Transgenderism in the Ancient World

As Clement looked around his cosmopolitan city, the open displays of transgenderism broke his heart. Grown men wore bleach-blonde feminine hairstyles, donned see-through women’s clothing, smelled of perfume, and had their bodies shaved in public salons where passersby could observe the spectacle. Though males biologically, these men “detest[ed] the bloom of manliness,” as Clement put it.[1]

world_missionsClement might well have lived in 21st-century London, Amsterdam, New York, or Los Angeles. But he didn’t. Clement was a theologian along the Egyptian coast during the second century AD, and his experience was not atypical. Though the term “transgenderism” was not coined until the 1960s,[2] the phenomenon has existed for millennia—individuals who feel drawn to present themselves as the opposite gender. At times such behavior in the ancient world was coupled with homosexual acts, and at other times it was practiced by those who would be described as bisexual today.[3] Yet from ancient Mesopotamia to the Greek and Roman Empires, instances of gender confusion are well documented.

During Old Testament times, the Mesopotamian text Erra and Ishum described men “who changed their masculinity into femininity” as part of worshiping the fertility goddess Ishtar.[4] In the intertestamental period, the Greek playwright Aristophanes dubbed one character in his play Women at Thesmophoria a “man-woman”—presumably reflective of people he had encountered in real life—and noted, “What contradictions his life shows! A lyre and a hair-net! A wrestling school oil flask and a girdle! What could be more contradictory? What relation has a mirror to a sword? And you yourself, who are you? Do you pretend to be a man?”

By the first century AD, the Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived in Egypt, could point to “men-women” who “altered the impression of their natural manly appearance into the resemblance of a woman” and were “willingly driven into the appearance and treatment of licentious women.”[5] The first- and second-century Roman satirist Juvenal spoke of “the effeminate,” who “in their homes put long fillets [hair ribbons] round their brows” and “swathe themselves with necklaces.” Some used “damp soot” as eye makeup and tied up “long locks” in hairnets.[6] Priests of the Roman cult of Cybele were initiated through a ceremony involving self-castration.[7]

The second-century Stoic philosopher Epictetus remarked to one young man, “Are you a man or a woman? A man. Then adorn yourself as a man, not as a woman.” He added that a “man to be seen who would rather be a woman” is “a scandalous show.”[8] Clement of Alexandria’s prescription for such behavior was representative of many Christian, Jewish, and pagan writers of his time: It “must be driven as far as possible from our society.”[9]

In light of these ancient sources, contemporary followers of Jesus should not be fooled by claims that transgenderism marks the advancement of society or the culmination of movements to celebrate diversity. Of course, some might turn this around and argue that being ancient makes the practice normative. Yet such an argument falls short logically and biblically, for murder and slavery were also ancient practices, and few would claim they are morally legitimate. Far from demonstrating the moral virtue of transgenderism, its ancient roots underscore the reality that with sin, there is truly nothing new under the sun. Since Old Testament times, some men and women have responded sinfully to a psychological struggle related to their gender. Just as in Clement of Alexandra’s day, Christians today should grieve over the spiritual and emotional brokenness of these people and compassionately invite them to repent and experience the renewing grace of Christ.

———————————————
Endnotes

[1] Clement of Alexandria, Paedegogos 3.3.16, 21. Quoted in S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 290-91.

[2] See John F. Oliven, Sexual Hygiene and Pathology (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1965), 514.

[3] Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 291.

[4] Erra and Ishum IV. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 234.

[5] Philo, Special Laws 1.325. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 286.

[6] Juvenal, Satire II, lines 82-99. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 288.

[7] Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 288.

[8] Epictetus, Discourses 3.1. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 290.

[9] Clement of Alexandria, Paedegogos 3.3.19. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 291.

The Church’s Response to Islam

IslamChristianityWith resurgent Islam extending its power throughout the world—whether through immigration, procreation, litigation, intimidation, or terrorism—the Church must respond for the sake of truth, righteousness, and, indeed, civilization. Of course, truth and righteousness are already in short supply in the West. Decadence is proceeding apace, and unless there is spiritual awakening in the land, Islam will reign by default. The only hope is a rebirth of holiness, a rediscovery of spiritual boldness, and a renewal of spiritual power. Of course, in all this, the Church must lead:

First, repentance must once again characterize the people of God. This will not be easy since, as Reinhold Niebuhr observed, “Proud men and successful civilizations find it difficult to know God, because they are particularly tempted to make themselves God.”1

Second, the Church must invest herself in the good work of making disciples as well as converts. For one thing, the Church must once again catechize believers in the faith.

Third, individual heroes of the faith must step forward, for God still searches for a man. A man, that is, who will “stand in the gap” (Ezek. 22:30 NIV).

