When I was growing up, pronouns were merely a grammatical construction.  I could not have imagined that they would one day be at the center of heated societal debate.  Nor could I have imagined that this debate would be around something so central to human identity as gender.  As the movement to normalize gender fluidity gains traction, many Christians are faced with the challenge of how to respond to pressures to accept and even celebrate when people identify as another gender.  While this can take many forms, the most likely scenario is when a believer is pressured to refer to certain people by preferred pronouns or names that are clearly inconsistent with biology.  On the surface, this appears to be incredibly minor, so non-Christians are justifiably confused when many Christians refuse to budge on something so simple and seemingly harmless as using preferred pronouns. This can make us appear legalistic and hateful, which increases the pressure to compromise on the topic of pronouns. How should a Christian respond to such pressure biblically?  On one hand, Scripture clearly teaches that God created people as male and female to reflect His nature, which contradicts transgenderism.  On the other hand, Scripture also clearly teaches that we are to love our neighbors (which is everyone) and show respect and honor to all.  Therefore, any response must include both of these in order to be biblical. 

The Nashville Statement

Fortunately, we don’t have to start from scratch to draft such a response, as the topic of gender is not new to the Church—especially in recent decades.  The church has always had to grapple with questions about what the Bible teaches regarding particular topics.  This had led to various councils and synods throughout Church history, convened to determine what the Bible clearly teaches and then craft succinct and clear statements to summarize what Scripture teaches on that topic in order to address the threat of specific false doctrines.  In 1987, feminism threatened to be just such a false doctrine by undermining the biblical distinction between men and women.  Therefore, several notable Christian leaders and theologians crafted the Danvers Statement to address manhood and womanhood biblically, which was later explained in much more detail the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  This book is a wonderful resource for Christians approaching the topic, but it does not explicitly address transgenderism or pronouns.  Many of the same leaders and theologians crafted the Nashville Statement in 2017 to specifically address the topics of homosexuality and transgenderism.  Both statements are available in full here, but a few lines are particularly helpful:

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female. WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his image-bearers as male and female.

-Nashville Statement, 2017, Articles 7, 10 and 11

Addressing the Topic of Pronouns Biblically

These provide a good starting point for a response to the subject of pronouns, but they do not address pronouns specifically.  What if I am faced with a situation in which people insist I call them by pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology?  What if my workplace makes it a policy that I must use people’s preferred pronouns even when they are clearly inconsistent with biology?  How should I as a Christian respond?  Whatever that response is, it needs to be biblical, uncompromising on matters on which Scripture is clear yet also respectful to all.  Here is my attempt at just such a response using the model I laid out last time for respectfully objecting to policies that would be sinful to follow:

As a Christian, I am compelled at affirm and I also wholeheartedly affirm the following:

