Biblical Gender Roles

I was listening to Focus on the Family the other day, and the subject of Gender Identity came up. The basic thrust of the program was that God has made man and woman different, and thus different things define us. The program put forth that Women are more sensitive, form connections both more quickly and more deeply, and are bad at problem solving. Men on the other hand are good at finding the tools, problem solving, naming things in boring ways, bad at listening, more stoic, and finally less empathetic. The Program said that God made men differently, they were designed to hunt for food, and women were designed to nurture the next generation. The show appealed to Christian Pastor and Comedian, Mark Gungor's "Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage." as a pedagogical tool to help explain gender differences in men and women. The Link in question shows part of his presentation showing "the differences" between mend and women's minds/brains, which reinforces the gender roles that Focus on the Family is suggesting. Focus on the family has gone so far as to use the term ' "sissy" boys ' and  'fem-boys' to describe boys that don't fit the gender roles in "masculine directions."

The problem I have with the kinds of the gender roles given by this sort of group, is that they have little or nothing to do with what the bible, while they claim to appeal to what the bible has to say about Gender Roles. There are many places in the scriptures that talk about men, women, and what God expects of them. The bible specifically teaches about that gender roles, and what it has to say is much different than the gender roles listed above. 

The first section of the text that is important in studying gender roles is Genesis 1, which teaches that both men and women are created in the image of God. As image bearers we are set on equal footing, with respect to value, as men and women. It also teaches us that our most important locus of identity is found in relation to God. As image bearers we are representations of God, both male and female. While it is true that the text sets men and women on equal footing, with respect to being bearers of the image of God, the texts make a point to distinguish between men and women. The text focuses on the the similarities, rather than differences, of men and women. There is a radically equality, the woman is referred to as "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." All through this section the text is showing equality with respect to nature, while still presenting men and women as distinct. The language of helper speaks to male headship, while at the same time speaking to how men and women are designed to exist in relation to both each other and to God.

This is one of the two major defined biblical gender roles, Male Headship in family and marriage. In marriage this relationship is presented as a relationship of "first among equals." One need look no further than the submission of Christ to the father, to see an example of submission that isn't oppressive and also doesn't connote inequality in nature. The subordination of wife to husband is always presented as a kind of functional subordination. The unity in this kind of subordination reflects the unity of the Godhead and Christ with the church. As such it shouldn't be oppressive, biblical submission should involve a husband loving his wife sacrificially and wives submitting to their husbands in accordance to Christ's will. 

The second major biblical role is that Elders, a particular office connected with teaching and leading the church, are to be male. The bible presents explicitly that only men have the authority to teach other men in the context of the church. This focuses on the role of the elder, who is called to be male. This isn't because women can't be apt to teach, but rather because, the elder takes on a similar reflection of Christ to the church as a husband does in the text. The Elder's role, which is so connected with teaching in the text that one could argue that teaching (in a strict sense of proclaiming and exposing the word of God) is universally part of his prerogative, along with the husband's role are both connected to the creation order, not in terms of temporal ordering, that God ordains. This order, as I said before, is an image of both Christ's love for the Church and the love of Christ and God the Father within the trinity. These fruitful unions bring about life from where no life was; these unions also make the life, that they bring forth, whole. In being an image of the functional subordination of Christ to God, both the office of elder and role of husband claim a special burden in the instruction and practice of Christian life, and this is to give a clearer picture of the burden that Christ bears for his Church. The sinfulness of human beings is both the source of marital strife, in the covenantal curses that God brings upon the world, and the source of the curse laid upon Christ, on our behalf. Particular problems with submission are because of the sinfulness of the world and the people in it. Marriage and the Church were designed to be so unified that one couldn't tell their was a subordination without it being explicitly mentioned. This is the picture that is painted by Christ's subordination to the father, and the ground for statements of perfect unity of purpose, between Christ and God the Father, in the context of the submission of Christ, on our behalf. 

Those are the two exclusive and important biblical gender roles. While motherhood is important, biblical, and exclusive; most of the biblical data on motherhood could be said of good parenthood with respect to either sex. Which brings us to an important point. When the bible lays out pictures of exemplary men and women, both in terms of historical people and ideas, the data almost always portrays an image that describes faithful humanity in general. This is because Christ is our example, while being more than that, and we seek to emulate him. This shows up in conversations about Deacon, Elder, and specifically-female deacon contexts. The qualifications for these offices, with the exception of being apt to teach in Elders (which I covered earlier), are general qualities that should be true of all Christians. The qualification of the office is to be exemplary in these qualities, so that others might see them and follow the leaders as these leaders follow Christ. This also shows up in Proverbs 31, a text that records women's roles as being wise and righteous in both public and private social contexts.

