In recent years, Christian scholars such as Oliver O’Donovan and Nancy Pearcey have compared the modern transgender movement to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism.1 In “Transsexualism and Christian Marriage,” O’Donovan states, “If I claim to have a ‘real sex’ which may be at war with the sex of my body and is at least in a rather uncertain relationship to it, I am shrinking from the glad acceptance of myself as a physical as well as spiritual being, and seeking self-knowledge in a kind of Gnostic withdrawal from material creation.”2 Pearcey expresses a similar sentiment in Love Thy Body: “Young people are absorbing the idea that the physical body is not part of the authentic self—that the authentic self is only the autonomous choosing self. This is ancient Gnosticism in new garb.”3

While commonly made, how much validity may be ascribed to the comparison of transgenderism to ancient Gnosticism? One way of answering this question is to examine the early church’s dialogue with gnostic thought. Based on a survey of ancient gnostic sources, the writings of Tertullian, the claims of Queer Theory, and modern scholarly work on transgenderism, this article argues that it is approprriate to make a nuanced comparison between the anthropology of ancient Gnosticism and that assumed by the contemporary transgender movement is an appropriate one when nuanced. I also argue that Tertullian’s refutation of gnostic thought in particular has much to offer the contemporary church as it wrestles with “ancient Gnosticism in new garb” and attempts to distinguish orthodoxy from heresy. While one should always exhibit caution when comparing contemporary ideologies to ancient heresies, there is much from the ancient gnostic writings and the work of Tertullian that contributes valuable theological insights into contemporary dialogues about transgenderism.

1. Gnostic Anthropology

One of the most prominent characteristics of ancient Gnosticism is its anti-cosmic dualism. Many gnostic texts depict a duality between the transcendent God and the creator god, as well as a duality between God and the material world. Gnostics generally considered the material world to be created by the error of a lower “archon” or “demiurge” rather than by the good and transcendent God. This dualistic cosmology has inevitable implications for gnostic anthropology. For, as Kurt Rudolph notes, “The world is the product of a divine tragedy, a disharmony in the realm of God, a baleful destiny in which man is entangled and from which he must be set free.”4

1.1. The Role of the Body and Androgyny in Gnostic Anthropology

Due to this dualism, many gnostic texts depict a sharp distinction between the material self and the spiritual self. The “true” person or “inner man” is not only distinguished from but pitted against the body in which he is enclosed. While exceptions can be found, this characteristic consistently manifests itself in a variety of gnostic texts, many of which will be surveyed below.5

The Apocryphon of John, for example, depicts the first perfect human as an immaterial being. In this text, the rest of humanity is supposedly created by a lower archon named Yaldabaoth, who forms mankind in both the image of God and the image of the lower archons. Humans are seen as a convergence of divine and human, with the body supplied by the lower archons while still reflecting the first human.6 In accord with this view, The Gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying, “If spirit came into being because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. Indeed I am amazed at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.”7 The Gospel of Phillip displays a similar attitude, describing the soul as a “precious thing” that dwells in a “worthless body.”8 In short, many gnostic texts exhibit a disparaging view of the body, calling it a “prison” and associating it with beastly nature.9

Gnostics generally considered the body to be inevitably fated to destruction. Thus, the Apocryphon of James seems to affirm that the body is not the self and that only the soul is capable of salvation.10 The Valentinians possessed a tripartite anthropology that resulted in three classes of person: the spiritual, the animal (or psychical), and the material. Spiritual persons were guaranteed salvation, while those with an animal nature had hopes of salvation. Material persons, however, were guaranteed destruction.11 The gnostic disparagement of the body often results in a disparaging view of sex and procreation. The Apocryphon of John depicts the desire for sex as something implanted in Adam and Eve by the lower archon, Yaldabaoth, in order to increase their misery. Intercourse was sometimes seen by Gnostics as a subhuman or beastly use of the body.12 A frequent component of gnostic salvation is a liberation of the self from one’s material confines and its reintegration with heavenly reality.13

