Words in bold are explained in a glossary at the end.
All humans are biologically sexed, for all humans are embodied. While most humans are identifiably sexed as either male or female, the sexed anatomy of some is atypical.1The incidence rate of sexually atypical bodies remains unclear (and contested). Some suggest 0.018% of the American population have intersex conditions. Others argue for 1.7%, which would put intersex on a par with having red hair (1–2%). Different cultures and periods have labelled such individuals as “hermaphrodites,” “intersex,” or persons with “variations/differences/disorders of sex development” (VSD/DSD). While the nomenclature is highly contested,2Some fear that DSD/VSD language pathologizes conditions that do not need to be “fixed.” Others worry that the term “intersex” coopts affected individuals into the identity politics of the unambiguously sexed. I shall use the term “intersex” as it represents the key question driving this paper. How should Christians interpret (and love) atypically sexed bodies that fall outside the statistically predominant pattern of male and female?3 The intersex question matters, not only for the sake of intersex individuals, but also because intersexuality is often used in contemporary debates as “biological justification” for certain forms of gender ideology. Thus, the argument runs, if humanity’s sexed biology is fluid rather than fixed, gender identity should be understood as equally fluid. This has significant implications, among others, for the Christian doctrine of marriage. Toss a coin and it typically lands heads or tails. But what if the coin rests on its side?
The atypicality of sexed bodies manifests itself in a variety of ways, affecting genetics, gonads, and genitalia. For example, the genetic constitution (genotype) of people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) is (XY) but their observable characteristics (phenotype) are female (female appearing external genitalia). Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is the opposite—genotypically female (46,XX); phenotypically male (or uncertain) genitalia
Traditionalist interpretations of sexed embodiment emphasize the creational givenness of maleness and femaleness in Genesis 1–2. Jesus subsequently reaffirms the creational norm of “male and female” (Gen 1:27) in Matt 19:4–6. In the new creation, all sexed bodies will be unambiguously male or female. Since we live in a world ravaged by sin and its effects, intersex bodies represent anomalies that, while sad, do not disrupt the binary framework of sexual dimorphism. Indeed, Jesus acknowledges such bodily anomalies precisely within the context of his reaffirmation of the sexually dimorphic order (Matt 19:12). In short, all bodies are male or female, even if we cannot tell who is what in every case.
In contrast, scholars who want to change or innovate Christian doctrine (innovationists) denounce the traditional interpretation as dehumanizing.4It is worth bearing in mind that good tradition innovates, and good innovation learns from tradition. Joseph Marchal laments: “If humans were created male and female, by God no less, then what kind of human is an intersex person?”5Joseph A. Marchal, Appalling Bodies: Queer Figures Before and After Paul’s Letters (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 69. Pressure to conform to a male-female binary can suffocate intersex persons into silence, secrecy, stigma, shame, and even suicide. In answer, innovationists stress how the phenomenon of intersexuality explodes the male-female binary into sexual polymorphism. Intersex persons signify a “third sex.”6Gilbert H. Herdt, ed., Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History (New York: Zone, 1996).
For traditionalists, the goodness of creation is under assault. For innovationists, the very humanity of intersex persons remains at risk. Traditionalists and innovationists often talk over each other. This paper tries to listen to all sides in order to provide a set of theological glasses through which to (self)interpret intersex embodiment.
Overview
Good theology responds to the concrete cry of the marginalized by attending carefully to what God has to say about any given topic. God has spoken clearly and coherently in Scripture. The most pastorally sensitive approach privileges God’s life-giving wisdom. To assemble my proposed theological glasses, I foreground God’s scriptural speech, subsequently drawing upon figures in church history where they shed light on Scripture’s meaning. My basic approach: We may know what a body means (theologically) and who we are when we know whose we are and where we fit within God’s big story of creation to consummation. Accordingly, I track and trace the sexed body as it moves through the divine drama, from (1) creation, through (2) the fall, to (3) redemption “now” at Jesus’ first coming, and (4) final consummation “not yet,” when Jesus returns in glory and fulfils all his plans and purposes for his world. With the complete divine drama in view, (5) I draw various threads together to identify what remains essential for the “structure” of the sexed body as it travels through history and what may be accidental to the sexed body’s “direction” within each act of the unfolding story. I conclude with some moral-pastoral suggestions and a possible pastoral conversation that attempts to apply the preceding theological principles.
