20 / 38
We could go home and confidently decorate the
nursery. Friends and family could plan the baby shower
and buy their
gifts.Wecould 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.