Instead of rejecting gender essentialism to embrace an ideology that leads to the overthrow of the very foundations of nature in God’s good design, we should hold fast to everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which includes complementary humanity created male and female in God’s image for his glory.

Some errors are explicit and easy to spot, while others are not stated in so many words and only manifest by way of implication. Christa McKirland’s chapter falls squarely in the first category. Historically, egalitarians have attempted to draw a bright line between themselves and those who would advocate for LGBTQ identities. Christa McKirland’s essay, however, is the first I’ve seen that not only rejects gender essentialism but also embraces transgenderism. And that is what, in the end, sets this chapter apart from previous editions of Discovering Biblical Equality.
The thesis of Christa McKirland’s chapter, “Image of God and Divine Presence: A Critique of Gender Essentialism,” is nearly summed up in its title. McKirland is critical of gender essentialism, which she defines as the idea that “men and women are essentially different on the basis of being a man or a woman” (283). Instead of gender essentialism, McKirland proposes that human nature is defined quite apart from masculinity or femininity, and instead by the image of God, which includes having special status in being like God, special function through exercising dominion, and special access to and representation of God’s presence — all of which are equally shared between men and women.
McKirland is up front about the payoff of rejecting gender essentialism: “the Scriptures do not make maleness and femaleness central to being human, nor can particular understandings of masculinity and femininity be rigidly prescribed, since these are culturally conditioned” (286). If one wonders what McKirland means by critiquing “gender essentialism,” whether she means masculinity/femininity or maleness/femaleness, one has already identified a central problem with her proposal. At times, she seems to be rejecting cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity, while in the end she seems to reject as normative maleness and femaleness altogether. Importantly, this rejection is not just an entailment of her ideas, but at the very heart of her proposal as she embraces transgenderism in the concluding section of the chapter.
Rejecting Gender Essentialism
McKirland’s chapter is a veritable parade of egalitarian commitments and implications when it comes to gender. There are fundamental questions at the heart of the complementarian-egalitarian debate that McKirland’s proposal, and the broader egalitarian project of which she is a part, is hard-pressed to answer reasonably. What is a woman? What are the differences between men and women? If differences are identifiable, which matter for how we live as men and women? What is the connection between manhood and maleness, womanhood and femaleness? McKirland’s anti-gender essentialism is not only unable to answer these questions in a satisfying way, but she heaps up a pile of error on this unsure foundation at just the point where our culture is most confused today, transgenderism, because of an inability to answer these questions properly.
McKirland does not explicitly define her understanding of “essence” and “accident” in her rejection of gender essentialism. But I do think she assumes the philosophical definition: “essence” refers to a property something must have, while “accident” refers to a property something happens to have but could lack. This is why McKirland spends much of the first part of her chapter attempting to define humanity’s essence apart from maleness and femaleness. If gender is not essential to humanity, what is? For McKirland, a human’s essence is defined by the image of God — a property, importantly for McKirland’s egalitarian project, that is shared by both men and women. Here I should like to register a point of agreement: complementarians also believe that a human person’s essence should be defined in part by the image of God, in which men and women are made equally. The image of God is what sets humanity, both men and women, apart from the rest of material creation. But now a disagreement: the Bible also teaches that humans are psychosomatic units, body and soul, which means embodiment is part of a human person’s essence. Embodiment, for instance, is one aspect of what sets humanity apart from angels. And with embodiment comes a sexual distinction — human bodies are either male or female, and this according to God’s design through the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, which contributes to the formation of primary and secondary sex characteristics.
The dimorphic nature of humanity as man or woman, male or female, is established from the very first chapter of the Bible. But McKirland’s project leads her to downplay differences in Genesis 1 and 2: “The focus of the texts of Genesis 1–2 is on humanity’s unique relationship to God and their function on behalf of God.” While this may be true at face value, this statement leads McKirland to ignore other, obvious features of the text — even important features Paul himself draws on when he speaks to the church about men and women in, for example, 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2.
