Some years back, the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) announced they would be forming an investigative committee to formulate more thorough and informed positions on matters of human sexuality and gender dysphoria. The following is a draft polished up out of unfinished notes I had from back around the time this was first ongoing.

One of the things my old pastor told me growing up was to never take anything he taught for granted but to always go and independently verify it for myself in Scripture. This is something I’ve taken to heart ever since, even as my commitment to that principle has at times put me in a position of being outspoken. Nevertheless, I believe at the heart of Protestantism is open and earnest Biblical debate, and that political consensus is no grounds to shut down an argument without giving a chance to carefully lay and hear out evidence first.

Over the course of this essay, I am going to argue that the official statements and guidance put out by the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) regarding gender transition contradict its own doctrinal standards of proof for what constitutes an “essential” within the denomination. There objectively exists a valid, confessionally Reformed, Biblically-grounded case to be made in favor of upholding the practice within certain constraints.

This is a very narrow argument, but one which has extremely profound ramifications for how Christians at-large actually understand and form their own doctrine. I do not write this essay with the illusion of it being a “magic pill” that will overturn the reader’s personal conscience. Instead I write this with a humble purpose: to simply prove this is not yet an issue that can be placed above legitimate debate or disagreement.

This will not be an easy process: it will require establishing specificity in a debate that thrives on ambiguous and unclear language. We will have to review doctrinal standards, we will have to clarify what exactly it means to be transgender, and we will have to establish frameworks that are both clear and precise.

What places an issue “above debate”?

What makes the EPC especially useful as a case study for this topic is the distinctly nuanced approach it takes to dogmatics. The denomination has its roots in the women’s ordination debates of the 70s and 80s – and the product of that controversy has pushed the EPC to found itself on developing comprehensve guidelines for clarifying and resolving contemporary issues.

If the failure of more liberal denominations (such as the PCUSA) is that their laxness on core orthodoxies leads the church to lose its distinctly Reformed character, then the danger of fundamentalism is in going too far the other direction. By treating any common doctrine or practice as equally essential – you foster a culture uniformly hostile to debate and variance within the church. Herein lies the classic evangelical critique: that a maximalist attitude can end up undermining the unity of the church body and obscure any sort of clarity on which beliefs are the most important to defend in a world constantly seeking to undermine them.

A properly conservative¹ approach needs to be able to defend against these twin extremes, with clear methods for classifying essential versus non-essential doctrines. To this end, the EPC draws upon an explicitly irenic² tradition within Christian theology³ to develop a consistent standard whereby Christians can make sense of what is or isn’t worth defending.

Two models continue to hold sway among evangelical Presbyterians⁴: the “triage model”⁵ and the “essentials-versus-nonessentials model”⁶. Despite their differences, these models are complementary and the influence of both can be seen within the EPC. The official position of the church can be best summarized by their motto: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”⁴. Their standards of classification are more thoroughly laid out within the Essentials of Our Faith document.

In line with the triage model, the document lists six essentials which are taken to be defining for the Christian faith as a whole. But borrowing the language of the essentials-versus-nonessentials model, the document makes clear that this alone cannot be substituted for a list of denominational essentials.

The full definition for what it means to be Presbyterian (and by extent allowed within the tent of the EPC) is the Westminster Confession of Faith⁷ and its teachings regarding Scripture.

• The Bible is the final judge of all religious controversies (WCF 1:10)
• The infallible standard for Biblical interpretation is itself (WCF 1:9)
• For essential doctrines, this is a task that the educated and uneducated can both discern out of the text (WCF 1:7)

In other words, for an issue to earn the status of essential, either a plain reading of either Scripture or the Westminster Confession of Faith at minimum should be able to cleanly, explicitly, and unambiguously resolve the matter within its own text⁸. This is what I’d call the “floor” of what is acceptable. Issues which fall outside of this standard can have important ramifications, those arguing over them can adhere to and argue their positions with seriousness – but by definition, they would be classified as “non-essential”.

Women’s ordination – the founding controversy for the denomination – provides us the clearest example of this in practice. The EPC’s position paper on the issue states as following:

Since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as elders and deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as ministers.

The EPC regards women’s ordination as an issue of ecclesiology, not first-order morality or core salvific doctrines. That means there is some⁹ room for textual criticism despite there existing multiple prooftexts which on first glance seem to unambiguously settle the issue¹⁰ (1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

But as the EPC concedes, there are good-faith arguments one can make in favor which do not undermine an infallibilist view of Scripture. The most common arguments made by Biblical egalitarians are as follows: contradictory¹¹ verses or examples in Scripture, they’ll raise questions about the original Greek¹²meanings and grammar in certain passages¹³¹⁴, and in some cases they’ll appeal to the surrounding historical context¹⁵¹⁶.