1. As the sole inerrant Word of God (Psalm 19:7-9, Proverbs 30:5, Hebrews 1:1-2), the Bible is the highest authority for how Christians must live (Deuteronomy 8:3, 1 Timothy 3:16-17), meaning that in cases where the direction of any earthly authority contradicts with what is clearly directed in the Bible, the Christian is obligated to obey the Bible (Acts 5:29).
2. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 45:4-6, 1 Timothy 2:5) with three persons that while perfectly unified are distinct from one another (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 110:1): God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 48:16, Matthew 28:19).  This has been acknowledged since the early days of the Church and is spelled out in the Athanasian Creed.  One of God’s attributes is that He does not change (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17), so it naturally follows that the distinct persons of God cannot become one another.
3. The Bible clearly teaches that God created and now sustains the universe (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:3), which He accomplishes most often through natural means. God has complete authority and dominion over the universe and everything in it (Matthew 28:18, 1 Peter 4:11). Therefore, all authority is either delegated by God to specific created beings for the purpose of obeying His commands (Genesis 1:26-28, John 19:11, Romans 13:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-6:9) or retained by Him alone. Since authority is given in order to enable obedience to God, disobedience to God is acting outside of that authority, meaning that no one has the authority to disobey God or compel anyone else to disobey God. As the creator of mankind in general and of each person in particular, God makes each person as a distinct person from conception (Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1-5) as either male or female, which He reveals through the natural means of biology. Therefore, the biology of a person indicates whether God created that person as male or female.
4. The Bible clearly teaches that people are made in the image of God to both resemble and represent Him (Genesis 1:26-27).  This is inextricably tied to mankind being made male or female (Genesis 1:27).  The distinction between male and female therefore resembles the distinction between the members of the Godhead (Genesis 2:18-22 vs. John 14:15-18, Galatians 3:27-28), while our common human identity reflects the perfect unity of the Godhead (Genesis 2:23-24 vs. John 14:23-30).  This is most vividly reflected in marriage (Malachi 2:15, Matthew 19:4-5) but is also evident in the unity yet distinctness of men and women in general (John 17, 1 Corinthians 11:3-12, Galatians 3:28). This means that men cannot become women and vice versa just as the members of the Godhead cannot become one another. References to men becoming women in the Bible (Jeremiah 50:37 and 51:30) are clearly metaphorical, referring to loss of strength, rather than depicting actual gender transition.
5. The Bible clearly teaches that any action, word, thought, or motive that deviates from God’s standard is rebellion against God and therefore sinful (Romans 3:23, James 4:17).  This includes anytime anyone fails to glorify God by acting in accordance to God’s design and purpose for them (Genesis 4:7, Isaiah 53:6).  Among the many sins explicitly named in the Bible is questioning why God made people the way He did (Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, Romans 9:20-21).  The way God has created each person is externally evident in biology, so to question people’s biology is to question why God made them the way He did. The Bible also condemns the practice of men presenting themselves as women and vice versa as being an affront to God’s nature and dishonoring to both God and the people made in His image (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:3-15).  Based on this, a Christian must view it as sinful to identify as a gender inconsistent with biology.  The Bible also states that approving of sins is also sinful (Romans 1:32), so a Christian who does anything that affirms someone else identifying as an alternate gender is sinful.  
6. The Bible clearly teaches that truth is absolute, with God as its source and standard (Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, John 14:6, Revelation 19:11) irrespective of human feelings and perspectives. Therefore, it is sinful to speak anything that is not the truth (Zechariah 8:16, Ephesians 4:15, 25), which would be lying that is condemned throughout the Bible (Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 6:17-19, Colossians 3:9).  This would include calling someone by an identity that does not align with the actual identity of that person, which means that a Christian would be committing the sin of lying by referring to someone as a gender that is clearly inconsistent with biology. 
7. The Bible clearly teaches that all sin is rebellion against God and thus primarily against God (Psalm 51:4) regardless of whether or not it is against any person.  Any sin is therefore infinitely more offensive to the holy God than it could ever be to any person (Romans 2:6-11, James 2:10).  This means that while the Christian should avoid unnecessarily offending anyone (Romans 12:18, 1 Corinthians 10:32), our primary concern must always be to avoid offending God through sin.  While avoiding offense to both God and others is always preferrable, the Christian is obligated to avoid offending God even if that requires offending people. 
8. The Bible clearly teaches that since people are made in the image of God, all people are worthy of respect, honor, and dignity (Romans 12:10, 1 Peter 2:17), while respect and honor are particularly owed to those in positions of authority (Romans 13:7).  The Bible is equally clear that fellow Christians in sin should be gently called to repentance (Galatians 6:1-3) but that in most cases the Christian is not under the same obligation to call non-Christians to repentance for specific sins (1 Corinthians 5:12).  This means that just as it would be sinful for a Christian to act in ways that display approval of identifying in ways contrary to biology, it would be equally sinful for a Christian to signal disapproval in ways that are disrespectful or dishonoring both to peers and superiors.

These clear teachings of the Bible apply to the topic of pronouns as follows:

1. Since pronouns imply the gender inherent in the pronoun, to refer to a person by a specific pronoun is to recognize that person as the gender assigned to that pronoun.  Therefore, to refer to a person by a pronoun clearly inconsistent with biology would be to approve of that person identifying contrary to God’s design, which would be sinful.  It would therefore be sinful to refer to someone as “he/him” whom God has clearly created as “she/her” and vice versa.  Use of “they/them” pronouns for a single person or any “neo-pronouns” similarly denies a person’s God-created identity as male or female by refusing to acknowledge truth and instead implying ambiguity.  It is therefore sinful for a Christian to refer to a particular individual by “they/them” or “neo-pronouns”.  This does not apply to situations in which “they/them” pronouns are used to communicate anonymity rather than gender ambiguity.
2. This does not extend to names, as names do not explicitly imply a particular gender but instead express the identity of the entire person.  Therefore, it is not sinful to refer to people by their preferred names, even if those names are normally used to denote a person of the opposite gender.

Therefore, my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs prevent me from referring to a person by pronouns that clearly differ from that person’s biology but do not prevent me from calling that person by any particular name.  Those same beliefs also prevent me from treating anyone with disrespect by going out of my way to call that person by pronouns consistent with biology when that person has explicitly requested to be referred to by other pronouns. 

If faced with a situation in which someone requests to be referred to by pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology, I will use that person’s name instead.  In situations where the person in question is a superior and therefore due certain titles that imply gender (such as “Mr.” or “Ms.”), I will use an appropriate title that does not imply gender, such as rank in a military context or terms like “director” or “chief” in a civilian context.  In addition to aligning with the Bible, this aligns with legal precedent in Meriwether v. Hartop et al. and various policies ensuring the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.  Currently, the presence of pronouns in a bio or email signature block also communicates support for identifying in ways contrary to biology, so I will not put my pronouns in a bio or signature block.  If pronouns become mandatory in those cases, they will no longer communicate that support, allowing me to abide by such a policy.

