That’s fine. Oh, yeah. All right, so let’s go ahead and start. It’s a great day to be in the house of the Lord on this Sunday and especially on Mother’s Day. So let’s go ahead and start with a word of prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for all that you’ve given to us, for all the grace that you’ve bestowed upon us, the mercy. Thank you so much for the opportunity to come into your house to worship you. to learn about you and to praise you for what you have done to us. Help us today to grow closer to you and to look at things that you’ve given to us in your word, that they may edify us and sanctify us. And we pray all this in your name, amen.
All right, so if you haven’t been living under a rock over the last 30 years, you would definitely understand that there’s a lot of chaos in the world when it comes to what it is to be a human being, what it is to know the difference between a man and a woman, between a male and a female, when it comes to that. Very, very chaotic time, to say the least, when it comes to that. I think the Met Gala just happened, and if you saw any of the people in their costumes prancing around, you would say, what has happened with everything? And so, very tumultuous time. But at the same time, it’s not just the last 30 years.
If you ever read Carl Truman’s book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, you would see that a lot of these things, these philosophical undertones have been going on the last several centuries. And so there’s some strong philosophical implications with things, especially within the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. So the first principles, the fundamental questions that we look at, And especially within that is a branch called ontology, or the study of being, or what, you know, what it is to be human.
And so, David, David Kenner, Elder Kenner, had sent me this quote very, you know, this week, or this little video segment. And somebody from the Coulson Center was interviewing Carl Truman, and just asking about, you know, this question that we’ve been struggling with over the last, you know, 50 years or so. and even more than that. But he says, and he’s talking about pastors, teach our people what it means to be human in a way where the sacraments were in the 16th century. So he’s saying in the time that we’re in now, that’s one of the most critical questions that we can work through for pastors talking to their people. And one thing that Pastor Murti said last week was he brought up the term disenchantment that we’ve seen within this post-Enlightenment era.
And really what disenchantment is, is the removal of meaning from the world. We see that within this material framework, everything is just matter, and there’s really nothing that there’s meaning to. And so it’s only to what we give it, and not what is objective outside ourselves, It’s purely mental on an individual level. And so whatever we infuse meaning is, you know, whatever we think we want it to mean, that’s what it means. And obviously that’s very contrary to what we see in the Bible.
And so really what I want to get at today, this is kind of based off of a recent book that I read called Sons of Adams and Daughters of Eve. It’s C.S. Lewis’ C.S. Lewis’s Images on Gender. And so, very fascinating book, and we’ll get into kind of one specific section, but kind of going through some of his fiction. And so, C.S. Lewis, being a study of medieval literature, in a lot of ways his writings was to re-infuse meaning or to re-enchant through a lot of his fiction works. And the case would be the Ransom Trilogy or the Chronicles of Narnia.
So, you know, kind of drawing from that, what does it mean to be male and female? What does it mean to be masculine and feminine? And really, what it means to be a human. And so, a couple things I would like to talk about first, to kind of set the stage, and then I’ll kind of go into what is the thought process of the world when it comes to these two things, male and female, sex and gender, sex in the case of the human body, when it comes to that.
So the first thing, is moral imagination. So what is moral imagination? Russell Kurt, let me get to that real fast, says, it’s the power of ethical perception which strides beyond the barriers of private experience and momentary events. It goes outside of just our personal experiences, the things that we’ve come in contact with. And so he says, It aspires to apprehend the right order in the soul and right order of the Commonwealth and informs us of concerning of the dignity of human nature, which instructs us that we are more than naked apes.
So it’s the idea that there’s more to us than just what we experience. And so there’s a term in philosophy called standpoint epistemology. It’s you can only know anything if you’ve experienced it, if you can kind of do that. And we see that within a lot of like critical race theory, where it’s this kind of, you know, you can’t talk about it unless you’ve experienced.
But the aspect of moral imagination is, hey, there’s things outside just what you’ve experienced that are kind of true and that infuses that meaning back into it. And the other one I’d like to talk about is myth. So we think about it in our modern context as myth as being a false story. Oh, that’s just a myth. We use that very flippantly.
But myth is really any traditional story of historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain and practice belief or a phenomenon. And so looking at it, so David Hicks, let me pull to that, get up to that real fast, says, myth allows many individuals to share an epiphany, a vision of truth granting them a basis for accepting certain normative standards for which there are no clear or convincing proofs. The myth of Job, for instance, has helped centuries of men and women endure suffering and injustice in the quiet certainty of right conduct. Myth assures mankind that certain values transcend reason to give human existence meaning without an unchanging frame of reference, while ensuring unity among the members of the community concerning those values.
