Thomas Beatie was born Tracy Lagondino.
POST UPDATE:For those of you accusing me of building a strawman, what can I say except that it isn’t? It’s a thought experiment. But I’ll let it go in order to get to the point everyone seems to be missing.
What I am wanting are responses from thoughtful egals who dare to question their own premises for the egalitarian definition of equality in relationships, particularly marriage. In the Beatie case, how does one respond some person out there taking a similar understanding of equality and applying it in a way that is immoral? Of course egals wouldn’t agree on that behavior, but what does it mean for the egal position if someone can logically follow that pattern of thinking into sin? What should it mean? Will anyone exercise some critical thinking or will there be a ‘digging in’ of the heels?
Interestingly enough, I find the tables turned with a case like this. It is usually the complementarian that is held accountable for the very basis of complementarianism when a case of abuse or immorality arises, committed by an extreme complementarian (or better termed, patriarchalist). Now, I am NOT holding any egalitarian accountable for a transsexual lesbian’s libertine understanding of human sexuality and roles in life (that would be a strawman argument). But given the right example, perhaps one could see that the shoe can be worn on the other foot.
So again, should we not stop and question the scope and assumptions underlying egalitarianism? What does it really mean to be a husband? Does it only mean “male spouse” or is there fundamentally more (as in a particular responsibility that God means for him to best fulfill)? Again, what does it really mean to be a wife? Is there a structure to marriage that people (a man and a woman–gotta clarify these things nowadays, heh!) are supposed to conform to, and what is it?
———————————————————–
I’ve wanted to throw this out there for quite a long time now, but didn’t know how not to make it as potentially inflammatory as, well, it is. But it makes a great thought experiment nevertheless.
Thomas Beatie, if you haven’t heard, is the world’s most famous “pregnant man.” Yes, he is really a she having gone under the knife to modify some parts that matter. Beatie is currently a husband and a father and is pregnant with a second child.
Here’s my question for the egals out there: if designated roles in marriage do not exist, as some have claimed, then what is the problem in the case of Thomas Beatie, if any? Beatie’s actions should make us clarify what gender has to do with anything. What does it mean to be a husband and a father? What does it mean to be a wife? What does it mean to be a man or a woman? Can anyone defend marriage at all in the light of his/her example? It seems to me that gender does matter, and not just in who has the babies. I hope you feel challenged by this. I know I do.
Here’s my question for the egals out there: if designated roles in marriage do not exist, as some have claimed, then what is the problem in the case of Thomas Beatie, if any?
When and where do egals argue or say that there are no physical and biological differences between males and females? I think the argument that egals want to open and engage in is whether or not these physical differences require or prohibit certain things of one sex and not of the other, and vice-versa – i.e., is it required or natural or mandated that such-and-such be only done by the male/husband because he is a male, and such-and-such be only done by the female/wife because she is a female.
But I’m a newbie to this conversation, so I can’t really speak for egals. My interest, as stated elsewhere, is whether or not patriarchy and/or separate “designated roles” for men and women are mandated for the church when the believers meet as a church.
When and where do egals argue or say that there are no physical and biological differences between males and females? I think the argument that egals want to open and engage in is whether or not these physical differences require or prohibit certain things of one sex and not of the other, and vice-versa – i.e., is it required or natural or mandated that such-and-such be only done by the male/husband because he is a male, and such-and-such be only done by the female/wife because she is a female.
Yes.
But now I’m going to go look up Thomas Beatie on google! That picture made me do a triple-take! *smiles*
Btw, nice to “see” you, Letitia!
Yes, nice to ’see’ you Lettia. And what a SHOCKING! picture. AAAcccck!
As to your question. If one is male, then he gets to be husband and father. If one is a female, then she gets to be wife and mother. Those are attributes, not roles one plays.
As for this person, this only goes to prove IMO that changing ones physical appearance cannot change completely one’s physiology. She is obviously still female. Having been schooled in physiology I could explain how one’s sex affects everything, including genes, hormones, skeletal structure, certain organs, bone density, fat density, brain patterns, and more. Just shifting the balance of hormones does not change one’s sex. And in order to get pregnant she still had to be impregnated with a man’s sperm.
He still holds the saw (and I assume throws a baseball) like a girl.
To maintain a G-rating on this blog, I actually picked the least shocking photo I could find, believe me.
EricW said:
“When and where do egals argue or say that there are no physical and biological differences between males and females? I think the argument that egals want to open and engage in is whether or not these physical differences require or prohibit certain things of one sex and not of the other, and vice-versa – i.e., is it required or natural or mandated that such-and-such be only done by the male/husband because he is a male, and such-and-such be only done by the female/wife because she is a female.”
EricW, you actually only repeated my question. The egal argument I’ve heard most often is that the physiological difference is the ONLY difference between men and women, and that it doesn’t matter.
As I see it, Beatie actualizes what many egals claim in theory: that roles in marriage are genderless and can be crossed by either men or women at will. If that is so, who can articulate exactly what Beatie has done that is fundamentally wrong?
As I see it, Beatie actualizes what many egals claim in theory: that roles in marriage are genderless and can be crossed by either men or women at will. If that is so, who can articulate exactly what Beatie has done that is fundamentally wrong?
No, Beatie is a female and has birthed and is again getting ready to birth a child. How has Beatie shown that childbearing can equally be done by males as by females? Beatie is still a female. Only the female member of a marriage can do the uterus and ovulating role, if you want to call it a role, in marriage and/or childbearing. Even if a woman is a surrogate mother, receiving someone else’s implanted fertilized ovum, only a female can do that uterus “role,” not a male.
Are we talking past each other?
Saw?
I thought it was a weed wacker.
EricW said:
“Are we talking past each other?”
Quite possibly. The problem that I see is not in her pregancy. That should serve as the stark reminder to this woman that she is still a woman and not a man.
She is attempting to be a man and has married another woman to be the husband in the relationship. She considers herself the father of her children. The complementarian position is that the words “man,” “husband,” and “father” connote something beyond having male genitalia (will the filters catch me now for using that word??). There is an expectation of a certain behavior, role, and responsibility associated with one’s gender. In other words, gender has meaning and one should not freely confuse one gender’s meaning with the other’s.
The egal position seems to contradict that, yet I am assuming that most egals can see that the case of Thomas Beatie is a case that encapsulates multiple immoral acts, one of which is for a woman to take on the role of a man in life.
“The complementarian position is that the words “man,” “husband,” and “father” connote something beyond having male genitalia (will the filters catch me now for using that word??). There is an expectation of a certain behavior, role, and responsibility associated with one’s gender. In other words, gender has meaning and one should not freely confuse one gender’s meaning with the other’s.
The egal position seems to contradict that”
I does not contradict that. What egals resist is assigning to men and women ‘roles’ that are not in essence things pertaining to maleness or femaleness.
It is quite obvious that “Beatie” has confused herself in many ways none of which are endorsed as acceptable by egals. It sounds to me as though you are presenting us with a Strawman, something we don’t believe or support, and then chastizing us for it.
It looks more like a circular saw to me (though missing a couple of parts), but it could be a trimmer of a sort/design with which I’m not familiar.
believer3 said:
“It sounds to me as though you are presenting us with a Strawman, something we don’t believe or support, and then chastizing us for it.”
It would only be a strawman if I said that egals approve of and support Beatie’s actions. However, I’m asking in what way can egals say her actions were wrong if roles in marriage are not determined (in large part) by the gender God gives us.