The women’s ordination issue gives a good idea of where the “ceiling” roughly is around for what can reasonably be argued in good faith. There’s a strong argument to be made that “the definition of biological sex” is an issue which falls outside the scope of “matters of primary morality” and thus any justifications would be allowed this textual argumentation.

But, as you’ll see, I don’t even have to go to those lengths. The “floor” alone is more than sufficient. If the EPC’s position paper cannot provide sufficient evidence in either Scripture or the WCF to resolve the issue, then there’s no need to even resort to textual or higher criticism.

What do the position papers say?

All guidance for the denomination pertaining to transgender individuals is confined to a small handful of sentences¹⁷ scattered across the Position Paper on Human Sexuality. Despite the relatively scarce mentions, the position paper makes it clear that this is to be considered a binding issue¹⁸: any practice of gender transition is condemned, and this is to be the position and guidance expected of all ordained ministers and members within the denomination.

The position paper does not explicitly lay out a rationale for why the judgment was made, but instead cites a small handful of prooftexts to support the statements in question. So, let us follow the citations and see how decisive they are towards resolving the issue beyond debate.

Here is a list of every single¹⁹ piece of evidence the EPC puts forward in opposition to the practice of gender transition:

• The Phillipians 4:11-13 citation points to a passage where Paul generally speaks about being content in life. This does not address the issue of gender dysphoria in any specific capacity whatsoever. The verse is so broadly applicable, that the logic behind its inclusion could just as easily be turned to forbid treatment of any medical condition whatsoever. The rationale of faith-healing sects, in fact, does follow this exact pattern – yet we’re capable of recognizing in their case how that would be poor exegesis.
• Galatians 5:19-23 simply lists examples of works of the flesh and contrasts it with a list of examples of works of the Spirit. No item listed under “the works of the flesh” can be provably linked to gender transition any more than it could under “works of the Spirit”. Drawing any connection here would be a massive stretch, and would have to involve essentially begging the question.
• 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 is the passage where Paul talks about the body being a temple. Once again, as with the Philippians citation, there is large room for ambiguity in terms of how this passage should be applied within medical contexts. Is gender transition any more inherently destroying the body than, say, chemotherapy? How do we make this kind of call without first pre-baking in a lot of subjective value judgments as to what procedures seem “right” or “not right” to us?

None of these passages are relevant or remotely decisive, and the fact that they comprise the cornerstone of the paper’s argument should on its own call into question the merits of the position itself.

It is not in and of itself an issue that a report commissioned with the primary purpose to study human sexuality gives far more care and consideration to formulating properly evidenced positions surrounding same-sex attraction than gender dysphoria. What is an issue is trying to resolve the matter of gender transition by treating it as a “staple-on” to a statement on sexuality. Looking at it from this lens, the nature of the citations start to make more sense: the sole focus on reassurance and contentment is because the paper implicitly treats gender dysphoria as a matter functionally analogous to homosexuality. I suspect it may be symptomatic of a wider issue in common discourse right now.

“LGBT” at its core is a politically-derived term, which sometimes makes it a bit baffling when I talk to Christians (on both sides) and they freely throw around this term with theological import. The term itself was coined for the purposes of coalition-building, its boundaries are constantly shifting alongside the political and social tides, and it is by definition not a singular thing. The language of coalitions may be useful for political parties, but to be able to effectively minister to individuals, you need to meet them at their specific needs. After all, asexual and intersex people fall under the umbrella, and the EPC is able to recognize the legitimacy of both²⁰.

To the EPC’s credit, they do recognize this in some important ways and make sincere efforts to be surgical and cautious with their language in ways that other statements on gender and sexuality (such as the Nashville Statement²¹) completely fail to do. The position paper is careful to focus on terms such as “gender dysphoria” and “same-sex attraction” – avoiding the pitfall of echoing nebulous buzzwords such as “transgenderism”, “gender ideology”, or “LGBT ideology”.

And in its treatment of the issue of same-sex relations, it takes care to build the theological groundwork for it out of a more comprehensive doctrine of human sexuality. Contained within the same paper, there’s statements on celibacy, monogamy, and more broadly what the Biblical vision for marriage is and its role within the Christian life. Approaching things in such a fashion gives the impression that the purpose of these papers is to clarify doctrine in ways that are lasting and provide a clearer picture of broader Christian doctrines – not just simply playing whack-a-mole for whatever the issue of the week may be.