The devaluation of the material body led some Gnostics to depict humanity as an originally androgynous or asexual creation.14 Irenaeus argues that the Gnostics interpreted the Genesis narrative in such a way that “man was formed after the image and likeness of God, masculo-feminine, and that this was the spiritual man; and that another man was formed out of the earth.”15 Hippolytus argues that a sect called the Naassenes also perceived the original human to be masculo-feminine, describing their origin-myth in the following way:

For the Naassene says, there is the hermaphrodite man. According to this account of theirs, the intercourse of woman with man is demonstrated, in conformity with such teaching, to be an exceedingly wicked and filthy (practice). For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite.16

The Naassenes supposedly argued that one should strive to reach the ungendered state of the spiritual human. While it is not always possible to verify the accuracy of accounts provided by the heresiologists of the early church, the theme of an original or ideal androgyny seems to be present in many gnostic texts. Summarizing this gnostic theme, Jonathan Cahana states: “This is a recurrent theme found in most, if not all, gnostic writings: the original perfect human, or anthropos, is neither gendered nor sexed, and gender is the creation of an evil, inferior, and overly masculine god whose purpose is to delude humankind lest they recognize their heavenly origin.”17 The sexed state of human beings is seen as something that humans are subjected to by an inferior god. Accordingly, salvation is often conceived of as a return to androgyny.

The Gospel of Thomas also exhibits this androgyne theme, indicating that a person who is truly spiritual will transcend and renounce “the enslaving life and divisive categories of sexuality.”18 Moreover, the gnostic aversion to the material realm often resulted in a particular opposition to “femaleness,” due to the female association with the natural processes of procreation and intercourse.19 Women are therefore depicted as having to transcend their biological sex in order to be saved. This is seen in the (supposed) words of Jesus regarding Mary Magdalene that conclude the Gospel of Thomas: “Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter heaven’s kingdom.”20 While there are various interpretations to this passage, it is clear that femaleness is something that women need to surpass.21 However, earlier in the text Jesus is recorded as saying: “when you make … the male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, … then you shall enter [the kingdom].”22 While this is, again, an opaque saying, it seems to suggest that the properly spiritual person is one who transcends their sex and their enslavement to the divisive categories of male and female.

In presenting such a picture, both protological and eschatological, the Gospel of Thomas is not alone; the theme of an original and ideal androgyny pervades many gnostic texts. The Apocryphon of John, for example, contains a similar emphasis on an originally androgynous creation,23 and according to the Gospel of Phillip a key component of salvation is the reunification of the sexes into their original androgynous state. In this latter text, death is also seen as the consequence of Eve’s separation from Adam. Consequently, death will cease to be at their reunification.24

1.2. The Gnostic View of the Incarnation

The gnostic view of the material body often produced a docetic view of the person of Christ. The Revelation of Peter possesses one of the more prominent gnostic examples of such a Christology. It records Jesus explaining to Peter that it was not actually Jesus who was crucified; rather, his place was taken by “the substitute for him,” while “the living Jesus” watched and laughed at the ignorance of the rulers.25 The First Revelation of James contains similar themes, as Jesus assures James that he never suffered or was harmed; rather the one afflicted was a “figure of the rulers.”26

However, while clear examples of Docetic Christology certainly exist in gnostic texts, Karen King points out that not all Gnostics denied Christ’s bodily existence. Rather, the more consistent theme, as King identifies, is the rejection of the body as the self. In other words, the claim of some gnostic texts is that, although Jesus’s body was crucified, it is not Jesus’s true self that died. In the Letter of Peter to Phillip and the Valentinian Treatise on the Resurrection, it is acknowledged that Christ was truly incarnate; but his incarnation, death, and resurrection are viewed as evidence of the immortal spirit’s entrapment in mortal flesh. These texts, then, accept that “the Lord truly had a physical body, truly suffered and died.” The problem, however, is that this affirmation is tied to “a view that rejects the body as the self.”27

1.3. Summary of Gnostic Anthropology

One of the primary themes of gnostic anthropology is that the material body is a part of a “lesser” reality, one that is not connected to the “true” self. This understanding of the human person intentionally disconnects the body from the soul, as the body (including biological sex) needs to be transcended in order to achieve salvation. In other words, the eschatological aim of Gnosticism is not a continuation or restoration or even transformation of sexed bodily existence, but a transcending of it. This view of the body results in what could be described as a docetic-leaning tendency in gnostic Christology. These themes are not present in every gnostic text, however, but are consistent enough to be considered general themes of gnostic anthropology.