And so, one of the myths that we hold central is the myth of creation. And again, kind of coming back, I’m not using that term in the sense of myth as being a false story. It’s a myth as being a story that sets a foundation for what we believe. And so that’s why I think it’s really important. I believe that’s why a lot of times it’s to attack that myth of creation through evolution and all these other things, because there’s actually something vitally important to it. And we’ll talk about that in a second. So just kind of the moral imagination, the re-enchantment, the infusing of meaning back into the world, and then the aspect of myth.
And so kind of going into some of the people that he talked about in this book. So specifically kind of the mid-1900s feminists. So the one that he mentioned more often than not was Simone de Beauvoir. She wrote a book called On the Other Sex in like the mid-1900s or 1950s, around that time.
And so around that time is when they started to drive a wedge between sex and gender. They were no longer kind of not necessarily one and the same, but you know, connected at the hip. They are, you know, that’s part of human nature as both aspects of that.
But it really is gender started to take on this idea that it was imposed on especially, you know, being that she was a feminist, imposed on women by men of what the roles were supposed to be, what their attributes and qualities are supposed to be. And so she would say, this is kind of a, when I read it, it was fairly shocking, women are not born, they are made. And so when she says that, she says, you know, through culture and through society, this is something that has been imposed on them against their will. They are the object and men are the subject. So in the sentence, you know, like sentence structure, subject determines kind of the object. And so when it comes to that, she would say, you know, they are kind of made in that sense.
They’re not naturally born. And so she says, they are enslaved by the reproduction by men. It is a constant struggle between men and women, and that they are ontologically or by nature different. And so they’re constantly kind of going at it within this power struggle.
Very Marxist in that regard. And so, constantly kind of, you know, again, this idea that these things are socially constructed. I’m sure you’ve heard that term around. Everything is socially constructed. It is something that we have just, you know, kind of made up, or it’s that power dynamic that’s been pushed on to women.
And so kind of seeing that, Rosaria Butterfield, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of her. She’s a very strong voice within a lot of this. She even kind of said, that’s where that Katie Millett, Simone de Beauvoir really started that in the mid-1900s, kind of making this distinction where there really wasn’t one prior to that. And so fast forwarding. you know, 40 years into the 1990s, there’s a lady named Judith Butler, and this is really where that kind of transgenderism started to come out from that, was, you know, she kind of went on and said, now, gender is really a performative act.
So it’s whoever performs those acts then can be that gender. And so, and really, the, you know, power, the heterosexual man, in that case, has used language, or power exercised in language, imposes gender on individuals. So now it’s a social construct, and because they’re using language as power to impose that on the individual, it really is just a performative act. And so that’s why you can say there are unlimited genders, because it’s just a set of performative acts. and whoever performs those acts can now take on that gender.
And so that’s where you start getting the idea of non-conforming and all these, what we would say is crazy things because we, as Christians, are seeing that as one and the same. They are connected, they are human nature, which God has given us. And so now getting, and then the next person, the last person I wanna talk about in the sense of this is Herbert Marcuse, who was a critical theorist, you know, again, 1960s, 1970s, came out of the Frankfurt School in Germany, but came over to America. You know, very, very crazy things, you know, that they said.
But one thing I wanted to pull out from him was he would say the acts that we do, especially more on the sexual acts, is, you know, to perform perverse and non-procreative acts is an act of resistance between the, from the patriarchy. And so again, just seeing how they view these things, one, in a materialist frame, two, there is no meaning to it, and three, it’s strictly a social construct.
And so to push back against the patriarchy, the normative standards, all these things that have been imposed on individuals to do all this stuff is actually good. So we see it as something that’s evil, that’s been condemned by the Bible. They actually see it as something that is good. So dichotomously and polarized against one another.
So I don’t want to stand up here and just talk about the negative and depressing aspects of this. It’s almost a little masochistic to keep belaboring the point. But one thing I want to say is, As Christians, we don’t have to be social critics, and I don’t think it’s also good in a sense to be a social critic, to constantly just sit back and throw stones and say, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and not have a positive vision on what these things mean. I think that sometimes Christians get a bad name if we’re always just being negative toward people, but really we have a rich and we have a better vision for what it is because it is true and because it is real, but we need to tap into that positive vision on what gender and sex mean.