For instance, McKirland nowhere mentions that the creation mandate in Genesis 1, where she rightfully gets her understanding of dominion, also includes the command to be fruitful and multiply, which requires sexual complementarity. Neither does she mention that Genesis 2 teaches that the man was created first, from the ground, and the woman from his side. Neither does McKirland mention that Genesis 2 says the woman was created by God to be a “helper suitable” for the man. Without evidence, McKirland argues that “while maleness and femaleness do feature in these creation accounts, masculinity and femininity do not” (296). By any definition of masculinity and femininity vis a vis maleness and femaleness, this is simply not true. In the original Hebrew, God’s special creation of man is referred to in Genesis 1:27 as “male” (zakar) and “female” (neqebah) — terms that make literal reference to complementary sexual reproductive organs. Then in Genesis 2, man is referenced not by sex — maleness and femaleness — but by gender — masculinity and femininity. God first makes the man (adam) out of the ground, and then subsequently makes the woman (isha) out of his side and brings her to the man (ish) to be named.
Read More
Related Posts:

Through his sacrifice Christ brought the offer of reconciliation to the world, tearing down the dividing wall of hostility. Christ appointed his children as peacemakers; his children have now put to death their hostility (Romans 14:19). Despite their many blind spots, faults, and failings, it has been Christians, the new humanity, who have fought to end racism, slavery, inequality, and every kind of injustice throughout the world for the past 2,000 years. 

First and foremost Critical Theory is, as its name implies, critical of something. But before we get into all of the details we need a little history.
Karl Marx, in his 1848 book, The Communist Manifesto, was critical of the social, political, and economic systems in his day. He simplistically divided the world into two artificial categories. The oppressors were the wealthy people who owned factories and businesses, in other words they owned the capital. The oppressed were the poorer people who worked for the oppressors in the factories and businesses. Marx envisioned a world where the oppressed would rise up in rebellion and take over the factories and businesses so that both groups would be socially, politically, and economically equal.
In addition to his writings on economics Marx was openly a disciple of Lucifer, writing many works in his praise:
“Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know full wellMy soul once true to God, Is chosen for hell”(“The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long march of Death, Deception, and Infiltration,” Paul Kengor, August 18, 2020.)
Marx taught that because economic and political systems were flawed they needed to be torn down.  He believed that these systems were rigged by the powerful and wealthy to their advantage, keeping the underclasses in subjugation. His solution was to stir up disunity and resentment in the oppressed so that they would rise up and tear down the existing system. The old system would then be replaced.
Marx’ society did not value freedom or equal opportunity, rather he envisioned a society of equal outcomes. No matter where you started out in life and no matter how much effort you put into your life, everyone ended up with the same amount of money, possessions, education, freedom, etc. To make this possible an all-powerful government would be established to redistribute all the resources necessary for life equally to everyone.
The problem that the Communists faced was that everywhere Communism was tried it was discredited as a violent, non-functioning, failed economic system, that brought the world nothing but servitude, genocide, and crushing poverty. And this makes sense because God designed man to be free and God designed an industrious and entrepreneurial economic system that included private property rights. As a result, the masses of people that Marx identified as oppressed never rose up, as envisioned, against the people and systems that he identified as oppressors.
To make Communism more acceptable it was repackaged in the 1930’s as Critical Theory. Like Marxism before it, the Neo-Marxists, teaching Critical Theory, seek to deconstruct and tear down all of the traditions and norms of society including systems of power: government, courts, family, religion, individual ownership, and private business. This time, instead of violent revolution, Marxist Philosopher, Antonio Gramsci planned for “a long march through the institutions… Socialism is the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of school, universities, churches, and the media to transform the consciousness of society.”
This process was helped along by Saul Alinsky. In his book, “Rules for Radicals, Alinsky, a Marxist community organizer, laid out the steps necessary to successfully dismantle competing social and economic systems, making way for the Marxist system to be built in its place. This would be accomplished through the use of community organizers. He wrote, “In the beginning the organizers job is to create the issues or problems.” In other words, to dismantle a functioning but flawed system the organizer must sow disunity. Perhaps you have heard the Critical Theorist’s political maxim, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” The organizer, seeking to “create issues or problems” is taught to seize upon any crisis that can be used in disrupting the existing system. The goal is to create a class of people who see themselves as victims. The victims are taught to fiercely covet whatever their “oppressors” have: wealth, power, privilege, property, education, freedom, etc. so that they will tear the existing system down.