Gotta take my daughter to the dentist, so I’ll be back later. Have fun!
“I’m asking in what way can egals say her actions were wrong if roles in marriage are not determined (in large part) by the gender God gives us.”
I kinda, sorta thought that we already did that above. ???
The problem is that most egals don’t believe that motherhood is a “role” per say. It is an attribute of being a woman and only of women. A role, by definition, is something human’s choose to participate in and is usually a culturally determined function. So, we agree, but yet talk right past each other and miss what the other is saying.
Role: “Sociology. the rights, obligations, and expected behavior patterns associated with a particular social status.” from Dictionary.com.
Thus I fully agree that motherhood is a ‘role’ that only women participate in because it is sexually determined as is fatherhood.
I smell a straw man (excuse the pun,) as well.
She is genetically a female. Morphologically, we all start out female and the male characteristics get turned on (I could go on, but I know most eyes are starting to glaze over.)
If you believe you’re male because you have a penis, this person has grown a penis (sort of how it happens to most males to begin with.)
I won’t venture further out on such thin ice, but, yes, I detect a straw man (I’m trying to control myself here because its too easy
I felt fooled by the headlines after I read about this. The headlines trumpeted the existence of a “pregnant man,” which I have not yet seen.
If she’s got the plumbing that it traditionally takes (rather than science making some sort of space inside a male person) to make a baby, then “he” is, as has already been stated, a female person.
I suppose what we’re getting down to, then, might be that these are actually two women who are married to each other…
Letitia,
Biology/physiology aside, a woman acts in ways that are womanly, because she is a woman. And a man acts in ways that are manly, because he is a man.
To parse it out further is the job of each individual society, and they do that job well. Some cultures say that masculinity is shown by a, others by engaging in b, others by ab, and still others by c.
We have plenty of that in our own culture, as evidenced by our general assumptions that nurturing is a feminine thing and leading is a masculine thing. But the truth is, one can’t support such claims based on the Bible.
This is why I have a real problem with parsing out “roles” for genders. The Bible tells both genders to be submissive, both genders to be bold, both genders to be protective, both genders to be humble, both genders to be nurturing, both genders to be hard-working, both genders to provide, both genders to serve the poor, both genders to be patient, both genders to be slow to anger, both genders to be meek…
So I assume that when I lead, and when I nurture, and when I am submissive, and when I am bold, I will do so with a feminine style because I am a female. The full spectrum of what “feminine” means can be seen when women do all of those things, just as the full spectrum of what “masculine” means can be seen when men do all of those things listed above.
Which means it’s impossible to put it in a neat and tidy box and say that it looks like such-n-such.
John Piper couldn’t define what masculinity and femininty meant in any way except to define it as they relate to eachother, which he said meant that masculinity leads and directs the femininity, and femininity follows and submits to masculinity. We know that nothing God does is without purpose. So if Piper’s view is correct, then the feminine is truly inferior to the masculine. The masculine can stand on it’s own two feet, whereas the feminine, by it’s very nature, needs to be guided and directed.
If this is true, then God is glorified when it is rightly applied. If this is not true, then the attempt to glorify God in directing those who were not made to need that kind of direction is a very sad misunderstanding, no matter how well-intentioned, and the watching world is only further turned off by the things of God.
It is things like this that make me so loathe to try and put masculinity and femininity in a box. I believe that if we use the Bible as our guide, writing down all the attributes applied to femininity, no such box exists.
Letitia,
The only sin Beatie has committed is being unhappy with her gender and having her body fixed. She has literally put on that which pertaineth to man. (joke)
But she is still a woman.
I haven’t heard any Egals on here denying the obvious differences between men and women, and their logical “roles” or “duties”. Egal men I’ve met have honored their wives’ natural weaker-vessel nature and provide for their families while their wives nurture the children at home. It’s not rare! Egal wives have moved “following” their husbands, supporting them and generally being a helper suitable.
The difference I see is the respect they have for their wives’ input. They don’t expect to be followed, they believe in joint decision making, they believe they are a team where no one has more say than the other. They actually believe that if their wives say no to some idea, maybe it’s God giving them a different perspective! I wish some complementarian men I know would pay that type of attention to their wives’ input.
In the Beaty and her wife case, you have a homosexual marriage. Period. That’s sin, not Christian Egalitarianism.
Letitia,
I wouldn’t call myself a flat-out egal, but would like to respond. Beatie is obviously playing games with her biology – she has manipulated her physiology via surgery and hormones yet obviously remains, in good part, female. She’s trying to have her cake and eat it too. And corrupting her gender in the process. Her case illustrates the distinction between true sex differences and contrived ones – it’s in actual sex roles, ones having to do with biology (physiology) and sexuality, not arbitrary decisions of what a person of a particular sex who is still acting within their God-given capacities can do.
Clever title, BTW
Clever title, BTW
I keep wanting to read it as “Turn the Beatle Around.” After all, this week (specifically 2 days ago) was the 45th anniversary of you know what.
First off, Letitia, so glad to see you posting again
I guess it is more than the saw/weed wacker thing that is confusing me on this thread.
I’m trying to understand your point Letitia.
But I don’t think I’m getting it.
Tracey Lagondino looks like an extremely confused person who has not made peace with who God has created her to be.
I don’t know if this has to do with nature (an actual hormonal imbalance that she tweaked even further with the help of a doctor) or nurture.
Either way, I’m not sure what you are getting at and I don’t want to jump to conclusions.
So I’ll ask my own questions.
Do these characters in movies have issues with their identities as females.
Princess Leia from Star Wars and that one gal from Lord of the Rings (LOTR) who dresses up like a man to fight in a war (Couldn’t spell her name even if I could remember what it was)
The only reason I ask is because there are those who have defined Jo from the story “Little Women” to be a bit gender confused because she was the tomboy of the sisters. I’m not accusing you or any other comp that posts on this thread of this. But there are those who call themselves Christian and claim they stand up for Biblical feminity who caution their girls to not be like Jo because that simply isn’t feminine enough.
Tracey in the photo above has obviously crossed a line, or is at least trying to.
But the funny thing about lines. People draw them in different places from each other.
Those who have no problem with Jo might be troubled by Princess Leia and her bold, take-charge attitude. Those who have no problem with Leia may cringe terribly at the LOTR gal.
I have no problem with the three characters mentioned. But Tracey… Wow. She’s one confused girl.
I’m just wondering where you and the other comps here draw the line. What is comfortable for you?
Eowyn, I think,
No man can defeat me.
I am no man, ha-ha-ha, one of my favorite movie lines.
Yep, Letitia, it’s a weed eater. See this picture:
http://www.usmagazine.com/files/thomas-beatie-b.jpg
The foreshortening distortion from the angle of the shot in your picture made it look to me like a hand-sized tool.
It is true that human start out with a female form and testosterone in a male changes that form into a male, in a multiple step process. To a first approximation, one is either a male or a female, but sometimes something goes wrong, one of the steps does not complete or the testosterone does have have its normal effect. Some hyperfeminine women have XY chromosomes but due to testosterone insensistivity syndrome have female externals but internals are male. Sometimes a circumcision is botched and a decision is made to fix it by removal of tissue and raise the child as a girl. There are some very sad cases.
I think because of all these situations, the legal situation is that a person can decide what gender they are, since in real life there are some gray areas. However, then you get cases such as a self-declared man giving birth, which defies logic.
