.
- Discipleship of Trans:
Christians need to make ethical decisions based primarily on what is most faithful, not what is—from the world’s viewpoint—most effective.
First, Christians should want trans* people—whether non-transitioned or transitioned—to flood our churches. It’ll create loads of beautifully complex pastoral opportunities, and some Christians will get uncomfortable and leave. So be it.
Church should not be limited to squeaky-clean Christians who (think they) have all their stuff together or who keep their porn, their greed, their pride, and their lack of concern for the poor hidden behind dusty hymnals.
Second, meaningful relationship requires taking a good deal of time to get to know and learn from a trans* person. Hear their story. Ask good questions. Real questions, not interrogative ones.
Third, people may come to our church in various shades of transition: social, hormonal, or surgical. Each category presents its own questions.
Fourth, discipleship is a long process, a journey along a road that runs right through the pearly gates. God doesn’t demand overnight sanctification, and we’re all thankful that he doesn’t. Just think about your own sin.
Christians are not solitary individuals called to follow Jesus on our own and demand that others do the same. We’re a community of radical misfits, called into a motley family filled with grace and truth where no one should walk alone.
Christ died for everyone, but he also had a particular yearning to reach those who had been marginalised and ignored by the majority—and so should we.
Jesus had a ridiculously high standard of obedience, yet he excessively loved those who fell short of it.
If people—especially marginalised and broken people—come into our church, they should never want to leave.
Jesus created a family for the family-less, a spiritual hospital for those in need. Getting angry about prevailing gender ideologies isn’t going to bring trans* people into that family. People don’t need more outrage. They need a fresh encounter with love.
Somehow Jesus was able to have a clear ethical stance, to speak out clearly against sin, and yet to still draw to himself the very people who were found guilty by his words (Sprinkle).
Wrapping This Up:
In one sense, I can’t wrap this up. I’m coming into land on a shifting runway in our culture.
What do we need to do?
Hold the Bible in one hand and the comfort of Kleenex in the other.
Trans people are broken and in need of God’s love (they don’t recognise it).
You are broken and in need of God’s love (and have recognised it).
Listen, hear and love the trans person.
Blog Bonus
The following is an assortment of notes and thoughts that did not make it into the message, due to time constraints, taken mainly from Preston Sprinkle.
Sexless After the Resurrection?
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matt. 22:30) Luke’s version of this statement contains some additional words: But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. (Luke 20:35–36)
He only says we won’t marry, not become sexless. Obviously, people can still be male or female even if they never marry. Just look at Jesus. While marriage assumes sex difference, sex difference exists apart from marriage. Plus, as we’ve seen, there’s evidence elsewhere in Scripture that our resurrection bodies will reflect our earthly (sexed) bodies.
Whenever angels appear in the Bible, they always appear as men. When Jesus’ audience heard that we’ll be “like the angels,” they’d have no reason to think “sexless.” In fact, a widespread belief in Judaism at that time held that angels had sex with humans back in Genesis 6 and produced gigantic offspring called the nephilim.
Imprinting the Mind of the Young
Some scholars have meticulously combed through brain-research studies (which are plentiful) and pointed out that the supposed sex differences in the brain are overplayed at best and fabricated at worst.
Neuroplasticity refers to the brain’s ability to physically change throughout a person’s life. If a person’s brain looks and acts a certain way, this may be because nature made it that way, or it may be because nurture shaped it as such. Various life experiences—from sports to music to dancing to taxi driving—quite literally rewire and reshape our brains.
One of the first studies that applied the brain-sex theory to trans* people, directed by neurobiologist Jiang-Ning Zhou in 1995, is titled “A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and Its Relation to Transsexuality.” This study is often cited as showing that trans* people
But the scientific community has widely criticised Zhou’s study because of its inattention to neuroplasticity (among other methodological problems).
Based on many significant studies, it doesn’t appear that the “male brain in a female body” (or vice versa) theory has clear scientific evidence to support it.
But we can say one thing with a high degree of confidence—something that’s not widely disputed: whatever differences might exist between “male brains” and “female brains,” these differences are based on generalities, not absolutes.
“The notion of a male brain and female brain fits well the popular view of men from Mars, women from Venus, [but] it does not fit scientific data,” neuroscientist Daphna Joel,
Correct science and correct theology are pointless if we’re not willing to love and honour, listen to and learn from, care for and be cared for by the trans* people God has gifted us with.
I want to cautiously say that it doesn’t seem like people can be born with the brains of a different sex.
Sex is a material, biological category. Accordingly, immaterial souls can’t be sexed.
Second, even if a person’s soul were sexed differently than their body, this wouldn’t automatically mean the soul overrules the body,
All the immaterial aspects of personhood are important: mind, soul, spirit, emotions, personality, likes, and dislikes. But these don’t determine a person’s sex.
Take the Hebrew word nephesh, for instance. Nephesh is the main word lying behind the English word “soul” in the Old Testament, but it’s also translated as “life,” “person,” “breath,” “inner person,” “self,” “desire,” and “throat.”
In the Old Testament, “nephesh is used with reference to the whole person as the seat of desires and emotions, not to the ‘inner soul.’”
