In prepping for next Tuesday’s Zoom seminar on Transgender Ideology, I’ve delved into the matter of gender roles, gleaning from Nancy R. Pearcey’s incredible book The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes. (Remember to RSVP to be part of Tuesday’s 7:00 pm EST talk: ongley01@icloud.com.)
First, allow me the liberty to comment on this time of year—my favorite. Cross country was my passion in school, and so the dropping temps, the changing leaves, and the scents pervading the air make me itching for a race. But the various hues that pop as sunbeams light up the trees truly is gorgeous.
Garrison Keillor once wrote that the bursting brilliance of fall leaves have such vibrant colors, Crayola refused to reproduce them for fear kids would color outside the lines. (Sorry, but I simply find that hilarious!)
Anyway . . . back to Pearcey.
She creates a memorable distinction between two types of men. At a funeral, if a mourner says, “He was a very good man,” we have a common understanding of what is meant. The deceased exhibited admirable traits of loyalty, integrity, responsibility, and faithfulness. One also thinks that he provided well for those in his care and protected them from the ills of society.
Such a characterization is far from what we consider “macho”. If a dude puffs out his chest and says, “Hey, you wanna see how a real man deals with this?!” we vividly picture some yahoo about to “prove” his manhood by doing something brutish or stupid.
Good men vs. so called “real” men. Is that a helpful distinction? I certainly think so. It is a matter of maturity. A “good man” can absolutely be strong when called upon. But his confidence comes not from some vain attempt to prove he’s “a man’s man”. Instead, he has a distinct sense of who he is, his role in any given situation, and an assurance that he can handle things well.
Pearcey goes on to dispel the myth that Christianity promotes abuse of women and children by emphasizing the headship of the husband. She maintains that a Christian’s view of “headship” really isn’t what counts in the health of a family.
You are likely well aware of the debate among Christians about whether or not scripture calls upon the man to be head of the household. Some view it as plain as day: Husbands love and wives submit. (That last sentence just made someone moan. I just know it!)
Others see God’s ideal modeled in the Garden of Eden. Both man and woman equally reflect the image of God. The rulership of the man over the woman was part of the curse, which was redeemed through the cross of Christ. As for the teachings of Paul which seem to speak otherwise, they are either misunderstood or were written as an accommodation to the culture of his day.
But Pearcey takes no position on that matter. The research she’s found makes clear that the wellbeing of women is not determined by which view one takes. It is more a matter of active and consistent involvement in a church. A vibrant faith and strong a strong commitment to a church produce more loving husbands, which in turn boosts the welfare and esteem of women.
Now I know that’s culturally counterintuitive. But the research bears out that the men who are most likely to abuse women are nominal Christians who rarely attend worship. They marry with the notion that they are the boss, and they begin to domineer both wife and kids. After all, that’s what “real men” do. Such marriages are far more prone to divorce.
Note the research Pearcey uncovered:
Studies find that nominal Christian family men do fit the negative stereotypes—shockingly so. They spend less time with their children, either in discipline or in shared activities. Their wives report significantly lower levels of happiness. And their marriages are far less stable. Whereas active evangelical men are 35 percent less likely to divorce than secular men, nominals are 20 percent more likely to divorce than secular men. (Italics hers.)
So active involvement in houses of worship makes a tremendous difference! Being in a community that preaches and teaches the love of God, love of one’s family, and the importance of obedience to Christ is the key. Such men learn that marriage reflects the relationship that God has with his people.
A community of faith nurtures good men. But a nominal Christian who’s determined to prove that he is a “real man” and king of his castle is far more likely than a secular man to shatter the home.
What does this have to do with transgender ideology?
Gender, as we know, is determined by biology. More than simply reproductive organs, the XX or XY of our chromosomes is embedded in every cell of our bodies. Gender dysphoria is a baffling condition which, until the cell phone era, afflicted boys almost exclusively and began in toddlerhood. There is no known cause. Most grow out of it.
But the feelings of having been born in the wrong body are exacerbated by the “macho” types that people observe. “Real men” don’t . . . cry, wear pink, tend flowers, love poetry, enjoy the arts or eat quiche. Those are all culturally bound stereotypes. Such displays exacerbate dysphoria.
The same could be said for the stereotypes fastened upon womanhood. And so it is that the adolescent teen girls with morphing bodies who continually check their phones to see how many “likes” they get, buy into this mania that their inner angst is evidence of gender dysphoria.
The truth of the matter? Just as the glorious leaves differ in size, shape and color, so good men and good women can exhibit a range of strengths, interests, preferences, and abilities, but these variations do not determine gender. As God’s Son shines upon them and through them, they can each display strength and beauty without denying how God has designed them.