However, then you get cases such as a self-declared man giving birth, which defies logic.
You sound like Mr. Spock!
Thanks for bringing that up, Don, you’re braver than I
. Yes, it’s true that there are bona fide cases of physiological gender ambiguity. This is different than denial of one’s actual physiology, though, as you also state.
It is truly a difficult situation for the person with a gender abnormality. In an effort to help these people feel “normal,” society seems to want to redefine “normal” to include everything! Yet I think it’s possible and even desirable to acknowledge and accept the abnormality, and the difficulty associated with it, without redefining what is clearly normal.
Three articles relevant to Don’s and Bonnie’s comments (1 link per post):
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/jan/featgender
2nd article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/featvital
3rd article:
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/feb/fathersmilk468
I want to offer compassion to those challenged in this way, esp. as I have no idea what it is like.
I agree, Don. It’s easy to sit back and say that someone like “Beatie is just choosing to sin.” But I really have no idea why she feels the way she does. There could actually be a legitimate brain wiring issue. There could be a number of different factors. None of these factors make same-sex acts okay, though (just as opposite-sex acts are not okay either, no matter how much we may want to *feel* otherwise, unless they are between two married people).
That said, the amount of inner turmoil that would drive someone to physically change their sex is beyond anything I can even imagine. It’s easy to write them off as “sinful.” Their stories, though, are so heartbreaking—-never feeling at home in their own bodies, feeling like something is wrong with them, trying everything and anything to make it stop, this mad feeling of being stuck in the wrong body. It sounds horrific. It doesn’t sound like anything anyone would ever “choose.”
I know that I want to work to find a way where we can be true to Christ-honoring sexuality while at the same time opening our arms to people like Beatie and his/her wife in ways that clearly communicate how much Christ loves them.
It seems to me that the Christian community either does a great job standing firm for sexual purity (in ways that leave the same-sex community feeling hated), or they do a great job of loving the same-sex community (and dumping sexual purity standards), but doing both at the same time…? We have a lot of room for growth in this area.
Such interesting articles, Eric.
[And I love your new moniker, too. Wow, it looks JUST like you in real life!
*ducks for cover]*
This quote from the article about Vital Signs, in particular, is really really interesting:
“The test indeed showed that Imelda had one X and one Y chromosome in her cells. And her hormone testing showed an extraordinarily high level of testosterone. Her endocrine system was screaming for her body to make a man, but her cells were deaf to those instructions.”
[And I love your new moniker, too. Wow, it looks JUST like you in real life!
*ducks for cover]*
That’s not a “moniker”; it’s an Avatar.
And it actually does look like me in real life, ca. 1974, glasses and beard and all. Two college friends and I looked and dressed remarkably like the well-known “underground-comic-book” (that’s what they used to call them back then) guys (minus the cat, though). I wish we’d taken pictures of the three of us together.
Thank you for the links. Very interesting, and yes, sad in a number of ways.
I appreciate the serious, nuanced discussion–and the inclusion of what science *does* know, and can contribute. There’s a lot of food for thought, and soul-searching.
”there are bona fide cases of physiological gender ambiguity. This is different than denial of one’s actual physiology, …………………. it’s possible and even desirable to acknowledge and accept the abnormality, and the difficulty associated with it, without redefining what is clearly normal.”
Exactly Bonnie. And that is the difficulty. We have in our society those who want to redefine what is clearly normal. And we also have those who want to ignore and deny that there are bona fide cases of abnormality which need to be handled differently than normal humans.
Sometimes, we Christians have been known to display a holier than thou attitude (throughout history, not just in our era) not wanting to touch the real dirty problems of society. But really we are the best equipped (God’s presence, Holy Spirit and Scriptures) to be able to have a sane outlook and compassionately reach out to the maimed and wounded.
When I talked about Tracy/Thomas’s issues being either nature or nurture, you folks covered the nature side of it rather thoroughly.
Now I’m gonna throw in a nurture side of it with fear and trembling because I know we’ve been all over this on other threads. But I have to tell cover this. Yes, it involves abuse. No, I don’t want to turn this thread into another abuse thread. But at the same time I have to tell you what I’ve seen.
There was a girl that went to my church. But if you didn’t know she was a girl, you would have thought she was a boy by the way she dressed and wore her hair. She wore ball caps like a boy and sat like a boy.
I took her under my wing and discipled her as best I could. I didn’t judge her for her boyishness. Afterall, I thought I understood since I was a tomboy myself growing up.
After a few years it finally came out that the reason she dressed like a boy was because her father was sexually abusing her (among other numerous sorts of abuses, physical, emotional, verbal etc.)
Since then I have learned that SOME girls will reject their femininity because that is what is preyed upon in their worlds.
Anorexia (sp?) can be another form of girls rejecting their curves and femininity and trying to just disappear from the pain and control.
I don’t know what Tracey/Thomas’s deal is. If it is nature or nurture. But as the rest have stated, since I do not know the inner workings of her heart or her biology, I prefer not to judge.
Sorry, again. I know there are those here who are so sick of hearing about abuse. I really don’t mean to be the one to shove it in everybody’s face so much. I mostly just want people to be aware of it’s existance and why some girls may reject their gender.
Excellent point though Mara. Sometimes, that can be from abuse. The problem is that once they go down that road it is very difficult to come away from it. It can be done of course, with God’s help but it is not easy.
Emotional abuse is also one that can send young adults and teens into exploring the dark things. I know of a family where the father was so abusive to his children emotionally that the boy became a homosexual, and the youngest girl went into pornography. It was not the mother, although she did try to counter it. This is one reason why it is not good to stay in abusive relationships. It almost always progresses to the children. The reason that I know about this is that they have been my friends for about 30 years. After the mother divorced she devoted herself to helping her children. She has helped the older daughter find sanity, and the youngest girl is coming round. But the boy is lost in homosexuality still. I wish that I had known 25 years ago what I know now.
Mara, I think you’ve brought up something very important. I suspect that great deal of both gender confusion and sinful patterns in general are a result of sinful response to some sort of hurt, be it typical life disappointment or horrific abuse. No one is exempt from injury and disappointment. Combine that with faults of the literal flesh and you’ve got, well, the repercussions of the Fall. That said, however, we must separate what can be helped from what can’t. Fallen flesh is one thing; sin is another.
Thanks TL and Bonnie.
Thanks also DB for providing the LOTR’s princess of Rohann’s name. I’ll forever get her name and the elf princess’s name mixed up because they are too similar to each other.
No one, except DB, really responded to my “which characters break out of their gender and which ones don’t” post, which is fine. If no one understood where I was going or what I intended that’s nobody’s fault but my own.
And since I’m bored at work on this Friday before Valentine’s day and other people are signing off for the weekend and in some cases for two weeks (Have a Great one Mrs. Webfoot. You’ll be missed.) I’ll just yap at myself on this one. Anyone as bored as myself can listen in or ignore me as you please. And respond if you feel like it.
Yes, Tracey/Thomas is blurring things a bit there. And we’ve discussed possible reasons why. And as I’ve mentioned, only God really knows.
But I wonder if gender enhancing rather than dulling can also be looked upon as bad or whatever.
What about the bodybuilder or wrestler who takes steroids to enhance his body to heighten visual manly characteristics, and then he turns around and kills his entire family due to roid rage.
How about women who are unhappy with their bodies and enhance that to make themselves feel more in compliance with what our culture holds up as the ultimate in femininity. They spend the big bucks in order to buy T & A so to speak.
