The rejection of limiting stereotypes is understandable. After all, why should the colors of the rainbow or certain sports be categorized by gender?[2] These superficial stereotypes are but the tip of the iceberg of a historical development.[3] The first wave feminist movement asked the question: Why should men’s stereotypical expectations of women determine what they can and can’t do?[4] Then: Why should a woman’s biology have anything to do with her identity?[5] And, progressing into the transgender movement: “Who is allowed to tell me I’m not a man anyway?”[6] We start to understand that the rejection of stereotypes is not as innocuous as the choice of trucks over dolls. It is a rejection of any outside definition whatsoever, including one’s own biology. There are two flawed assumptions that undergird this view. First, the physical body has nothing to do with gender identity. Second, humans are autonomous in their choice and definition of gender identity.
The first tenet finds its roots in Gnostic thinking, an ancient form of metaphysical existentialism in which the higher, inner life of the soul is distinguished from the lower, carnal and base bodily reality. The second tenet presupposes a mix of existential and utilitarian ethics. As Frame points out, Sartre believed that “we are radically free” and that “we are not subject to any authority outside of ourselves.”[7] The strong overlap that holds these tenets together is existential postmodern deconstruction. It “break(s) down the connection that people think they are making between language and reality.”[8] If we can deconstruct the way we talk to children about gender, we can deconstruct the gender categories in their minds.[9] The combination of these two tenets reveal a utilitarian pedagogical foundation. Children are told: “Determining and living out your sexuality should make you happy!” Since the rightness of a view is determined by how many people are made happy by it, we should not impose any stereotypical strictures on gender expressions.[10] But these tenets are self-defeating to human freedom because as they are imposed on society, individuals de facto become less free to hold to or promote the traditional model of binary gender.[11]
If we believe that God is a good, transcendent creator who determines our sex, we cannot simultaneously claim to be our own creators. Our sex, as an expression of the image of God in man, reveals different aspects of himself. Frame writes: “Our sexual qualities, like all other human qualities, image God.”[12] When we tinker with this image, we are toying with God’s divine, self-revelatory intent. Romans 1:19ff, Paul teaches that rejecting or reversing the created order is a form of idolatry.[13] The fundamental aspects of our sex differences are not stereotypical, but creational, hence typical.[14] Adam an Eve’s complimentary difference that brings about new life is typified by how Christ interacts with his bride. The creational order of male and female is more than just arbitrary, it reveals God’s fabric of reality, into which we creatures are placed and to which we are to conform.[15]
Stereotypes are normally understood as man-made, culturally-bound expressions of some elements of truth. By rejecting them in child rearing, the new gender-bending approach is casting off outside definitions as a first step toward achieving total freedom in self-definition. Of course, it takes discernment for the believer to know which cultural stereotypes are helpful to our children[16] to become the men and women God wants them to be, what goals they should pursue, and which ones might crush children’s individuality.[17]
Cultural stereotypes are not inspired or binding in the same way that God’s word is. However, the Apostle Paul presupposes Christians will respect the expressions of masculinity and femininity found in their culture.[18] Most fundamentally, thoughtful conformity to the gender norms of the day is a public demonstration of the acceptance of one’s gender, a positive obedience to and rejoicing in the 7th commandment and a witness to God’s good creational structures.[19] Clothing, apparel, jewelry, divisions of labor, norms for modesty, are all outward varying cultural expressions of gender.[20] As long as these don’t contradict the Bible’s plain teachings, they may be useful to help children forge their sexual identities as they orient themselves to other male or female role models within that culture and the Body of Christ.[21]
The Scriptures assume parental guidance in the realm of sexuality.[22] We certainly shouldn’t leave children without a compass in a world full of sexual roads to nowhere. Parents can joyfully embrace their womanhood and manhood. They can also teach their children from the Scriptures, showing them examples of godly men and women who don’t choose stereotypes over obedience to God.[23] They can interact critically with stereotypes if they are indeed opposed to godliness or detracting from scriptural truth. Furthermore, we can show them how binary gender is built into the story of the Gospel and hence, cannot simply be erased. The task of life-giving necessitated Adam and Eve’s collaboration and different contributions. Christ came to fulfill this reality on a whole different level and scale.[24] The bridegroom laid down his life for his bride, the church and enables her to be his co-laborer at his side, on a great mission with him to bear spiritual offspring in the world. May we never be tempted to destroy what he has created good!
