G’day and thanks for the question!
I won’t go into stacks of detail here and now. It’d be good to read the article that I posted (in the post below) if you’ve got some time. Another couple of good resources are available here and here.
The question of being ‘naturally’ masculine or feminine is a good one. Once again, I won’t go about defining here what a ‘natural’ male or female should look like from a biblical point of view. There are many, many articles and books that already do that (see above). Anything I say in the limited space I have here would be too simplistic; read a few books on the subject with an open bible and an open mind, if you haven’t already. I can say, quite directly, what the Bible doesn’t claim about gender roles, however! The Bible doesn’t talk about a ‘woman’ being defined us ‘not liking dirt’ or ‘has to be a good cook.’ Nor is a man defined as ‘loves to go shooting’ or ‘can benchpress twice his own body weight’ (thankfully — I can benchpress about half my body weight on a good day!). There is something much deeper at our core. It goes beyond interests, habits and aptitudes.
However, as to the question — “What if someone doesn’t fit into the Biblical categories of manhood and womanhood?” John Eldridge makes the point that society pushes so many (non-biblical) messages at us that we can in fact lose our masculine or feminine identity. It becomes clouded and trapped under the weight of cultural baggage. I think it’s useful to evaluate whether the messages we hear on TV, through blogs, through other people - and even through some pastors and theologians - are in fact true. And our standard for truth is, of course, the Bible. If a thousand famous cultural figures say one thing and the Bible says another, I’m going with the Bible. Even if a thousand theologians go against a context-situated, historically-informed, systematically-constructed understanding of the Bible’s message, then I’m still siding with the Bible.
So I’d encourage you to keep reading, keep thinking and keep praying about how God has made us as men and as women — all the while maintaining a willingness to stand on the truth of his word, without compromising.
Play the Man ‡
Men are not women, and when men seem like women it is off-putting and unnatural. Here’s where things get dicey. I think the hyper-masculine stereotypes are wrong and unhelpful. And yet…and yet, they are trying—albeit in a clumsy way—to recover something crucial. When Paul says that nature itself teaches that long hair is a disgrace to men (11:14), I don’t think he’s making a universal statement about follicles. But he is making a universal statement about gender. The particulars of the exegesis can be challenging, but essentially Paul is making two points: 1) it isn’t right for men to be like women, and 2) how this plays out is somewhat determined by the culture. It was a girly thing to grow out your hair, so Paul rightly tells the men not to do it.
…
I don’t know how and where to draw every line, but 1 Corinthians 11:14 has to meansomething in our day. I know the questions are out there, like whether your average dude can wax his chest or whether he should do most of the driving on the family vacation. I’m not addressing all the nitty-gritty problems of application. But before we get to those we need to see the general principle: the Bible teaches that men can be effeminate and that they shouldn’t.
I really think seeking out what the Bible says about gender roles is one of the most significant things we need to do in today’s post-modern (and almost post-gender) world. Here’s some more food for thought. Click the link to read in full.
I feel like this whole Amy thing is like MJ all over again. When they were alive, people would make fun of them and say mean things. Now that she passed away, she is suddenly admired and people are buying her music. I think it’s very sad. I was never a fan of hers but I feel bad about what happened to her. And I feel bad that people are now caring about her.
(via still-a-dreamer)
And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on. English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn’t a race at all). That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
Source: -sorry Romantic Pornography ‡
Sexual pornography twists a man’s perception of what the female body is like and the nature of her sexual appetite. Sleepless in Seattle might not be this kind of pornography, but it is an example of romantic pornography. Confused? Click the link in the title to read on.