All through the text men are supposed to look like Christ, and so too, women are supposed to look like Christ. The only restrictions on women, in terms of gender roles, come in the form of women not having the elder office (and thus not teaching in certain contexts), and when women are married they are to submit to a husband who loves them sacrificially.

So..... Where does this leave the gender roles of Focus on the Family, and other groups like them? Well to answer this question we have to make a distinction. While these are the commanded gender roles of the bible, are there any other gender roles that it would be wise to adopt?

This question weighs two considerations, a particular person's freedom in Christ to express themselves in ways that are consistent with Godliness, and the person's duty to be their brother's, or sister's, keeper (specifically to keep them from stumbling.) So in the case of my wearing a skirt to preach at my church, the power of the expression would likely be outweighed by the likelihood that it would impede my goal of teaching the Word of God to people. This would be a case where my freedom would cause others to stumble. Notice that in Scotland this arbitrarily defined gender role doesn't always exist, as I could likely wear a kilt (which is ostensibly a skirt in current American culture) on a special occasion to preach with impunity. God calls me to exercise wisdom, asking does subverting this arbitrary gender role (that isn't commanded by the bible) edify the body of Christ or bring about disunity unnecessarily? In another situation, the subversion of the role might legitimately edify the body, such as if a congregational member dresses in jeans on Sunday morning to show that God cares not about outward appearance but rather the human heart. This lesson (if taught by the subversion of the arbitrary gender role) is important enough to qualify as fulfilling the role of "being our brother's, or sister's, keeper." The principle is that we must love even when deciding which gender roles are specially, and often arbitrarily, placed on us. It is important that our love for the body of Christ, and maturity as Christians, outweighs our right to express our self, as Paul in 1 Corinthians 10. This will always be context specific.

Well many of the gender roles put forth in my first paragraph, neither edify the body, nor accurately reflect the bible's teaching on a range of subjects. Suggesting that God created men as hunters, to catch the food for the women, reflects a reliance on the evolutionary narrative of hunter gather ancestors, which in that framework would have to be held as a late development (if consistency is desired), rather than the creation story of the bible. The creation story of the bible teaches that Man was made to be a Gardner (which is a royal image in the Ancient Near East that carries with it the connotation connotations of Kingship and Priesthood. This is because gardeners were in the royal court, the connection of the verbs of the priest's action and the gardener's action, and finally because of the Vice Regent context of Image Bearing). Hunting is a rather late development in the story, which has to follow the Flood. The killing of animals isn't presented in the bible as primarily the eating of food, which until Noah didn't include animals, but rather as a substitute for the curses that fall upon us because of our sin. Thus to claim that men are created to be hunters, is to be out of step with God's intent for people in the garden and New Earth. It portrays an evolutionary narrative that speaks of humans as glorified animals, with no real concept of the Image of God.

It is also not biblical to portray men as being stoic and not empathetic. If this were the case, we wouldn't expect men to be called to be elders, the role of the local pastor. Elders in the church primary handle, or at least oversee, the counseling of marriages, funerals, and general congregants. This office is exclusively reserved for males in the bible. Which wouldn't make much sense, if only women were apt to fulfill that kind of role. In fact both women and men, in Christ, should be exemplars of kindness, empathy, and emotional intelligence as Christ specifically commands both groups to be. (Gal 5:22, Mt. 5:44-45, Mt 10:16, 1 Cor. 9:19-23) To limit the kinds of deep and meaning relationships and the quick way that we, as Elders, must form them it to conflict with the biblical data on the role of the elder. It represents a failure to trust in the sovereignty of God to prepare us to do the good things he has designed us for.

