Do gender roles still apply today?

Ken-1122 · Aug 8, 2022

Der Alte said:
Exactly. And so far so-called science has not found a way to change that.

Change what???

Der Alte · Aug 8, 2022

Ken-1122 said:
Change what???

Read the post I was quoting.

Ken-1122 · Aug 8, 2022

Yttrium said:
Well, sure. The whole point of trans is that they feel that they should be following the opposite gender role of their sex. There are some who prefer to be gender ambiguous, with no defined gender role, but that's no reason to try to remove gender roles from society.

The desire to follow the gender roles of a woman does not make you a woman. Lots of men like to follow the gender roles of women.

RDKirk · Aug 8, 2022

Gregorikos said:
I didn't have to. The fact that current complementarian theology is not the historic view of the church will give a wise man pause.

It's not as though there were no implication of gender roles in scripture.

Gregorikos · Aug 8, 2022

RDKirk said:
It's not as though there were no implication of gender roles in scripture.

Of course. And we are plainly told they originated in as a result of the fall. (Genesis 3:16) So gender roles came from the same place as pain in childbirth, thorns and thistles in gardens, sin, sickness, and death. We rightfully resist everything that came about on that day.

PloverWing · Aug 8, 2022

didactics said:
First, I think the state should be involved in marriage, then I think it should be privatized, but now I’m thinking the government should be involved, the only consideration now is should the state be involved or should it be on a federal level.

One reason to have the federal government at least partially involved is the question of what happens when a married couple travels from one state to another. If a couple gets legally married in one state, then travel to a state in which they would not legally have been able to get married, do all of their legal marriage rights suddenly disappear in the new state?

Civil marriage laws can be state-by-state, as they are now, but the federal government has an interest in seeing that states recognize each other's marriages. A couple of landmark Supreme Court cases have addressed this.

didactics · Aug 9, 2022

RDKirk said:
I don't think you got my point. If marriage is an ordnance of God, then the state has no part in the definition of "marriage," any more than the state has part in the definition of "communion" or "baptism."

But the state certainly has a part in civil partnership contracts drawn between two legal adults, whatever kind of contracts those legal adults want to draw up.

I should have put these words in quotes so you know where it comes from.

—Adam and Eve were a prototype for all humanity. [Jesus] said that marriage has been defined this way “from the beginning” (Matt 19:4). Lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is God’s design for all people and all cultures in all times on earth.—
Should the Government Legislate Marriage? - Morningview Baptist Church

The biblical definition of marriage is the traditional meaning of marriage and that’s the meaning the Supreme Court should rule in favor of. Marriage is not a church ordinance; it applies to the unconverted as well. For the Christian it has special significance including typological significance (the union of Christ and the church).

Gregorikos · Aug 9, 2022

didactics said:
I should have put these words in quotes so you know where it comes from.

—Adam and Eve were a prototype for all humanity. [Jesus] said that marriage has been defined this way “from the beginning” (Matt 19:4). Lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is God’s design for all people and all cultures in all times on earth.—
Should the Government Legislate Marriage? - Morningview Baptist Church

The biblical definition of marriage is the traditional meaning of marriage and that’s the meaning the Supreme Court should rule in favor of. Marriage is not a church ordinance; it applies to the unconverted as well. For the Christian it has special significance including typological significance (the union of Christ and the church).

That decision was in 2015 and it's already been decided. I think it was a mistake, but here we are. I'm not aware of anything about the matter before the supreme court at this time, and even if it were.... can you imagine the nightmare of trying to roll back the marriages that are already in place? And the public stink there would be over such attempts? I think this ship has sailed.

didactics · Aug 9, 2022

Gregorikos said:
That decision was in 2015 and it's already been decided. I think it was a mistake, but here we are. I'm not aware of anything about the matter before the supreme court at this time, and even if it were.... can you imagine the nightmare of trying to roll back the marriages that are already in place? And the public stink there would be over such attempts? I think this ship has sailed.

I get what you’re saying. Most of society has gone their own way. Do gender roles still apply to you?
JBMW 21.1 | Gender Specific Blessings: Bolstering a Biblical Theology of Gender Roles - CBMW

Gregorikos · Aug 9, 2022

didactics said:
I get what you’re saying. Most of society has gone their own way. Do gender roles still apply to you?
JBMW 21.1 | Gender Specific Blessings: Bolstering a Biblical Theology of Gender Roles - CBMW

That article is funny. So the author really believes that weeds in the garden is a gender role? Ha! The whole thing was quite a stretch.

