Made In The Image of God: Neither Toxic or Woke

     We hear the debate come up often on an interesting subject relating to anthropology: what is a man or a woman? Some will say it is based on what kind of chromosomes you have and that alone determines it. Others will say it depends on physical characteristics (such as a beard for men and long hair for women). Some will say that is simply based on how one feels and thus how they choose to identify themselves. I think we need to really take two steps back and re-examine this issue much more carefully because this debate has caused some to really start to view it black and white to the point that they will even accuse women who are just really strong as being "trans" despite them never claiming to be such. I think it's time we looked at this biblically from a Christian perspective. Also, all bible verses from here will use the NRSV Updated Edition.

    We read the following in Genesis 1:26-27: "Then God said, “Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." We do not see much assigned here to the text regarding the purpose of male and female in terms of role and design other than both will have dominion over the rest of creation equally. Then we read in Genesis 2:21-22 the following: "So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." The passage here is interesting especially based on some wisdom of this verse from Matthew Henry's commentary when he says that "the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved."

    Suggesting this so far, we see at least an equality yet distinction in the notion of man and woman via the origins of Adam and Eve. However we should consider the qualities of both man and woman in this scenario. Starting with men, we shall point out some good key qualities. We know they must be self-controlled in all things, models of good works, offering integrity, and have sound speech that cannot be censured (Titus 2:6-7). We also see that husbands in particular should love their wives like Christ loved the church (which means they are willing to sacrifice their life for them) and to love them as they would love themselves (Ephesians 5:25-29). Women are modeled in a similar manner with the commands to "be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or enslaved to much wine; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited" as Titus 2:3-6 teaches. Elsewhere we read that women who are married must be submissive to their husbands (Ephesians 2:22-24). 

    With all this in mind, how then are we understand and approach the subject of what it means to be a man or a woman? I think that biological factors such as being created in the beginning as such would determine that. However, this needs to be considered in light of the other debate regarding those who identify as non-binary (a subject I shall eventually seek to write about in the future). Until then, we must go over a few subject matters of very popular and sometimes controversial opinions regarding the status of men and women in today's culture. We will then explore if each idea contains biblical support of it is the result of outside ideas. We shall begin with a very popular one and probably a tough one to address.

    Men having beards is quite common around. Some will suggest a man without a beard is no true man at all. While indeed their is early church father support for this sort of idea, we must address if it's biblical or merely cultural to hold this view of beards as primary ontology for men. The main area for this we see is found in Leviticus with laws telling us men to not shave the edges of our beards (Leviticus 19:27 & 21:5). However, to keep this in mind, we are not under the law of Moses as the work of Christ and the covenant we are under puts us under a different one. However, a beard can help with a distinguishing factor. I myself have a beard and do not mind it as I view it as a way to honor the Lord in growing it. However, I do not see how trying to make it a mandate is something we must do especially if a man cannot grow a beard in certain cases. If a man wants to force the idea that mandates being a Christian or a man by having a beard, then they have become a new Pharisee as a result and are adding to the teachings of Christ as a result (2 John 9-11).

    Another idea is the idea of masculinity in men in today's culture is to like several things such as sports and not to like certain things outside of the cultural norm such as writing poetry or watching anime. The main problem I have with this is that it presupposes modern cultural ideas into the biblical idea in a conforming way. Romans 12:2 teaches us clearly that we should "not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect." If we are going to be godly people, we should not conform to the world as the ultimate standard of things as the means to determine what a man is, but instead, we should strive to utilize what is in our culture while applying Christian principles. Especially as it relates to sports for example, Tertullian addresses Christian interests in watching plays and sports in the Greco-Roman world, condemning them. So not only does he condemn the play acting (which some would say isn't a manly activity), but he also condemns the manly sport of arena fighting, which the popularity of in that time could be compared to football today. So the idea of a man liking certain modern cultural things isn't something we should view as mandatory.