Is it really a form of drawing attention to themselves and their genders? Have genders and their distinctions because an idol?
We know sex has.
I know gender is important.
But how important is it? Can it be made to be too important?
Who is guilty of that?
I know that I am flawed in my thinking and my logic.
I know that everyone around me is also flawed in their thinking. It is a result of the fall.
So of course as Christians we turn to God and His Word to see what He thinks. After all, He’s the potter. We are the clay. It is not right for us to tell Him how He should have made us. It is up to us to ask Him what He wanted and what His intention is.
You all can say a collective “Duh” right here if you want to.
After all, that’s what this blog is about, right?
But I’m not done. I’m just laying the ground work.
I’ve had a saying for some time.
You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats his wife.
You can tell a lot about a country by the way they treat their women.
You can tell a lot about a church/religion by the way they treat their women.
You can learn a lot about Jesus by the way He treats His bride.
I’ve watched how different churches deal with gender.
There’s the church that doesn’t make much fuss about what a woman wears. She can be decked out in gold and sparklies and wear whatever color or design that she wants to. She can wear pants or dresses, cut her hair or not. She can wear makeup and have a fashion flare as long as she doesn’t show too much clevage. But she better never get the idea that she could ever step up on the platform and preach a message to a mixed congregation. Heaven could not bear up under it.
There’s another church where the women have to wear dresses buttoned up to their noses and down to their toes. They can never wear makeup, even a little cover up to hide a blemish. And they can never ever cut their hair (although a few of them have been known to “accidentally” burn off hair with a curling iron). Heaven could not bear up under such things. But these women are allowed to preach and teach their hearts out… even to MEN!
WHOA!
Which group is right?
Which set of females is truely showing forth perfect femininity?
I don’t know. Both chruches just absolutely positivily know that they are doing it God’s way. They both believe that they are being biblical.
But at least one or them has to be wrong. Maybe both.
What the heck does this have to do with Beatie gender bending?
Nothing, except that maybe Beatie is not the only one on the planet who is confused.
The universal church within herself cannot agree on what Biblical Femininity is.
Actually, when I look at this, there is only one burning question for me.
What is the driving force behind making extra rules for women that men don’t have?
Whether it involves outward appearance or limits in ministry, why is it so important to give women the extra burden of extra rules?
Nearly every religious group does it one way or another.
What is the point of making smaller boxes for women to occupy than men?
People can swear up and down that they base their reasons on the Bible.
But I see two different groups, two groups I respect, two groups that are bearing fruit in ministry, two groups who are as sincere as the day is long.
Both groups base their doctrines on the Bible.
Something else has to be going on.
And I think it has more to do with human nature and tradition than the Bible.
But that’s me.
If anyone has stuck it out with me this far, please feel free to agree or disagree as your heart leads.
Mara,
I loved what you said about nature/nurture. I think brain wiring can be done through both of those things, as in genetically or in utero, as well as brain wiring that happens via abuse or other outward-environment sources. We learn about how constant exposure to porn wires men’s brains to then *need* the porn in order to feel maximum pleasure, for example.
Our bodies are so complex. I get frustrated when all homosexuals/transgender/etc are written off as people who purposely CHOSE to be sexually deviant (though that can and does happen too). Brain wiring is not a sin. Acting in ways that the Bible says are sexual sins is sin. But having a brain that is wired one way or another, thanks to a fallen world where things can be broken, is not sin.
Mara,
I want to let you know that I enjoyed the examples you gave of female characters doing things for which they might be criticized by some as acting in an “unwomanly” way.
I found it a fun exercise. I’m not a comp, though, so I don’t know whether my input would shed light on anything. I don’t have a problem with any of the characters. I tend to agree with molleth’s post of February 11, 2009 at 9:34 pm.
Scripture doesn’t split positive characteristics down the middle, claiming some were given to men, and others to women. Various cultures and societies may hold opinions in that vein, but they are unsupported by scripture.
I appreciate your questions regarding the possible overemphasis on gender.
Yes! The popular media, so much of our entertainment, so many advertisements and self-help books (Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, anyone? I thought God made us all) emphasize our perceived and sometimes socially enforced differences to such an extent that I would say it sometimes borders on fetishizing them.
What the heck does this have to do with Beatie gender bending?
Nothing, except that maybe Beatie is not the only one on the planet who is confused.
The universal church within herself cannot agree on what Biblical Femininity is.
Actually, when I look at this, there is only one burning question for me.
What is the driving force behind making extra rules for women that men don’t have?
Whether it involves outward appearance or limits in ministry, why is it so important to give women the extra burden of extra rules?
Nearly every religious group does it one way or another.
What is the point of making smaller boxes for women to occupy than men?
Mara,
This was so insightful and so thought-provoking. Thank you.
You’re welcome ‘though it wasn’t much of an effort
But, getting back to the issue, I’m on the side of loving people and letting things sort themselves out.
Love is always primary, everything is to be done in love. Love is what enables any other responses, this is why God loves us first, even when we did not love God.
There is also a life principle, act to preserve life, we see this with Abraham and Jacob making mistakes and sinning but acting to preserve life.
Thanks for your responses.
Yes, Chaidrinkingfool, I also like what molleth said.
We are who we are.
We get in trouble when we try to become something we are not to fit into a manmade mold. (manmade being inclusive here to mean both men and women)
And I do like how DB and Don cut right through to it.
When things get confusing for me, I revert back to the basics.
Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Thanks folks for humoring me on my funky little tangent.
I don’t always go off the deep end like this. Usually try to control it better.
Sometimes when people try to define gender, broadly or narrowly, or by drawing lines, it makes me wonder where it will lead.
Is it really a list of dos and don’ts? Is it really about lines and boxes?
Or is it (one of) the essence(s) of who God created us to be played out in a life surrendered to Him?
Happy Valentine’s Day. Hope God blesses each of you with a special understanding of His passionate love for you today.
(If you’re bored Don, maybe you could explain what you mean about Abraham and Jacob. I’ll come back and read it if you do.)
I was at a training one day. It was about the GLBT community, although now it is referred to as the GLBTQ community. Anyway, the person giving the training was himself Gay. He was speaking for his agency which is a GLBTQ agency. I asked him this question, thinking he would give me a minimal answer. “How many of the GLBT community that you see have been sexually abused?” Again, I expected a low number, but this was his answer. “90% of the women and 80% of the men.” I know my husband has helped many wanting out of the life style, and I have also. We would both say that 100% of the people we have ministered to ahve been abused, and almost all sexually. Other counselors tell me the same thing. Since much of the stats are anectodal, we cannot hang our hats on it. But, every time I see someone who is struggling with their gender, either through homosexuality, promiscuity or prostitution (as we also know that most women who are prostitutes were sexually abused), it gives us more compassion for their plight.
And those who live in violent homes have higher percentage of sexual abuse themselves, as well as ebing emotionally and physically abused. So, yes, it is another reason not to stay in an abusive marriage because the sins of the fathers are passed to the third and firth generations… In addition, you can lose your children to the state as domestic violence is a form of child abuse.
With 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys being sexually abused before the age of 18, it is by God’s grace that we do not have more of this sin than we do. Compassion and Christ’s love is called for, not comdemnation and rejection.