And especially given that, you know, the younger generation in the past, we haven’t had to deal with that, but this younger generation, you know, that we’re raising within the church are going to struggle with these questions because they’re all around us. We’re infused and we’re constantly bombarded by these questions. And so we need to kind of take it head on and not necessarily say you’re wrong, but we’re, you know, this is why we’re right.
And it’s a beautiful thing. It’s something, you know, the beauty of it that God has infused in creation. So, you know, it kind of goes back to, and what Lewis is getting at and what this guy is talking about is, it’s the gift of nature. And how are we, how do we receive the gift of nature? Do we receive it as a blessing? Or do we disdain it and despise it and want to reject it?
And so one final point is when we talk about definitions, definitions by nature require limitations. So to say something is a chair, we would say it is not a table. So it imposes a limitation on things. And so to say you can eat of this tree and not that tree, again, it’s imposing. But how do we see that?
Do we take these limitations and these definitions that God has imposed on human nature as something that is good, or do we despise it? And if you’ve ever read Abolition of Man, that’s what they ultimately desire, is this ultimate freedom, this hyper-individualism. You can determine whoever you want to be because you are essentially your own God. So, to really establish some of these things, I think you have to go back to what is natural law or lex naturalis?
And so that’s something that throughout Christendom that they’ve really established is there is this thing which God has ordained that man should be, whether it be his human nature or the ethics or whatever it might be, that’s what is imposed on man, but that’s also what is good for man.
So the first verse I would like to look at is Matthew 22, 21. And this kind of starts fairly broad, but I think that’s a good thing is, and then we’ll kind of work our way into the topic. So Matthew 22, 21, you know, when they’re asking him about paying taxes and all that other stuff, he says, they said Caesar’s, or he’s starting back at 20, Jesus said to them, whose likeness and inscription is this? And he holds up a coin. And they said, Caesars. Then he said, therefore, it ran to Caesar, the things that are Caesars, and to God, the things that are God. And so then we’d say, well, what is God’s? And we should say, everything. Everything is God’s. The whole creation, everything that is, is God’s. And so he has the authority over those things. And so then we go on to kind of setting that foundation of natural law, we would go Romans 2, 12 through 16.
And it says, for all have sinned without the law will perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscious also bears witness. and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. On that day, when according to the gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. And so, again, it kind of looks at, says, okay, there is a law that is written on men’s heart. And when we look at Calvin’s commentary on this, he says, he indeed shows that ignorance is in vain, pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness.
For there is no nation so lost to everything human that does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then, all nations of themselves and without a monitor are disposed to make laws for themselves. It is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call, and which are implanted by nature into the hearts of man. They have, then, a law. though they are without a law, for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just, as they could not otherswise distinguish between vice and virtue.
But kind of going down a little bit, so he says, who show that the work of the law written, that is, they prove that there is imprinted on their hearts a discrimination and judgment by which they distinguish between what is just and unjust, between what is honest and dishonest. He means not that they are so engraven on their will that they sought and diligently pursued it, but that they were so mastered by the power of truth that they could not disapprove of it. And so we see that there’s a difference between the will, you know, what they desire to do, but also on their knowledge that they understand that there is a law, there is a lawgiver when it comes to that. And so, you know, going a little bit farther into Romans 12, or sorry, Romans 13, one through seven, and this is kind of the, be subject to the governing authorities.
So, let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists those authorities resists what God has appointed. and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is in the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection not only to avoid God’s wrath, but also for the sake of conscience.
For because of this, you also pay taxes for the authorities or ministers of God attending to this very thing. Pay all to what is owed to them, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is owed, and respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. And so when we even look at the aspect of authority and of of government, we see those things as something that God has ordained, he has given the authority over to those individuals, but also mainly for our good. So these things are not to be disdained for, but that the laws of God are for our good. And so, this is another commentary by Calvin, the reason why we ought to be subject to magistrate is because they are constituted by God’s ordination.
For since it pleases God thus to govern the world, he who attempts to invert the order and thus to resist God himself despises his power. Since to despise the providence of him who is the founder of civil power is to carry on war with him. And so even to push back against those things that would have been ordained by God for our good is in a lot of ways is to despise God when it comes to that.
So looking at that and We also look at 1 Timothy 5.8.