Greek words for “soul” or “spirit” reveal similar polysemy (“many possible meanings”). Psyche, for instance, is often translated as “soul” and on a few occasions can refer to immaterial aspects of a person. But it rarely, if ever, refers to the immaterial part of a person in contrast to the material part.
The Bible nor science offers enough evidence to suggest that our gender (identity or role) overrules our sexed identity, even if we experience incongruence.
A few years ago, Littman published the first peer-reviewed study on ROGD ( Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria), where she surveyed 256 parents who have kids (83 percent of whom are female) that seem to fit her description of ROGD.
As the parents explored the situation a bit more, they found many common factors surrounding their children’s apparently sudden trans* identity:
- Few of the children showed any signs of gender dysphoria to their parents growing up.
- Their new identity seemed to appear out of the blue.
- Many, if not all, of their friends at school were trans*, and their coming out often followed their friends’ coming out as trans*.
- Many of them became more popular after they came out as trans*.
- They engaged in heavy online and social media activity (more than normal) surrounding their coming out.
- Many of them had other mental health concerns that weren’t being dealt with. These mental health issues were present before the kids came out as trans*.
Littman writes, “There are many insights from our understanding of peer contagion in eating disorders and anorexia that may apply to the potential peer contagion of rapid-onset gender dysphoria. Just as friendship cliques can set the level of preoccupation with one’s body, body image, weight, and techniques for weight loss, so too may friendship cliques set a level of preoccupation with one’s body, body image, gender, and the techniques to transition.”
What does science say?
And for most kids, it goes away. According to all available studies done on the persistence rates of dysphoria in kids, 61 to 88 percent of early-onset dysphoria cases end up desisting; that is, the dysphoria goes away after puberty (Sprinkle)
Social networks at school and in online communities can play a role in shaping a person’s trans* identity. Some psychologists have named this growing phenomenon Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)(Sprinkle).
according to one study, people with gender dysphoria are ten times more likely to be on the autism spectrum than non-dysphoric people.15 Another study shows that 26 percent of trans* teenagers seeking sex reassignment were diagnosed with autism.
Note: if your child has an autism diagnosis it does not automatically mean that they will be trans, but that there’s a higher chance of this being the case. We must responding lovingly to these.
De-transitioning is a growing trend. In the UK there has been a lot of fallout over the Tavistock NHS clinic where the supposed safeguards were ignored; now people are saying they were virtually forced into using puberty blockers et al, and are now going back to their original gender. I am sure lawsuits will follow.
- Christian Response to ROGD
First we shouldn’t assume that every trans*- identifying teenager fits the ROGD mould. ROGD describes one kind of trans* experience.
If someone you know seems to fit the ROGD narrative, then understanding this phenomenon could help you sort out a healthy path forward. But you could do a lot of harm to your friend if you assume they’re succumbing to a social trend when they’re really wrestling with something quite different.
Second, the church needs to foster better, more authentic, and more life-giving communities for our teenagers. Many kids who appear to fit the ROGD narrative are struggling with other significant challenges in life: anxiety, depression, self-harm.
Our kids need to see their parents as the safest, most loving people to turn to in time of need.
Third, be aware of excessive internet use. This is a whole topic in itself. But excessive internet, and especially social media, use has been shown to do a lot of harm to teenagers. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality are all on the rise among teenagers; scholars are connecting this rise, in part, to excessive screen time and social media use.
People will gravitate to where they feel seen.
Christian discipleship is oriented toward living out the divine image that God created us to be. Sexed bodies are part of that image. Ontologically, then, transitioning would be moving us further away from who we are, not bringing us closer to it.
Our sex is not arbitrary. It’s part of how we reflect God’s image in the world.
From my vantage point, the ontological lens suggests that we should help people accept their sexed bodies as part of their God-given identity.
Despite the complexity, though, I think a strong ethical case can be made that transitioning is not just unwise but also morally wrong.
- Transitioning and Mental Health
Some say that transitioning is the best solution to suicidality among trans* people, but this perspective is problematic at best and harmful at worst. Transitioning can introduce a whole new set of physical, emotional, and psychological problems that could contribute to depression and thus suicidality.
Studies have less clear results. Some have found that, while the experience of dysphoria may have decreased, the rates of other mental health issues (including depression, anxiety, and suicidality) often remain relatively high.
Most researchers acknowledge that transition outcome studies generally continue to suffer from methodological problems - chiefly ‘convenience sampling.’
Small sample sizes collected by convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is like standing outside of a mall and asking all the people whether they like shopping.
Good study: One of the most well-known is a Swedish study published in 2011, which surveyed all 324 sex-reassigned persons in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study had a large sample size, it had a control group, it was based on the entire population rather than just a convenience sample, and it was longitudinal, including some participants who had their surgeries up to thirty years prior. This is what the study found: Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population, [although] surgery and hormonal therapy alleviates dysphoria.
