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.