On Abraham and Jacob, Gen can be read as a collection of separate stories, for example, this is often done in Kid’s Bibles. But then one can see a pattern in the stories, repeated over and over. A basic pattern in Gen is God makes a covenant with promises, humans act to put the covenant/promises in jeopardy, and God keeps his covenant/promises anyway. Some of the ways that humans put the covenant/promises in jeopardy involve sinful actions, but the intention is to preserve life, even if the actions are misguided.
In any given set of rules, one needs a priority list in case 2 rules are in conflict or ambiguous in some specific situation. For example, Jesus discusses this in the NT with Sabbath rules, where do they fit in the priority of all Torah commandments? We know that “love God and humans” are the 2 on top, but there are also principles of life, freedom, justice, mercy, etc. that are higher in priority than others.
So one can reread the Gen stories and look for these things, God’s promises and his keeping of the promises and commandment priorities.
It is FUN to discover these for yourself!
(the following comment is also part of the original post above as an update):
For those of you accusing me of building a strawman, what can I say except that it isn’t? It’s a thought experiment. But I’ll let it go in order to get to the point everyone seems to be missing.
What I am wanting are responses from thoughtful egals who dare to question their own premises for the egalitarian definition of equality in relationships, particularly marriage. In the Beatie case, how does one respond some person out there taking a similar understanding of equality and applying it in a way that is immoral? Of course egals wouldn’t agree on that behavior, but what does it mean for the egal position if someone can logically follow that pattern of thinking into sin? What should it mean? Will anyone exercise some critical thinking or will there be a ‘digging in’ of the heels?
Interestingly enough, I find the tables turned with a case like this. It is usually the complementarian that is held accountable for the very basis of complementarianism when a case of abuse or immorality arises, committed by an extreme complementarian (or better termed, patriarchalist). Now, I am NOT holding any egalitarian accountable for a transsexual lesbian’s libertine understanding of human sexuality and roles in life (that would be a strawman argument). But given the right example, perhaps one could see that the shoe can be worn on the other foot.
So again, should we not stop and question the scope and assumptions underlying egalitarianism? What does it really mean to be a husband? Does it only mean “male spouse” or is there fundamentally more (as in a particular responsibility that God means for him to best fulfill)? Again, what does it really mean to be a wife? Is there a structure to marriage that people (a man and a woman–gotta clarify these things nowadays, heh!) are supposed to conform to, and what is it?
Letitia asked:
What does it really mean to be a husband? Does it only mean “male spouse” or is there fundamentally more (as in a particular responsibility that God means for him to best fulfill)?
I like what the Bible states for what it really means to be a husband, as well as what it means to be a real husband:
“Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” (ESV)
Surely, as we continue to try to build bridges between comps and egals on this blog, we can all agree that sacrificial love for his wife is a primary meaning of husband. As I sacrificially love my wife, I feel a responsibility to protect her, to affirm her, to encourage her to use her spiritual gifts. Surely these are things both comps and egals can agree upon.
As for Biblical definitions of a wife, I like Proverbs 31. I have read both comps and egals affirming the content of that rather remarkable chapter. A wife affirms her husband–at least when he is not living contrary to God’s guidelines. She shows him respect, but does not approve of any of his ungodly actions or attitudes. (The same goes for a husband, who, as with the wife toward her husband, should speak the truth in love and point out where actions and attitudes need to change.)
I agree a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and is to be monogamous, loving, faithful and nurturing. Given these basics, a couple is free to structure their relationship as they wish; it will often be the case that it may appear to be a “traditional” family, but there is no rule that it must appear to be a “traditional” family.
I am willing to question the scope and assumptions underlying egalism. I do not see how the Beatie example does this, there is no claim to be Christian or a Christian marriage.
I agree Wayne.
Letitia…
I struggle seeing the connection. There have been gay/lesbian relationships all through time, most of which occured in a patriarchal context (Rome being an excellent example). Patriarchy didn’t cause those relationships to flourish any more than egalitarianism does. A society preoccupied with pleasure-at-any-cost is a good descriptor of Rome as the end drew near, and, sadly, of America in ways as well. We are a nation full of sexual sin—we do not believe in any boundaries, and since most of us are hetero, I would posit a guess and say that 99% or more of our national sexual sin comes from decidedly heterosexual sources.
The Biblical concept of marriage is between a man and a woman, as evidenced in Genesis 1-2. Men and women are different. But men and women are alike more than they are different. They complement each other.
Adam’s focus was not on Eve’s differences but on her similarities. His joyous proclamation of, “bone of my bones,” emphasized that.
Many egals, myself included, have seen the damage done by lists that authoritatively pronounce gender differences. We are loathe to repeat that.
This is not the same thing as saying that men and women are the same. It is saying, however, that we reject the standard gender differentiation made by comps, which is a differentiation based on authority (in differing measures, depending on what kind of comp one is).
Piper differentiates the genders by saying one has authority and the other one submits to it. This is our most fundamental difference, he says, what MAKES us masculine or feminine. That’s fine, for a comp. But that’s not going to go over with egals. We aren’t going to differentiate the genders based on authority and submission. What other ways do you suggest differentiating the genders? Perhaps we just need some help understanding what it is you want us to say.
Letitia,
Still thinking on this…and I think I get what you are trying to say, but it’s hard to know for certain. If I wrote a post about those who practice BDSM (bondage/sado sexual stuff with heavy emphasis on who’s in submission and who’s in authority), put it at the feet of comps and said that their teaching promotes this kind of stuff, you would be right to draw back surprised and say, “Uh, no it doesn’t.”
If I respondied to you by saying that you must not want to excercise your critical thinking skills, becasue if you did, you’d see it, you’d still be right for saying, “Uh, I did and, no, it doesn’t.”
In the same way, all the egals here have affirmed that what they believe is that God-honoring sexuality is between a maritally covenanted man and woman. We have all affirmed that we believe that men and women are not interchangeable parts, but rather complementary to each other. We’ve talked about some of the obvious ways that we complement—-I can breastfeed and my husband can’t, etc.
But we, being egals, aren’t going to say that the primary differentiation is with authority and submission. That is a comp belief, not an egal one, and how we see that is at the core of whether or not we are comp or egal.
But perhaps I am just not understanding you right.
You know, Letatia, I’m having a hard time understanding as well.
I gave birth to four children. I nursed them all. I was their first bonding experience. Their relationship with me set the tone for all their future relationships including the one with their dad. It just comes with the territory of being a mother.
But my children’s father is also important since their bonding with him defines who they will become even further. My sons and my daughters both need him. Fortunately he was available early on, for the most part.
But he has since fallen away from his relationship with God greatly hindering his ability to father.
There for there came a time when I instructed my sons to no longer look at their dad as a godly male influence in their lives (But never encouraged them to disrespect him). Sad but true. I encouraged them to look for relationships with godly, mature men within the church and the pastor has partnered with me by encouraging men to be available to mentor my boys.
Well that’s great for my sons.
But what about my daughters?
One of my daughters just turned 16 and seems to really need to date. Perhaps I’m wrong, but part of me wonders if it is because of her strained relationship with her father, she’s looking for love elsewhere. Very scary for me right now.
What I’m saying is that I do see the need for a female mother and a male father in the lives of my children. And with my husband’s choice to turn away from God, my kids are not getting direct, male-fathering like what they need and it makes me sad.
What this has to do with Beatie, I’m still not making the connection.
Children need fathers and mothers. There are parts that are not interchangable.
But if my boys were sports minded, wanted to play ball and my husband were blind or handicapped somehow, I think it would be fine if I played catch with them. I don’t think it would harm their maleness. They could bond with their dad a different way, if he were available. Hopefully not over alcohol.