And the reason why I bring this up, it says, so 1 Timothy 5.8 says, but if anyone does not provide for his relatives, especially for the members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. And so I think it’s looking at the commentary when coming to this, he would say, Secondly, this is a kind of duty which nature itself teaches, for they are natural affections. And if by the mere guidance of nature, infidels are so prone to love their own, what must we think of those who are not moved by such feelings? Do they not go beyond the ungodly and brutality?
So these things that God has given to man, human nature, to love their own, kind of almost that common grace aspect of human nature. So we see that through a lot of these things. these different instances where God has given things through human nature, through creation, as things that are good for ourselves. And so then, looking at Romans, you know, kind of some of the other, on the kind of other aspects of it, be Romans 126.
For this reason, God gave them up to their dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary. And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with the passions for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. So again, kind of going back to that natural things, those things which God has given in nature, and obviously going against those things.
And the same thing goes with 1 Corinthians 14.33. Sorry, not the same thing as Romans, but ultimately kind of understanding the truth that God, so it’s at 1433, for God is not a God of confusion, but a God of peace. So understanding that natural law, those things that which God has given us is good for us, and who God is, the things that he creates, is not a God of disorder and chaos and negativity and all this other stuff, but God is a God of peace. He brings peace to the world and brings goodness to it.
And we can see that with that. So looking at our Westminster standard, we look at the questions nine through 11. So now that we kind of established that what God does, the things that he has given to human nature, but overall nature in general, the aspect of natural law are good, they’re good for us. Then we can kind of start kind of bringing down to that human nature aspect.
So then we would say, Question nine through 11 is, so what is the work of creation? The work of creation is God making all things by nothing, by the word of his power in the space of six days, and all very good. Question 10 is, how did God create man? God created man, male and female, after his own image, and knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over his creatures. And then question 11 is, what is God’s works of providence? His most holy, wise, and power preserving. in governing all his creatures and all his actions.
So now we’re gonna go all the way back to the beginning of Genesis. And so now we get back into this myth story, to this story of creation. And again, just to reiterate, myth is not something to be false. It is something that sets the foundation for Christianity.
And so we see that when God created creation, he saw that as very good. There’s these things that have been established as good. So when we initially look at Genesis 1, 27, it says, God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. So again, there’s these definitions. There’s these limitations that come along with defining something.
And God blessed him and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. And so seeing as this is pre-lapsarian, pre-fall, these things are for our good.
And then we switch over to Genesis 2.18.
Then the Lord God says that it is not good for a man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him. Now out of the ground the Lord had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he should call them. And whatever the man called him, every living creature, that was his name. Just gonna skip down to verse 21.
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man. And while he slept, took one of his ribs and closed up in his place. And the rib that he, Lord God, had taken from the man, he made into woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, this is at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. And therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” And so again, This is something that is good for man and good for woman, one, to have these limitations and these definitions when it comes to that, but also to understand that ontologically, within their being, they’re one in the same.
They still have the imago deo, they still have the image of God, and they still, you know, they are connected. And as, you know, contrary to Simone de Beauvoir, they are not at enmity. You know, their sin, we understand that, The fall has brought sin within all aspects of creation. But that initially, when they were made, that it was good and that they were connected together.
But in some ways, there still isn’t that natural hierarchy. So when we look at it, it’s OK. So post-lapsarian, post-fall, does that change nature? Does it change human nature or whatever it might be? And so there’s a commentary by Samuel Willard, who was a Puritan. Here, let me see.
He says, Christ came not to abolish the moral law or the law of nature, but confirmed it. The moral law took place as soon as man was made, and continues to that to the end, without any alteration, the same that it was when given to Adam in integrity, the same it was when renewed on Mount Sinai, and still the same in the days of the gospel. And so we say, despite the estate of man, the laws of nature, natural law, would stay the same. What is good for humans stays the same, besides the state of which man is. And so kind of looking at it, then you would say, well, part of human nature is these things that we’ve given the terms of gender and sex. And so we see them as connected when it comes to that. But there’s qualities, there’s different aspects of it.
And so one important text, I think, is both 1 Corinthians 11, but also Deuteronomy 22.5.
And Deuteronomy 22.5 says, the woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all that to do so are an abomination to the Lord. And so in this case, he’s talking about kind of cross-dressing, but changing of that. And so I think, you know, when we look at the commentary, so Matthew Henry’s commentary on it says, nature itself teaches us that there is a difference be made between them and their hair. That’s 1 Corinthians 11, 11, 11, 14.
