This blog begins a series on gender issues. In this series we will tackle questions dealing with sexuality and gender, including what the Bible says about male and female, marriage, singleness, homosexuality, and transgender issues. Keep in mind that these will be short blogs on topics people have written books on. I can’t say everything. So let’s dive in.
Some time ago, I was speaking with an atheist who said to me that one of the things she most hated about Christianity was its treatment of women. In certain circles — academia, politics, the media — that sentiment is common and because those circles tend to be vocal and have a platform, you have likely heard the accusation that Christianity harms women. So let’s address that charge. Does Christianity harm women?
To respond to such a charge we need to deal with two questions: First, what constitutes harm? And second, what does Christianity teach? So let’s begin.
What Constitutes Harm?
On one level, the question of what constitutes harm seems unnecessary, for doesn’t everyone recognize harm? Well . . . it depends. Let me illustrate.
Which of the following harms women? 1) The enslavement of women because they are physically weaker; 2) the practice of preventing women from economic achievement simply because they are women; 3) the concept that men and women are different; 4) the belief that men and women have different roles in the family; 5) the desire in a man to hold open a door for a woman.
I think everyone would agree that numbers 1 and 2 harm women, but I have heard people declare that all five statements harm women, for some people consider all of the above to be sexist. And sexism is a loaded word. When you accuse someone of sexism, you say that he or she harms people based on gender and you engender in people the animus of number 1 or 2 even if all you mean is number 4 or 5. Even in contexts in which the word “sexism” may have a more narrow meaning, the connotation still entails harm. But do all of the statements above really harm women? Most people would not recognize harm in every statement above.
Statement number 3, for most people, is simply a common sense observation. Taken at face value, it does not bring any harm to anyone. It could bring harm, of course, depending on how one applies it. For example, the Taliban might argue that one of the differences between men and women is that women are not cut out for an education and, thus, should not go to college. This would be a misapplication of number 3, not necessarily an argument that it is false. Number 3 does not say that men and women are different in every respect. It says simply that there are differences. Taken like that, the statement itself seems rather obvious, like saying that the sun rises in the morning. Let’s put it this way. If men and women are not different, why does every society in history have different words for men and women, as if they are different? And how did the feminist movement ever begin in the first place? And why do we have gender studies at universities? Even people who accuse Christianity of harming women must have in mind an idea of “woman” that differs from their idea of “man.” Otherwise, the accusation makes no sense. My point is that virtually everyone assumes number 3 to be true, including the people who say it isn’t. The idea that men and women are different is a basic fact that everyone assumes, and it is neither sexist nor harmful. It simply reflects reality.
Statement number 4 — the belief that men and women have different roles in the family — is an application from statement number 3. You can debate whether it is a misapplication, but if men and women are different, it is no stretch to think that they may have different roles in any part of society. This, by the way, may be the real reason people want to close their eyes to gender differences. They fear the consequences. From their perspective, the reality of male/female differences opens Pandora’s box. But the fact that men and women are different is so obvious that we must risk Pandora’s box. In fact, the idea that men and women are identical is utter nonsense and brings with it its own Pandora’s box. Which Pandora’s box do you want? Certainly, we must be careful in how we apply gender differences, but to deny them outright simply because we fear the consequences is nothing more than sticking our heads in the sand.
So back to the question — does statement number 4 hurt women? How you answer this question will depend upon assumptions and perspectives you bring to the question. For example, throughout history, the vast majority of people, including probably the majority of women, from virtually every culture would say “different roles for men and women within the family brings no harm to women.” We need to understand that contemporary Western feminism is a strikingly minority position. That doesn’t make it wrong or right, but it does suggest that the feminist position on certain questions is not so obvious as feminists think. On other questions, however, feminism and history would shake hands. Most cultures in history, for example, condemned rape, sex trafficking, and spouse abuse — practices that disproportionately hurt women. Apparently some practices are obviously harmful and others are not.
So do roles within the family hurt women? On the surface of it, different roles, in all sorts of endeavors, are rather common and often quite beautiful. They certainly bring no harm. In addition, men and women truly are different, and the family unit is built upon the union of a man and a woman. Why then would we be surprised if a man and a woman had different roles within the family? Part of what the family is built upon is that difference. And that difference is wonderful. Statement number 4, by itself, does not obviously harm anyone. People can and do abuse it, but you can abuse anything. If I run over your neighbor with my car, you don’t blame the car.
Statement number 5 — the desire in a man to hold open a door for a woman — is a genuine desire to show respect and honor to a woman. Certainly it is often a symbolic act, and certainly many men who hold doors for women also hurt them. But when men harm women, that harm does not result because they hold open a door. It results from sin that lies elsewhere deeper in the man’s heart. Holding a door for a woman brings her no harm and actually communicates that she is special. To argue that this act harms women is a bit silly. In fact to argue this way may actually harm women, for it says to men that women are not special, and it takes the focus of abuse off of serious sin issues in the man and puts it on a symbolic act.
We’ve laid some groundwork concerning what constitutes harm. This is important because we need to see that our worldview and culture often define what is harmful. People commonly disagree over what constitutes harm. Just look at Congress. Take almost any issue — abortion, economic policy, environmental law. On that issue a Democrat will tell you that a Republican stance is harmful, but the Republican doesn’t see the harm. And a Republican will tell you that a Democrat stance is harmful, but the Democrat doesn’t see the harm. Occasionally you find issues in which Democrats and Republicans agree on what is harmful, but those are the exceptions. Harm is not always objective.