Am I still missing what you are saying?
I feel like I am.
Sorry if my babbling above goes off on another unrelated tangent.
Letitia,
I can sort of understand where you are coming from and what you’re trying to get at with this post. I think Molly made a good analogy with her BDSM couple (Thanks Molly!)
I don’t think you can actually call Beatie a man, so he can’t really be a husband. Whether she fulfills that “role” or not.
As Wayne pointed out, the primary “role” of a husband is to love sacrificially. Both men and women can love sacrificially, and both should love sacrificially! ( 1 Cor. 13) But husbands are specifically told to follow Christ’s lead and lay their lives down for their wives.
My question is, if you have a person laying his life down and one submitting, what’s the difference?
Don summed it up very well in this statement
I agree a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and is to be monogamous, loving, faithful and nurturing. Given these basics, a couple is free to structure their relationship as they wish
I believe a marriage in which both spouses are well grounded in God’s word, in a close relationship with Jesus, and living in the Spirit, is going to be God honoring. It really makes little difference what paradigm (if any) they are modeling.
Jesus did say the world would know we are His disciples by our love to one another. You don’t need specific roles of authority and submission to show love, do you?
Mara,
I’m glad your children have healthy male role models.
….”dare to question their own premises for the egalitarian definition of equality in relationships, particularly marriage.
“what does it mean for the egal position if someone can logically follow that pattern of thinking into sin? “
First I would need to know if you are speaking of secular egalism or Christians who believe in Biblical equality. To my understanding there is a rather large difference although I’ve never been involved with secular egalism or feminism.
My understanding of Biblical equality is based upon several Scriptures including the following:
Now that is a pinch/smidgin of what I think of when I think of Biblical equality. But my guess is that you are not thinking of those when you think of what Biblical equality might be. Now, can some Christians use these in a sinful way? Well, if they are human, probably. But that doesn’t invalidate the Scriptures. I don’t see how that applies to Beatie because she is not a Christian and would not base her life on any Biblical concepts of any denominational bent.
My guess is that you are talking specifically of equality within marriage. And the problem there is that we both look at the same Scriptures and see them differently.
So if you are asking us to relook at certain Scriptures, which ones. The same ones we’ve been asking you to relook at?
In the end all I think we’ve all been doing a decent job finding the places we can agree upon in those Scriptures.
So again, should we not stop and question the scope and assumptions underlying egalitarianism? What does it really mean to be a husband? Does it only mean “male spouse” or is there fundamentally more (as in a particular responsibility that God means for him to best fulfill)? Again, what does it really mean to be a wife? Is there a structure to marriage that people (a man and a woman–gotta clarify these things nowadays, heh!) are supposed to conform to, and what is it?
Within non-polygamous heterosexual marriages I think there is a lot of personal and societal latitude for determining which role(s) the male should play and which role(s) the female should play.
In some ways your question is like: What does it really mean to be a Christian? Does that have a bottom-line non-negotiable indisputable one-size-fits-all answer?
Letitia: What do you believe egalitarians believe that would possibly cause you to construct a post such as this? I am not saying your are building a strawman as much as I am not understanding what you are wanting in response. It seems many of the responses are what I would answer, yet it seems you are wanting a different response.
This is what Lettia is looking for, although I’m not sure what that means.
Lettitia, are you suggesting that equality in marriage promotes homosexuality and you are asking us to see that? While there may be some who would use the concepts of equality as demands (as John has said at various times), or as an excuse not to take responsibility, I do not see anything in the concepts of equality in marriage that would promote homosexuality.
Is this because you think it is unfair that egals have pointed out that too much emphasis on authority and submission in marriage leaves an opportunity for some men who are inclined toward overbearing attitudes and abuse to be excessively authoritarian and even abusive? This has happened frequently in Christian marriages unfortunately. And you think egals need to show where their model falls short also?
I think there has been some who have noted the above about demands and excuses. However, I truly do not believe that one can use the Christian concepts of equal value, love, and mutual submission to promote homosexuality. If you have actually seen that, it must be a convoluted reasoning and a rare occasion. I suppose that anything is possible.
I think a better comparative is in showing where some use equality as an excuse to demand or to get out of responsibilities.
You know, I was just thinking about how Beatie got pregnant. It is doubtful she had sex with a man. So likely she was medically inseminated. Thus, this was possibly a fame seeking event. Why didn’t her mate do it, unless she couldn’t. It might be interesting to find more history on this.
Believer 3,
Beatie has already had one child before. She was all over the news sometime last year, I believe.
She’s been artificially inseminated. Her partner can’t have children.
Timesonline UK
Thanks for the info, Madame.
That is just so ucky on so many levels. If she were really fully committed she wouldn’t have kept the ability to carry a child. But for her sake I’m glad she did. No matter what her mind is thinking her body knows womanhood and a mothers nurturing. IMO one cannot really “switch genders”, but only maim one’s body in strange ways.
Letitia,
Perhaps you are speaking generally that egalism blurs gender lines – one example being Beatie – and not specifically of homosexuality?
If egals reject the comp differentiations of roles in marriage as being extra-biblical and/or not supported by science, what do you accomplish by laying the burden of “clear definition” at the feet of egals? If they cannot give you a list of what defines a wife or husband or what is feminine or masculine, does that somehow harm the egal position?
I have yet to see (on here or other blogs) an agreement on a single trait that all women/wives must have or naturally have that differs from men/husbands – besides the obvious and often-mentioned reproductive ones. The same is true of what their roles should be. We can all go around and around about tendencies and generalities, but that’s all they are.
I know there are differences. I “feel” them and “sense” when they are violated – as in Beatie’s case. I’m happy with the role differentiations in my marriage. But I can’t help but think that much, much more of our sense of what “seems right” is culturally defined than we like to admit.
There are surely sins to be found in a case like this, although, as others have pointed out, we probably have too little information – and too little compassion – to judge accurately. But I honestly don’t think the issue at hand has anything to do with “roles”.
If [egals] cannot give you a list of what defines a wife or husband or what is feminine and masculine, does that somehow harm the egal position?
I think we can also ask whether an affirmation of the (ontological) complementarity of men and women requires such a list.
A few of you have asked, ‘what are you trying to get at?’ Egalitarians often claim that things like spiritual leadership, headship, or structure in marriage are solely subjective. If a woman, such as Beatie, wishes to don the role of husband, there isn’t much to disagree with, if you happen to be an egal. Part of her position is that she and her wife are as much a picture of family normalcy as any family can be (her sex change isn’t as much a part of my point here, although it seems to be what everyone is understandably fixed upon).
Don has reiterated this notion of marriage in so many words. I agree a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and is to be monogamous, loving, faithful and nurturing. Given these basics, a couple is free to structure their relationship as they wish. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I can’t believe that egals don’t think there are limits to this “as they wish” proscription. Where some egals say there are fewer limits, I think there are more (just a few).
Most egals here have strongly charged that C is the gateway to sanctioned wife abuse, and therefore, make E the solution to the problem and don’t accept any examples where egalitarian thinking might go awry/be too compatible with obvious sin on the other side of the spectrum. Please don’t tell me that egals are that un-self-critical.
The talk about masculinity and femininity miss the point. I don’t agree with Piper. LET ME REITERATE THAT I DON’T AGREE WITH PIPER (OR GRUDEM OR WARE OR CBMW). But I do believe there is a structure to marriage where men and women have distinct repsonsibilities that are not defined by them but by marriage itself. Yes, marriage is a structured institution that a couple enters into, not something they pioneer out of their own preferences.