Critical Theorists are currently seeking to divide and exploit people by dividing them into many different victim groups. Perhaps you have heard of Critical Race Theory, or Queer Theory, or Post-Colonial Theory, or Fat Studies, or Disability Studies, or Gender Studies, or ageism, or economic justice, or racial justice, or environmental justice. I could go on but though their speech is as smooth as butter, there is war in their hearts (Psalm 55:21). The point is that they want to dismantle the foundations that society rests upon, including the concept of truth.
Interestingly, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer, “the first radical… who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he won his own kingdom.” Lucifer rebelled against the God of truth, and Lucifer’s followers, Marx, Gramsci, and Alinsky, have continued in that rebellion. Objective truth does not exist. In fact, truth is defined as an artificial system, put in place by the oppressors, to keep the oppressed in line.
The new subjective “truth” is whatever advances the Critical Theory narrative. Perhaps you have begun to notice this double standard in regard to truth. When Critical Theorists riot, loot, occupy buildings, and burn, “creating issues and problems” their actions are reported as peaceful speech. In contrast, those who speak up against such behavior are condemned for hate speech and de-platformed from popular social media sites. Or perhaps you have heard that gender is just a social construct, meaning that you may choose your own gender. Or perhaps you have heard that both the family and marriage are social constructs, meaning that anyone or anything can be married; two men, two women, two men four women, a woman and a horse, or any other combination that you may want. Or perhaps you have heard that punctuality, knowledge, reason, loyalty, reliability, science, facts, math, evidence, productivity, virtue, freedom of speech and Christianity are all inventions of the oppressor class and must, therefore, be overthrown.
You don’t believe this? While I could show you many examples, because this is the subject of an ongoing national debate that is infiltrating the church, the following is taken directly from the official Black Lives Matter website:
“We do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege. Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,.. We demand the defunding of law enforcement.”
Because the Critical Theorists in the leadership of Black Lives Matter have a catch phrase that everyone can agree with (of course black lives matter!) and because they cleverly claim that they are seeking Social Justice, many Christians are deceived. Social Justice sounds good but because it is really a Marxist term it is counterfeit justice. It opposes God’s true justice at every step, preaching a gospel of hatred against marriage, family, patriarchy, private property, free speech, binary genders, and much more, opposing truth and God’s created order. This amounts to reimagining the world in the image of the father of lies, Lucifer (John 8:44).
Alinsky was correct in connecting Lucifer’s rebellion and the necessity for sowing division in bringing down a society. Lucifer sowed rebellion, convincing Eve, “You shall be like God” (Genesis 3:5). Covetousness is breaking the Tenth Commandment of God. Desiring what you don’t have and feeling like a victim is the path to resentment: the perfect emotion to use in building the angry mob necessary for revolution.
Christians must never make common cause with those Marxist organizations seeking to sow division. In ‘Strength to Love” Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” And what does that look like in practice? Forgiveness. As Christ taught and as James urged his congregation, we must forgive others as God has forgiven us (Matthew 6:12). Christians must never harbor resentment or nurture hatred because of wrongs suffered (1Corinthians 13:5).
Sowing disunity cannot bring unity. Dwelling on hate will only produce hate. But remember, Critical Theory is all about criticism. The Social Justice that the official BLM organization seeks can never produce unity. They intentionally and deceptively use great sounding catch phrases like social justice, racial justice, and black lives matter to gain support for their cause. But they have redefined the meaning of these phrases. “Their paths are crooked, they are devious in their ways” (Proverbs 2:15).