1. Creation
In the beginning God made humans “male and female” (Gen 1:27), but did he also create intersexuality as an example of the “very good” of creation (Gen 1:31)? Some say “yes,” arguing that the first human was really an androgyne – either a sexless being or a combination of both maleness and femaleness. Humans only became either male or female after the first “earthling” (the name Adam is derived from the Hebrew for ‘earth’ [adamah]) was surgically separated in Gen 2:21.
Others see intersex existence in the unmentioned “hybrids” of Genesis 1. The text highlights land and sea, night and day, but this doesn’t mean that rivers, marshes, dusk, or dawn somehow didn’t exist or are post-fall anomalies. Land and sea are poles on a spectrum, with good “hybrids” in between. So, Gen 1:27 says “male and female,” but this does not rule out the existence of good “hybrids” in between the poles of maleness and femaleness, e.g., intersex.7For a recent example of the hybrid argument’s influence, see Church of England, Living in Love & Faith: Christian Teaching and Learning About Identity, Sexuality, Relationships, and Marriage (London: Church House, 2020), 403.
In response to both arguments, it is important to note how the crucial verses of Gen 1:27–28 hang together grammatically, interpreting each other. “Male and female” denotes the scope of the image of God (so all are divine image bearers) and connotes reproductive function (note the commission to “be fruitful and multiply”). Indeed, the unfolding biblical context consistently interprets “male and female” (v.27) alongside “be fruitful and multiply” (v.28). Further, Genesis 1:2 (to-hu va-vohu – ‘formless and fruitless’) sets up a problem that the rest of Genesis 1 answers. The earth was initially “formless and fruitless,” yet God brings form and order to creation so that it may become fruitful.8Note the repetition of “separate” (x5) and “according to its kind” (x10). God wants creation to enjoy its ordered peace (shalom). In short, humans, as part of creation, are formed for fruitfulness – spiritual and social fruitfulness (Gen 2), as well as reproductive fruitfulness (Gen 1:28). Such sexual fruitfulness requires a “sexuate correspondence” between one male and one female.9Darrin W. Snyder Belousek. Marriage, Scripture, and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021). Language of “sexuate” focuses exclusively on the physical body, in contrast to the polyvalent term “sexual.”
All this may be true, but is it necessary for all humans? Put differently, is the capacity to procreate a creational norm for the human species in general (so not everyone needs to be male or female) or for every individual human without exception? To work this out we need to consider the ‘whatness’ of humanity.
In the goodness of creation, before any sin or death infected humanity, the sexed embodiment of all humans was formed in a way that establishes and fits with procreative function. Thus, sexed form founds function and function fits form. In contrast, if intersexuality represents a sexed form distinct from male and female, then it remains strange that God’s first act of relating to his new image bearers is to single out the male and female, invite them into his work of reflecting his rule as vice-regents, and bless them with the noble task of being life-givers like God. If intersex bodies are merely examples of creational diversity, the fact that they are marginalised from the start of creation, and by God raises serious questions about God’s goodness and justice, or such polymorphic diversity simply does not exist pre-fall. This suggests that sexual dimorphism was likely the divine design in creation. Importantly, such a conclusion does not mean that an intersex individual is less in the image of God than someone who is clearly male or female. It minimally suggests that a theological explanation for intersexuality needs to supplement the perspective of creation. One such viewpoint is the fall.
2. Fall
Genesis 3 pictures humanity’s fall from original goodness into wilful rebellion. God responded by placing the cosmos under a curse. Part of this curse is the introduction of human death, “for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Gen. 3:19). Examining the impact of the fall upon the sexed body indicates that death is pervasive, shattering shalom,and to various degrees disordering both sexual function (e.g., barrenness in Gen. 16:2) and sexed form (e.g., congenital eunuchism, possibly in Lev. 21:20). Death casts its decaying shadow over all people. Consequently, from our human viewpoint, the pre-fall exclusive norm of sexual dimorphism became the statistical majority post-fall. The empirical expression of humanity’s sexuate correspondence now clusters around two poles of “male” and “female.”