In the same token to limit women's roles to the private sphere, as in solely nurturing, flies in the face of Proverbs 31 and other biblical texts that allow women to work in public contexts. Historical examples of working women include the priestess Anna, the artisans Prisilla and Aquilla, and even a Judge named Deborah. Deborah is the example Par Excellence of a woman in the public sphere under the old covenant, because a judge is a warrior and a leader of the nation. Deborah's story of leading a successfully leading a counterattack against the Jabin, in Judges 4, shows that God clearly equips women with problem solving skills. This is along with women working in commercial trade (Prov 31:16a, 24; Acts 16:14 ), in agriculture (Ruth 2:8; Prov 31:16b), as shepherds (Gen 29:9; Ex 2:16), as artisans, especially in textiles (Ex 26:1; Acts 18:3), as midwives (Ex 1:15ff), as nurses (Gen 35:8; Ex 2:7; 2 Sam 4:4; 1 Kings 1:4)  in domestic service (Acts 12:13, etc.) as benefactors (Acts 16:15, 40; Rom 16:1-2) and leaders (Judges ch 4-5; 2 Sam 20:16). This also is accordance with my experience, as I have found that the best women I know don't fit these non biblical gender roles. Clearly it is biblical for a woman to choose to be a mother, which is a noble goal of marriage, and not to work in public, but it is clear that she can choose either. Nurturing, while a role of a mother, isn't exclusive in that fathers do it too. This role seems to be a parental role more than a gender role.

Christ and Paul make categories for people who choose to remain single for the Kingdom of God, which both seem to privilege (implicitly and explicitly accordingly), so it seem fair to think that marriage gender roles need not always apply to either Men or Women. If some men are to remain single for the kingdom, then it is likely that some women are too, especially if, as Paul says, it is better for all men to remain single. This also points forward to the fact that all people, seemingly, will be single in the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

Mark Gungor's, admittedly comedic and hyperbolic, presentation of the mind of men and women is wholly absent of scriptural influence. Men and women are to conform our minds to that of Christ, thus our minds ought to be more alike than different. It is also the case that I haven't come across people that fit nicely into his stereotypical ideas about the minds of men and women. To deny that men have the ability to interconnect subjects and ideas, the foundational mental skill that advances knowledge in every field of study and is the mark of brilliance, is insulting to men who express this ability. It seems more the description of Al Bundy or Peter Griffin, than any man that I have really met. If this description is accurate of a man, he should seek to change it immediately, as it isn't a picture of Christ, who could explain the whole Old Testament as being about him while on a walk. I also am not sure that I agree that I think that rest, which seems to be characterized as sloth, ought to be considered sloth.

His presentation of women is perhaps even more insulting to the biblical picture of a woman. He frantically, again in the context of comedy (Which the Bard teaches us is a way to express truths' we can't say without sever social consequences), presents women as being scatterbrained to the point of hysteria. This section doesn't deal with the biblical data, which calls all people, and women specifically, to be: wise and of sober judgement. (Proverbs 31:26;21) This clearly shows that God doesn't intend women to be hysterical in this way. Since Gungor is speaking mostly from experience, I feel justified in mentioning that I find that there are all kinds of women who aren't hysterical in the way that this way. That love to just sit and be with people, watch a movie, and rest. I also find that women, along with men, are quite good at making the sorts of connections between subjects that make conversation interesting, and academic pursuits gain traction.

Focus on the Family, explicitly codifies non-discript, and presumably current North American Traditional gender roles, of masculinity as so important that in their article on Gender Confusion in Children, that they refer to boys that don't fit these stereotypes as "fem-boys" and ' "sissy" boys'. This sort of language is shameful, and should have no part in Christian Discourse. The problem with the gender roles that are laid out by groups like Focus on the Family is that, they aren't really very biblical.

When we set up gender roles, that aren't biblical but arbitrarily defined, and don't use a system of Christian Wisdom, like Paul gives us in 1 Cor 10, we place American gender roles on equal footing with biblical ones. This teaches boys, to whatever degree they don't align with gender roles, that often stand in opposition to the bible, that they are in rebellion to God by their actions, which simply isn't true. Calling boys names like "sissy" boys is extremely offensive and hurtful toward young and impressionable boys. American gender roles often limit women in ways that the bible doesn't as well. Where gender roles, that aren't biblical but culturally arbitrary, edify the body of Christ they should be adopted, but too often they are harmful and out of step with the bible.

We must be very careful that as Christians we appeal to the text, which is the power of salvation for those who believe, to establish and ground our views, instead of relying on the wisdom of this age, which is perishing.

May all who read this, find their identity in Christ and produce fruit in keeping with repentance. May we conform our mind to the mind of Christ. Finally may we walk in the way of the Lord, honoring the distinctions and wisdom he richly lavishes upon us in his word.

Grace and Peace,
Sean