    One case for both is the idea of the hair style, suggesting men need short hair while women need longer hair. First off, this notion found in the Old Testament law no longer applies to us Christians due to the covenantal nature of the law and thus, the new covenant having it's own laws. The other case some try to argue is via 1 Corinthians 11, where it says a women's hair is a covering for the honor of God in verse 15. Dr. Michael Heiser notes something interesting in a February 7, 2015 episode of the Naked Bible Podcast. Essentially, the women's hair was viewed as a covering because it was essentially the same way men cover up their crotch. Back then, the woman's hair as a cover (peribolain in the greek) was essentially a genital similar to the male's testicles. There is even a good dialogue in the scholarly world on this subject between Troy W. Martin and Mark S. Goodacre regarding the subject of this interpretation in 1 Corinthians 11. This certainly would make sense especially given the roman medical texts and the Greek word used. So that is why the idea of the long hair being condemned is there because it essentially is not rooted in gender roles, but the understanding that the Greco-Roman world viewed women's long hair as a female genital and it was best to cover it up with a head covering (veil or scarf), unless you wanted to be guilty of public indecency in the church in the Greco-Roman world.

    I have made plenty of addressing towards the more toxic approaches to the idea of gender at the moment, but I think it is time where I poke at the other negative side of the debate. The woke nemesis! In all seriousness, while I can agree with some things taught by the more progressive view, I also agree with some conservative views. My critiques are aimed at what I find to eventually become problematic and even hypocritical issues regarding the discussion of gender, sexuality and being. In fact, it is these ideas I plan to refute which I see harm several friends of mine who are struggling with their gender identity and expression because of the things society demands out of us. So I will plan to deal with each part accordingly. Starting first, with the ideas of the context of masculine and feminine values in the midst of the transgender population.

    Going forth on this, we should be careful to consider the refutations of certain claims earlier and understand why it may seem that those who are transgender or struggle with some form of dysphoria end up getting confused or even misled by certain ideas. For example, take the situation of somebody we will call Sally for now, who eventually encounters a case of gender dysphoria which leads her to struggle with being referred to as female and instead feels more masculine and would prefer to be identified as a male. Before we engage in this further, we need to address questions about again the issue of what it means to be of any gender. While sex and gender are two different aspects, confusions about the two can be considered and to address whenever an expression ends up being as toxic as the straight man who comes under fire.

    Let's consider the example of Sally going to become Sal with using he/him pronouns now. How does Sally wish to express themselves as a male regarding their gender identity? Is it by having short hair and wearing more muscular attire to go with trying to earn more muscle? There is nothing wrong with simply trying to figure it out, but the problem arises when this is performed as it says "this is what it means to become a man." When we make that the point based on dressing up in a certain way that is considered toxic when cis men do it, then it ultimately ends up either as hypocrisy or as a means to think therefore that there are permissions to become toxic among certain transgender individuals. It is seen as an issue I would find because then what somebody may consider to be what defines a man differs from the cis ally or another person struggling with identity and yet they go the more effeminate male route instead. It becomes a wrestling again over the identity of what it means ontologically to be a "man" that borders on adopting toxic traits in order to feel complete and diffuse the dysphoria.

    Instead, we could just easily explain that the situation is revolved by saying that they can be female and yet feel like they can have short hair and be more masculine. However, this will not work in all cases of course, considering the real issue of gender dysphoria as a psychological problem that can bring about mental and eventually physical harm through even potential death by self. I get concerned about this because I have friends who while sometimes being comfortable with their new identity at times, I feel like public and peer perception as well as influence from both the opponents and supporters can tend to lead to more confusion and thus trigger a dysphoria episode that brings on depression like crazy. We should be interested in reducing these cases and addressing this matter gently with respect.

    My solution to this aspect is simple: we must do our best to avoid treating certain elements of masculinity/maleness and femineity/femaleness as toxic in which these same traits may possibly be found in certain areas of masculinity and femineity among the transgender population. With that, it helps us to look past this being the issue and seek for a more philosophical and theological aspect towards what it means to be a man or woman. Many may say the chromosomes and DNA determine this, but that would of course determine sex and the basis of male or female. Anything added "masculine/strong" or "effeminate/soft" are areas which are outside of the issue of genetics in gender.

    Thus I wish to leave forth this article so that those may wish to interact with the subject and eventually help come up with an answer to the question of what does it truly mean to be a man or woman? We must avoid the toxic and liberal aspects of it that are taught nowadays because they both miss biblical and fundamental elements. Which means we should approach the subject of gender, identity and transgender people from a perspective that seeks to be objective and balanced. If we don't, then not only do we end up muddying the waters and never get to the end or solution to this debate, but we do so at the cost of the mental health, value and dignity of everybody who either is uncomfortable with themselves or struggles with some form of gender dysphoria. This question being dealt with not only will help us be united in an understanding of being male/female ontologically, but it will also help us to reduce the amount of deaths and depression episodes that occur because of these questions being unanswered and thus become added stress/confusion for the individual.