Nevertheless, while death is truly devastating, it does not destroy the structural whatness of creation. That is, sin and death don’t stop a human being a human. We may be disordered humans, but we’re still humans (and not dogs, for example). As such, the norm of male and female continues in theological intent, even if at times the physical data of our sexed bodies remain hard to read. Thus, the theological explanation for the existence of intersexuality from the perspectives of creation and fall is that of impairment—disordered diversity in a diversely disordered world. Given that sin and death disorder the “direction” rather than the metaphysical “structure” of humanity, this judgment does not make those with intersex conditions any less human than the unambiguously sexed. As noted above, death touches all. So intersex individuals are not more fallen but differently fallen.
Accordingly, perhaps using the historically-inflected term “intersexed” may be more theologically accurate (and pastorally helpful) than the identitarian label of “intersex,” for intersexed conveys a subtle distinction between the physical condition and the concrete person. If the fall provides the historical origin for intersex conditions, then the term intersexed guards the dignity of the person from being conflated with the defect of the condition. Regardless, given death touches all, every body is subject to “death because of sin” (Rom. 8:10). Every mortal body needs life from the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:11). Everybody needs the restoration of shalom.
3. Redemption
The need for restoration spurs us on to contemplate God’s act of redemption. Does redemptive newness in Christ indicate a shift from a male-female binary toward sexual polymorphism? To answer requires assessing the significance of Jesus’ person and work for intersexuality. Looking at the person of Christ first, some fear that a specifically male Messiah raises certain hurdles: can a male Messiah save non-males? Does a male Messiah marginalize non-males? One strategy to alleviate such anxiety argues that Christ himself is intersex – chromosomally female (Jesus gets all his humanity from Mary) while phenotypically male (Jesus presents as male). If so, then in the very person of Christ sexual dimorphism is overcome, for Christ opens up a third way of being sexed.
In response, not only are recent proposals for an intersex Christ scientifically improbable and theologically implausible, but a traditional understanding of the virgin birth offers resources both to affirm the maleness of Jesus and to calm concerns about the marginalization and non-salvation of non-males. Insights from Gregory of Nazianzus and Thomas Aquinas suggest that Jesus is universally human – thus all sexes are savable.10Gregory of Nazianzus, “Letter 101,” in On God and Christ: The Five Theologial Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham. PPS 23 (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s, 2002), 158; Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, trans. Armand Maurer. 2nd rev. ed. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1968), 69. See further, Sam Ashton, Beyond Male and Female? A Theological Account of Intersex Embodiment, TTCETE (London: T&T Clark, 2023), 130—40. But he is also particularly male (so not intersex), such that no sex is necessarily second-class. All sexes, however sexed, find redemptive hope in an historically concrete male Messiah.
Turning to consider Christ’s work, innovationist proposals typically cluster around a central question: “How does redemption relate to creation?” Or more specifically: “How does the redemptive work of Christ relate to the ‘male and female’ of the creation event?” While traditionalists stress the stability of creation, revisionists rightly highlight the significance of Christ’s coming for issues of sexuality. For instance, Megan DeFranza notes how Jesus enfolds eunuchs “as they are” into the purposes of God (Matt 19:12; cf. Isa 56:3–5).11Megan K. DeFranza, “Good News for Gender Minorities,” in Understanding Transgender Identities: Four Views, ed. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 174, italics original. DeFranza demands that just as Jesus expands the selection on the food menu (Mark 7), so too does Jesus expand divinely intended possibilities for the sexed body. Advancing beyond DeFranza’s “redemption expands creation” rubric, Robert Song argues that redemptive newness for the sexed body is not so much a gradual crescendo of creation but a disjunctive step-up, indicated most clearly in Paul’s statement that “there is neither . . . male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Sexual dimorphism was fitting in creation, but “baptism and the new identity in Christ takes us beyond the creation categories of male and female in a way that renders them no longer of defining importance.”12Robert Song, Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex Relationships (London: SCM, 2014), 49, italics added. While the models of DeFranza and Song are distinct, both claim that redemption advances beyond creation such that sexual dimorphism in creation becomes sexual polymorphism in Christ. Jesus bursts open the original binary.