2. The Orthodox Response: Tertullian

The leaders of early orthodox Christianity issued an emphatic rejection of the views proposed by the Gnostics. In this section, the response of Tertullian will be surveyed, as his refutation of gnostic doctrine synthesized many of the orthodox arguments.28 While Tertullian is known for his use of caricature and misrepresentation in his arguments against heretics, his response is extremely useful in determining how the orthodox church fathers perceived the anthropology of the Gnostics and why they opposed it so strongly.

The period between 150 AD and 250 AD was a high point in the debate between the Christian church and the Gnostics, with Tertullian being one of the church’s foremost representatives. In his De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Tertullian brings together many of the standard objections to gnostic thought.29 One of his primary arguments is that Christian truth should rest upon Christ and his apostles alone, not upon any other philosophy or intellectual reasoning. Thus, it is in this text that we find the famous statement, “What then has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the Academy with the Church, the heretics with the Christians?”30 Tertullian also appeals to the rule of faith, which was “taught by Christ” and affirms the one and only God as the creator of the world, the true flesh of Christ, and the promise of humanity’s future bodily resurrection (“the restoration of their flesh”).31

2.1. The Incarnation

In response to Marcion, Valentinus, and other Gnostics who denied the true humanity of Jesus, Tertullian devotes an entire treatise to a defense of the reality of Christ’s body. In this text, On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian refutes the notion that material existence is intrinsically unworthy of a transcendent God. Following a vivid depiction of the messiness of the birthing process, Tertullian defends the goodness of human embodiment, stating, “Christ, at any rate, has loved even that man who was condensed in his mother’s womb amidst all its uncleannesses, even that man who was brought into life out of the said womb,” and “loving man He loved his nativity also, and his flesh as well.”32 In other words, Tertullian argues that Christ loves the whole man, flesh included, and that this love compelled Christ to do something as “foolish” as take on flesh. Tertullian vividly describes this reality: “I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without a doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man.”33 Tertullian’s primary argument is that Christ loved mankind enough to take on true flesh, with its limitations, so that he might redeem both the body and soul of those he came to save.

2.2. The Resurrection of the Flesh

In his On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Tertullian highlights the significance of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, asserting that “the resurrection of the dead is the Christian’s trust.”34 He describes the view of the heretics as follows:

Is not (their burden) from the beginning and everywhere an invective against the flesh—against its origin, against its substance, against the casualties and the invariable end which await it; unclean from its first formation of the dregs of the ground, uncleaner afterwards from the mire of its own seminal transmission; worthless, weak, covered with guilt, laden with misery, full of trouble, and after all this record of its degradation dropping into its original earth and the appellation of a corpse, and destined to dwindle away even from this loathsome name into none henceforth at all—into the very death of all designation?35

Tertullian strongly argues against such degradation of the flesh: “Let, then, the flesh begin to give you pleasure since the Creator thereof is so great.”36 His understanding of the goodness of the body is strongly tied to his understanding of the goodness of the God who created all things. The human body was intentionally formed by God, and men and women are made in God’s image. The flesh’s origin from the dust of the ground does not detract from its dignity as “the privilege has been granted to the flesh to be nobler than its origin.”37

The flesh is included in God’s promises to mankind, as the soul’s “associate and co-heir.”38 Tertullian thus stresses the unity of the body and soul in the human person:

And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit…. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.39

Tertullian affirms the role of the flesh in the human person, articulating a psychosomatic unity that participates in all earthly and spiritual acts. Referring to the unity of body and soul in man, he states: “Thus the designation man is, in a certain sense, the bond between the two closely united substances, under which designation they cannot but be coherent natures.”40 Even in the context of Tertullian’s view of a corporeal nature of the soul, he argues that the soul still needs the flesh for perfect perception and perfect action of the person.41 Because humans are both body and soul, it is body and soul that are saved, sanctified, and judged.