The temptation to soapbox is now upon me, so I’ll stop here for now and let the discussion continue.
But I do believe there is a structure to marriage where men and women have distinct repsonsibilities that are not defined by them but by marriage itself.
What are these distinct responsibilities? Isn’t this the crux of the debate? This is where I disagree with some comp ideas – I think the lists I’ve seen are extra-biblical; they look nice, but really aren’t required by Scripture.
Also, I don’t think that talking about masculinity and femininity is missing the point simply because everything comps say about marriage has to do with who is the male (husband) and who is the female (wife) and, therefore, what it means to be male and female.
As Piper does define the essence of femininity and masculinity in the context of marriage in very specific ways, I would be curious to understand where you detract from his views.
I agree with you, Letitia, in the sense that egals don’t have the clear delineations that comps have. (Or at least I haven’t read enough to know them.) Is there danger there? Yes, I think so, especially for those looking for justification for unbiblical living. And I have seen this in several cases, some of which really did coincide with the path to homosexual lifestyles.
But just as biblical comps would never condone abuse, so would biblical egals deny that the institution of marriage is meaningless (in that there should be no structure). Really, I think defining what constitutes abuse (is inequality abuse?) and defining roles are both elusive.
In either extreme, I think sin, not compism, leads to abuse and sin, not egalism, leads to immorality and confusion in marital and other relationships.
And lastly, maybe the issue really is that since egals do not hold roles in the high esteem that comps do, they are not going to blame marital issues on the lack of roles.
oops – didn’t mean to bold all of that. It’s not really that important!
Letitia,
Perhaps you can give a specific example of something that MIGHT go wrong with “as they wish”.
I am failing to see what limits there would be on the “as they wish” method after the (marriage vow) basics I mentioned are desired and sought by both spouses. I agree freedom can be scary, but if and when that happens, they can just add more structure “as they wish”.
Heh, Letitia, don that soapbox anytime. You look good up there.
My response would be, again, that this doesn’t make sense to me. (Sorry, because I know that’s sort of disappointing, after all your efforts to communicate).
But, I mean, if the responsibilities are hierarchal in nature, then we see many homosexual relationships taking that “look” on. Ie, the butch and the fem, etc, and same with the BDSM couples where one is the dominant and the other is the submissive. Comps say the relationship has a certain structure, so the butch/fem relationship took on that structure, so…whassa-problem? (Or, are the comps to blame?).
You know what the problem is and so do I. The problem is that sexuality, in it’s ideal form, was intended to be for one man and one woman to share.
The world is a messy broken place so things that don’t fit the ideal happen all the time, and they have in the past and will continue to do so. (One of the most celebrated time periods of same-sex sexual license was during the HIGHLY structured patriarchal Roman era).
Just because some of the broken relationships appropriate concepts from the comp structure or the egal ideal does not then mean that the comp or egal concepts are weak. It may indicate some weak spots or it may not. This is where the self-reflection comes in.
Joseph Smith pulled out some ideas from orthodox Christianity and formed the vast empire of Mormondom, where Jesus is Satan’s brother and we can be a god someday just like He is now, if we’re good enough.
Were there things in the religous climate that contributed to the growth of his abherrant beliefs? Yes. Probably is good to examine what those are because we can grow from that. On the other hand, is it true that any good thing can be corrupted at any time, because we’re in a fallen world and bad things happen, including enemies who decieve? Yes.
Are there things going on in the comp world that contribute to women remaining in abusive situations? Yes. Even comps here have agreed with that statement. Widely lauded comps (of the hard-comp pursuation) such as Paige Patterson have talked about how they counsel abused women to stay with their abusers, bragging about this advice, no less! (This is a man who leads all the pastors and churches of the large SBC denomination, not some unknown persona in the backwoods somewhere).
The ideal would be for comps (who are opposed to sanctioning abuse) to learn more about what makes abusive men tick, and tailor their sermons accordingly. Preach complementarianism if that’s what you believe is right, but know that it’s important to make a big point about what godly male leadership is and is not. Thus far, lots is made of woman-to-man submission and man’s authority over woman, but I’ve never heard 1 Cor. 13 used as a sermon to show men what Paul meant about love when he told husbands to love their wives, etc.
So, in answer to your post, are there things going on in the egal world that contribute to women getting sex changes and then having babies? Yeeps! When have Christian egalitarians ever promoted this?
This is where the problem is with the analogy, Letitia, I feel. Not with egals not wanting to be self-critical, but finding that the analogy doesn’t lend itself to self-criticism.
I will say, however, that egals should, perhaps, make more effort to openly affirm that they love good strong healthy masculinity and femininity. Because a common comp charge is that egalism is the slippery slope that leads to homosexuality being an acceptable lifestyle, and even if egals such as myself don’t find that charge substantiative from a reasoning/logical standpoint, it is being charged, and regularly. Perhaps a little (gracious) defense is in order.
” If a woman, such as Beatie, wishes to don the role of husband, there isn’t much to disagree with, if you happen to be an egal.”
Here again, I suggest that perhaps you are thinking of secular non Christian egalism. Because there is NOTHING in Christian egalitarian concepts of equality that would encourage such a thing. We don’t encourage husbands to be mothers nor nor wives to be fathers, nor for wives to act like husbands nor husbands to act life wives.
The disagreement may be more in the realm of egals thinking that comps add into the ‘role’ of wives and husbands things that don’t belong exclusively to either, such as the issues of authority. We don’t see authority over the wife as a husband’s role or right with the exception to what is stated in 1 Cor. 7.
If I, as a newbie, may speak (and perhaps misspeak), IMO “egalitarian” is a misnomer, as I’ve pointed out before, and as the subtitle to the “egalitarian” book Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy makes clear. So-called “Egalitarians” are in fact complementarians in that they view male and female as complements, not as equal/equivalent/interchangeable. Where they disagree with patriarchal or hierarchical complementarians is that they don’t think the Scriptures teach or mandate hierarchical roles within marriage or within the church based solely on the genitalia of the person, with the male on top and the female in a subordinate or restricted position.
If I, as a newbie, may speak (and perhaps misspeak), IMO “egalitarian” is a misnomer, as I’ve pointed out before, and as the subtitle to the “egalitarian” book Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy makes clear. So-called “Egalitarians” are in fact complementarians in that they view male and female as complements, not as equal/equivalent/interchangeable. Where they disagree with patriarchal or hierarchical complementarians is that they don’t think the Scriptures teach or mandate hierarchical roles within marriage or within the church based solely on the genitalia of the person, with the male on top and the female in a subordinate or restricted position.
Hm. Good points, Eric. Perhaps a new word/def/term is in order.
Btw, young newbie, I see you’ve adopted the proper humble posture. Good. Things will go well for you here.
Your Overlord By Way of More Time Here,
Molly
*snickers*
Molleth:
You may delete my first post as I failed to use the bold cancel tag, which is why I posted a second time with the tags used properly. And you can delete this fyi post at the same time.
Don’t tell me what to do.
You’re a newbie. Remember?
REMEMBER????
“may” implies a request, not a demand.
Chill, Mollusk. Maybe cut back on the coffee?
I liked what you said Eric. In fact early in the life of the term “complementarian” many in CBE felt that they had ’stolen’ the term right from under our noses, because it fit us better. In our ever so humble opinions, of course.
