Gender in Christian Perspective

We noted in an earlier posting that the genders have been at war.  Relations have not always been mutually beneficial or friendly.  Gender is often addressed within various religious perspectives, and religion becomes one of the major cultural forces that imprint notions of gender upon emerging generations. 

Within Christendom, gender is sometimes forced into the constrictions of the larger society, so that “gender feminism” rules the church.  Women are then appointed as preachers and elders.  The preaching that is allowed within this perspective may challenge the Bible as outdated, or even as corrupted by males who disadvantage females.  The same battle that rages in the larger culture sometimes rages also in the fellowship of male and female Christians.

By and large, the Bible is the essential source of authority for Christianity.  In all areas of doctrine, faith, and practice, including gender relations, the Bible is upheld as the authentic, quintessential measure of what it means to be Christian.  The Bible generates a perspective that sometimes clashes against the perspective of the larger culture.  This Biblical authority will be honored by some; disdained and repudiated by others.  For many of us, the Bible is regarded as the Word of God.  We submit ourselves to the judgment of Biblical teaching, rather than deem ourselves to be its judges.  What sort of gender perspective results when the Bible is honored?  What relations are placed between the masculine and the feminine in the home (marriage and parenting), in the church, and in the larger culture?

Creation:  an unequal ordering of equals.

The Bible opens with narratives describing God’s Creation of the cosmos.  Human beings are uniquely honored in this Creation with the privilege of wearing God’s own image.  While all of the creation and ordering that spans the universe, to one degree or another, bears the stamp of God’s imprint and so offers a reflection of His glory and essential character, such quality finds unique expression in the human element of God’s creation:  “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27). 

Because man is uniquely given this privilege, he is given dominion over the rest of creation, including other species of plants and animals as well as the material substance of the created order.  Mankind sits at the top, as a sort of “God in miniature” since he exhibits the image of God.  Curiously, this invites another clash with modern society.  Just as the recognition of gender roles (especially those that grant priority of one gender over the other) was deemed to be “sexist”, some deny the superiority of any single species over the others.  They call such claims to superiority, “species-ism.”  This differentiating of perspectives demonstrates the unique path of thought and philosophy of life that results when the Bible is embraced as authoritative.

Genesis shows man to be fundamentally a “misfit” in the created order.  Although like God and the bearer of the Divine “image”, man is not located where God is.  He is placed here below, with his feet on earth/Earth.  And man also shares a biological commonality with other animal species, and he takes his place among them.  As God creates the wonder of bio-diversity, one species after another, He parades them before His smaller image-bearer and allows man/Adam to name them.  God creates; Adam merely names.  He is like God, but different in a lessened potential. 

And when God sees that Adam needs to connect socially, that man will be lonely unless companionship is provided.  There is a separation between Adam and God—between Big God and little god—that leaves unfulfillment in spite of wearing God’s image.  So God parades the various animal species before Adam as an offer of companionship.  But none of these will suffice.

So God puts Adam under anesthesia, severs off part of his body, and from this He creates another human, this one female.  She has a commonality with Adam beyond any animal species, for she was formed out of his essence.  He recognizes this, declaring:  “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23).  This pairing is apparently unique.  While God apparently created the lions, penguins, and lizards in ordered pairs of each gender, mankind starts with the male, from which the female is provided after a severance and reconstruction.  This gives the male a certain priority. 

We see this also in the search for a helper suitable to Adam, a search which was unsuccessful among the animals.  So, God works through surgery and reconstruction.  And this new work of God yields a being who, like Adam, is also in the image of God:  “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).  Here, “man” in the Hebrew is “Adam” which, like the word “seed”, can be either singular or collective.  The collective here would be translated, “mankind.”  God created mankind in His own image, and this creation includes male and female.  In context, the primary meaning of mankind’s bearing the image of God is a matter of authority.  God creates everything and is thus supreme over it; yet He delegates authority over Creation to His male-and-female image-bearers.  Man and woman jointly sit on the throne over God’s created order, and this suggests a fundamental equality between them that is entered by no other creature.  We see this equality surfacing in Bible passages like 1 Cor. 7:4, "The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife."  This "power" would surely reside only with the husband if God had intended less than equality with the wife.

What is curious, however, is that this “equality” is ordered not in parity, but in hierarchy:

·        Adam is created first, then Eve.