Finally, a display of God’s love for the flesh is the promise that it will rise again. The flesh will not be left to destruction, as many Gnostics claimed, but will be raised along with the soul. The fatal impact of the fall on the flesh provides opportunity for God’s power to be displayed in the flesh’s restoration. The human body is subject to death and corruption, but these “earthen vessels” may contain the treasure of the life of Christ manifested, pointing to their own future resurrection and glory at his return.42 Tertullian argues against those who would disparage the natural functions of the body (such as pregnancy or the consumption of food) in order to deny the resurrection, as he affirms that the resurrected body will retain its limbs and biological sex, even though it may not participate in the same earthly functions.43 Tertullian points to Christ’s session as the guarantee of the resurrection of the flesh, stating, “He keeps in His own self the deposit of the flesh which has been committed to Him by both parties [God and man]—the pledge and security of its entire perfection. For as ‘he has given to us the earnest of the Spirit,’ so has He received from us the earnest of the flesh, and has carried it with Him into heaven as a pledge of that complete entirety which is one day to be restored to it.”44

2.3. Summary of the Orthodox View

From the earliest days of the church, there existed a battle to affirm the goodness of the body and its role in the human person. In light of the heretical views of the Gnostics, church fathers such as Tertullian determined from Christianity’s early days that views that did not affirm the goodness of God as creator and the goodness of God’s creation were outside of the bounds of orthodoxy. A denial of such views had far-reaching implications for some of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith such as the incarnation, the resurrection of Christ, and the future bodily resurrection of humanity at Christ’s return. In contrast to the Gnostics, Tertullian argued that the body is an intrinsic part of the self that is unified with the soul. Tertullian affirms an interdependence of body and soul, with the body as a meaningful part of the human person. In Christian eschatology and anthropology, the aim is not to transcend the body as the Gnostics desired, but for that very body to be restored at the return of Christ.

3. Transgenderism and Queer Theory

Almost eighteen-hundred years after the time of Tertullian and the Gnostics, the contemporary church is dealing with its own anthropological debates, prompted by the advent of the transgender movement and the development of Queer Theory. From the onset, it must be acknowledged that transgenderism and Gnosticism find a great diversity of thought among their proponents. There is not one understanding of transgenderism nor one version of Queer Theory. Therefore, the primary characteristics of each of these aspects of the modern gender movement will be discussed.45

3.1. Transgenderism

The American Psychological Association defines “transgender” as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”46 Gender identity is generally defined as one’s internal sense of whether one is a man or a woman. Those who identify as transgender, then, are usually given expression to a sense of misalignment between their biological sex and their gender identity.47 Oliver O’Donovan conveys the transgender perspective more pointedly, stating that “the body is an accident that has befallen the real me; the real me has a true sex, male or female; and I know immediately what that true sex is without anyone needing to tell me.”48 The term “transgender” embraces many subcategories, such as “gender fluid,” “genderqueer,” and “nonbinary,” some of which will be discussed below. Many trans-identified people take steps to align their appearance with their gender identity, with the most extreme forms including surgery. While transgender theory, or the idea that one’s biological sex can be at odds with one’s gender identity, emerged primarily as a response to gender dysphoria (which refers to the psychological distress produced by the experience of gender incongruence), voluntarist understandings of gender identity that reject both the sex-and-gender binary and the sex-and-gender connection are increasingly becoming more common.49