Stereotypes:
In the Bible, men often kiss other men (1 Sam. 10:1) and cry (Gen. 33:4). They are tender and called to be tenderhearted (Eph. 4:32). They are profoundly emotional (the Psalms) and relational (1 Sam. 18:1–5). They are called to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39), to love—not kill—their enemies (Matt. 5:44), to weep with those who weep (Rom. 12:15), to raise up and teach children (Eph. 6:4), to be sensitive (Eph. 4:2), to be kind (Prov. 11:17), and to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), if they want to truly be men.
Biblical women also defy current stereotypes. Sure, the Proverbs 31 woman is an “excellent wife” (v. 10 ESV) who rises up early and “provides food for her household” (v. 15 ESV), who makes “bed coverings” and “linen garments” (vv. 22, 24 ESV). But then she taps into her entrepreneurial skills and sells those linen garments for a profit after she “considers a field and buys it” (vv. 24, 16). She’s wise, hardworking, has strong arms, and engages in social justice in her spare time (v. 20). Fortune 500 companies long for a CEO as qualified as the Proverbs 31 woman.
Women in the Bible do all sorts of things that weren’t considered “feminine.” They fight in battles and win wars, sometimes by smashing tent pegs through the skulls of men (Judg. 4:21). They are unmarried businesswomen like Lydia (Acts 16:14–15). They are fearless, like the three women named Mary who stood by Jesus at the cross after most of the men had scattered (John 19:25). Many wealthy women followed Jesus and even funded his ministry (Luke 8:1–3)—quite a challenge for those who think males must always be the breadwinners. And what a sight that must have been: when Jesus wasn’t pulling loaves and fish out of thin air, he was waiting for his female disciples to pick up the tab at the local falafel shop.
Most gender stereotypes come from culture, not the Bible.
And real men were military men. Joining the military and becoming a soldier “was the only way many Roman males could lay claim to being a man.”2 Any male who cried in public, showed affection (not just lust) toward women, abstained from sex outside of marriage, or honoured lower-class people—the poor, the marginalised, and children—was not considered a real masculine man.3 A real man would never have washed another man’s feet. Enter Jesus.
Jesus comes to us as one who “challenges cultural notions of masculinity. He washes feet, touches sick people, shows compassion to sinful women, loves children, and more.”4 Jesus, in other words, supplies us with a countercultural view of masculinity.
Stereotypes might fit the natural desires and experiences of many or even most males and females, but not all.
Stereotypes are descriptions of how many men and women behave, but they aren’t biblical prescriptions for all.
Men aren’t commanded to be masculine, and women aren’t commanded to be feminine. They’re both just commanded to be godly.
When it comes to stereotypes and dysphoria, it’s tough to sort out causation from correlation: Are stereotypes causing dysphoria, or is dysphoria causing people to feel drawn toward stereotypes, or are the two simply correlated?
Scripture contains hardly any sex-specific commands. Even the passages that do single out a specific sex often give commands that equally apply to the other sex elsewhere in Scripture.
Take Titus 2, for instance. Paul instructs Titus to teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. (v. 3–5) Paul gives ten commands to women here. But at least eight of the ten are elsewhere expected of men:
What about the day-to-day lives of Christians, especially those not engaged in ministry leadership? Are any other biblical commands male- or female-specific? Maybe. I’m thinking of passages like Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, which tell us to maintain male and female distinctions in how we dress (clothing and hairstyles, in particular). Most readers would say that head coverings (1 Cor. 11) are necessary for the culture of Paul’s first-century Corinthian readers and not for every culture. But biblical scholars across the conservative-liberal spectrum agree almost unanimously that Paul is establishing a principle that men and women should maintain distinctions in how they present themselves.15
First, the meaning of clothing is culturally bound.
Second, some cultures have clearer distinctions than others when it comes to male- and female-specific clothing.
And yet, third, some things even in the West are currently culturally reserved for one sex and not the other. Dresses, high heels, two-piece bathing suits—these are (right now) clearly female attire.
Fourth, presenting oneself as male or female isn’t so much about the fabric or shape of clothing but about the purpose behind it.
The Bible’s primary invitation to every Christian is not to act more like a man or to act more like a woman, but to act more like Jesus.
It’s true that some statements like “day and night,” “land and sea,” or even “alpha and omega” bear the sense of these two opposites and everything in between. … the phrase “male and female” in Genesis 1:27 refers to biological sex, not gender roles or identities. No doubt, there are many variations among females and males. Tall, short, strong, weak, hairy, hairless, Enneagram 3 wing 4 or 2 wing 3. But the beautiful variations among males and among females do not mean that “male and female” are only two of many options.
But whenever Scripture mentions sexed categories of humanity, it only names male and female.
Humans differ in how they are male and female, but this doesn’t mean sex categories exist in addition to male and female.
But there’s no textual evidence that Genesis 1:27 is talking about a person’s internal sense of who they are (gender identity) or whether a male is masculine or a female is feminine (gender role). A male with gender dysphoria, or a female who’s not particularly feminine, is very much included in the male/female sex binary of Genesis 1:27.
Genesis 1 is talking about biological sex—male and female—not what we have labeled gender identity or gender role. And it’s perfectly fine for males and females to resist cultural stereotypes as males and females.
Comments
Post a Comment