As I was preparing to present an argument for Egalitarianism at my church’s Elephant in the Room series (last night’s topic was gender roles in the Church and home), I came across this quote from N.T. Wright’s paper Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis from CBE’s conference in 2004:
Many people have said, and I have often enough said it myself, that the creation of man and woman in their two genders is a vital part of what it means that humans are created in God’s image. I now regard that as a mistake. After all, not only the animal kingdom, as noted in Genesis itself, but also the plant kingdom, as noted by the reference to seed, have their male and female. The two-gender factor is not at all specific to human beings, but runs right through a fair amount of the rest of creation. This doesn’t mean it’s unimportant, indeed it means if anything it’s all the more important; being male and being female, and working out what that means, is something most of creation is called to do and be, and unless we are to collapse into a kind of gnosticism, where the way things are in creation is regarded as secondary and shabby over against what we are now to do with it, we have to recognise, respect and respond to this call of God to live in the world he has made and as the people he has made us. It’s just that we can’t use the argument that being male-plus-female is somehow what being God’s imagebearers actually means.
Now, I had read this paper before but somehow I missed this point. It really stuck out to me when reading over it again this past weekend. So, what do you think? Does Genesis 1:28 demonstrate that male and female are part of what it means to be created in the image of God? Or is Wright right (ha!) in his observation that (from this passage at least) one cannot argue that maleness and femaleness are specifically unique for God’s imagebearers?
Further along in his paper, Wright states:
When humans are renewed in the Messiah and raised from the dead, they will be set in authority over the angels (6.3). In worship, the church anticipates how things are going to be in that new day. When a woman is praying or prophesying (perhaps in the language of angels, as in 13.1), she needs to be truly what she is, since it is to male and female alike, in their mutual interdependence as God’s image-bearing creatures, that the world, including the angels, is to be subject. God’s creation needs humans to be fully, gloriously and truly human, which means fully and truly male and female. This, and of course much else besides, is to be glimpsed in worship.
This is something I am still working through as I attempt to solidify my understanding of gender roles. While I agree that men and women are different, and that being female is different from being male, I also recognize that some women are different from other women, and some men are different from other men. This is in large part because of my own personal experience. Surprise, surprise, I do not always easily identify with what is typically characterized as ‘Biblical womanhood’. Nothing aggravates me more than being told that men want most to be respected and honored while women want most to be loved and cherished. I, along with Aretha Franklin, heartily disagree. And isn’t Don Draper’s big life question “Am I loved?” It’s frustrating to be told women are more emotional (with the implication that this is a weakness) and social than men while men are more goal-oriented. Have you ever met a female introvert? We aren’t really that social. I also know lots of women that are goal-oriented and very good at achieving said goals. Sorry to burst your stereo-typical gender bubble!
I think qualities like bravery and the desire to protect are not masculine traits, nor is nurturing a feminine trait. They are human traits that humans naturally have to a varying degree, both male and female, and that all Spirit-filled people should work to develop in themselves as the Spirit works in them.
What do you think?
Here’s a video with highlights from Wright’s lecture:
Facing The Jabberwock 