Concrete Genders in a Gender Fluid World
On March 23rd of this year, North Carolina’s General Assembly proposed and passed HB2 (House Bill 2), or what is more informally known as the “bathroom bill.” In very plain language, the bill responds to an ordinance passed in Charlotte, N.C., which called for further public accommodation for those in the LGBT community. Specifically, this ordinance would have allowed transgender individuals to use the bathroom of the gender with which they most identify. Those opposed to the bill call for its repeal and further “antidiscrimination” measures, while its proponents argue that it reinforces religious liberty and protects citizens from undue harm.
The backlash against this bill has been nothing short of bewildering. American Airlines, Apple, PayPal, and Pepsi, among many others, have publicly decried this ruling, with some even threatening to remove all business from the state.[1] Bruce Springsteen even canceled future shows in the Tar Heel State in reaction to this controversial bill. Most strikingly, President Barack Obama has sent out a letter to every public school district decreeing they allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. (The language has since softened from decreeing to directing.) Hollywood Boulevard, Wall Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue seem to have joined forces to lament and oppose North Carolina’s legislative decision.
For the casual observer, this is a moral dilemma with no right answers. In fact, one might say we’ve reached a point of moral insanity. To argue against this bill is to “discriminate” further against the LGBT community. Yet to argue for it is to open a virtual floodgate of ethical consequences. Can anybody use any bathroom? How do you distinguish transgender people from those who are not? Is this only a first step in a long road of disastrous choices regarding gender, sexuality, and society? Or are we, as Mr. Springsteen would sing, “dancing in the dark”?
Rooted in Creation
As Christians, we lament the state of our culture. We envision and hope for the Edenic ideal, yet our sin-laced world falls desperately short. While we know things aren’t as they should be, we often have difficulty articulating why and how the world should understand and embody gender identity. For that reason, we should have a holistic Christian worldview—specifically concerning gender and sexuality.
We begin with the imago Dei. To be human is to be made in God’s image as “male and female” (Gen. 1:26). Thus, our humanity and our gender are directly related to being made in God’s image. As a Focus on the Family writer notes,
Specifically, in humans we see not only a separation from the animals, but also a separation of mankind into two sexes—male and female—wholly complementary, yet each uniquely and mysteriously bearing God’s image: the imago Dei. It is in this bearing of God’s image as male and female that we humans are called to make visible the invisible Creator God on this planet. It is out of the diversity and distinctive separateness of male and female that we humans are called to represent God in the proper and ordered stewardship of His good and wonderful creation.[2]
The important distinction here is that being created in the imago Dei does not mean we’re the same—a point opponents make eagerly. Male and female, both made in God’s image, are yet distinct from one other. As Andreas Köstenberger argues, “The conviction that sex and gender are not merely biological and sociological functions, but that they define who we are as men and women in a more thoughtful way, is rooted in the biblical creation account.”[3]
Complementing, Not Confusing
If, then, being made in the image of God does not mean we’re all the same, but distinct in our created genders, what does that mean for us today? How does that affect our lives? Suffice to say, how we understand gender has far-reaching implications not only for our own life but also for society.
Christians have commonly articulated two views of gender: Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. Bruce Ware defines both as follows:
Egalitarianism: “God created male and female as equal in all respects. Gen. 1:26-27 makes no distinction between woman and man insofar as both are equally made in His image (i.e., ontological equality), and both are given the responsibility to rule over His creation (i.e., functional equality).”[4]
Complementarianism: “Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. Gen. 1:26-27 makes clear that male and female are equally created as God’s image, and so are, by God’s created design, equally and fully human. But, as Gen. 2 bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.”[5]
We can see a distinct difference between these two views in how they view gender before and after the Fall. Egalitarianism argues that the Fall introduced gender roles, and that redemption removes them. Conversely, complementarianism argues that the Fall disrupted gender roles, and that redemption rightly orders them—as they were in the Garden.
I, among many other conservative evangelical Christians, hold to a complementarian view of gender. While time and space does not allow for a thorough treatment of these two views, complementarianism better reconciles the innate distinctions between male and female have in this world.[6] Egalitarianism, while thoughtful in its approach, seems to present more problems than solutions. For one, it has a hard time reconciling the innate desires and abilities found within one’s gender. For example, men more naturally may lead while women more naturally may nurture. While this requires a certain level of nuance, culture bears out the implications of these views.
We advocate for these complementing roles because they bring order to our confused society. Scripture tells us that God is not a God of disorder, but rather one of peace (1 Cor. 14:33). In a society in which individuals are more confused than ever about their identity, Christians bring hope. We not only bring peace in our understanding of gender, but also hope in one’s identity. As we preach Christ, we proclaim to our hearers that in Christ, not only are they male and female, but they can be sons and daughters (Eph. 1:5): accepted (Rom. 15:7), united with their Creator (1 Cor. 6:17), a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and God’s workmanship (Eph. 2:10).
Conclusion
In many ways, this article, has only scratched the surface of gender identity and sexuality. It has not been my aim to consider these issues exhaustively. Yet with the current shifts in culture, my hope is to encourage deeper thinking regarding a timely issue. Now more than ever, Christians must think biblically and live biblically. We need to have the mind of Christ, and let it change our behavior. As those in society make drastic changes concerning their view of gender and sexuality, we must remember that we depend upon and worship a God Who does not change (Mal. 3:6), and Whose plan for us does not change. Because of that, we can endure the spirit of this age.
____________________
[1] Katherine Peralta, “Updated list: Who has spoken for, against NC’s new LGBT law,” Charlotte Oberserver, March 31, 2016; http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article69251877.html; accessed April 9, 2016; Internet. We might also note the inconsistency of media response between the refusal of business by these large corporations on the one hand, and the refusal of business by Aaron and Melissa Klein to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. One has been largely applauded, while the other faces legal ramifications.
[2] Focus on the Family Issue Analysts, “Casting God’s Vision for Sex and Sexuality,” Focus on the Family, 2014; http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexuality/homosexuality-theology-and-the-church/casting-gods-vision-for-sex-and-sexuality#; accessed April 9, 2016; Internet.
[3] Andreas Kostenberger with David Jones, God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 2nd edition,(Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 40.
[4] Bruce Ware, “Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions,” Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, June 26, 2007; http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/summaries-of-the-egalitarian-and-complementarian-positions/; accessed May 13, 2016; Internet.
[5] Ibid.
[6] For a full treatment, see John Piper & Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012) and Owen Strachan and Jonathan Parnell, eds., Designed for Joy: How the Gospel Impacts Men and Women, Identity and Practice (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015).
Recent Comments