Skip to main content

Why the Nashville Statement Preamble on Gender is Correct

In its opening Preamble, the Nashville Statement: a Coalition on Human Sexuality, makes an important point on human gender. It reads

Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. It is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, but is, rather, an expression of an individual’s autonomous preferences. The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God

The Statement remarks on “male and female” largely due to the assault on what is called Cisgender (Cis), a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. According to advocates for the transgender lifestyle, sex and gender have nothing to do with one another.

But is that true? The answer is no. Here is why.

Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Note that what we call “sex” (man-woman) and “gender” (male-female) are referenced simultaneously in the creation of the first couple. Jesus affirms this when he said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE” (Matthew 19:4).

The point? Inherent to the fact that the man and woman are created in the Image of God is both sex (man-woman) and gender (man-female).

Here is a question. Does sex define gender, or does gender define sex? It is gender that defines sex.

In the creation of the first couple, it the attributes of male (gender) that make the man (sex), and it is the attributes of female (gender) that make the woman (sex).

Put differently, the attributes of male-“ness” (gender), which originate in God, are the “content” that account for the man. Likewise, the attributes of woman-“ness” (gender), which originate in God, are the “content” that make for the woman.

So, what constitutes man and woman is not sex reproductive organs and fertility, but characteristics that form the content of the Image of God, as seen, for example, in the many scriptural references to God as a Father (trait) and as a Mother (trait).

The problem we are witnessing today is a reversal of God’s created order. It is now the man (sex) that makes the male (gender) and the woman (sex) that make the female (gender). Indeed, we are told that “gender and sex have nothing to do with one another” (Jenner).

In this case, gender becomes an image of the “I.” Men and women are the archetype of gender, free to define it however they like. But in biblical anthropology, God is the archetype of what constitutes male and female, which in turn defines what it means to be a man or a woman.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Spurgeon Doesn't Help Us With Trump

“ Of two evils, choose neither ." Spurgeon's quote has been posted numerous times on social media by Christians who find themselves in a moral conundrum at the very thought of voting for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Here’s the problem with Spurgeon’s idea. Biblically there is no such thing as a choice between two evils. Let me explain. Moral philosophers and theologians have long spoken of the problem of "tragic moral choice", also known as the “incommensurability in values.” The man on the street simply calls it “choosing between the lesser of two evils.”   The best known example of tragic moral choice is the one about the Nazis during WW II. Do you handover the Jews knowing that your choice makes you complicit in their deaths? Or do you lie and violate the Ninth Commandment? The Lutheran scholar, John Warwick Montgomery, has argued that such choices are unavoidable and of necessity cause us to sin. The Bible, however, takes a dim view of the...
66 comments
Read more

Tullian Tchividjian Bounces Back?

It is unfortunate but every so often a Christian, including a pastor, wanders away from the sheepfold and finds himself perilously ensnared by sin and in grave danger. In keeping with the duty of the church, especially its elders, it becomes necessary to vigorously seek the full repentance and restoration of the lost sheep. As in the case of the prodigal son (Luke 15:3-8) the contrite heart is one both heaven and the faithful saints celebrate.  In the case of Tullian Tchividjian we have an example of a lost under-shepherd. Having admitted to adultery, the South Florida Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) deposed  Tchividjian on August 11, 2015, ruling him unfit for Christian ministry. Tchividjian followed his removal from the pastoral office by filing for divorce from his wife, Kim, on August 27 th . They were married in 1994 and together have three children. Deposition from office is a serious infliction of church discipline. The goal of all ...
24 comments
Read more

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason ( credo ut intelligam ) and that reason aids faith ( intelligo un creadam ). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica , that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate. Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by ...
2 comments
Read more