And by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally, to befriend a lawful escape or concealment. He just says that, you know, that’s an exception. But some think it refers to the idolatrous customs of Gentiles in worship of Venus, women appeared in armor and men in women’s clothes, and as their superstitious uses. And it forbids the confounding of the disposition and the affairs of the sexes. Men must not be effeminate, nor do the woman’s work in the house, nor must women in viragros pretend to teach or usurp authority.
And that’s 1 Timothy 2.11. And then Matthew Poole’s commentary says, now, this is forbidden, partly for decency’s sake, that men might not confound, nor seem to confound, those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided. Such change of garments carrying a manifest umbrage, or sign of softness in effeminacy in the man, or arrogance and impudency in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both, and partly to cut off all suspicions an occasional of evil, which is the practice opens a wide door unto.
And then lastly, he says, this is the Geneva Study Bible, for that alters the order of nature and shows that you despise God. So in the dress, and the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11, the long hair and all these other things, in some ways are manifestations within kind of different cultures of what that is. in the aspect of it’s to blur the lines, to say that which God has distinguished and defined, we’re going to blur those things. And so he would say it’s a abomination to the Lord, but it’s ultimately not good. So we’ve seen that within what is natural law.
So getting on to how Lewis looked at gender and sex, He wrote the Ransom Trilogy, and if you haven’t read it, it’s a really good one. But the purpose of it is, the second book in the trilogy is called Paralandria. So this one man, he goes to these different planets and starts seeing, you know, kind of, it’s a fiction type novel with that.
But the planet of Paralandria is his work on Paradise Lost. So Milton had Paradise Lost, and so you have this beautiful thing and lost it, kind of talking about creation. But his take on it was, what if paradise wasn’t lost? And so how does that look?
And so reading a couple excerpts from that, so Ransom at the very end of the book, if you haven’t read it, it’s been out such a long time, it’s a spoiler. But eventually these two angels, Mars and Venus, they come along and these two angels come to him.
And it was really interesting reading it at the end of the book, he talks about, gender and sex, and he makes the point that gender is more real than sex. And it’s a very contrary thing to our kind of materialistic framework. We’re like, oh, you know, Matt Malsch makes that documentary and it’s like, a woman is, you know, these characteristics, the chromosome, this is what makes a woman. And Lewis, you know, in his medieval neoplatonic things would say, no, you’ve got it wrong, you’ve got it inverted. that this is actually more real, the immaterial, the things that we don’t see is actually more real than the material. Very, you know, very interesting inversion when you initially read it. So just reading this kind of, this interaction that he has with that.
So he says, one could try, Ransom has tried a hundred times to put into words, he says that malacandra, was like rhythm, malacandras, mars, the masculine, and perilandra, like melody. He said that malacandra affected him like quantitative, perilandra, like an accentual meter. He thinks that the first held in his hand something like a spear, but the second were open, and the palms towards him.
But I do not know if any of these attempts have helped me. All events were what Ransom saw in that moment was the real meaning of gender. He says the two creatures were sexless, But he of Malacandria was masculine, not male. He of Perilandria was feminine, not female.
Malacandria seemed to have to him the look of one standing armed on the ramparts of his own remote archaic world in ceaseless vigilance, his eyes ever roaming in earthward horizons. Hence, his danger came long ago. But the eyes of Perilandria opened as were inward, as if they were the curtain gate to a world of waves and murmuring of wandering airs. of life that rocked in winds and splashed on moss stones, and descended on the dew, and on a rose sunward, and the thin spun delicacy of the mist. On Mars there were forests of stone, and Venus, the lands of swim.”
So looking at these two, what does it mean to be feminine? What does it mean to be masculine? He creates these two distinctions of a positive vision of what it means to be those things. And one more thing that he talks about within the same book says, everyone must sometimes have wondered why nearly all tongues, certain inanimate objects are masculine and others are feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees?
Ransom has cured me of believing that this is purely morphological phenomena, meaning that we impose it onto those things. And depending on the form of the world, still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them.
The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation of an organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of those things that have feminine gender.
