Both the world and the church are being emasculated and sexually confused:

The evidence for the war on sex in general and masculinity in particular is all around us. I won’t even hazard a guess as to how many pieces I have penned on these matters. The trans revolution is simply one of the most recent manifestations of all this.

Here I want to bring together two authors on these issues. The first is a child and family therapist from North Carolina who is not a Christian as far as I know. The second is a Christian pastor and author from Arizona. While they speak of quite different things, the two are related, and are worth combining here.

Tom Sherry has an intriguing piece with a neat title: “Gender Identity as an Academic ‘Lab Leak’.” The subtitle is also good: “Gender theory shows that, like viruses, ideas can also escape containment and disrupt society.” He writes:

Consider the simple question: What is the distinction between biological sex and gender? It’s a fun, thought-provoking query that has enlightened generations of aspiring intellectuals. Exploring the interplay of biology, familial upbringing, and cultural influences on self-expression is valuable. Feminists have long championed the idea that biology is not destiny, freeing women to succeed in roles traditionally reserved for men and creating space for men to pursue careers as teachers, nurses, and stay-at-home parents. Decades of activism by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals reshaped cultural attitudes toward sexual orientation. When the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges to recognize same-sex marriage, it didn’t fundamentally change ideas about marriage, it merely reflected a hard-fought cultural shift about sexual orientation and civil rights that had already taken place.

Yet, until very recently, no one questioned the reality of biological sex itself as a defining aspect of the human experience. Biological sex is not a product of culture—it is a product of biology.

He continues:

The nature-versus-nurture debate has fascinated philosophers for ages. Are humans a “blank slate” shaped entirely by culture? Or do innate traits, rooted in our genetic history, define us? In the 1960s, John Money of Johns Hopkins University mutated this perennial question into something new. For the first time, the concepts of what we are and who we are became fully disentangled. He argued that sex and gender were wholly separate, pioneering the idea of “gender identity” as distinct from biological sex.

Three decades later, Judith Butler of UC Berkeley pushed this concept to its extreme. In Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, a dense, jargon-laden academic treatise, she suggested that biological sex itself is a social construct. The book was not written for the general public—let alone as a guide to living a fulfilling life.

But what happens when this once-obscure academic idea—that sex and gender are entirely separate—escapes the confines of academia and takes root in an image-obsessed, polarized, and social media-driven world?

He concludes this way:

Well, here we are. Biological sex does exist. Denying that truth fosters chaos and confusion, particularly among adolescents. I remain ambivalent about whether “gender identity” is real—some people seem to have a strong sense of it, while others do not. And surely there is a minuscule population of adults whose subjective sense of self and objective biology are so incongruent that seeking medical interventions may alleviate some distress. But biological sex is an objective fact, one that cannot be erased by progressive ideology or the mere existence of a rare mental condition. Gender, as a concept, is best confined to the halls of academia—much like the study of coronaviruses would have been best contained within the labs of Wuhan.

While the trans madness goes both ways, it seems that males pretending to be females predominates. Why are so many males running away from their own masculinity? There would be many reasons for this, and sadly, the church is not exempt from responsibility for this. It too has warred against men and masculinity.

And that brings me to my second quotable author: Dale Partridge. His 2023 book The Manliness of Christ might seem to be far afield from what Sherry wrote above, but it does tie in. The subtitle makes clear his aim: “How the Masculinity of Jesus Eradicates Effeminate Christianity”. He too bemoans the confusion that exists about sexuality, gender and the like.

And simply offering some useful quotes from this brief volume might be the best way to illuminate his argument. Early on he explains his message:

My argument is this: Due to the effeminization of Jesus, the cultural hatred of masculinity, and the lack of faithful exposition in the pulpit we have been conditioned to not recognize the potent manliness and courageousness of Christ.

We, as a church, are certainly able to see such attributes in Daniel, Joshua, or Sampson. We definitely accept them in David’s war chronicles and the decapitation of Goliath. But, for some reason, we are unwilling to see it in Christ’s ministry and the decapitation of the serpent of sin….

In this short book, I will attempt to unearth and reveal the fierce, manliness of Christ. (p. 10)

He goes on to say this:

Ultimately, we have a generation who has not only misrepresented Jesus in His sovereignty but has also robbed him of His masculinity. We have not seen Him as our all-powerful King, nor have we seen Him as a masculine Man. As a result, we have produced a version of Christianity that lives up to the Christ we have created—weak, effeminate, delicate, and soft. However, this is not the Christ of the Bible. (p. 17)

The very strong, biting and acerbic words Jesus had for those who “upheld evil, taught false doctrine, deceived children, willfully stood against the Kingdom of God, and perverted or distorted the worship of His Father” is one clear case in point. (p. 35)

So too when he formed a whip and flipped over tables in the temple. Says Partridge:

Jesus, while kind and gentle to His sheep, was fierce toward those who perpetrated evil, false religion, and deception. John Calvin understood this when he wrote, “The pastor ought to have two voices; one for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both.” (p. 36)

He also looks at the sin of effeminacy. Yes there is such a thing. As we read in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (NASB95)

The Greek word is malakoi, used only here in the Bible. He writes:

It is speaking to a malfunction in men causing them [to] withdraw from the pursuit of good and, instead, seek pleasure. In a sense, to be effeminate is to adopt traits uncharacteristic of masculinity, which makes an important distinction for our discussion. A woman cannot be effeminate; only a man can. A woman acting like a woman is “feminine” (and right). But a man acting like a woman is “effeminate” and wrong. (p. 49)

And he closes the book with these words:

Without reservation, we must be able to agree that the narrative of Christianity is not predominantly feminine. It includes women. It elevates women. It adores women. It honors women. It protects women. But from the patriarchs and the prophets to the Messiah and the Apostles, biblical Christianity is predominantly masculine. The Bible is filled with robust acts of faithful men. It has a mission of war and courage. What it does not have is a collection of effeminate men. For this reason, we must examine why the church does. We must push against the feminization of our congregations. We must reject songs, programs, artwork, media, and preaching that disproportionately favors “gentle Jesus” while ignoring His masculinity, His judgments, and His rule and authority.

We must see the gap between the intense and costly Christianity seen in the Scriptures and frail and costless Christianity in our modern age. We must find a way to restore alignment, to honor the masculinity of Christ and His men in the local church. We must reform the church’s view of manhood. For when men and women fall into their proper place the glory of God shines with radiance. In a world that can feel cold and dark, finding the kindling to spark this flame will permit the church and her Gospel to burn brightly before a confused world. (pp. 82-83)

And confused the world is. Sexual confusion is especially rife in the world – certainly in the West. And it does not help matters when the church increasingly shares in the confusion. But if the church becomes all it should be, it can help point the world in the right direction.

This article was originally published at BillMuehlenberg.com