A Helpful Analogy

Some may still argue that pronouns are a matter of preference such that not using preferred pronouns is inherently rude and dishonoring.  However, pronouns are essentially titles that denote a person’s identity, so it is actually rude and dishonoring to insist that we use certain pronouns that are clearly inconsistent with a person’s true identity. Insisting that people use pronouns inconsistent with biology would be tantamount to insisting that we use certain titles for people who have not earned those titles.  To illustrate this, an analogy may be helpful.  Suppose a military major became convinced in his own mind that he was actually a colonel.  He would then replace the major’s rank insignia on his uniform with colonel’s rank and insist that people refer to him as a colonel rather than a major.  For those who do not know his true rank, it might possible for people to mistake him for a colonel unless they saw his ID, which would still say he was a major.  But regardless of how closely he resembled a colonel, it would be wrong of him as a major to wear a colonel’s rank and expect to be referred to by a colonel’s title when he has not earned it.  It would be equally wrong of him to insist that simply because he believes himself to be a colonel and wears colonel’s rank that he as a major should be allowed access to parking spots and locker rooms that are reserved for colonels and above.  You have to hold that rank in order to access those spaces, and he doesn’t have the right to assign himself that rank no matter how much he may convince himself he deserves it.  In order to earn the rank and associated title and privileged access, he would need to have served the appropriate time, demonstrated potential to serve in the higher grade, be recommended by a promotion board, placed on a list ultimately approved by the chain of command up to the President, and confirmed by Congressional committee—twice (once for lieutenant colonel and again for colonel).  In essence, he cannot claim the title and rank of colonel until appointed as one by those who have the authority to appoint him as such.  It would be wrong both for him to present himself as the wrong rank and for anyone to support him in that endeavor when they know it isn’t true. However, those who didn’t know he was actually a major would not be at fault by calling him by his presented rather than actual rank.

How does this relate to gender and pronouns?  I have previously discussed how all authority ultimately comes from God (Romans 13:1).  The authority of any person must therefore be delegated to that person by God.  This delegation happens through commands: when God commands someone to do something, He gives the authority required to carry out that command. Authority not delegated by God is retained by Him, so it would be presumptuous and even rebellious against Him to assume authority He has not delegated.  God is the only one who creates people (Psalm 89:27 and 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5) and is therefore the only one who can assign them with the position, titles, and associated privileges of male or female.  No command anywhere in Scripture states or even insinuates that God has delegated that authority to anyone, meaning He retains it for Himself alone.  Therefore, just as it would be wrong of a major (who lacks the authority to appoint himself as a colonel) to insist on being referred to as a colonel, it is wrong for someone to insist on being referred to as the gender to which that person was not appointed by God.  Furthermore, just as it would be wrong for people to knowingly facilitate that major in presenting himself as a colonel, it would be wrong for me as a Christian to knowingly facilitate someone presenting as a gender clearly inconsistent with biology by calling that person by preferred pronouns. However, just as those who unknowingly facilitate the colonel charade would not be at fault, so I would not be at fault for using preferred pronouns when unsure. Throughout this post, I have been using phrases like “clearly inconsistent with biology”, implying that it can be unclear at times. Even before the transgender movement, there have been times in which a person’s gender is not immediately obvious. If I cannot tell whether a person is male or female, I must trust the pronouns that person tells me and can therefore call that person by preferred pronouns without sinning. However, it would be sinful for me to knowingly refer to someone by pronouns inconsistent with biology.

Conclusion: The Nature of Truth

Ultimately, the question of pronouns is merely an application of the concept of truth. As a Christian, I believe that truth is absolute. God is the ultimate source and standard of all truth, which means that whatever He says is true regardless of what anyone thinks or feels. Conversely, the cultural understanding of gender and pronouns is based on a belief that truth is relative to each person. For me as a Christian to affirm that relativistic understanding of truth is to deny the existence of absolute truth and thus deny the God who is its source and standard. That is why the issue of pronouns is such a big deal to Christians. That is why we cannot simply acquiesce to someone’s preferred pronouns when they clearly differ from the absolute truth of how God created each person as revealed through biology.  Ultimately, we must obey God rather than man on gender and every other topic. This is not about offending people by not honoring their preferences but all about avoiding offending the God who made us and has ultimate authority over us. At the end of the day, we will all have to answer to God for everything we do and say (or leave undone or unsaid). Jesus said that to deny Him before people by fearing what people may think or do rather than fearing God would cause Him to deny us before God the Father at that Final Judgment (Matthew 10:33). So if I deny His truth by using pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology, that may indicate that I love and fear someone or something more than God, which is the definition of idolatry. While this is not the unpardonable sin of rejecting Christ, a propensity to compromise in such areas may indicate just such a rejection. This means that eternal salvation is at stake, which I am not willing to risk.