3.2. Judith Butler and Queer Theory

Judith Butler, who is seen by many as the founder of Queer Theory, represents well how gender ideologies have developed over the past few decades. In Gender Trouble (1990), Butler argues that the understanding of a binary in sex, gender, and desire, is not due to naturally occurring phenomena but to a formulation of power. She views both sex and gender not as “natural,” but as political “productions” that only appear to be natural and inevitable.50 In Butler’s perspective, the sex and gender binaries are political constructs that ought to be disrupted.51 She states, “If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed perhaps it was already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.”52 Not only does Butler view biological sex to be personally, socially, and politically constructed, but the same applies to one’s internal sense of gender identity. She argues that “the very notions of an essential sex and a true or abiding masculinity or femininity are also constituted as part of the strategy that conceals gender’s performative character.”53

Butler concludes that people should reject their natural tendency towards an internal coherence of sex, gender, and sexual expression.54 This can be done by engaging in performative acts that disrupt the categories of, and continuity between, body, sex, gender, and sexuality, and subvert the binary framework by exposing its phantasmic nature.55 Butler is certainly advocating a “strong” form of Queer Theory, but her perspectives are slowly integrating themselves into popular consciousness.56 The increased frequency of gender identities such as “genderqueer” or “nonbinary” reflect this integration, as both of these terms are used to describe a gender identity that is outside the gender binary.57 The distinction between Butler’s theory and the transgender theory discussed above is that Butler’s view rules out any possibility of an essential gender identity. In contrast, many transgender individuals claim that they do have a fundamental gender identity that is simply at odds with their biological sex.58

The question of transgenderism is not simply a matter of Christian interaction with a secular worldview. The church is being compelled to consider whether the concepts found within transgenderism fit within a Christian framework. Scott Bader-Saye, arguing against the charge that transgenderism is inherently “gnostic,” asserts that attempts to alter the body to align with one’s internal conception of gender is not a denial of the body but in fact a grace-filled attempt to turn the body from an “opponent into a partner.” He thus argues, “The goal of bodily transitioning for the trans person is not the punishment, torment, or destruction of the flesh but rather its metamorphosis for the sake of participating in gendered reciprocity. In this way it avoids the charge of Gnosticism.”59 Bader-Saye is correct that many advocates of transgenderism do not act out of asceticism or a hatred of embodiment as such. Consequently, most versions of transgenderism do not seem to warrant a comparison to the most extreme forms of Gnosticism. This comparison, however, warrants further consideration.

3.3. “Gnosticism in New Garb”?

The question remains as to whether the transgender movement can be aptly described as “ancient Gnosticism in new garb.” One must certainly acknowledge that there are completely different cosmologies and worldviews involved in these two movements. It is important, however, to consider whether gnostic and transgender anthropologies possess similar themes and assumptions, despite their different religious and cultural contexts. Significantly, both Gnosticism and transgenderism hold to a similar understanding of the body’s relationship to the self. While Bader-Saye is correct to assert that most transgender individuals would not admit to a “hatred” of the body, there is an evident prioritization in the transgender framework. In instances of gender incongruence, proponents of the transgender movement generally argue that one should adapt or present their body in a way that accommodates the internal self at the expense of the realities of one’s biological sex. Even in the proposition provided by Bader-Saye, it is assumed that the body is the opponent. Proponents of transgender theory rarely assert that the mind should be guided towards congruence with the physical realities of the body. These matters are complex, and the point of the present article is not to discuss the various methods of treating gender incongruence. In both ancient Gnosticism and contemporary transgenderism, however, it seems that there exists at least an implicit tendency to identify the body as the “lower” self or as a less meaningful part of the self. In this way, the charge that transgenderism presupposes a “gnostic” view of the person does not seem to be baseless.

