Cedarville Magazine, Spring 2017

We could go home and confidently decorate the nursery. Friends and family could plan the baby shower and buy their gifts.We could even turn to trusted sources and start reading about “raising girls.” The technician’s announcement not only conveyed something about our child’s biology, but also said something about her identity. To say that her sex was female meant she was genetically hardwired, to some degree, such that her identity would and should express itself in feminine terms. The potential boy names could be scratched off the list, and all we had to “haggle” over were girl names. It did not give us tidy boxes to put our daughter in so we knew exactly what to expect, but it certainly put her in one of two boxes — boxes agreed upon, though variously expressed, in all cultures from the beginning of time. And beyond that, it meant that as responsible, loving parents, we should guide her toward what God in His providence had indicated about her identity via her biology. GENDER REVOLUTION Today, many would speak harshly about, or even condemn, the way we thought about gender in the “naïve 90s.” In many influential quarters, sex has no necessary connection to gender identity. Some say a person’s genetics and associated anatomical features should not have any necessary ramifications for their sense of self, nor should they be encouraged to think there is a connection. In fact, such individuals would say a person’s gender identity is something they should identify for themselves; their biology may even need to be “fixed” to bring it in line with who they think they are. To put it theologically, this perspective seems to argue that any difference between the heart’s sense of self and a person’s physical anatomy is an effect of the fall; a person’s heart, what Scripture sees as the center of thinking, feeling, and willing in a person, should make the final decision about gender. So apparently, my wife and I were wrong to think that the sex of our children had any more significance for their identity than the color of their eyes. It was misguided, oppressive, and even abusive to assume that, because our children had female bodies, it was good and right to raise them to be women. We could have served our children better by leading them to think something like this: “Your body may be a mistake, but you will figure out who you are if you listen to your heart — and you can count on us to affirm and help you fully express whoever you think you are!” THE SUPREME AUTHORITY How should followers of Christ respond to this conceptual earthquake that is toppling and shattering long-held beliefs about what it means to be a person? Is this a moment when the “foundations are being destroyed” so the “righteous” find themselves set against cultural trends on sex and gender (Ps. 11:3; 82:5)? Or is it something that largely needs to be embraced and affirmed? Here we turn to Matthew and Christ’s teaching on sex and gender in Matthew 19:1–11 for some guidance. Matthew is a manual for Christ-followers, i.e., disciples. He wrote to remind Christ-followers who Christ was and what He taught and did. Matthew intends to sweep them up into God’s mission in Christ and keep them on that mission until Christ returns at the end of the present age (24:3). He wants them to know they are authorized by Christ to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (28:19–20). Moreover, as they join Christ on God’s mission, Matthew wants them to know that Christ assured them of His never-failing, enabling presence “to the very end of the age” (v. 20). Matthewmakes it clear that Christ-followers believe in Jesus, learn from Jesus, obey Jesus, depend on Jesus, and represent Him in the world as they eagerly await His return. Jesus is the supreme authority that structures their vision of God, themselves, their neighbors, and the world. And for Jesus, a disciple’s love for God is the love that shapes and drives that disciple’s love for themselves and their neighbors (22:37–40). This means that the disciple personally assents to what God has created them to be and wants to redeem them to become. It also means that they live toward their neighbor to promote God’s creative and redemptive purposes for them. GOD’S INTENT In Matthew 19, Jesus goes back to God’s intentions in creation to address the basis and nature of marriage before He attempts to address issues related to its dissolution. Here we find that Jesus affirms “‘at the beginning the Creator made them male and female’” 20 | Cedarville Magazine We cannot abandon someone to their Creation- nullifying desires. We must stay in their lives and lovingly contend for God’s perspective on sex and gender because it’s both good and right.