In response, redemptive newness in Christ neither replaces nor expands the creational structure of male and female. This is because redemption reverses the fall (rather than dismantling creation), as implied in 1 Corinthians 15. Where death disorders (rather than destroys) the sexed body, Christ reorders our sexed bodies. Death mis-directed the body towards decaying disintegration; Christ re-directs the sexed body towards shalom. Death deforms; grace reforms.13Importantly, creation and redemption find their organic connection in Christ, our creator and redeemer. If creation and redemption are made to conflict, then we end up with a conflicted Christ—a far cry from the picture of Christ in the NT (e.g., Col. 1:15–20).
From Matthew 19:12 and Galatians 3:28, redemption “now” concentrates on spiritual and social inclusion, rather than any structural expansion toward sexual polymorphism. In the OT there was an expected pattern for all Israelites to marry and reproduce. Faithful OT Israelites procreated in the hope that one day one baby would be the promised serpent crusher (cf. Gen. 3:15). The coming of Christ, the true seed (Gal. 3:16), brings this expected pattern to an end. What Christ expands are godly relationship options, valorising the vocation of singleness for the service of God. Intersex individuals are “eunuchs born that way” (Matt. 19:12a). Previously, they were marginalized in the old covenant (cf. Lev. 21:20; Deut. 23:1), but now they are welcomed as they are, spiritually by God and socially by his church. Thus, redemption’s focus on status over structure undermines the innovationist claim that Jesus bursts open the sexed binary. Nonetheless, even though Christ begins to reorder us spiritually and socially, our bodies still groan and eagerly await their full and final redemption (Rom. 8:23), driving us on to contemplate the nature of redemptive newness for intersex embodiment per se in the consummation.
4. Consummation
In the new creation, Christ will transform “our lowly body [into the] form of his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). But what might this eschatological newness mean for intersex bodies? Will we be unambiguously “male and female” or is there space for intersex as intersex in heaven?
While the Christian tradition has historically followed Augustine’s claim that “both sexes will rise again,” signalling sexual dimorphism in the consummation,14Augustine, City of God: XI-XXII, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. William Babcock, WSA I/7 (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 2013), 526. innovationists fear that such logic tends to erase diversity and difference. Indeed, where the case for an eschatological male-female binary is linked with the eradication of bodily impairments, Candida Moss complains that any “heavenly healing” amounts to “heavenly eugenics.”15Candida R. Moss, Divine Bodies: Resurrecting Perfection in the New Testament and Early Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019), 26. Keen to avoid such pitfalls, innovationists appeal to the scars on Jesus’ resurrection body to argue for a heavenly “rainbow of sex.”16John Hare, “Afterword,” in Intersex, Theology, and the Bible: Troubling Bodies in Church, Text, and Society, ed. Susannah Cornwall (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 200. Other arguments for intersex in heaven include strained appeals to the Trinity as a blueprint, as well as more philosophically inflected proposals as to what counts as numerical identity in the new creation. E.g., Adrian Thatcher, Gender and Christian Ethics, NSCE 39 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021); Susannah Cornwall, Sex and Uncertainty in the Body of Christ: Intersex Conditions and Christian Theology, GTS (London: Equinox, 2010). If Jesus’ identity-constituting bodily impairments last, so too will ours, including the impairment of intersexuality. Jesus’ scars establish his identity, and so mark his resurrected body. If the eschaton erases the specificity of my present embodiment, then my identity is eradicated. It is not me in heaven – not to me, not to others, nor to God.
One response to the innovationist case notes the seemingly arbitrary focus on Jesus’ scars, often ignoring other features of his raised body, e.g., instantly appearing in locked rooms (Jn 20:19, 26). Are these features equally normative or distinct to Jesus? Why focus on physical impairment, yet disregard intangibility? Secondly, there are hints that Jesus’ scars may have a unique function tied to his specific mission, emphasizing his physical integrity (in Luke) and his numerical identity (in John) to elicit belief in him as the “Messiah, the Son of God” (Jn 20:28–31). Thirdly, Jesus remains the only person in Scripture whose movement from earthly death to heavenly life was a two-stage process. If stage two (ascension) introduces bodily transformation, then the normativity of stage one (resurrection scars) is troubled further. Of course, none of these points rule out the logical possibility of intersex embodiment in heaven. For that, we turn to 1 Corinthians 15.