In reality, they don’t want solutions. The Critical Theory end game is tearing down society so that another can be built on the ashes. If they have to foment a race war, recounting past sins and present failures to reach their goal they are willing to do so. They depend on the historical fallacy, re-litigating the historical sins of the past. They do this, not to build unity but rather to destroy. Remember: “The organizers job is to create problems.” They are not reformers seeking to “strengthen what remains” (Revelation 3:2), they are revolutionaries seeking to “destroy even the foundations” (Psalm 11:3).
And not surprisingly, like both Marx and Alinsky before her, BLM founder and avowed Marxist community organizer, Patrisse Cullors, worships Lucifer. Further, contrary to Deuteronomy 18:11, she has stated that she calls on the spirits of the dead victims of racism to give her supernatural guidance in tearing down the system. She reports that she has developed close relationships with the spirits of these people that she “never knew in this life.” She has gone so far as to admit that the chants, “Say her name” and “Say their names” are acts of worship. She stated that when she is able to coerce people to chant the names of her spirit guides she “pours out libations in the street” in worship, to gain “spiritual power and guidance” (The Occult Spirituality of Black Lives Matter, including video interviews with Patrisse Cullors, Melina Abdullah, BLM cofounder, and Nissy Tee).
In contrast, Christians, because we are unified in Christ, are instructed how to work together for true justice, seeing to it that racism and injustice of all kinds come to an end in our lives, in our churches, and in the world. As Paul taught:
“Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility…” (Ephesians 1:12-19).
Through his sacrifice Christ brought the offer of reconciliation to the world, tearing down the dividing wall of hostility. Christ appointed his children as peacemakers; his children have now put to death their hostility (Romans 14:19). Despite their many blind spots, faults, and failings, it has been Christians, the new humanity, who have fought to end racism, slavery, inequality, and every kind of injustice throughout the world for the past 2,000 years.
Christians should continue to follow the teaching of Christ, who entered into our world showing us the way to life: forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, and peace. We should pursue Christ’s path of love rather than joining with Critical Theorists, whose goals include destroying Christ’s Church. Christians, of all people, are no longer strangers but are fellow citizens, members of the same household. As such, Christians should build up with the truth; not tearing down the culture by embracing the guilt and victimhood based on the Satanic Marxist lies of Critical Theory. To make common cause with Critical Theorists is to throw fuel on an arsonists fire; exactly what they want.
Richard Loper is a member of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ellicott City, Md.

Written by M. R. Conrad |
Friday, May 5, 2023
In the post-pandemic era, the opportunities for remote theological training have multiplied. A local church really could provide a pathway for men within their churches to serve part-time in their own church while they study for the ministry online. If needed, these growing leaders could supplement the web-based training with in-person modules at seminaries. Alternatively, likeminded churches in a region could band together to coordinate joint theological instruction. The possibilities for ministry training continue to grow. But where is the passion to prioritize pastoral training within the local church?

Evangelize, disciple, and train leaders—these are the priorities of missionaries serving in foreign countries.
Evangelize and disciple—these are the priorities of pastors serving in the U.S. If a new pastor is needed, the church rarely looks within, nor can they because no one is ready to step into the shepherding role. A local church must hire its next pastor from another church or out of seminary.
Why are missionaries abroad expected to train local men as future pastors, but pastors in the U.S. rarely prioritize preparing their church’s potential next pastor as a crucial part of their ministries? Should not the indigenous principle apply both at home and abroad?[1]
Biblical Examples of Leadership Training
In the first century, the church at Ephesus became a leader-training hub for the Roman province of Asia (modern-day western Turkey). Paul built leadership training into the DNA of the church. He taught the word of God daily for three years (Acts 19:9–10). He gathered and trained church leaders who would shepherd that church and plant churches in the surrounding cities (Acts 20:17–35). One such product of this leadership-training focus appears to have been Epaphras whom God raised up from within his hometown of nearby Colosse (Colossians 4:12–13).
Of course, Paul did send leaders trained elsewhere to serve in local churches. For example, Titus, a Greek probably from Syrian Antioch, served in Crete. Yet, a major focus of Titus’ ministry there was leadership training.
Read More
Related Posts: