- May 1, 2022
- 699
- 95
- 33
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Firstly, what is meant by the term “gender roles”? Do these roles pertain only to what is possible biologically? For example, some men produce seed, but no man produces eggs. Likewise, no woman produces seed, but some women produce eggs. Maybe it’s irrelevant to some because they think gender and sex mean different things. Christians, on the other hand, may have another consideration in mind. What about the institution of marriage designed by God to be between a man and a woman?
[But now, to get into the semantics of it. Do I acknowledge that some understand sex and gender to mean different things? Yes, I do. But that does not mean that I’m going to concede to the argument: If I agree that gender and sex mean different things, then I’m saying gender theory is correct. But the fact is, not all dictionary definitions agree on this.]
I would argue that yes gender roles are still relevant today. Some might counter this with a verse in Galatians where it says “there is neither…male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (See Gal 3:28) This is meaning something different. The apostle Paul was affirming what Jesus said, “an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:23). According to the Reformation Study Bible, “The ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the law were…temporary and provisional.” So, Paul was instead emphasizing spiritual equality. The apostle also had in several letters, discussion on roles of husband and wife. (See 1 Co 11:3; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pe 3:1-7)
So again, Paul was emphasizing spiritual equality. This spiritual equality is not incompatible “with the God-ordained roles of headship and submission in the church, society, and the home.” (MacArthur Study Bible)
In other words, I do not see it as “gender” vs “nature”. Rather, the DNA inherent in males and females determines who we are; the roles we should live by are determined by the gender that our DNA says that we are.* Now, when I say “roles”, I mean conduct, and things that are commonly true of men and women.
Now when the Bible makes a prohibition of transvestitism (Deut. 22:5), some argue that this is a case against women in combat roles. The reason behind this interpretation is that women are the life-givers, nurturers. Also, it seems women don’t really have the issue of crossdressing generally, so it’s not to do with jeans. Quoting the Reformation Study Bible, “Women were not to adopt the accoutrements of the male (e.g., carrying weapons), and men were not to dress as women. The symbols of gender difference were to be respected, and while such symbols vary over time and from culture to culture, the principle of gender distinction remains (Gen. 1:27; cf. 1 Tim. 2:13).”
Men are to be leaders in the household
I’ve often wondered what that looks like. I know this is not to mean we condone men acting like tyrants. From a devotional titled, Spousal Roles, from Ligonier, “…that he will remember that she is a person and not to be run roughshod over when decisions are made. He will respect her opinion and work to compromise when necessary. Nevertheless, the two will not agree at times and in these cases the wife is called to submit insofar as she does not sin by doing so.” I also think that verses here, Ephesians 5:25-26, mean that men of their household are to take the initiative in godly devotion. While verse 21 does say that Christians are to submit to one another, Paul also teaches wives to submit to husbands, as to the Lord (v. 22).
Roles for the church
In the same way, pastors/elders are to be males. Paul, instructing Timothy about the office of overseer, rules out the polygamist, “the husband of one wife” (1Ti 3:2). Why is he only addressing male polygamists? It’s because he already made it clear in the previous chapter that women are not to be overseers/pastors/elders (and yes, I take all those words to mean the same thing). However, believing women are very much encouraged to preach to unbelievers; you don’t have to hold the title of pastor/teacher in order to evangelize the lost.
Societal roles
So if these “roles” relate to what is a general rule about men and women, why is the standard applied across the board? Some women are stronger than some men. However, it sounds like a terrible idea to have women drafted into war. So then, if men wield the sword and the civil magistrate wields the sword (see Ro 13:4), then does this apply to mayor, governor, city council, and Supreme Court justice to be only men? I’m just explaining how some interpret this. It’s relatively new that I’ve heard this perspective.
Conclusion
But I thought I might end with this, an article by Susan Hunt, The Goodness of Gender. —I asked our eight-year-old and eleven-year-old granddaughters, "Who is better—boys or girls?" There was immediate consensus: "Girls!" We had a Titus 2 sit-down. Ask them now and they will tell you, "Boys are better at being boys, girls are better at being girls, we are equal but different, and it is very good because God said so.”—
*But what about intersex conditions? some may counter. Doesn’t this make it uncertain that there are only two sexes? While there are rare diseases that make it appear that some males have XX chromosome pairs, or females with XY, these aren’t genuine mismatched chromosome pairs in the truest sense. Further analysis allows us to know what’s really happening. Swyers happens, when a female has what appears to be an XY sex chromosome pair, caused by mutation or deletion on important parts "of the segment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene." [quote by rarediseases.org] With de la Chapelle syndrome, a male with an XX pair, a translocation occurs, a piece of the SRY gene attaches with an X chromosome. Androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs in genetic males (XY). “Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development.” (From MedlinePlus) These conditions may not be noticed until puberty; they are infertile.
