Gender theory and the doctrine of creation

On Twitter, a popular account run by Philip Derrida has been sharing theological memes designed to make a profound point using humor. Many people today claim to be theologically orthodox, yet they accept some or all of the claims of gender theory. For example, some claim to believe in the Nicene Creed but embrace transgender ideology as valid. One meme shows a guy in sunglasses saying, “Heh, I confess the ecumenical creeds but reject basic commonsense truths about gender and sexuality. That’s right. You have never debated someone like me before.”

The genius of this meme is that it reflects a reality that many of us in conservative denominations have experienced. It is disconcertingly common today to encounter people who claim to be orthodox but also conform to the culture’s latest demands regarding race, class, and gender. It raises the question of what it means to believe in God the Father, the Creator of all things visible and invisible. As Article 10 of the Nashville Statement makes clear, affirming God as the Creator is central to affirming the full range of Biblical orthodoxy and is not a point of indifference.

But what does it mean to believe in the orthodox doctrine of creation?

Gender theory is the idea that biological sex and sociological gender are so distinct that all our assumptions about what makes a man a man and a woman a woman have to be questioned. It says that people can validly claim a homosexual orientation or to have been born in the wrong body. It tends toward the view that all differences between male and female roles are socially constructed, plastic, and thus alterable.

Of course, people embrace the idea of gender along a spectrum from quite conservative to very radical. Nearly everyone accepts that certain traditionally male and female roles are culturally determined to some extent. For example, male and female roles will not look the same in rural versus urban environments or in widely different cultures. But at the most extreme end of the spectrum, we see the ideal of androgyny, which is the denial of sexual difference altogether.

How plastic are gender roles? The real debate is between those who see no limits to human autonomy and those who see gender as tied to biological sex. Transgenderism is just an extreme form of gender theory, which subjects biology to the human will. Nature is not our master but merely raw material for the human will to shape and mold.

Transgenderism is one expression of an underlying attitude that manifests itself in many ways, namely, the conviction that ideal human life is an act of self-creation. To be authentically human thus means to will one’s own identity. If one is comfortable in the biological sex in which one was born, then fine. But if not, then biology must bow before the sovereignty of the will.

In the West, classical philosophy stemming from Plato and Aristotle came together with the Biblical doctrine of creation to affirm a different ideal of what it means to be authentically human. To be happy, humans need to bow before the sovereignty of the good.

The “good” is primarily God and the way God has designed and created us. The source of our being (God) contains the clue to our purpose, and only by knowing and seeking that purpose can we be happy.

Many Christians instinctively know that there is something wrong with gender theory. Still, some don’t necessarily understand that at the most basic level, it is really a clash between affirming that we are God’s creatures versus affirming that we are self-creators. The reason this is so important is that if God designs men and women, then the only way that we can find our true identity and experience true happiness is by submitting our wills to the design of the Creator. And if God created our bodies, He speaks to us through them.

Christians teach that we should submit to God’s design because we owe obedience and gratitude to the Creator. But a secondary reason is that only by doing so can we find the true meaning of our lives and true happiness. The interest of the Creator and the creature ultimately coincide.

This is one of the deepest and most important implications of the Biblical doctrine of creation. It is not just about whether or not God did something back in the beginning to get it all started. It is also about our true identity. Are we accidents? Or are we the way we are for a reason? Are our bodies just leftover byproducts from our animal past? Or are they part of God’s image in us?

At the end of the day, it comes down to who is the Creator and who is the creature.