To provide transgender issues with a similar treatment, we would want to start by considering not the political situation but the basic question it poses for Christian doctrine. The issue with the position paper currently is that it departs from a framework which assumes that this issue, at its core, is a disagreement over moral conduct. But the real central question is taxonomic in nature. What is a woman? What is a man? These are questions that would make more sense answered out of a framework built on top of the complementarian-versus-egalitarian debate rather than one treated as part of a doctrine on human sexuality, if anything.

Because the issue is so deeply taxonomic, it’s important that before we jump into analyzing Scripture, we ensure we’re on the same page as to what is being argued. The first step is defining exactly what the issue is that is presently under consideration, and extracting from that the specific doctrinal questions we’d want to take to check against Scripture.

What precisely is the issue under consideration?

Most popular literature in the 21st century pertaining to transgender issues will often unspokenly build off of postmodern gender theory or concepts/frameworks downstream of it. If you are a pastor or layperson trying to research this issue, it’s very easy to come out with the impression that the acceptance of transgender people must necessitate the acceptance of postmodern gender theory and its premises.

I do not believe postmodern gender theory²² is suitable for understanding this issue (nor compatible with Scripture), so the grounds on which I frame “the transgender issue” may look very different from the ones you’re used to seeing. To be specific, I will not be making any of the following arguments:

• I will not be arguing that gender is a spectrum or that there exists stable gender roles outside of “man” and “woman”.
• I will not be making any arguments which attempt to entirely divorce the concept of gender from that of sex. By extent, I will not be giving much attention to how gender functions as a cultural or sociological system²³.
• I will not be arguing that souls are sexed, nor trying to lean on some purely metaphysical definition of “maleness” and “femaleness”.

Instead, I’d rather take a minimum-case first approach to building my argument. Does there exist a model which is capable of integrating gender incongruence with minimal revisions to the larger frameworks we’ve traditionally employed to understand gender and sex? I believe there is, in what is often referred to as the “transmedicalist model”²⁴. This has been the main rivaling theory in transgender medicine over the past century and posits the following:

• “Biological sex” is an extremely vague term²⁵²⁶ and is used to refer to multiple things²⁷²⁸. Historically though, human society has understood it as an aggregate of phenotypes – when ordinary human beings and doctors tangibly make sex-based judgments, they often do so with phenotypic sex in mind²⁹.
• Humans are sexually dimorphic, which means that sex is essentially bimodal in nature³⁰. There’s a subtle distinction here to make – while we can say the human species at-large generally tends to cluster into two distinct categories, there do exist rare anomalies which can add some level of real ambiguity.
• The brain is a biological organ, subject to real sexual differentiation³¹³² (and variation) as much as any other part of the body. This should not be conflated for “mental illness”, as there exists a durable biological component underpinning gender incongruence which cannot be explainable by external factors, but instead correlates strongly with the mechanics of sex-development.³³ Given the evidence, it is more biologically accurate to speak of gender incongruence as a sex disorder – the biological sex of a brain mismatching with any number of the body’s other sex-components.
• Being trans then is better understood as analagous to an intersex case. Historically speaking, sex-disambiguation for these cases has been a deeply practical affair³⁴: surgeons and doctors would make assignments based on what they understood to be a least-harm principle. Looking at the total makeup of a person and making alterations in the direction of the sex that would prove less destructive to an individual’s wellbeing and overall functioning. The ultimate goal is to bring the various components of biological sex into harmony to the best of our ability.
• Transgender medicine simply builds upon this principle. One of the most empirically consistent findings of the field is the following: attempting to force the subconscious sex of an individual into conformity with the rest of the body is actually more damaging to a person’s well-being (and proves more difficult) than the reverse. Hormone replacement therapy is extremely effective at altering a person’s phenotypic sex down to the cellular level³⁵. The consistently reported improvement in quality-of-life by those who undergo it can be understood as the components of a person’s biological sex successfully having been brought into harmony.

This model does not require us to overhaul our understanding of gender, but instead presents a much narrower question: by what specific mechanics can we actually determine whether an individual is sexed male or female?

Now, many try to rebut³⁶ that the specific scientific mechanics of how all this works hasn’t fully been worked out yet, but this is also to be expected in a field which is both relatively young and underfunded. Historically, medicine has always worked this way – it’s not uncommon for effective diagnosis and treatment to precede a comprehensive theoretical understanding of all the underlying mechanics of a condition.

Regardless, there still are a multitude of things we’ve been able to sufficiently prove: countless methods to “cure” gender dysphoria have repeatedly failed³⁷, transitioning has consistently shown to significantly improve mental health and quality-of-life³⁸, regret rates for medical transition are near-zero³⁹, and there are multiple documented cases where individuals have pursued transition independent of external social factors⁴⁰.