A more positive argument for sexual dimorphism in heaven may be constructed when we situate the heavenly body within Scripture’s grand story of creation to consummation. In 1 Corinthians 15:35–58, Paul stresses that the body must change to “inherit the kingdom of God” (v.50). But this bodily transformation, while necessary and wonderful, will be shaped by the good structures God has already laid down in creation. This implies that since the sexed body was unambiguously male and female in creation, we shall all be clearly male and female in the new creation. So, an intersex person may not currently know their true sex, but what God alone knows now, all will know and rejoice in when God glorifies the body.
While the spectre of “heavenly eugenics” may haunt my argument, Augustine offers resources to envision a “heavenly eulogization” of intersex scars. Following Augustine’s speculation on the eschatological embodiment of martyrs, God remains faithful to the goodness of historical particularity, for it attests to God’s redeeming grace. This creates conceptual space to discern a certain fittingness to God “perhaps” inscribing the marks of virtue-cultivating impairments upon resurrected bodies.17Augustine, City of God, 22.19 (CCSL 48:839; WSA I/7:530). As such, heaven does not kill intersexuality (eugenics) but may praise God’s faithfulness through intersexuality (eulogization). God will heal bodily impairments according to the beauty and harmony of his ordered peace. Yet where impairments have cultivated virtue (e.g., hope through trial), God may inscribe former impairments as “marks of honour” that continue to testify to God’s gracious faithfulness. Thus, the legacy of intersexuality may remain in heaven, not as unambiguous embodiment, but as “marks of honour.”
For Augustine, the martyr’s “mark of honour” was in the precise place of former impairment. If Augustine is correct, then an intersex individual could expect God to emblazon his “mark of honour” in a place unlikely to be seen by other heavenly citizens.18Also, note how Rev 7:9 mentions that all shall be dressed in white robes. But a hidden mark is not less honourable, for such a “mark of honour” fittingly reflects God’s love for and faithfulness to that individual’s particular story, especially a story that testifies to God’s redeeming grace.19Christ’s scars provide exhibit A. In heaven God continues to communicate through intersex “marks of honour” that intersex bodily history matters to God. He sees, completely and truly, even when others may not. Perhaps, following Augustine, consummative renewal paradoxically requires some form of non-renewal—both now and forever.20That is, complete healing now would evacuate the possibility of marks of honour having meaning (now) and in consummation. Perhaps even such marks of honour in consummation are necessarily cultivated now through weak embodiment. In short, Augustine offers resources to read the “heavenly healing” of intersexuality not as the terroristic threat of “heavenly eugenics” but as the holistic hope of “heavenly eulogization.”
5. Conclusion
I have tracked and traced the sexed body from creation through to consummation. The movement of the story may be summarized by the strapline “consummation restoratively transforms creation.” Correct intersex interpretation begins by recognizing that all creation (including all humans, which includes all intersex persons) exists within this divine story. Knowing what and whose story we participate in, and where we are within that story, clarifies which traits of sexed embodiment are structurally essential for human nature and which traits are accidental to the historical “direction” of the sexed body at any particular point in the story.
If the strapline is “consummation restoratively transforms creation,” then we read the story well when wearing a set of theological glasses that includes two lenses: one highlights restoration, the other accentuates transformation. Like a pair of red and blue lensed 3D glasses, the lenses of restoration and transformation interpret the image of intersexuality with depth and clarity. The restoration lens accentuates the structural depth of the stage on which the story plays out. It highlights humanity’s creational structure as a sexuate correspondence between “male and female” that endures throughout history. The transformation lens focuses on how we ourselves live at each act within the unfolding narrative. It helps us notice new characteristics as the performance moves from creation to consummation.