Advocates of Queer Theory, following the trajectory of Judith Butler, are perhaps most reflective of the gnostic separation of the body from the true self. As we have seen, explicit in Butler’s view is the assertion that the body does not possess a reality that should determine one’s identity. Any who would champion a complete dismissal of the realities of biological sex are not far from the gnostic desire for an asexual transcendence of the material world. Oliver O’Donovan argues, “Self-transcendence, in which the spirit may view the body as an object for thought, has not led, as it ought, to the recognition of the body as self and the acknowledgment of self as obligated to the body’s form; it has led to the reduction of the body to undifferentiated matter, on which the spirit proposes to exercise unlimited freedom.”60 This self-falsification is the natural consequence of the denial of the identity-determining significance of the material body, and it is founded upon the abolition of complementarity between body and soul in a way that is suspiciously similar to gnostic dualism. This fragmentation of body and soul in the pursuit of a transcendence of material reality possesses genuine echoes of gnostic dualism that renders valid the charges of O’Donovan and Pearcey.

4. Theological Significance and Christian Orthodoxy

Given that there is a valid comparison to be made between gnostic anthropology and the implied anthropology of transgenderism, what can the contemporary church learn from the response of the ancient church to gnostic heresy? To answer this question, it might be helpful to consider how the church fathers, such as Tertullian, might respond to the contemporary transgender movement. Based on Tertullian’s response to Gnostic anthropology, it is likely there would be three areas of emphasis: the goodness of material creation and the human body, the unity of the human person, and the implications of bodily resurrection.

4.1. Affirming the Goodness of Creation

Tertullian clearly opposed the anti-material notions of the gnostic sects, as well as the docetic tendencies that stemmed from this worldview. While the comparison of gnostic anthropology and the anthropology of transgenderism is not an exact one, the orthodox conversation with gnostic thought gives the contemporary church precedent for a continued affirmation of the goodness of material creation and the physical body.

One of Tertullian’s fundamental concerns with gnostic anthropology is that what one believes about the character of creation has a direct bearing upon what one believes about the character of the God who created it.61 According to Scripture, the human body, including its existence as male and female, is the intentional creation of a good God who made men and women in his image (Gen 1:27). The goodness of creation and Creator, therefore, stand or fall together. This ancient argument of Christian orthodoxy is one that O’Donovan echoes when he states, “Together with man’s essential involvement in created order and his rebellious discontent with it, we must reckon also upon the opacity and obscurity of that order to the human mind which has rejected the knowledge of its Creator.”62 A rejection of the goodness of creation and its order results from a rejection of the knowledge of its good Creator. This reality should remind the church that dialogue with many advocates of transgenderism is first and foremost a missionary encounter, as those who do not recognize the good Creator will always be limited in their ability to recognize the goodness of creation. While Christians should discuss issues of gender and sexuality with nuance and compassion, any perspective that does not also affirm the goodness of creation and the human body deviates from the church’s orthodox heritage.

4.2. The Unity of the Human Person

Tertullian indicates that the body is an essential part of human personhood that should not be denied its goodness or givenness. The orthodox perspective indicates that body and soul are meant to live in coherence and unity. In fact, they do so by their very nature. The body is the body of the soul, and the soul is the soul of the body. Therefore, while the fall may affect a person’s feelings of congruence with their body, they should not embrace an identity that denies the reality of their bodily existence. The orthodox view particularly indicates that any perspective that denies the integration of body and soul does not have a place within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. While Christians should be sympathetic toward those for whom the sex of their body is difficult to accept, the Christian belief that both body and soul are unified in the human person means that Christian theology should compassionately and boldly point to that truth. While many a trans person would claim to be motivated by a desire for unity of body and soul, it cannot be achieved through artificial manipulation of the body or denial of its realities. Rather, those with gender incongruence must accept that the body they have already reveals their personhood.63

4.3. The Implications of Bodily Resurrection

Tertullian emphasizes that both the incarnation and resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of mankind point to the goodness of the body. Christ’s incarnation indicates that he came to redeem the whole person of one who would believe in him.64 Christ’s resurrection is the final declaration that material creation is good and worth redeeming. O’Donovan echoes the ancient sentiments of Tertullian when he says,