Do gender roles apply to me? No, because I'm a man. The whole rhetoric of "gender roles" was off-base from its inception in the 1970s: “… ‘role distinctions’ are a euphemism for role restrictions of the disadvantaged party; in the traditional paradigm, men have no ‘role distinctions’ because they can theoretically fill any service slot in the church, even kitchen duty and nursery if they are willing to do it. Pragmatically, only women have assigned and specific ‘role distinctions’ in the church.”

didactics · Aug 10, 2022

Gregorikos said:
That article is funny. So the author really believes that weeds in the garden is a gender role? Ha! The whole thing was quite a stretch.

Do gender roles apply to me? No, because I'm a man. The whole rhetoric of "gender roles" was off-base from its inception in the 1970s: “… ‘role distinctions’ are a euphemism for role restrictions of the disadvantaged party; in the traditional paradigm, men have no ‘role distinctions’ because they can theoretically fill any service slot in the church, even kitchen duty and nursery if they are willing to do it. Pragmatically, only women have assigned and specific ‘role distinctions’ in the church.”

That’s not how I interpreted it. Adam and Eve were gardeners with no weeds involved. Then they were cursed and became farmers and some of the plants became weeds. Of course there is overlap in the kinds of work involving men and women. But, it’s no distinction that men cannot bear children?

Gregorikos · Aug 10, 2022

didactics said:
That’s not how I interpreted it. Adam and Eve were gardeners with no weeds involved. Then they were cursed and became farmers and some of the plants became weeds. Of course there is overlap in the kinds of work involving men and women. But, it’s no distinction that men cannot bear children?

Bearing children is a biological function, not a role assigned by a rule that people are expected to comply with.

didactics · Aug 10, 2022

Gregorikos said:
Bearing children is a biological function, not a role assigned by a rule that people are expected to comply with.

As an egalitarian you are considering offices in the church, elder and deacon. Based on that alone you see no need for gender distinction. If we expand the meaning of gender roles to include conduct, then we can take in account something like dress code. As a Christian you would agree that moral absolutes exist, I presume. Consider what that means in the church, society and the home.

Maybe dress code doesn’t matter to you. If it does and a man is not allowed to enter your church with a dress on, then that counts as a gender role.

PloverWing · Aug 10, 2022

didactics said:
Maybe dress code doesn’t matter to you. If it does and a man is not allowed to enter your church with a dress on, then that counts as a gender role.

I can't speak for Gregorikos, but I hope my parish would never turn away a worshipper on the basis of their clothing not being sufficiently gender-conforming.

Gregorikos · Aug 10, 2022

didactics said:
As an egalitarian you are considering offices in the church, elder and deacon. Based on that alone you see no need for gender distinction. If we expand the meaning of gender roles to include conduct, then we can take in account something like dress code. As a Christian you would agree that moral absolutes exist, I presume. Consider what that means in the church, society and the home.

Maybe dress code doesn’t matter to you. If it does and a man is not allowed to enter your church with a dress on, then that counts as a gender role.

Not really. God made them male and female, and we don't have the power or ability to switch from one sex to the other. However, clothing fashion is a cultural social construct. There's never been a man come to my church in a dress, and I seriously doubt it will ever happen. Nor will one come in a kilt, but if he did, would that be a violation of your alleged gender role? If it's acceptable in the eyes of God for a Scottish man to wear a kilt to church, what is the difference in a man wearing a dress?

Now, if the man is wearing a dress because he thinks he is a woman, he is certainly confused and in need of prayer and God's help, just like all of us. But the dress he is wearing neither changes his mind about himself, nor his condition. He remains the gender God made him, regardless of what he thinks he is or the clothes he is wearing.

I'm also guessing that if a woman came to your church wearing a 3 piece vested suit and tie, you'd have far less struggle with that, even though that appears to violate Deuteronomy 22:5 just as egregiously as the man in a dress. Would you agree that you'd see that differently?

I remember a youth event we had at a church one time, the youth were supposed to find various people in the mall. One of those people was a mom who dressed as a man, sitting in the mall with legs crossed and face buried in a newspaper. It took the youth forever to find her in her excellent disguise. But did she sin by doing that? What if it had been a dad in a dress rather than a mom in a business suit?

All that is food for thought, but again, it isn't a gender role as classically defined by those in the church who push such things.

didactics · Aug 10, 2022

PloverWing said:
I can't speak for Gregorikos, but I hope my parish would never turn away a worshipper on the basis of their clothing not being sufficiently gender-conforming.