Both lenses are vital for accurate reading, but I have suggested that restoration modifies transformation. My decision looks to reflect the biblical pattern of foregrounding the story over the stage (the where over the what). But of course, the biblical story does not (indeed cannot) be performed without the stage. The stage remains the external basis of the story, while the story is the internal basis of the stage. A stage without a story is empty; a story without a stage is blind. “Restoratively transforms” aims to capture this story-stage dynamic and so enhance the three-dimensional complexity and beauty of the divine drama. Like the National Theatre in London, whose flat stage is primed to spring into life,21The stage contains a massive revolving drum that can elevate, rotate, and light up at key moments in performances. so humanity’s sexed staging is intrinsically primed and extrinsically (re)directed toward its perfection—a Trinitarian act of grace.22Webster, “Eschatology, Anthropology and Postmodernity,” IJST 2 (2000):28. Thus, consummation restoratively transforms creation in an upward spiral motion, where “the end returns to the beginning and yet is at the same time the apex which is exalted high above the point of origin.”23Herman Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God: Instruction in the Christian Religion According to the Reformed Confession, trans. Henry Zylstra (Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), 127.
With the restoration-transformation 3D glasses in place, I offer my interpretation of intersexuality. God made the sexed body in the event and intent of creation as a sexuate correspondence between “male and female.” We were formed for fruitfulness. This structurally ordered peace was (spiritually, socially, and somatically) mis-directed in the fall, (spiritually and socially) re-directed in redemption, and will be (somatically) transformed in the consummation.24The spiritual and social renewal begun at Christ’s first coming will also be complete in the consummation. Accordingly, one unavoidable conclusion is to read intersex conditions as physical impairments resulting from the fall. Empirically observed in the present, intersex is a mix of male and female. Before Jesus’ return, ambiguity regarding one’s true sex remains (at least from a human perspective). However, exploring the whatness of the sexed body should not detract from the primary story—intersex Christians are individuals who have been redeemed spiritually and socially and will be transformed somatically at the consummation to sexed epistemic clarity.
Moreover, the forward thrust of the divine drama teaches that ecclesial inclusion in the present of intersex individuals as intersex is about holiness. True welcome of the other demands a willingness to be changed by the other, for church is the “place of transformation, of discipline, of learning, and not merely a place to be comforted or indulged.”25Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1996), 401. We all need God’s help to see others like God sees us, to move toward concrete face-to-face encounters, to give special honour to the seemingly less honourable, and to allow the indispensable contribution of the supposedly other to grow the body of Christ more into the image of Christ (1 Cor 12:22–25; Eph 4:15–16).
My theological glasses insist that, despite the medical and social challenges intersex persons often face, they are not theologically worse off than anyone else. Rather, the consummative direction of the divine drama casts a compelling vision of corporate holiness for all, however sexed. Such a vision appreciates the “strange vocation,” and so unique contribution, of an intersex individual’s embodiment.26“Strange” or “marvelous vocations” (miris vocationibus) is Augustine’s label for individuals who are impaired yet exemplary Christians. See Augustine, “The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones,” 1.22.32, in Answer to the Pelagians, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, WSA I/23 (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1997), 52. Through bodies that are not clearly ordered to the opposite sex, God perhaps placards in a very concrete way the theological truth that humans are ultimately ordered to life with God. Just as the church needs the vocation of singleness to remind us that we are ultimately married to Christ, so too does the church need intersex people to help us grow in heavenly mindedness.
Viewing intersexuality through restoration-transformation lenses takes the spotlight off our sexed state and puts it rightly upon Christ with and to whom we journey – a timely word in our sex-saturated society. As Gregory of Nazianzus preached around 370 AD, to inspire love for homeless lepers, it is human “kindness” that most clearly resembles Christ our head.27Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 14,” 8 (PG 35:868). Such kindness could begin with simply taking the time (individually and collectively) to listen to, lament with, and love on our intersex siblings. We need Christ to give us his “empathetic gaze” upon the wondrously wounded.28Brian Brock, Wondrously Wounded: Theology, Disability, and the Body of Christ, SRTD (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019), 33. We need a humble willingness to be changed through concrete face-to-face encounters with the “strange vocation” of other others, so that together we may grow into and publicly display the beautiful image of Christ, and all the more as we see the day of Christ approaching and we journey to the wedding supper of the Lamb.
6. A Possible Pastoral Conversation with Sally
Imagine someone comes to you who has recently found out that they are intersex. How would you respond? Here are a few questions and possible answers to chew over.