It might have been possible, we could say, before Christ rose from the dead, for someone to wonder whether creation was a lost cause. If the creature consistently acted to uncreate itself, and with itself to uncreate the rest of creation, did this not mean that God’s handiwork was flawed beyond hope of repair? It might have been possible before Christ rose from the dead to answer in good faith, Yes. Before God raised Jesus from the dead, the hope that we call ‘gnostic’, the hope from creation rather than for the redemption of creation, might have appeared to be the only possible hope. ‘But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead…’65

The bodily resurrection of Christ, one of the core tenets of the Christian faith, is one of the strongest orthodox arguments against a “gnostic” view of creation. Elaine Pagels asserts that the orthodox doctrine of resurrection affirms bodily existence as “the central fact of human life.”66 The future resurrection of the flesh indicates that the body is a reality that will exist in eternity, albeit in a glorified state. Just as the resurrected body of Jesus remains male, so this resurrection of the body will mean the resurrection of each person as male or female. While marriage will cease in eternity, the historical understanding is that it is sexed bodies that will rise in the new creation.67 The future restoration of the whole person at Christ’s return may provide hope for those who feel at odds with their body in this life, as the soul will exist in perfect unity with its glorified body in eternity. Church fathers such as Tertullian knew that the resurrection meant creation is to be restored, not abandoned. The church today must follow suit in proclaiming the goodness of God’s creation, including the sexed human body, if it is to properly communicate the hope of the resurrection.

5. Conclusion

In Resurrection and Moral Order, O’Donovan states, “A belief in Christian ethics is a belief that certain ethical and moral judgments belong to the gospel itself; a belief, in other words, that the church can be committed to ethics without moderating the tone of its voice as a bearer of glad tidings.”68 In some of the earliest conversations regarding orthodoxy and heresy in the Christian church, the orthodox recognized that anthropology was intimately tied to some of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. The goodness of the body and material creation was ardently affirmed by the orthodox leaders such as Tertullian, due to the close relation of these doctrines to one’s doctrine of God, Christ, and the resurrection. The contemporary church must learn from its ancient heritage and, as a “bearer of glad tidings” in its own conversations of orthodoxy and heresy, declare the goodness of the God-given body in light of the “gnostic” anthropology of the transgender movement.