There are many others, and masculine and feminine meet us on a plane of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine, attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female organic creatures are blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but also partly confuse and misrepresent the real polarity.” So not to get into too much of the weeds when that comes to that, but just to really try to re-infuse the aspect that there is more meaning to that which we have on the material initial of what we see. There’s something more to it than that. And we’ll see that in a little bit when we talk about his essay called Priestesses and the Church. And so that was his kind of take in Perelander, very esoteric language.
I had to read it a couple times to really try to grapple with that when it comes to that. But when we move on to the Narnia, the series of Narnia, and I hope you’ve read it. I read it when I was a kid, and then I read it back to my kids, which was really enjoying. But you get to see there’s a lot more to just the Narnia than just fictional fictional stories and just nice children’s stories.
He’s infusing these things. There’s a positive vision of masculinity and femininity within it, and there’s a negative vision within masculinity. And this author is really great. He goes through each of the books, all seven of them, and kind of breaks down, here’s the positive vision, here’s the mask, or the negative vision of both of those. And really good. And so, if you haven’t read it, some of the things, some of the pictures might not come through completely. But it’s really good.
But ultimately, just kind of breaking it down, what is the positive vision of masculinity? And really, it’s kind of the aspect of, you know, of strength, of leading, of protecting, of taking care of those which God has given the man. And we would say whether it be within the church’s context of the elder taking care of being the under-shepherd of his flock or the father taking care of his children and protecting and guiding and nurturing them up into the knowledge of God.
And then when we look at a positive vision of femininity, we would say it’s for creating and caring for the conditions of life. I didn’t do this on purpose, I didn’t pick this because I knew it was Mother’s Day, but it kind of worked out that way. When we think about the mothers that we have, and we look at them, what do we really appreciate about them? But the caring, the sacrifices that they’ve made when we were young, the nurturing aspect of it, those things which are, for us, are the things that endear us to them. The things that they’ve, you know, that they sacrifice and all those aspects is really, you know, that kind of positive vision of femininity. And again, it just doesn’t have to be exclusive to mothers. I think, you know, women in a sense, you know, have this femininity about them that they naturally do this kind of the caring, you know, concerned about the conditions of life that sometimes men are very oblivious to, you know.
But then men kind of look at other things. They look at the protection, whether it be, we like to talk about the theological nature of it, the protecting of the flock, all these other things. So there’s kind of the positive visions of both masculine and feminine. And so when we see creation, the nature of creation, what God has given human nature, we accept it and we see there are these distinctions, there are these things. There’s a complementary nature to it. That’s a good thing. And there’s also a dance. And dances sometimes can be, people can step on toes. But there’s a dance between the masculine and the feminine, which God has given to us for our good.
And then when we see kind of some of the positive visions of leading, protecting for masculinity within Bible, obviously we think of Jesus. Men are called to be like Christ and sacrificing themselves for the church. We think like Joshua and Paul. and some of these other visions. But then when we look at the negative vision of things, or not negative vision, but the negative or the perversion of masculinity, we think about the misuse, the abuse, the domination versus the dominion, the domination of imposing our will upon those maybe that are weaker or that can’t stand up against that.
And we think about Ahab, when it was Naboth’s Vineyard, Kings have been called the father of their people. And so he didn’t have the right, but he had the power to do that. And so he ended up killing him and taking his vineyard. So him using this domination, this abuse of the strength that he was given for his own good. And the same thing also goes with David. So when David with Bathsheba, what he was supposed to be doing was he should have been with his army. He should have been the head of his army. But where was he? He was not fulfilling his role. He was not doing what he was.
And then he saw Bathsheba. He took Bathsheba, killed her husband, Uriah, thank you, and kind of comes with that. So we see that positive vision and then that rejection of it. And we can see it through misuse and abuse of the authority. We can also see it through the effeminacy, not living into those roles which God has given us. within that. And then, you know, on the feminine side, what is the negation of it?
And if you remember in the Lion, the Witch, and the Worldrobe, you had the wicked, the witch. What’s that? Yeah, yeah, thank you. And so what was she? She was, it was cold, it was rigid, it was forever winter. And so there’s this barrenness that comes along with that.
And I think that’s a little easier to see in our time that we see you know, what do we see? And I think it’s probably the most sad when it comes to that, is the culture of death, especially within females, of the aspect of abortion. Here, what God has given is the capability and the ability for nurturing of life, of creating life and nurturing it and the conditions of that. But, you know, the utter rejection of it, you know, the killing of the unborn, is really such a sad and, in a lot of ways, grotesque perversion of what women and their role had been given, which has been childbirth, but also the nurturing and the caring of it. And especially on Mother’s Day, we amplify that more.