Fourth, the people of God must once again walk in the power of the resurrection of Jesus and embrace the sacrificial way of the cross. Such was the selfless witness of the early Church.

Fifth, Christians must come together as a body to meet the challenge. Not dwelling on the issues that divide them, believers must remember Jesus’ prayer that they “may be one” (John 17:22).

Sixth, godly confidence must displace fear and doubt. The Bible promises that Christ’s kingdom will prevail, and the Lord repeatedly counsels His followers, “Fear not!”

Thus prepared, and filled with the Holy Spirit, the Church can begin to meet the challenge of Islam effectively. Here are some possibilities which a local congregation might use:

  1. Courses of study on the scripture, history, and current manifestations of Islam.
  2. Intentional outreach and direct evangelism so that Muslim neighbors may learn of Christ.
  3. A network of similarly motivated pastors and churches for mutual support and counsel.
  4. Use of various communication resources. Using the Church’s wealth of talents, contacts, spiritual gifts, and platforms.
  5. Earnest prayer. The Church’s most potent weapon.

The power of a holy, obedient, prophetic, and praying Church is incalculable. Nothing could match the splendor and fruitfulness of a repentant and revived body of believers. In reality, the spiritual vacuum now tormenting the West will be filled by something—if not with the glory of the living God, then with oppressive secularism or Islamic legalism. Yes, to meet these adversaries, it will take sacrifice, not only of resources, but also of comfort and safety. But sacrifice is the watchword of a people who meet, with all hopefulness, at the foot of the cross.2

————————————–
Endnotes

1 Reinhold Niebuhr, “The Christian Church in a Secular Age,” in Christianity and Power Politics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940), 212.

2 “Resurgent Islam and the Challenge to the Church,” Kairos Journal KJOP-01, 2006, 14.

Biblical Insight: What’s a Dad to Do?

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

Hebrews 12:7 (ESV)

When the film Rebel without a Cause came out in 1955, it touched a nerve. Warner Brothers advertised it as a “challenging drama of today’s juvenile violence.” It featured three rising young actors—James Dean (as Jim), Natalie Wood (as Judy), and Sal Mineo (as Plato)—each portraying troubled teens responding to their fathers’ insufficiencies. Jim’s father was spineless, Judy’s, cruelly strict, while Plato’s father was absent. World War II reminded America of the importance of a father’s presence, but Americans spent the next decade—with dramas like Rebel without a Cause and comedies like Ozzie and Harriet—asking the question, “What’s a dad to do?” We still suffer as a culture for lack of understanding the role of a faithful father.

Father copyHebrews 12 was not written as a prescription for earthly fathers, as much as its wisdom might apply to them. Rather, it was an exhortation to suffering Christians to cling to their heavenly Father. The author of the epistle pointed out that the trials, hardships, and difficulties Christians experience should sometimes be understood as an expression of God’s discipline—discipline that is ultimately for the believer’s spiritual welfare.

Sadly, when English speakers hear the word “discipline,” punishment most often comes to mind. But the Greek word can mean, more broadly, “guidance for proper living.” Biblically speaking, then, discipline is often as much about tender formation as it is about firm correction. When believers suffer for bearing the name of Christ, they need not conclude God has abandoned them or that He is punishing them for some wrong done—far from it! Trials only affirm that God is forging fidelity in the recesses of their hearts. Or, as the author of Hebrews put it, even though “for the moment” all discipline seems painful, it eventually “yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (v. 11). In other words, the fruits of discipline form faithful Christians!

Like any loving father, God uses the means of both formative and corrective discipline to help Christians more fully reflect the character of Jesus. Sanctification, the process whereby God brings his children to spiritual maturity, is a sometimes painful experience. Mature Christians come to recognize that the trials and difficulties they experience are not evidence of God’s arbitrariness, anger, or absenteeism. Instead, they understand that every trial is a manifestation of His love. Those He loves, He disciplines (v. 6).

What’s a dad to do? Dads dare to discipline. As a faithful Father, the Lord disciplines His children through many and various trials, tests, and corrections. The reality of the Christian life is that discipline is a part of discipleship. Helping individuals and congregations understand the shaping role of discipline is a crucial component of Christian leadership. Perceptive counseling can assist Christians to see the events in their lives as palpable evidences of the Father’s love and turn whining into gratitude and fickleness into faithfulness. In the process, those who understand the discipline of the Lord might even one day become better parents themselves!

Male and Female He Created Them

So God created man in his own image,CoupleDating
in the image of
God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

In April 2016, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that public schools may not discriminate against students on the basis of gender identity. Ruling in favor of a Virginia transgender student identified in court documents only as G.G., two judges on a three-judge panel held that schools may not segregate students into separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex alone. Within their ruling, the judges noted the supposed “limitations of a nonmalleable, binary conception of sex.” They also criticized the alleged limitations of “connot[ing] male and femaleness . . . by reference to the factors . . . termed ‘biological sex,’ namely reproductive organs.” [i] Standing in stark contrast to the judges’ opinion is Genesis 1:28, where gender is defined in a strikingly biological, “binary,” and “nonmalleable” way.