Q: Hi. I’ve always thought of myself as female, but the doctor just told me that I’m intersex. I’m pretty confused. Who am I? What am I?
A: Thank you for sharing that news with me Sally. The Bible says that all humans, however sexed, are made in God’s image (Gen 1:26). Sin and death may have twisted the image of God (in all of us), but the image is not destroyed. God loves you. You’re no less human for being intersex. We may not know whether you’re truly male or female, but God does, and we might be able to get a little more clarity about who and what we are as we work out where we fit in God’s big story of making all things new in Jesus. I wonder how your specific embodiment could be a means of helping us see and savour more of our Saviour.
Q: Ok, so I trust Jesus and know I’m one day closer to seeing him face-to-face. I long for him to wipe away all my tears and name me rightly. But as I wait, why’s God done this to me? Does God have a plan for my intersex body?
A: Sally, we have a God who loves to bring life out of death. Just think of the life of Joseph (Gen 50:20) or think of the cross and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:23–24). God is always at work, sometimes in very surprising ways, to display his glory (John 9:3). I don’t know precisely how God will display his glory in your life (nor mine, for that matter). But I trust that our bodies remain good, even if broken, and a life of faith this side of heaven means walking faithfully with Jesus in and through our bodies. Put simply, I cannot escape my body. I am my body. Every day we need to ask ourselves, how can I serve God faithfully in this body today? How can I be a trustworthy steward of all that God’s entrusted to me, including my body (1 Cor 4:2)?
Q: Sure, but as an intersex person I simply cannot live (let alone hope for) a ‘normal’ life like most people. I cannot have kids. In fact, if I’m female on the outside, but really male on the inside, were I to marry a man, would I be in a same-sex marriage? Should I even get married?
A: You’re right. The Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman for life (Gen 2:24). An essential aspect of marriage is a couple’s openness to physical (and not just spiritual) procreation, which of course requires the sexually fruitful union of one man and one woman. Heterosexual marriage displays something of the gospel (Eph 5:31). Mess with marriage and we mess with the gospel.
Now this is just a thought experiment, so bear with me! If you are a woman (and everything on the outside from birth suggests you’re a woman), and if you marry someone of the opposite sex, then the gospel sign-character of marriage can be retained. Further, both of you can still have an open attitude to procreation like any other couple. Indeed, all procreation is a miracle of life from God, even if it’s statistically more likely for some than others. Just think of the story of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16–21).
Saying all that, just because an intersex person could get married doesn’t necessarily mean that they should get married. In fact, in the new covenant, that’s now true for all of us. Most sexed bodies are clearly ordered to the opposite sex, and through this God communicates something about the goodness of creation and generation. But I wonder if there’s something particularly special and unique that God is trying to communicate through those bodies (e.g., intersex) that are not clearly ordered to the opposite sex. Perhaps God has written a reminder for all of us on your body—the more fundamental truth that humans are first and foremost ordered most properly to God. Human marriage is good, but like the vocation of singleness, the church needs intersex siblings to remind us that we’re made for more than each other—we’re made for the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9). Non-intersex folk need you to help us live now in light of eternity.
Sally, thank you again for trusting me enough to share this deeply personal information. Come back at me with your thoughts? What can we mull over together? I’d love to know how we can avoid any hurt in the way we talk together and pray for you (e.g., in our language? Or clumsily lumping you in with ‘everyone else’?). How can we as your church family love you well? What is a truth about God that you have clung to as you have grown in self-understanding?
7. Glossary
- Intersex(ed)—a human person whose body does not fit the predominant pattern of either male or female. E.g., someone could have XY chromosomes (male on the inside) and a vagina (female on the outside).
- Sexual dimorphism—all sexed bodies come in one of two (di) forms (morphe), either male or female.
- Sexual polymorphism—sexed bodies come in many (poly) forms. Male and female is not binary but should be understood as poles of a spectrum.
- Shalom—God’s ordered peace and wholeness at every level of creation.
This article summarises the much more detailed treatment found in Sam Ashton, Beyond Male and Female? A Theological Account of Intersex Embodiment, TTCETE (London: T&T Clark, 2023), an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, found at https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/beyond-male-and-female-9780567713148/