BTW, watch out for Molleth when she’s in the coffee can. I drink decaf but add chocolate to it.
LOL!*
Needed my dose of humor today.
Thanks to the Noobi and Mollusk show.
*getting me to actually LOL is no small feat. most humor only produces a smile on my part.
Do. Not. Laugh. At. Your. Superiors.
Egads.
NO no no. Molly.
It’s do not laugh at your elders. We don’t believe in superiors!
But then you are not an elder, so I guess its OK if she laughs.
hehe!
Molleth: Klaatu.barada.nikto.
There is NO speaking in tongues on this blog. If you want to do it, start a charismacessationalist blog, and do it on your own dime.
Harumph.
Okay, okay, I’ll log into wordpress and resume my editorial duties…
Tongues? Gort isn’t a Pentecostal.
Don’t get smart with me.
Get Smart?
Sorry about that, Chief.
Lot’s of off-topic posts to clean up, Mollusk, aren’t there?
I’m LOL at the Erik & Mollusk show too, thanks, you two!
Letitia,
Your last comment was helpful for me in understanding where you’re coming from.
Egalitarians often claim that things like spiritual leadership, headship, or structure in marriage are solely subjective.
I believe that these three things are separate issues, and disagreements come about due to differing understandings of what they either are (in the case of the first two) or are supposed to be. Which ultimately comes down to theology, or proper understanding of Scripture.
If a woman, such as Beatie, wishes to don the role of husband, there isn’t much to disagree with, if you happen to be an egal.
In my view, someone such as Beatie cannot actually truly don the role of husband except to play-act. She can function somewhat as a husband, I suppose, having a bit of the “plumbing.” But in reality she’s neither a husband nor a wife.
Part of her position is that she and her wife are as much a picture of family normalcy as any family can be (her sex change isn’t as much a part of my point here, although it seems to be what everyone is understandably fixed upon).
I would rephrase that as, “Part of her illusion is that…” To me, the real horror of what she’s doing is that it is just that, a tremendous illusion, a tremendous farce.
She may well have had legitimate gender struggles; I don’t deny that. But she chose an awful solution.
But I do believe there is a structure to marriage where men and women have distinct repsonsibilities that are not defined by them but by marriage itself.
I agree that marriage has a structure. Do you think that there are aspects to this structure which go beyond those resulting from the putting-together of what is found within (intrinsic to) each sex?
Gonna work backwards up the posts here…
Sure, Bonnie, I agree with you that Beatie’s situation is not reality insofar as it is illegitimate. However, this is what we’re presented with. Whatever her motivations, that she would go to such extremes to look like a man and live like a man (I don’t think she believes she is pretending), should cause Christians to define and clarify well what being each gender properly entails, especially/particularly in marriage.
Bonnie wrote:
I agree that marriage has a structure. Do you think that there are aspects to this structure which go beyond those resulting from the putting-together of what is found within (intrinsic to) each sex?
This is somewhat related to the question zhouya asked above, so I’ll try to address both at the same time. Perhaps I’m the only one that thinks this way, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, not masculine and feminine qualities of men and women. And this is where I think I depart from Piper’s paradigm (if I don’t have it right, then I’ll humbly correct my assessment). Masculine and feminine are general qualities, which may cross gender lines on some occasion. Case in point: I know a very effeminate man–if I didn’t know differently, I’d suspect he was gay–who is married to a woman. That he is married to a woman is what is important, not if and how much he exudes masculinity. To your question specifically, Bonnie, I don’t believe marriage results from what is intrinsic to each sex. Rather, every couple has whatever each partner brings into the marriage and has to deal with what God requires of them accordingly. It may be easier or harder for any one couple, but, hey, that’s marriage!
Just to clarify, masculine and feminine qualities are for living life in general. For those that remain single, they’re still masculine or feminine without marriage. But, if I don’t miss my guess, haven’t there been a lot of vocal egals that have said that physiology is the only thing that separates men and women?
believer3 wrote:
Here again, I suggest that perhaps you are thinking of secular non Christian egalism. Because there is NOTHING in Christian egalitarian concepts of equality that would encourage such a thing. We don’t encourage husbands to be mothers nor nor wives to be fathers, nor for wives to act like husbands nor husbands to act life wives.
The institution of marriage is neither secular nor Christian. Marriage is older than religion, if I may put it that way. Your statement is a little defensive. That’s good.
It’s also a good segway into Molly’s comments (the whole defending graciously bit)…
Perhaps Paige Patterson has his priorities wrong and/or his view of marriage is wrong if he proudly counsels wives to stay with abusive husbands. If he believes he heads off a divorce this way, it would be a clear example of cutting your nose off to spite your face. I will say, however, that marriages with abuse are often more complicated than what we might assume.
(Let me repeat what many C’s out there have said before: abuse in a C-style marriage isn’t because of C.)
haven’t there been a lot of vocal egals that have said that physiology is the only thing that separates men and women?
From my view, most egals say that the differences simply can’t be quantified. And that is why egals have problems with the lists – take Piper’s list, for example.
I also think that many comps give gender far too much importance, even to the point of speculating on how maleness and femaleness relates to our being created in God’s image. In fact, Piper et al. state that manhood and womanhood are of ultimate and eternal significance, as if all our theology revolves around gender.
Hi Letitia,
Thanks for your response.
I think some clarification on my part is in order. I said,
I agree that marriage has a structure. Do you think that there are aspects to this structure which go beyond those resulting from the putting-together of what is found within (intrinsic to) each sex?
You answered,
I don’t believe marriage results from what is intrinsic to each sex. Rather, every couple has whatever each partner brings into the marriage and has to deal with what God requires of them accordingly.
My question specifically had to do with the structure of marriage, and assumed what I should have clarified, which is that the institution of marriage is also a covenant, a committal/commitment/vow of honor and fidelity before God, to bring a man and a woman together as a one-flesh unit. Husband (and, I believe it can be inferred,) wife both leave their father and mother and cleave to one another to begin a new family unit. A marriage results from this bringing-together. To me, sex, as in male and female, is everything about a marriage besides the joining of the two – not masculinity and femininity, but the cleaving of a man (male) and a woman (female). There is no marriage otherwise. As to each one’s treatment of the other, we look to those passages that have been discussed on this blog.
I am wondering what additional aspects you see as necessary to a marriage, or the structure of marriage, beyond this. What differences do you see, beyond genetic ones and the initial creation of man and woman, between men and women? To repeat zhouya’s question, what are the distinct responsibilities of a husband and a wife beyond those defined by both their sex, their marriage commitment, and the instruction of Ephesians 5, I Peter 3, I Cor. 7, and other relevant passages?
You also said,
Whatever [Beatie’s] motivations, that she would go to such extremes to look like a man and live like a man (I don’t think she believes she is pretending), should cause Christians to define and clarify well what being each gender properly entails, especially/particularly in marriage.
In my view there’s no need to define gender/sex in marriage beyond male and female. Beatie’s current sex is both. Whether she believes she is pretending or not (to be a husband) is irrelevant to whether or not she actually is.*
I would like to learn what further definition or clarification you think is needed, as well as specifically how you would distinguish your understanding of compism from CBMW’s (my apologies if you’ve already done so and I either forgot or missed it!)
*in other words, I do not see sex roles in marriage as things to be conformed to as much as things which result from the commitment of a man and a woman to each other in marriage.