·        Eve is made for Adam’s benefit.

The same “inequality within equality” plays out when the serpent tricks mankind into surrendering their throne.  The serpent first deceives Eve, who takes in Adam.  When God judges the three of them, He faults the man for listening to his wife instead of taking authority:  “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree…”  (Gen. 3:17).  Whereas mankind had dominion over creation (including the serpent), they allowed the serpent to dominate them.  They gave away their priority that God had placed in their hands.  And, according to the same theme, Adam gave away his authority over Eve.

 

Theological Reflections

 

It might be a good idea to refrain from rebelling against the apparent unfairness of the “inequality within equality” that God has ordered between him and her.  At least we should watch how this plays out and see if we are viewing a Divine mistake, or if this curiosity bears out some of the marks of the amazing wisdom that we normally expect from our Creator.

First, if you are a woman, imagine the position in which God has placed the man.  He has authority, yes, but it is authority over a being, a fellow human, a fellow image-bearer, who is every bit his equal.  An American President who is respectful toward Constitutional authority recognizes that he stands under this authority no less than those over which he “presides”.  This recognition properly inspires humility such as one does not find in a tyrannical dictator.  The President is in authority over his equals, after all. 

In 1789, a British sea captain named William Bligh commanded the ship HMS Bounty.  Bligh mistreated his crew with harsh punishments and public humiliations.  Finally, repelled by his cruelty and attracted by the charms of the women of a tropical island paradise, they mutinied against his authority.  His treatment of them was not that of one who respected them as his equals.  This historical event demonstrates what we understand as commonplace in all human society:  although all humans share a fundamental equality, some of these “equals” are placed over other “equals” in positions of authority.  And this arrangement need not degenerate into tyrannical abuses of that authority.  There is a difference between being "authoritative" and being "authoritarian."

A “leader-equal” should be moved by recognition of that equality to fair, reciprocal, and respectful treatment of those under his authority.  This moral imperative is not restricted to gender ordering, but applies to leadership and followership in many areas, such as government and business and other organizational structures.

Second, if you are a man, imagine the position in which God has place the woman.  Although every bit your equal, she submits to your authority.  She willingly accepts this position with all of the vulnerability it brings upon her.  Her decision may place her under a brutal, selfish dictatorial tyrant or may place her safely under a benevolent, respectful, fair-minded leader.  I would suggest that the acceptance of this social/organizational vulnerability is precisely what Peter means when he refers to woman as the “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7).  It is not a reference to physical weakness, much less to intellectual weakness.  It is a positional weakness.  It is a weakness voluntarily accepted in reverence to God and, hopefully also, in respect for the man.  She accepts his authority though she knows he is no better than her; they are equals who alike wear the very image of Creator-God.

Now, certain dynamics like these we have just discussed are turned loose when God orders man and woman in what seems to be a most unnatural ordering of equals.  Instances of unfairness jump out energetically into view.  Authority will be readily challenged.  Opportunities and temptations for mutiny abound.  Inherent tension can erupt in battles of conflict.  When two equal marbles are stacked vertically, they have the tendency to fall to the same position.  They can remain stacked only if great care is taken and interference is prevented.  The same happens when equal man and woman are placed in hierarchy rather than in parity, which is obviously the natural ordering.

So, given this unnatural and inherently unstable ordering, why would God set such an ordering in place within gender relations, a factor of primary significance in what it means to be human?  To answer the riddle, we will have to look more deeply at what the Bible says about gender relations, especially in marriage, but also in the church.

But we might speculate a little.  It has been suggested that God has placed man and woman in roles quite opposite their native proclivities.  In other words, woman tends to want dominion, but God has placed her in subjection.  And man tends to shirk the responsibilities that belong to a leader, but God has placed him in an authoritative position.  This has the effect of causing each gender to fortify their native weaknesses and shortcoming.  Perhaps.  But I’m not sure these characterizations apply commonly to men and women.

Another speculation, that seems to be on firmer ground, is that God has made this arrangement because it teaches humanity lessons in “leadership” and “followership” that are essential for success in our relationship as humans to God.  Some of the same inherent tensions and abuses that pertain to gender relations also crop up when little gods try to relate to the Big God.  Perhaps God threw the "riddle of gender" into His Creation to be an exercise that would prepare us for something bigger.