[1]
Hellens, Nicholas. “BBC Teaches Children of 100 Genders, or More” The Times,
September 8, 2019, accessed November 13, 2019. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-films-teach-children-of-100-genders-or-more-7xfhbg97p
[2]
Dr. Doriani, in his lecture of the Biblical sex ethic, gave an example of his
daughter’s enjoyment of rough sports not diminishing her femininity.
[3] Of
course, the ideal of androgyny is not new at all, but newer developments have
brought it back into style.
[4] Koren,
Marina. “Why Men thought Women weren’t Made to vote.” The Atlantic, July 11, 2019. Accessed November 13, 2019 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/womens-suffrage-nineteenth-amendment-pseudoscience/593710/
[5] “But man was changing; his place was in the world
and his world was widening. Woman was being left behind. Anatomy was her
destiny.” Friedan, Betty. The Feminine
Mystique, 
(New York: W. W. Norton. 1963) 138
(New York: W. W. Norton. 1963) 138
[6]
The irony about the transgender movement is that it’s view of stereotypes is implicitly
contradictory. On the one hand, transgender people desire to be free to change
their given gender, on the other hand, they make themselves slaves to
stereotypes. If a boy likes pink and ballet, he must really be a girl inside…
[7] Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Christian life. (Phillipsburg,
NJ: P & R, 2008) 85
[8] Ibid,
89
[9]
Speaking about more than 100 genders makes gender an abstract, meaningless category.
[10]
What is meant by stereotypes is reinterpreted to mean anything that limits free
gendered expression.
[11]
Teachers in the UK can lose their jobs for speaking up against these views.
[12] Ibid,
627
[13]
We break the first commandment by making ourselves into the creator, the second
commandment by setting up another image of God and of man that we worship and
the third commandment by refusing the name he has placed on us as his image
bearers. We break the seventh commandment by confusing the ordinance of
marriage.
[14]
Of course, the fall affected the area of sexuality, both physically (with
defects such as intersex issues) and psychologically (with issues of SSA,
gender dysphoria, etc.).
[15]
It is interesting that in the Scandinavian countries that have consistently
raised their children gender-neutrally, still, the majority tend toward
stereotypical male and female professions when given the choice and typical
male violent behavior towards women remains. Moynihan, Carolyn. “A Nordic
Paradox: Higher Gender Equality, More Partner violence.” Intellectual Takeout,
May 29, 2019. Accessed November 13, 2019. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/nordic-paradox-higher-gender-equality-more-partner-violence.
Also, Falk, Armin and Hermle, Johannes. “Relationship of Gender Differences in
Preferences to Economic Development and Gender Equality,” Science, October 19,
2018. Accessed November 13, 2019. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899
[16]
Proverbs 22:6-8. One interpretation of this verse is that each child must be
trained according to their own bent.
[17] See Doriani, Daniel M. Putting the Truth to Work: The
Theory and Practice of Biblical Application. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2001)
101-102
[18]
For example, Paul assumes short hair is the norm for men in his culture when he
is approaching the topic of head coverings for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Surely,
he understands that in OT times, long hair was a sign of Nazarite devotion to
God, not of an effeminate man. He also knows that short hair is not a natural
state and yet he says, “nature teaches.” I think he is implying that his
cultural context is displaying the natural distinction between men and women
through an albeit arbitrary, yet telling thing such as length of hair. Hence,
his argument about short and long hair is based on the respect of the cultural
norms of his day, as an expression of embracing one’s femininity or masculinity.
[19] Deuteronomy
22:5. Cross-dressing is an abomination to God because it reveals a
non-acceptance of one’s gender and intends to confuse others about one’s
gender. The abomination was not the clothes themselves, but the perversion of
one’s gender. It may even be a form of breaking the 9th commandment
of false-witness against oneself.
[20]
My mission’s professor, years back, told the story of his wife arriving with
him to a seminary in Zimbabwe on the back of his motorcycle wearing a
miniskirt. Everyone pointed and laughed at her, embarrassed, saying: “Look, the
pastor’s wife is naked!” In that culture being naked meant showing any skin from
the waist to the feet. Walking around topless was not considered naked.
[21]
Women are to learn from other women by imitation and teaching (Titus 2). Men
are to emulate their fathers and other wiser men. Paul exhorts others to
emulate him.
[22]
The Proverbs are an example of a father and mother teaching their son the way
of wisdom pertaining to his male gender.
[23]
Jael’s tent peg act was not very ladylike!
[24]
The Apostle Paul talks of man and woman in marriage referring to the mystery of
Christ and the church in Ephesians 5:32. This assertion makes a case for the
non-reversibility of the genders in God’s order.