As far as biological and medical science is concerned, this is not at all an issue that is resolved beyond debate. If anything, medical consensus seems closer to indicating that allowing transition is the correct course of action⁴¹. Yet, many of those writing policy both in the church and society render their judgments as if they’ve made their decisions a priori, as if they’re speaking with the backing of an infallible authority.

Such an authority can only be Scripture. One can argue about the finer details and uncertainties, but given the current state of things, a position of total prohibition beyond debate cannot be justified with the science alone.

What does Scripture tell us?

So, what does the Bible actually have to say about binary gender transition? If the earlier survey of the EPC’s citations was any indicator, the answer is nothing definitive.

Here is what one can reasonably glean out of a plain reading of Scripture: we are created male and female as part of a design that predates the Fall (Genesis 1:27), crossdressing is morally unacceptable (Deuteronomy 22:5), and gender has real relevance as to how we live our lives ().

What Scripture does not provide us with are straightforward guidelines for ascertaining biological sex or distinguishing intersex cases. Scripture does not tell us where in the body our “true” sex is located – nowhere will you find the words “gamete” or “chromosome” invoked. Scripture does not guarantee us that our born bodies will be free of imperfections or follow certain rules of conformity or consistency. Any invocation of passages related to eunuch-hood have to deal with the existence of Matthew 19:12 and a history of textual debate surrounding that topic which goes beyond that of even women’s ordination. Any prooftexts which generically refer to “nature” or “flesh” rely on a heavy amount of eisegesis to be relevant.

As the EPC states, “The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks”. Emphasis to be put on “on all matters on which it speaks”. The Reformed tradition recognizes that the Bible is granted a special moral infallibility, but specifically with regards to its purpose as an instrument for our salvation.

That being said, there is no reason to expect the Bible to act as a comprehensive medical or scientific textbook. Scripture is not the Talmud – it does not purport to be a world unto itself but rather instead a proclamation of the world to come. This is explicitly the position of the Westminster Divines:

At the same time, the Westminster Divines, including Rutherford, were clear that the purpose of Scripture was to bring people into relationship with God, not to communicate interesting information in all branches of learning. Scripture was not to be used, for example, as a source of information in the sciences to refute what the scholars were discovering… Samuel Rutherford was very explicit that Scripture’s purpose was to mediate salvation, not communicate information on science. He listed areas in which Scripture is not our rule, for example, “not in things of Art and Science”… But Scripture was our rule, Rutherford affirmed, “1. in fundamentalls of salvation 2. In all morals of both first and second table”.⁴²

As a result, we should not read the Bible’s lack of commentary on this topic as incidental, but a direct byproduct of the intended scope and purpose of the Scriptural whole. Because Scripture lacks sufficient guidance in its own text, nearly anyone who tries to draw a line on this issue ends up (whether they like to admit or not) having to entirely rest their argument on grounds of natural theology.

Now, natural observation is not inherently an invalid source of discernment, but what the Divines explicitly reject is any attitude which treats it as a secondary source of special revelation alongside Scripture⁴³. To claim natural theology carries with it a special infallible authority is to essentially commit an act of appending to God’s word (WCF 1:6). The WCF itself echoes this sentiment, warning against those who claim that our natural understanding of the world can on its own provide knowledge of God’s will (WCF 1:1). The Reformed view is one which recognizes the influence of total depravity on all of creation and puts great suspicion upon any attitude which appeals to Nature with a mystical or uncritical reverence.

Where we are forced to interpret natural observations, we are called to do so with a spirit of critical reason. A pillar of the irenic approach has been that these sorts of differences should be capable of being hashed out via reasoned debate. Where the WCF invokes the phrase “light of nature”, it does so in a fashion synonymous with what we today call “science”⁴⁴. The arguments we make within this realm are bound by the same rules as any other philosophical or scientific debate – the door flings wide open to empiricism, methodological scrutiny, and the existence of real uncertainty.

Once a debate steps into this territory, it cannot be freely pulled in and out at one’s convenience. We do not get to selectively appropriate some points of observation and entirely close our ears to others a priori. One cannot haphazardly invoke words such as “nature” or “biology” or “common sense”⁴⁵ without any specificity and expect them to stand on their own authority. Yet, these are the kinds of shortcuts which go increasingly unchallenged as churches rush to draft official statements in response to a hot-button issue.