This verse employs Hebrew words for male (zakar) and female (neqeba) with distinctly biological connotations. Zakar likely had an original meaning of being sharp and thus came to reference the male anatomy, and by extension, the male gender.[ii] Neqeba, in contrast, derives from a term referencing a hole or cavity and thus came to signify the female gender.[iii] The anatomical references of the terms are intentional here, for they speak of sexual distinction among humans and set the stage for God’s command in the following verse to “be fruitful and multiply.” Indeed, humans are the only creatures whose binary gender distinction is noted in Genesis 1. This does not deny or obscure gender distinctions among animals but highlights the goodness and God-given character of human gender. In fact, gender helps constitute humans in the image of God in humankind.

For this reason, Scripture elsewhere condemns the blurring of gender distinctions. For example, Deuteronomy 22:5 states that “a woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” The abiding principle, with different applications in various cultures, is that women should not attempt to look like men and vice versa. Similarly in the New Testament, Paul tells the Corinthians that when praying or prophesying in public worship, men and women should don attire appropriate to their respective genders (1 Corinthians 11:4-10). The norm for God’s people is to celebrate and not obscure God-given gender distinctions.

The biblical teaching is a marked departure from modern notions that gender is merely chosen, felt, or can be “reassigned” surgically. Gender is assigned by God, and it displays His marvelous creativity. Of course, in a fallen world there are tragic instances in which people experience feelings of dissatisfaction regarding their God-given genders. And some are born with both male and female sex organs or with irregular configurations of their sex chromosomes. But far from overturning traditional classifications of gender, these unfortunate conditions underscore the goodness of the God-assigned norm: “Male and female he created them.”

Given the pervasive challenge to this conception of gender, Christians have a responsibility to educate themselves regarding the biblical and medical realities, and take a stand when governments or businesses attempt to dismiss biological gender distinctions as discriminatory or degrading. Human happiness and even survival depend on embracing maleness and femaleness.

[i] G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, Case No. 15-2056 (4th Cir. 2016).

[ii] The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1906), s.v. “zakar.”

[iii] Ibid., s.v. “nequeba.”

A Christian Nation on First Impression

In 2008, Times columnist Matthew Parris wrote a surprising piece entitled, “As an Atheist, I Truly Believe Africa Needs God.”[i] He built part of his case on first impressions:

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away.

I thought of Parris’s account when reading recently a series of reports written some 180 years earlier by a Frenchman visiting the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville. His hefty Tocquevillebook Democracy in America chronicled his impressions, which were basically favorable. He’d seen the fruit of the French Revolution, and now he was reflecting on the outcomes of the American Revolution. He didn’t give our budding nation a clean bill of health, for Andrew Jackson, famous for pushing the Cherokees on a Trail of Tears, was in the White House, and the Civil War that would end slavery was decades away. Furthermore, he was skeptical that the arts could rise to European levels, but he was impressed with the spirit of the people, a spirit he found to be informed by their faith. In his estimation, they had “brought to the New World a Christianity” he could not “depict better than to call it democratic and republican . . . From the beginning, politics and religion were in accord, and they have not ceased to be so since.”[ii]

He noted that “the sects in the United States are within the great Christian unity, and the morality of Christianity is everywhere the same.” He granted that there must be hypocrites and those who followed “their habits more than their convictions,” but concluded, “America is . . . still the place in the world where the Christian religion has most preserved genuine powers over souls; and nothing shows better how useful and natural to man it is in our day, since the country in which it exercises the greatest empire is at the same time the most enlightened and most free.” [iii]

He admired the separation of church and state, but insisted religion should “be considered as the first of their political institutions” for “it singularly facilitates their use of” freedom. He went on, “I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion—for who can read to the bottom of hearts?—but I am sure they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks.”[iv] Not surprising, for, in his view, it was “religion that gave birth to the Anglo-American societies: one must never forget this; in the United States religion is therefore intermingled with all national habits and all the sentiments to which a native country gives birth; that gives it a particular strength.”[v]

He went on to say that Islam could not support an America,[vi] and lamented the comparative loss of faith in his homeland: “I am ignorant of what one would have to do to give back the energy of youth to European Christianity, God alone could do it.”[vii] And while giving the predominating Protestantism its due, he was pleased to report, “America is the most democratic land on earth, and it is at the same time the county where, according to trustworthy reports, the Catholic religion is making most progress.”[viii]

Psalm 33:12a says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,” and, arguably, Tocqueville saw this truth reflected in some measure in America. Of course, we must ask what he would see if he returned today, either to America or to his native Europe. What evidence would he find of Christian devotion and its concomitant blessedness? Were his investigations discouraging, we could at least join him in a hope for revival, all the while granting that “God alone could do it.”