A Triperspectival Approach to the Canon

     The canon of scripture has been a highly contested and debated subject among the Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians in history. We should always be very careful when we discuss the subject of the biblical canon because it is very easy for people in all three parties to say something contradictory or inconsistent about how the canon is decided. However, I would like to propose a Triperspectival approach to the canon, which I have argued and defended in a few discussions and debates regarding the canon. It is a protestant approach, but it considers the tradition of the early church as well.

    When we discuss this topic, I feel it should be important to note that any quotes from Dr. Michael J. Kruger will come from this article, which is from Chapter 3 of his book "Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books." I shall base it off this model since Kruger is a student of John Frame, the theologian who formulated the Triperspectival model approach, and it's easy to see this present in his writing for the argument for a self-authenticating model of the canon of scripture. While Dr. Kruger applied this to the New Testament in his book, I will work to apply this also to the Old Testament as well when also engaging with the discussion of the apocrypha.

    Let us start with establishing the three perspectives and their assigned points as Michael Kruger lays out for us: "There are three attributes of canonicity: (1) divine qualities (canonical books bear the “marks” of divinity), (2) corporate reception (canonical books are recognized by the church as a whole), and (3) apostolic origins (canonical books are the result of the redemptive-historical activity of the apostles)." Divine qualities will act as the normative perspective, apostolic origins will act as the situational perspective, and corporate reception will act as the existential perspective. Let us expound on how each one helps and how therefore it helps further the use of verifying which books belong in the bible and fit this model.

    Divine qualities as a normative perspective is "that it bears the divine qualities or divine character of a book from God." We would affirm that Scripture is the standard that sets itself for being considered divine scripture, especially in light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. However, the question is how can this be considered a proof? Wouldn't this be considered circular reasoning? Yes, but not any bad kind. Consider Dr. Kruger's words on this: "This sort of circularity is not a problem but simply part of how foundational authorities are authenticated. For instance, let us imagine that we want to determine whether sense perception is a reliable source of belief. If I see a cup on the table, how do I know my sense perception is accurate? How would I test such a thing? I could examine the cup and table more closely to make sure they are what they seem to be (hold them, touch them, etc.). I could also ask a friend to tell me whether he sees a cup on the table. But in all these instances I am still assuming the reliability of my sense perception (or my friend’s) even as I examine the reliability of my sense perception. Or, as another example, let us imagine that we wanted to inquire into whether our rational faculties would reliably produce true beliefs. How could we examine the evidence for the reliability of our rational faculties without, at the same time, actually using our rational faculties (and thereby presupposing their reliability)?"

    Another point to this is in William Alston's quote from page 41 of his essay, "The Knowledge of God" in the book "Faith, Reason, and Skepticism," that says that there "is no escape from epistemic circularity in the assessment of our fundamental sources of belief." So with this in mind, we see that scripture in order to be divinely inspired, it must bear divine qualities in it. According to Kruger, "These “marks” (or indicia) can include a variety of things, but traditionally include the Scripture’s beauty, efficacy, and harmony..." So it must be affirmed that this question of canon being self-authenticating is something only Christians can test regarding the authority of canon. Especially in light of John 10:27 saying "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." In other words, as Kruger tells us, "... canonical books are received by those who have the Holy Spirit in them. When people’s eyes are opened, they are struck by the divine qualities of Scripture—its beauty, harmony, efficacy—and recognize and embrace Scripture for what it is, the word of God. They realize that the voice of Scripture is the voice of the Shepherd." So in order to begin with affirming scripture as divinely inspired and self-authenticating, we must at least begin with the presupposition that the text is inspired or divine.

    Prophetic or Apostolic origins leads us to understand the a book that is divinely inspired and part of the canon, must be written by an inspired prophet/apostle of God or at least by an associate of the prophet/apostle. This deals with the facts and history of the composition of each of the relevant books at this point for a situational perspective. It would make sense that if we have an author of the book writing something part of the divinely inspired canon, the books themselves would have to be written by a divinely inspired prophet/apostle or an associate of one. This can be observed easily and scholars have noted that the potential authors of the books are either written by a prophet/apostle or at least an associate like a scribe or friend.