---

1 Scholars such as Scott Bader Saye have critiqued this comparison. See Scott Bader Saye, “The Transgender Body’s Grace,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 39 (2019): 75–92.
2 Oliver O’Donovan, “Transsexualism and Christian Marriage,” JRE 11 (1983): 147.
3 Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 196.
4 Many scholars caution against over-generalization of gnostic cosmic dualism. Michael Williams argues that gnostic “hatred” of the material world is overstated. Some gnostic texts and schools display this trait more than others. There is evidence for a cautious and nuanced continuation of this general theme. See Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) and Karen King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).
5 The purpose of this article is not to discuss the validity of “Gnosticism” as a category or to draw sharp distinctions between types of Gnosticism. The texts cited below have sufficient scholarly support to be considered “gnostic,” even if debates exist. The characterizations given of Gnosticism are general ones, with the acknowledgement that there are exceptions to these general observations and themes.
6 The Secret Book of John 15.
7 The Gospel of Thomas 29.
8 The Gospel of Phillip 56:20–26.
9 Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism, 116.
10 The Apocryphon of James 11:6–12:17.
11 Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 26 (ANF 3:516). See also The Tripartite Tractate 104:18–106:25, 118:14–122:12.
12 Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism, 12, 122.
13 Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 91.
14 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 56–57.
15 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.18.2.
16 Hippolytus of Rome, The Refutation of All Heresies (Pickerington, OH: Beloved, 2016), 57.
17 Jonathan Cahana, “Gnostically Queer: Gender Trouble in Gnosticism,” BTB 41 (2011): 30.
18 Marvin Meyer, “Making Mary Male: The Categories of Male and Female in the Gospel of Thomas,” NTS 31 (2009): 561.
19 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 66–67.
20 The Gospel of Thomas 114.
21 Daniel L. Hoffman, The Status of Women and Gnosticism in Irenaeus and Tertullian (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1995), 39.
22 The Gospel of Thomas 22.
23 The Secret Book of John 4:19–6:10, 23:35–30:11.
24 The Gospel of Philip 68:22–26.
25 The Revelation of Peter 81:3–82:3.
26 The First Revelation of James 30:16–32:28.
27 Karen King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 212.
28 Tertullian’s response to Gnosticism is consistent with much of the discourse provided by other early orthodox leaders such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Tertullian is surveyed not only because of the depth of discourse that he provides but also because his viewpoint coheres with the contributions of these other church fathers. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies and Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies.
29 Rudolph, Gnosis, 14–15.
30 Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics 7 (ANF 3:246).
31 Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics 13 (ANF 3:249).
32 Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 4 (ANF 3:524).
33 Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 5 (ANF 3:525), emphasis original.
34 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 1 (ANF 3:545).
35 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 4 (ANF 3:548).
36 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5 (ANF 3:548).
37 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 6 (ANF 3:550).
38 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 7 (ANF 3:551).
39 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8 (ANF 3:551).
40 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 40 (ANF 3:574).
41 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 17 (ANF 3:557).
42 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 44 (ANF 3:577).
43 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 61 (ANF 3:593).
44 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 51 (ANF 3:584).
45 It is important to recognize that this survey will not be exhaustive of every perspective in what is a diverse and still-developing movement in the modern understanding of sex, gender, and the human person.
46 American Psychological Association, “Answers to Your Questions About Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression” (2014), http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.pdf.
47 Fraser Watts, “Transgenderism and the Church,” Theology and Sexuality 9 (2002): 65.
48 O’Donovan, “Transsexualism and Christian Marriage,” 145–46.
49 Voluntarist viewpoints are primarily what is being addressed in this paper. While the comparison of transgenderism and Gnosticism may still be valid with transgenderism associated with gender dysphoria, there are nuances and sensitivities that would need to be addressed that are beyond the scope of this paper. See Mark A. Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015) for a psychologically informed and pastoral account of gender dysphoria. Discussion of intersex conditions, which has its own unique considerations, is also beyond the scope of this paper.
50 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge Classics, 2006), xxx–xxxi.
51 Butler, Gender Trouble, 24
52 Butler, Gender Trouble, 9–10.
53 Butler, Gender Trouble, 192. There is room within Christian theology to critique the idea of an essential gender identity. Gender essentialism is an ongoing conversation in Christian theology. The discussion of this paper is concerned with understandings of identity that completely deny the reality or significance of biological sex, not questions regarding how to biblically understand how to live out one’s biological sex.
54 Butler, Gender Trouble, 23.
55 Butler, Gender Trouble, xxxiv.
56 Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria, 51.
57 J. A. Branch, Affirming God’s Image: Addressing the Transgender Question with Science and Scripture (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2019), 26–27.
58 Bader-Saye, “The Transgender Body’s Grace,” 79.
59 Bader-Saye, “The Transgender Body’s Grace,” 88. Bader-Saye offers an empathetic perspective towards those who experience Gender Incongruence. The purpose of the current paper is not to discuss potential actions to alleviate feelings of gender incongruence but rather to discuss the implicit and explicit ideologies involved. This discussion, however, should always take place with utmost empathy and respect.
60 O’Donovan, “Transsexualism and Christian Marriage,” 151.
61 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5.
62 Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 19. This quote is not used to say that those who struggle with Gender Dysphoria or Gender Incongruence are intrinsically denying God. Rather, that those who would champion a view that denies the realities and goodness of God’s creation are failing to recognize his goodness.
63 Abigail Favale discusses this idea of the sacramental nature of the body, that it reveals the human person, in Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2022), 199.
64 Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 4 (ANF 3:524).
65 O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 14.
66 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 27.
67 See Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria, 44–45, O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 70. There are exceptions, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, but they are the minority. See Spyridoula Athanasopoulou-Kypriou, “The Eschatological Body: Constructing Christian Orthodox Anthropology beyond Sexual Ideology,” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 69 (2017): 327.
68 O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 12.

---