————————————–
Endnotes

[i] Matthew Parris, “As an Atheist, I Truly Believe Africa Needs God,” Times, December 27, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article2044345.ece (accessed March 18, 2016).

[ii] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Translated, Edited, and with an Introduction by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 275.

[iii] Tocqueville, 278.

[iv] Tocqueville, 280.

[v] Tocqueville, 406.

[vi] Tocqueville, 419, 420.

[vii] Tocqueville, 288.

[viii] Tocqueville, 424.

Clash of Worldviews—”Man: A Course of Study”

In 1963, Harvard psychology professor Jerome Bruner convened a group of scholars in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Their purpose was to develop a new social studies curriculum for America’s schools. Intoxicated with visions of the Great Society, many evolution.earthbelieved that the social sciences could solve the nation’s greatest ills. The National Science Foundation eventually awarded Bruner’s team $4.8 million to develop Man: A Course of Study (MACOS), a curriculum designed to teach fourth through sixth graders a purely naturalistic view of human nature.1 Many hailed it as a groundbreaking advance in educational theory. Christian parents, however, recognized it as a dangerous tool of social manipulation and secular indoctrination.

Bruner was perhaps the nation’s premier “expert” in educational matters. After a stint with the Army during World War II, studying the effects of propaganda on public opinion, he turned his attention to public education. He published several books including The Process of Education and The Culture of Education.2 Rejecting the traditional model of a teacher imparting knowledge to students, Bruner advanced a more liberal theory of education based on the free expression of ideas—students would learn more from creating answers than from reading them in books.3

True to Bruner’s philosophy, MACOS rejected an objective moral standard; right and wrong were determined solely by one’s environment. For instance, one segment of the course focused on the Netsilik Eskimos, among whom euthanasia and infanticide were common. Of course, such practices were unacceptable in American society, but who was to say they were absolutely wrong in a harsh environment where food was scarce? The course also denied any fundamental distinction between human and beast, inviting students to draw conclusions about humans from the behavior of salmon or apes.

Again and again, MACOS pressed the idea that no belief or behavior had value apart from its cultural context. “Our hope,” said Bruner, “is to lead children to understand how man goes about understanding the world, making sense of it; that one kind of explanation is no more human than another.”4 Congress eventually defunded MACOS, but by 1974, it had been purchased by some 1,700 schools in forty-seven states.5 And though its day has passed, it lives on through its many offspring, found in public schools throughout the land. In fact, the spirit of MACOS even lives on in other parts of the world.6

Christian parents may hope their schoolchildren are being taught firm morality, consistent with God’s Word. Unfortunately, many young people are being tutored in cultural relativism, the notion that all ethical judgments are subjective and arbitrary. Without trust in a transcendent, righteous, Creator God, many teachers make man the measure of all things—and a poor measure at that.7 Public schools may be the best option for a particular child’s education, but Christian parents must know their children are learning more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. They may be absorbing a worldview that can undermine and destroy the Christian values instilled at home.

——————————————-
Endnotes

1 Dorothy Nelkin, The Creation Controversy (New York: W.W. Norton, 1982), 48.

2  Mark K. Smith, “Jerome Bruner and the Process of Education,” The Encyclopedia of Informal Education Website, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htm.

3 This summary of Bruner’s educational philosophy taken from Nelkin, 49-51.

4 Ibid., 50.

5 Ibid., 51.

6 In the 1970s, MACOS “kits” found their way to Queensland, Australia where parents quickly objected to their children being told stories of wife-swapping Eskimos. Although MACOS was stopped, an indigenous version was created, the Social Education Materials Project (SEMP). The SEMP curriculum taught that all values and behaviors are equal, and it encouraged teachers to avoid any moralizing or criticizing. Although the government banned SEMP in 1978, the promotion of “progressive” education has not faltered. See Dan O’Donnell, “Ethics and Values in Education: Can Schools Teach Right and Wrong?” (a paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Newcastle, Australia, November 24, 1994), The Australian Association for Research in Education Website, http://www.aare.edu.au/94pap/odond94077.txt (accessed June 28, 2005).

7 This is exactly what teachers in Hong Kong are tempted to do. In a 2002 survey, a group of teachers indicated an appreciation for a humanistic curriculum that makes students “the crucial source of science curriculum” (italics added). Pun Hon Ng and Derek Cheung, “Student-teachers’ Beliefs on Primary Science Curriculum Orientations,” New Horizons in Education 45-46 (May – November 2002), 44. The MACOS worldview is evident: objective truth and the mastery of science takes a back seat to “personal liberation and development.”