    Some may say the associate might not be a prophet and therefore is not inspired. Dr. Kruger addresses this: "Apostolic origins were also central to early discussions about potential canonical books; for example, the Muratorian fragment rejected the so-called Pauline epistle to the Laodiceans because it was not really written by Paul. The church fathers understood a book as having apostolic origins even if it was not directly written by an apostle but nevertheless bore apostolic content and derived from the foundational period of the church. It is for this reason that Tertullian regarded Mark and Luke as “apostolic men.” So while Mark wrote his Gospel, he received the info from Peter and was an associate of other apostles. Luke wrote his gospel and was an associate of Paul as well as he gathered his info from others as well. The same can be said for the Old Testament authors.

    Corporate Reception is an existential perspective which focuses on the existential aspect of the covenant people. Dr Kruger notes regarding that "when God, by his redemptive activity, creates a covenant community, he then gives them covenant documents that testify to that redemption. For these reasons, Meredith Kline and others have argued that canonical books are ultimately, and primarily, covenantal books. The biblical witness indicates that it is God’s corporate people—not as individuals but as a covenant whole—who are “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). As Kline has argued, God gives the covenant documents with the intent that those documents become a “community rule.”" We see this then cites Romans 3:2 which refers to the Jews being given complete trust over the Old Testament, which also then puts them in charge of their canon. Then the New Covenant comes and the Christian Church provides the right to create their own New Testament canon in reception based on books they received.

    Some might object to say "what about the church councils which declare the canon of scripture to include apocrypha/deuterocanonical books?" My response would be that this doesn't apply and shouldn't because those apocrypha books fail to become part of the covenant documents since they weren't written for us. Most of those books would've at least been given to the Jews and we know from research that the Jews did not even consider or accept any of those books as part of the corporate reception. Some might then add about other Jewish sects and their canons, to which I argue that while some might have only the first five books of the Bible as part of the canon and others the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, we still have those books and not one declaring the books of the apocrypha to be canonical in any sense of the word. If some dare to say "who cares what the Jews say, they killed Jesus." This fails to account Jesus was a jew as well and also shows ignorance and antisemitism on their part since the Old Testament was written by Jewish authors as well as were the first members of the Christian Church in the first century.

    While I argue for the three perspectives in the model formulated from Frame's Triperspectivalism, Kruger uses different definitions for his, but capture the same thought: "If one looks at the canon from the perspective of corporate reception, then canon is most naturally defined as the books received and recognized by the consensus of the church (exclusive). If one looks at the canon from the perspective of divine qualities, then canon is most naturally defined as those books that are used as authoritative revelation by a community (functional). And if one looks at the canon from the perspective of apostolic origins, then the canon is most naturally defined as those books given by God as the redemptive-historical deposit (ontological). The self-authenticating model, then, accommodates all three definitions of canon and acknowledges that each of them has appropriate applications and uses."

    Not only do these three get used, they interact. The normative perspective of the divine qualities is verified by the corporate or covenant community that received them and how they recognized the scriptures to be divinely inspired while also the apostles themselves verified it through the Spirit that inspired them to write those divine words. The situational perspective of the prophetic/apostolic origins were verified by the divinely inspired contents of the revelation they receive from God and that they write down as well as the recognition of each prophet or apostle being such by their particular covenant community at that particular time. The existential perspective of the corporate reception of the covenantal community is verified by the divinely inspired content which addresses even the individuals being under the covenant for the documents which also lay out their responsibility for the community and the prophet/apostle belonging in that community helps further establish that connection for their corporate reception and judgement therefore of the books.

    While the model can certainly be shaped and sharpened more, I feel like this is a good enough model to argue for the Protestant canon because the test requires all three perspectives being verified and while a book of the apocrypha or New Testament apocryphal works might pass one or two of the perspectives, it cannot pass all three and because of that, it will not be sufficient. According to the model, it must have all three perspectives and all three must interact and self-authenticate each other. If they fail to do so, then this renders the canonical status of that particular book to be doubtful and questionable. Hopefully this article sparks up more conversations about the subject of the biblical canon in such a way that it leads to more fruitful and edifying debates.