We put that in the forethroughts of our mind. And so looking at that, seeing those two things. But now that we’re bringing it over to the church, The last point I’d make within Lewis, and I want to read you some excerpts when he writes on priestesses within the church. And so it’s a question mark at the end. Should we have priestesses in the church? And really the question is, if there is no limitations or distinctions between men and women, between masculine and feminine, why not? Why can’t we have that? Is it strictly materialistic? Is there some physical capability that A man can stand up here on Sunday morning and preach, is it intellect? Do they not have the material aspects that, you know, that give that?
Is it strictly a social construct that Paul was, you know, succumbed to? He was, you know, he was impressed upon his time that this was a masculine thing. And so now, you know, we can see that with a lot of denominations are rejecting that. They’re saying this, you know, Paul was a product of his time and, you know, we can take some things about that, but we can reject other things about that. or is there something more real to it?
And so I’m gonna read, not the whole thing, it’s only like four pages, and I recommend reading, it’s really quite profound, but he says, suppose the reformer stops saying, not reformer in the good sense, but the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God, and begins saying that God is like a good woman. And we see that within a lot of, I don’t know if you look at Not to Be, there are always clips of, you know, whether it be UCC or UMC or, you know, some Wesleyan church, you know, that says God is transgender. God is, you know, he is non-binary, you know.
And so this, now we can say, you know, we pray to God mother, you know, not God father. And it’s very, very heretical and blasphemous things. But, you know, kind of go, suppose he says that we might just as well pray to our mother, which art in heaven, as to our father.
Suppose he suggests that the incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the second person of the trinity be as well called the daughter as the son. Suppose finally that the mystical marriage were reversed and that the church were the bridegroom in Christ the bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest, obviously in the Anglican church, but you know, in the past.
Common sense disregarding the discomfort or even horror which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses and most Christians will ask, why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say he or she, father or mother, son or daughter? But Christians think that God himself has taught us to speak of him.
To say that it does not matter is to say either that all masculine image is not inspired or is merely an origin or else that though inspired is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable, or if tolerable, it is an argument not in favor of Christian priestesses, but against Christianity. The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purpose of that profession, their sex is irrelevant.
We are, within that context, treating both as neuters. And then, one of the ends of which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the church. We have no authority to take the living and semitic figures which God has painted on the canvases of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.
And then lastly, it says, it is painful being a man to have assert the privilege or the burden which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I’m crushingly aware of how inadequate most of us are in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place before us.
But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform, not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can provisionally, until the parousia, represent the lord of the church, sorry, to the church. For we are all corporately and individually feminine to him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to occult in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband. You cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles.
And so seeing that there’s something that’s meaningful, and if we disregard it, if we kind of focus in on strictly the material, and I think in some ways that’s why we’ve kind of amplified the machismo, the feminine figure, and the masculine figures, because we want to put more emphasis on the physical than on probably the more real aspect, which is the masculine and feminine.
And so we see that it actually brings in some really theological nightmares if we start saying they’re interchangeable, everything’s neuter, everything’s brought down in this kind of even plane when it comes to that. So going on to say, well, how should we perceive reality and how should we accept that? So Rosario Butterfield ultimately says, transgender is the sin of envy. And I would say that kind of goes on to feminism as well, or radical feminism, is to say that it’s the sin of envy. It’s wanting what God has not given you and wanting what somebody else has.
And we see that within financially and all these other things, even physical characteristics. I remember I was young. I wanted to be taller. I wanted to be this or that or had blue eyes or green eyes or whatever it might be. But ultimately, it’s the sin of envy, kind of bringing it down.
It’s to say, God has given me this, and I’m not satisfied with what God has given me. And so I want what that person has, kind of going back to Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard when it comes to that. How then should we look at the natural law, human nature, what God has given us? And I think, you know, when we look at a lot of the Psalms, we see that David, you know, not only sees this as something that’s been imposed on us that we have to do, it’s burdensome, but because God says it, he’s the biggest kid on the block with the biggest dick, we have to do these things or it’s our duty.
But really, he sees these things as a joy, joy in the law of God. And so, you know, just rattling off of Psalms 119, 97, oh, how I love your law. It is my meditation all the day. Or 119, 165, great peace have those who love your law. Nothing can make them stumble. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. And then 119.165, for I find my delight in your commandments, which I love. I love your salvation, O Lord, and your law is my delight. 119.174, I delight in the law of God in my inner being.