One of the worst offenders is the (Baptist) Nashville Statement, which shows very little caution or consideration to either the reasoning or frameworks it employs in defining its position. The statement as a whole hinges its entire argument on repeatedly invoking “biological sex” while remaining deliberately vague about what that term specifically entails. This vagueness creates a huge problem, as it essentially opens the door to double-speak on matters of biology. There is no consistent rule to delinate between the “physical anomalies” it deems illegitimate versus the “physical disorders” and “biological ambiguities” it does see as constituting a legitimate intersex condition⁴⁶. Why do we assume one set of natural observations to carry the will of God and another to be dismissed as an error? Where it does come to distinguishing the cases the statement is willing to concede as intersex, the statement leans back on the language of “biological sex insofar as it may be known”. But to invoke the phrase so offhandedly misses the point that that is the crux of the issue. The question raised by transgender science over the past century is one of by what mechanics do we know and discern a person’s biological sex? The statement treats “transgender self-conceptions” as if they are separate to this matter when that could not be further from the reality.

The closest we get to any clear rule is the statement’s reference to “male and female reproductive structures” as defining “God’s design for self-conception”⁴⁷. If we take this to mean that reproductive functioning should be the supreme, universal rule of sex assignment, then there should be sufficient evidence to back up such a standard. Medical grounds alone do not provide the evidence to justify this – so then that leaves only theological ones. Does Scripture show us that God’s design for individuals is purely reproductive in intent, or does Scripture present a more nuanced view of his will for human existence?

As the Westminster Shorter Cathecism states, “the chief end of Man is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever”. Many over the years have tried to invoke Genesis 1:28 to argue this task to be wholly identical with sexual reproduction. But taking this view only creates more questions. Why did Jesus, a model for our lives (1 Corinthians 11:1) live out celibacy? Why does the unmarried Paul state that he wishes we all were as he was (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)? In setting apart mankind from the other animals (Genesis 1:26) – who all live, die, and multiply without a second thought – does that not speak to an additional complexity in God’s purposes for our design? Why, when speaking of “God’s design for self-conception”, are we quickest to neglect the biological organ most responsible for self-conception – the brain?

What we do see throughout Scripture is that where God works his will through men, he does so in ways that challenge our intuitions. Throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 7:7, Luke 1:34-37, Genesis 18:14) we see countless examples of the Lord employing vessels we would not expect towards any number of ends we would not expect. When Jesus goes to cure a blind man (John 9:1-12), his disciples ask him where the sin must have occurred to make this man blind. Jesus instead rejects the framework they put forth, revealing that God could use a condition even such as that in service of His will. Is it truly any more of a stretch to conceive that the Lord could find use in putting an individual through the trial of transition? Why must we assume that an individual is afflicted with dysphoria, it can only be because they are called to repress? Is it so impossible that anyone who recounts otherwise must be regarded as accusing God of “having made a mistake”?

As it stands, there is nowhere near enough evidence to be making these sweeping assertions, much less to enforce them as dogma. Let us summarize everything I’ve argued up until now:

• Does either Scripture or the WCF provide a clear guideline to resolve this issue? No. The most commonly cited verses are neither relevant nor conclusive.
• Can natural theology alone act as an infallible ground of doctrine? Absolutely not, the Westminster Divines make this abundantly clear.
• Is the central question at stake primarily one of morals or salvific fundamentals? No. Defining sex is fundamentally a biological-taxonomic question. This is the realm of science.
• Does the “light of reason” (i.e. scientific observation) point us undeniably towards one view? No, and whatever scientific evidence currently does exist seems to point in favor of gender transition, if anything.

By the EPC’s own confessional standards, the matter of (binary) gender transition should be ruled non-essential. As a relatively recent issue, there is still a lot we have to learn and figure out – and it is precisely for issues like this that the EPC’s essentials-nonessentials distinction exists in the first place. The church should promote (rather than shut down) further investigation and debate into this matter, and leave it up to the discretion of individual pastors to make sense of the issue and set policy for their own congregation. In line with the guidance of Romans 14, if someone is able to sufficiently justify a dissenting view within Scriptural bounds (as outlined above), the denomination has a responsibility to not shut them down as to avoid creating a stumbling block.

There are more verses contained within Scripture which can be argued to directly prohibit women’s ordination (1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35) than there are that can be argued with a similar amount of scrutiny to directly prohibit binary gender transition. So, why does it reflexively feel as if the latter is so much more controversial than the former?

The elephant in the room is politics. The modern church (on the left and right) has found itself in such a rush to ensure its on the “right side” of hot-button issues that we tend to neglect questioning whether or not our positions align with doctrine. But it has long been the Presbyterian view that it is strong and reasoned doctrine which upholds the integrity of the church. How we get to our positions matters just as much as the positions themselves. Without that anchor, it becomes very easy for us to get carried away by the tides of political fashion.