[But now, to get into the semantics of it. Do I acknowledge that some understand sex and gender to mean different things? Yes, I do. But that does not mean that I’m going to concede to the argument: If I agree that gender and sex mean different things, then I’m saying gender theory is correct. But the fact is, not all dictionary definitions agree on this.]
I would argue that yes gender roles are still relevant today. Some might counter this with a verse in Galatians where it says “there is neither…male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (See Gal 3:28) This is meaning something different. The apostle Paul was affirming what Jesus said, “an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:23). According to the Reformation Study Bible, “The ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the law were…temporary and provisional.” So, Paul was instead emphasizing spiritual equality. The apostle also had in several letters, discussion on roles of husband and wife. (See 1 Co 11:3; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pe 3:1-7)
So again, Paul was emphasizing spiritual equality. This spiritual equality is not incompatible “with the God-ordained roles of headship and submission in the church, society, and the home.” (MacArthur Study Bible)
In other words, I do not see it as “gender” vs “nature”. Rather, the DNA inherent in males and females determines who we are; the roles we should live by are determined by the gender that our DNA says that we are.* Now, when I say “roles”, I mean conduct, and things that are commonly true of men and women.
Now when the Bible makes a prohibition of transvestitism (Deut. 22:5), some argue that this is a case against women in combat roles. The reason behind this interpretation is that women are the life-givers, nurturers. Also, it seems women don’t really have the issue of crossdressing generally, so it’s not to do with jeans. Quoting the Reformation Study Bible, “Women were not to adopt the accoutrements of the male (e.g., carrying weapons), and men were not to dress as women. The symbols of gender difference were to be respected, and while such symbols vary over time and from culture to culture, the principle of gender distinction remains (Gen. 1:27; cf. 1 Tim. 2:13).”
Men are to be leaders in the household
I’ve often wondered what that looks like. I know this is not to mean we condone men acting like tyrants. From a devotional titled, Spousal Roles, from Ligonier, “…that he will remember that she is a person and not to be run roughshod over when decisions are made. He will respect her opinion and work to compromise when necessary. Nevertheless, the two will not agree at times and in these cases the wife is called to submit insofar as she does not sin by doing so.” I also think that verses here, Ephesians 5:25-26, mean that men of their household are to take the initiative in godly devotion. While verse 21 does say that Christians are to submit to one another, Paul also teaches wives to submit to husbands, as to the Lord (v. 22).
Roles for the church
In the same way, pastors/elders are to be males. Paul, instructing Timothy about the office of overseer, rules out the polygamist, “the husband of one wife” (1Ti 3:2). Why is he only addressing male polygamists? It’s because he already made it clear in the previous chapter that women are not to be overseers/pastors/elders (and yes, I take all those words to mean the same thing). However, believing women are very much encouraged to preach to unbelievers; you don’t have to hold the title of pastor/teacher in order to evangelize the lost.
Societal roles
So if these “roles” relate to what is a general rule about men and women, why is the standard applied across the board? Some women are stronger than some men. However, it sounds like a terrible idea to have women drafted into war. So then, if men wield the sword and the civil magistrate wields the sword (see Ro 13:4), then does this apply to mayor, governor, city council, and Supreme Court justice to be only men? I’m just explaining how some interpret this. It’s relatively new that I’ve heard this perspective.
Conclusion
But I thought I might end with this, an article by Susan Hunt, The Goodness of Gender. —I asked our eight-year-old and eleven-year-old granddaughters, "Who is better—boys or girls?" There was immediate consensus: "Girls!" We had a Titus 2 sit-down. Ask them now and they will tell you, "Boys are better at being boys, girls are better at being girls, we are equal but different, and it is very good because God said so.”—
*But what about intersex conditions? some may counter. Doesn’t this make it uncertain that there are only two sexes? While there are rare diseases that make it appear that some males have XX chromosome pairs, or females with XY, these aren’t genuine mismatched chromosome pairs in the truest sense. Further analysis allows us to know what’s really happening. Swyers happens, when a female has what appears to be an XY sex chromosome pair, caused by mutation or deletion on important parts "of the segment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene." [quote by rarediseases.org] With de la Chapelle syndrome, a male with an XX pair, a translocation occurs, a piece of the SRY gene attaches with an X chromosome. Androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs in genetic males (XY). “Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development.” (From MedlinePlus) These conditions may not be noticed until puberty; they are infertile.