So let’s apply this to the idea that Christianity harms women. Some practices are obviously harmful in all cultures and to all people — slavery, spouse abuse, rape, sex trafficking. But many practices are harmful only from a particular perspective, and if you don’t share the perspective, you don’t see the harm. This is crucial, for when people say that Christianity harms women, are they pointing out objective harm that everyone can see or is this partisan politics?
Now let’s talk about what Christianity teaches, and for this purpose I will address a Christian audience, and I will unfortunately have to be brief.
Gender Equality
The first thing the Bible teaches about men and women is that they have equal value and capacities for knowing God.
Genesis 1:26-7 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . “ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
This is the beginning, the creation, and God says that He created male and female in the image of God. Thus, that which gives men value is that which gives women value. Biblically, men and women have the same intrinsic worth and the same spiritual capacities. They are of the same essence. Men are capable of relating to God and reflecting His glory, and women are equally capable of relating to God and reflecting His glory. The Bible reflects an intrinsic equality between male and female that goes all the way back to the original creation.
Galatians 3:27-9 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
Paul here is speaking of those who have been freed from the law through faith in Jesus Christ (vv. 21-6) and says that all who are in Christ share the same blessings regardless of ethnicity, socio-economic status, or gender. Male and female both have equal access to Christ, and when they are in Christ become part of the same family (Abraham’s offspring) and receive the same inheritance (heirs according to the promise). This again reflects an inherent equality that exists between male and female.
In addition, consider the following:
The Biblical idea of marriage considers a man and a woman to be one flesh (Gen 3:23-5).
It was women who were the first eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus (Matt 28). You could say they were the ones who brought the good news to the apostles.
It was a woman who brought the good news of Jesus to her village in Samaria (John 4:39-42)
Paul considers women to be fellow workers in the Lord (Rm 16:3, 12).
Peter says women are joint heirs with their husbands of the grace of life (I Pet 3:7).
We could go on, but you get the idea. In the Bible men and women share an inherent equality, and this equality is basic to a Christian understanding of male and female.
Today, the ideas these Scriptures put forth about gender are ideas we take for granted, but when they were written, they were quite radical. Ancient Middle Eastern culture and first century Hellenistic and Roman culture were not so friendly toward women. It is the Bible that began the process of getting people to recognize that women are of greater value than society had previously thought. Ironically, if you removed the Bible from history, there may never have been a feminist movement at all.
Gender Differences and Roles
Genesis 1:27 . . . male and female he created them.
The Bible clearly portrays an intrinsic equality between male and female, but that equality is not the entire picture. The Bible also portrays men and women as different. God does not create the human race as one gender. He creates male and female. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man. They may be equal, but they are not the same. They are designed to go together like two complementary pieces of a puzzle.
Genesis 2:18ff Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
This text relates the original creation. It is what God intended when He first set up the idea of male and female. This is not a result of sin, for sin had not yet entered the universe. When God created woman, He created her to fit a role. God wanted the woman to be a companion and a helper for the man. Most people have no problems with the companion part, but the helper part sometimes makes modern people squirm. But God does not consider this purpose to be bad. When He finishes His creation, He says it is “very good” (Gen 1:31), and these complementary roles are part of that “very good.”
Ephesians 5:22-5, 32 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Paul here is describing different roles within marriage, and he says that those roles represent Christ and the Church. In other words, when you look at a good marriage, you should see a picture of what the relationship is like between Jesus and His Bride. In marriage a man and woman act out a bigger marriage, an eternal marriage with Christ Himself. This means that when a man and woman marry, their act has a meaning outside themselves, above society, and rooted in God. This fact gives marriage immense importance and purpose. It means that marriage is bigger than a man and a woman. The central purpose of marriage is not just to provide companionship or sexual intimacy or societal stability or a place to raise children. Those blessings are all true of marriage, but God intended marriage to be so much more. It is a high and holy covenant and a picture of something greater than itself; thus when Paul gives different roles for the husband and wife, he has in mind this greater, eternal purpose.
When people think of marriage only as a societal institution, a personal blessing, a coming together of two personalities or a place that legitimizes sex, they completely miss it. They look only at Earth and think they understand a covenant that was meant to reflect a piece of heaven. They ignore the whole point but then claim to understand the point.
If Paul is correct about the nature of marriage, and I dare say he is, then the role difference between the husband and wife is not only harmless; it is necessary. In order for marriage to fulfill its main purpose, someone needs to act out the role of Christ and someone else the role of the church, and for society to see Christ and the church, those roles need to be consistent.
Perhaps the problem some people have with differing roles within marriage is that they view those roles as inequality. They believe that the lead role has greater value than the supporting role. Scripture does not. In fact, in Scripture the greatest is the servant of all. This is why the picture of leadership Ephesians gives to the husband is one of sacrificial love and servanthood. He is to lay down his life. The supporting role is not inferior to the lead role. To say that it is would be cultural prejudice. Think of it this way. In a waltz one partner leads and one follows, but the leading role and the following role are two equal pieces of the same dance. If the man and the woman both tried to lead, the dance would fail.
Of course, like every other part of this fallen world, sin has corrupted marriage, and we humans have greatly failed to present a compelling picture of Christ and the church, but every now and then you find a couple who lives it out. They live it imperfectly to be sure, but they live it in such a way that you can see it. The husband loves his wife. He cherishes her, protects her, sacrifices for her and leads her in love, and the wife respects her husband and willingly submits to his lead. She may at times disagree with him and let him know when she does, but she remains fully committed to him even when she disagrees. When you see this, you are witnessing a beautiful dance, a holy mystery, a wondrous yet quiet portrait of a stunning union between the high king of heaven and his radiant bride.
Does that harm women?
Recent Comments