Over at Gender Blog there is a series of four posts about a “human rights” organisation called GenderPac, a group who “promotes an understanding of the connection between discrimination based on gender stereotypes and sex, sexual orientation, age, race, and class.”

Now this group has some good things to say.  A recent article on their site is critical of children dressing in sexualised costumes for Halloween, something I also find a concern.  However, a look at the resources on GenderPac’s webpage show that the goals of this group go way beyond things.  Take, for instance, Guidelines for Transitioning and Gender Non-Conforming Employees.  The purpose of these guidelines, which have been adopted by many businesses, is to create non-discriminitory policies for those transitioning from one gender to another.  Another goal is to create gender-neutral bathrooms at Universities and Colleges because they are ‘the best way to address the harassment and violence experienced by students who aren’t perceived as “masculine or feminine enough.”‘

Of course, even these things, while Christians would not agree with sexual “transitioning”, are admirable if the concern is to prevent bullying and violence.  But this is also a concern to normalise “gender mobility” [my phrase], something that is clearly non-biblical.  The CBMW blog even suggests that GenderPac are wanting teachers to accept without comment a child coming to school one day as a boy and the next as a girl!

I do get concerned with stereotypical masculine and feminine models being forced on people - I am no fan of people falling victim to a new gender legalism - but I also believe there to be true and real differences between men and women.  There are characteristics generally seen as masculine and feminine that are held by those of the opposite gender - I think a careful reading of the Bible will show those characteristics are very often not biblically apportioned solely to one or the other.  However I do not believe that gender is a continuim along which a person can slide from one side to the other.  A person in Jesus will find he or she will fall naturally into their biological gender, even as they learn from the Bible the appropriate roles each has.

But, my question is this.  How will egalitarians respond biblically to organisations like GenderPac?  All of the distinctive male and female verses in the Bible have been explained away.  What Biblical basis do egalitarians have to say that men and women are not interchangeable?  As far as I can see, complementarians are the only ones able to answer transgender issues biblically.

Ben Witherington has a post vigorously disagreeing with the idea that God’s primary motivation for everything is his own glory.

Denny Burk responded.

So did John Piper.

Michael Spencer aka Internet Monk aka Imonk commented suggesting that while he didn’t agree with Ben Witherington, a good critique of John Piper’s theological framework needed to be done - but Ben Witherington wasn’t the one and he didn’t think it would happen very soon. I mentioned in the comments of another Imonk post that Parableman has a few posts doing just that (enter “Piper” and “glory” in his search engine) and, indirectly, I have a few dealing with the same basic concepts of Love and Glory that are at the heart of all this.  But I think Michael Spencer was talking about a discussion that people would actually take notice of. 

I then noticed that Jeremy himself had criticised the Witherington criticism briefly.

And on it goes…

Dan Wallace, who would be one of my favourite Biblical scholars, uses an urban legend about Bruce Metzger to illustrate the reliability of the New Testament gospels.

(Yes, I think those are underpants on his head).

Yesterday I found out one Christian I know is not planning to vote for a political candidate in the up-coming elections partly due to the fact that he’s a practicing Buddhist.  There was no mention of the fact that the only other likely candidate practices no religion. 

I’m not sure I see the logic.

If the concern is that Buddhism is a non-Christian religion and may threaten to steal the hearts and minds of the populace, why does the same not apply to “no religion”?  In fact, in our society, secularism has already stolen the hearts and minds of the majority of the Australian public.  It is far more dangerous.  At least Buddhism is so unusual people can’t help but notice it.  Secularism is a hidden “threat”, even from most Australian Christians I fear.

But despite all of that, Christianity is not so fragile that either a secular or Buddhist Member of Parliament will destroy it.  If it is, then perhaps we’d better let it fall by the wayside, because it won’t have the resilience to survive much else either.

No, the reason Buddhism and secularism is a “threat” is because Christianity is not attractive enough.  It may be that we who call ourselves Christians might need a kick up the bum to actually live out what we say we believe and so have a Christianity that will flourish amongst the election of a whole parliament of Buddhists.