Comments on: Changing of the Guard

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Sat, 26 May 2007 01:37:19 +0000

I have heard of the expression “third sex” before, but as a crude and highly inaccurate euphemism for homosexuals.
The idea of gender being a social construct sounds like a concept well into tinfoil hat territory. One would have to explain what purpose social-construct-gender serves; my wildest Roddenberryesque imagination can’t come up with even the most far out of speculations.

By: Seth

Seth — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:19:23 +0000

I’m afraid the irony is lost on me. If the apocryphal story is indeed true, Origen’s impetus was Christ’s command to avoid fornication. And, again, Paul’s words to the church in Galatia were spoken in reference to the ongoing tension between the Jewish and Gentile Christians and the problem of ritual purity under the old law vs. the new law in Christ. Reading this verse to support sex change operations and disposable gender would also allow us to read this verse in support of female ordination – in the face of Rom 1 and 1 Cor 14.

By: Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:03:34 +0000

I seem to recall Paul writing to the Galatians that "there is no longer male and female; for all of your are one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 2:28 (NRSV).

May it be so,

Eric Alan Isaacson

By: Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson — Fri, 25 May 2007 21:56:41 +0000

Seth's citation of Origen in this connection is more than a little ironic.

For tradition holds that Origen castrated himself the better to glorify God - - inspired by the words of Jesus Christ himself:

"Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." Matthew 19:11-12 (NRSV).

Peace be with you,

Eric Alan Isaacson

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:59:33 +0000

Alan,
I think it’s important to realize that while in some (perhaps most) contexts gender and sex are used synonymously to denote the physical state of being male or female, in other contexts (e.g. sociological discussions) gender is used to denote the particular roles and behaviors a person displays.
I do agree with you that the Bible teaches that male and female gender roles were ordained by God, and are not a mere invention of man.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Fri, 25 May 2007 01:44:50 +0000

Gender is not a social construct. Gender and sex are the same thing.
One question: who other than bisexuals would date the pastor? Most people are not attracted to those who are one gender and enfraud (is that a word?) themselves to pass themselves off as the other.

By: Boinkie

Boinkie — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:16:42 +0000

There is a good psychiatric argument that a person who has an obsession to be a different sex has deep rooted pschological problems, and should not be a clergyman.
The dirty little secret about these men who become women is that few of them want to be “women”; they want to be high school prom queens. Their obsession, like that of others who use plastic surgery, has more to do with the idea “if I do this, I’ll be okay”. Alas, usually they aren’t okay, so the alcoholism/suicide rate is high.
These people need compassion, psychotherapy, etc. but as a leader? I don’t think so.

By: George W

George W — Thu, 24 May 2007 13:35:17 +0000

Alan, gender is a social construct and can vary between cultures. Every culture recognizes at least 2 genders (man and woman), but most cultures recognize more than that.

For example, most American Indians recognize a third "Winkte" gender that could sloppily be compared to a man who performs the role of a woman (though not necessarily in a sexual way, it's more like a guy who does "woman's work"); and many American Indians also accept a "Manly Hearted Women" for women that take on the roles usually given to men. Gender is really determined by culture.

Gender is different than sex, which is chromosomal of Xs and Ys. Both gender and sex are different than sexuality, which relates to what happens in the bedroom.

I'm not trying to make the case for MORAL relativism, but as the subject relates to gender, it's really a case of CULTURAL relativism.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:06:07 +0000

People can’t change their gender – at least not yet, since gender is defined by chromosomes.

By: Seth

Seth — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:39:01 +0000

Mike, I’m sorry that you do not see Tooley’s statement as touching, implicitly, on an omniscient Creator. His statement, and my quote of his statement, reflects the orthodox understanding that the created order was known before the foundation of the world. This was espoused by both Origen and Augustine, and even Calvin picks up on this in Bk 2 of his Institutes. Whether this squares with our prooftexting of Gen 1 matters little. As orthodox Christians profess a development of doctrine, those works of Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers, especially, elucidate soteriology with equal force as Scripture. I warmly suggest St Gregory Nazianzus’ Oration 38 (On the Theophany), which discusses the orders of creation and the proper role of man as created in God’s image. It also discusses man’s composition and the imposition of Law “as a material for his Free Will to act upon.” Under Gregory’s explanation, man’s identity before the Creator is inextricably connected to not only God’s Will in creating a specific individual, but also that this created being would act under the Law, which was also “hardwired” into man. Any attempt to make an argument that homosexuality is permissible because the Creator screwed up and you came out the wrong sex fails under this… Gregory also touches on the created angelic order and specifically Satan (as male), a strain that St Basil also addresses.
We both know that St Paul’s admonition to the church states clearly that salvation is open to all – who profess Christ as the Messiah – no matter what gender. But we also know that Paul’s words were addressed to perceived inequalities between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the early church and the attendant social structure; his words were not – as appears to be the case with the UMC pastor – an allowance of exchanging natural relations for unnatural (Rom 1). Perhaps it would have been better semantically to have stated that the pastor changed sexes?
For your final question, I would suggest you ask Tooley via e-mail.