That’s Romans 7.22. The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
And so David, in the case of the Mosaic Law, but really into that which God has ordained and prescribed, he sees these not things of we must do them, but we get to do them, the joy that’s coming from that. So again, not to be social critics when it comes to a lot of these things, but to accept the things that God has given. It’s beautiful, it’s these things that are for our good, and not necessarily to come through cultural things as strictly social critics, but say there’s a better way, there’s a good way to be receptive of the gift of creation. And ultimately to say, I don’t think I wrote it down, but it’s to taste and see that the Lord is good. And it’s kind of interesting, you take Eve and Eden, she wanted something that was not, and she tasted of the fruit. But really, it’s to taste and see that the Lord is good, and to kind of enjoy it for what God has given us.
And so last three things I would like to say, some exhortations. A couple more quotes. In the abolition of ban, he pretty much is saying, hey, man is trying to be ultimate freedom. But when people question these kind of fundamental truths, I think this is important to remember.
He says, an open mind in questions that are not ultimate, so not the first principles, not those metaphysical things of reality, is useful, but an open mind about the ultimate foundations, either of theoretical or of practical reason, is idiocy. If a man’s mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose.” So I think we, in a lot of ways, it’s to say, you know, these people that are saying it are really, there’s an idiocy to it, and to really not take anything of what they say on face value, or like of any usefulness.
You can take a little bit of, oh, you know, are they critiquing, but, you know, you know, to really reject in whole what they’re saying. Like, oh, you know, no, we can take this part. And that’s unfortunately I see, you know, where it’s kind of infused within the churches. We can take this part and we can modify this and all these other things. But really to say, if they’re rejecting these fundamental things, you know, all these other things, we should really just let it all go, not take any of that.
And lastly, another thing, if you ever read The Silver Chair, there’s a marsh wiggle called Puddle Blum. And so when they’re in the earth, when they’re underneath that, the witch there is trying to convince them that there’s no such thing as Aslan. There’s no such thing as overworld or grass or sun or whatever it might be. And so they’re trying to convince them that this is all just your imagination.
You saw a lamp and now you think of sun. You saw a cat and now you think of Aslan. And that’s really kind of what the world has kind of said. And our, you know, in things is like you’re just making this up, you know. Mark, you know, would say it’s the opium of the masses. It’s just your imagination. You’re projecting yourself to create gods of your own.
And so now we’re advanced that. We can kind of get rid of that. And so I think, you know, it’s quite encouraging what Puddle Blum said. He said, one word, ma’am, he said coming back from the fire, limping, because he stamps on the fire that she’s trying to deceive people with. He says, one word, all that you have been saying is quite right. I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of you what you said. But there’s more to be said. Suppose we have only dreamed or made up all those things, trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have.
Then all I can say is that in that case, the made up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose the black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing. When you come to think of it, we’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play world which licks your real world hollow.
That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side, even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian, as I can say. even if there isn’t any Narnia. So thank you kindly for our supper. If these two gentlemen and young ladies are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out into the dark to spend our lives looking for overland.”
And so obviously we know that it’s true, but it’s important to say that the world that God has created, the Bible, is such a more beautiful world. The distinctions and the definitions and the limitations that he’s set on us is such a more beautiful world. And to see it as something that is positive, and not just to go around But to look at the world around us and say, if this is the real world, I’d much rather take the Bible. I’d much rather take what the word of God is, that much more beautiful thing, and to see that it is good.
And lastly, when Father Christmas gives Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter their gifts, he says, neither should we long for the gifts and the tasks of others, but rather respond with acceptance to that which is given. So that’s what I pray for all of us. I pray for our children. that we accept the gifts that God has given us and see them as good. So let’s go ahead and pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for all that you’ve given to us. We thank you for the firmness and the foundation that you set before us within your word, that we rest in that, that we try not to be ungrateful and envious for what that you haven’t given to us, but to know that you are our loving Father, that you have given all things for our good, and that we trust in you and that we have faith in you. And even when we’ve been told lies that we’re constantly being bombarded with, that we rest in you and we see that the vision that you’ve given to us for the masculine and feminine, the male and the female, is something that is good and not to be rejected. And we pray all this in your name, amen.