This is something I probably need to look more into. I’ve heard a pastor bring up this passage in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Commentators disagree over whether it’s talking about a custom or principle. Head coverings seems to be a principle to some, but as to what kind of covering a woman wears is customary. This would be something that only applies to the Lord’s day gathering. Others try to say that in Corinth there were temple prostitutes that shaved their heads and it wouldn’t be good for the women to do that; and all this to say that it was culturally specific and does not apply today. As R. C. Sproul notes, Paul’s instruction ‘grounds head coverings for wives in worship in the order of creation.’ Now I’ll admit, I’ve only recently given thought to such an interpretation. It sounds radically different than anything else I’ve heard, but it doesn’t sound wrong either. This is not something we need to be very legalistic over either. I think Scripture gives us liberty to disagree on this matter. It’s not unimportant though. Another pastor makes the case that this section of Scripture is implicit to enforce dress code that prohibits crossdressing.

RDKirk · Aug 10, 2022

didactics said:
I should have put these words in quotes so you know where it comes from.

—Adam and Eve were a prototype for all humanity. [Jesus] said that marriage has been defined this way “from the beginning” (Matt 19:4). Lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is God’s design for all people and all cultures in all times on earth.—
Should the Government Legislate Marriage? - Morningview Baptist Church

The biblical definition of marriage is the traditional meaning of marriage and that’s the meaning the Supreme Court should rule in favor of. Marriage is not a church ordinance; it applies to the unconverted as well. For the Christian it has special significance including typological significance (the union of Christ and the church).

That broke for mankind when Adam and Eve left the Garden. When women stop having pain in childbirth, the world can go back to that.

But like many other things, the Body of Christ adopts as much as possible "the way it was in the beginning" that the world will not. For instance, the Body of Christ is supposed to reverse the curse of Babel that split humanity apart into separate nations, bringing all nations back again under one king as one nation.

didactics · Aug 10, 2022

Gregorikos said:
Not really. God made them male and female, and we don't have the power or ability to switch from one sex to the other. However, clothing fashion is a cultural social construct. There's never been a man come to my church in a dress, and I seriously doubt it will ever happen. Nor will one come in a kilt, but if he did, would that be a violation of your alleged gender role? If it's acceptable in the eyes of God for a Scottish man to wear a kilt to church, what is the difference in a man wearing a dress?

Now, if the man is wearing a dress because he thinks he is a woman, he is certainly confused and in need of prayer and God's help, just like all of us. But the dress he is wearing neither changes his mind about himself, nor his condition. He remains the gender God made him, regardless of what he thinks he is or the clothes he is wearing.

I'm also guessing that if a woman came to your church wearing a 3 piece vested suit and tie, you'd have far less struggle with that, even though that appears to violate Deuteronomy 22:5 just as egregiously as the man in a dress. Would you agree that you'd see that differently?

I remember a youth event we had at a church one time, the youth were supposed to find various people in the mall. One of those people was a mom who dressed as a man, sitting in the mall with legs crossed and face buried in a newspaper. It took the youth forever to find her in her excellent disguise. But did she sin by doing that? What if it had been a dad in a dress rather than a mom in a business suit?

All that is food for thought, but again, it isn't a gender role as classically defined by those in the church who push such things.

I think a kilt is worn loosely around the hips though. In our culture it is okay for women to wear jeans, but maybe it should be taken just as seriously of a woman wearing a 3 piece suit as a man wearing a dress. All I'm saying is that if you think crossdressing is a sin, then I think that would count as something implying a gender role. But, you see no wrong in crossdressing.

didactics · Aug 10, 2022

RDKirk said:
That broke for mankind when Adam and Eve left the Garden. When women stop having pain in childbirth, the world can go back to that.

But like many other things, the Body of Christ adopts as much as possible "the way it was in the beginning" that the world will not. For instance, the Body of Christ is supposed to reverse the curse of Babel that split humanity apart into separate nations, bringing all nations back again under one king as one nation.

I think the “united” language in Genesis 2:24 carries the sense of a permanent union. The only difference after the fall seems to be the permission to divorce for hard-hearted sexual immorality.

RDKirk · Aug 10, 2022

didactics said:
I think the “united” language in Genesis 2:24 carries the sense of a permanent union. The only difference after the fall seems to be the permission to divorce for hard-hearted sexual immorality.

And polygamy.

Do gender roles still apply today?

Newbie

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Ordinary Mystic

Episcopalian

Church History

Ordinary Mystic

Church History

Ordinary Mystic

Church History

Ordinary Mystic

Church History

Episcopalian

Ordinary Mystic

Church History

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Church History

Church History

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads