The CBE Scroll

There’s no denying that God created humans male and female. Everyone would agree on that fact. However, any instructions to God’s people in the Old Testament and Jesus’ disciples in the New Testament are pertaining to how to relate to God and each other. The ten commandments embrace all of the experiences of life at the time of writing and Jesus’ commands to his followers are summed up in just two – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind” and “Love your neighbour as yourself.” Nothing is gender specific about any of these commandments and a careful reading of the New Testament will not reveal specific instructions re what constitutes godly ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ – maybe there is no such idea in the minds of the writers and more particularly in the mind of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Surely if we are faithful, humble followers of Jesus and relying on the indwelling Holy Spirit, we will display God-likeness in all aspects of our human life, both in our family relationships and within the Body of Christ.

Baptism in Christ: Giving Words Their Full Meaning

Recently a friend of mine received a very distinguished award from her denomination for her long-term leadership in promoting the “maximum baptismal role of women in the Church.” As I pondered our baptismal role, I remembered that many baptismal fonts from the early church had Galatians 3:26-28 inscribed on them. Why? Baptism, rather than circumcision, became the public expression of our covenantal relationship with God, attained through our union with Christ. Just as Christ rose victoriously over sin, we too rise out of the waters of baptism, symbolizing our rising victorious with Christ over sin. United to Christ in baptism, God does not look upon our sins, but sees that we are clothed in Christ, a reality that Paul summarizes in Galatians 3:27-29: “You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

To be united to Christ completely redefines our identity and status with respect to God. It also redefines our relationship to one another. In the same way Christ established satisfaction or peace between sinners and God, so too Christ builds peace between the members of his body—the Church. Because of this, theologians suggest that our christology (what we understand about Christ and our salvation in him) directs our ecclesiology (what we understand about the Church). Just as there is an intimacy or a union between Christ and each redeemed soul, there is also unity or mutuality between those who are redeemed by Christ. To be in Christ is never simply a statement solely about one’s redemptive status. For our redemption also directly influences our status in relationship to one another, as members of Christ’s body.

Paul boldly suggests in Galatians 3 that Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, males and females are all one in Christ. He wrote these words to a world in which nearly half of the population were slaves. How radical Galatians 3:28 must have sounded to first century ears! How radical our baptism remains today! Be clear about this! Our relationship with Jesus changes everything! That is the true meaning of baptism. Our significance and influence is not defined by our earthly parents but through our relationship to God from whom we receive our ultimate inheritance. And our sisters and brothers receive the same inheritance and gifts from God’s Spirit. These gifts never come in pink or blue, yellow, black, or white. Through the power of the Cross, expressed in Christian baptism, we no longer ascribe value, dignity, and worth according to social status, ethnicity, gender, or class. Hallelujah.

Imagine a sanctuary filled with teachers and students of various ages singing:
            “It’s the child on his wedding day,
             It’s the mommy that gives him away,
             Something beautiful”
A child on his wedding day… given away. Pause for a moment and think about that. Young, teenage boys married off to older, wiser, and more mature women… mothers handing over the care of their sons to other women… sons never allowed to become fully functioning adults but instead, entrusted to the parental-type care of a matriarchal wife who will always decide what is best for her husband. Would you find this strange and alarming? 

While I’m sure that the above, altered version of a currently popular song would sound very bizarre to our ears, the real lyrics seem to invoke a sweet and innocent nostalgia when the gender is reversed. 

Recently, one of my children invited me to attend her school’s weekly chapel where this song was part of the program. As the students and teachers sang, I chose not to sing along because it conjured up images, for me, of immature brides being given away like merchandise. I grasp that for many people it is nothing more than an innocent, sentimental, figurative description of a daddy letting go of his beloved daughter. Because I understand that the musicians are generally supportive of gender equality, I think that they simply did not think through all of the possible ramifications that these particular words could convey. So while I comprehend that these lyrics were just meant to evoke happy memories and to romanticize “traditional” wedding ceremonies, I can’t help to also perceive that these lyrics may work to devalue women. Consequently, it does not leave a beautiful picture in my mind.

There is within present-day Christianity those who glorify patriarchal families which treat women like perpetual children who will always need adult male guardianship. Men are viewed as the analyzing, discerning brains of the family who get to hear directly from God, while women are viewed as the tender, nurturing heart of the family who get to hear their husbands tell them what God’s will is for them. So the choice of the word “child” in this song causes me to picture a childlike bride who still needs adult supervision and guidance from her more mature groom. Personally, I think it would be better if Christian songs conveyed that the bride is a consenting adult on her wedding night.

The “giving away” of the bride, while figuratively representing the daddy “letting go of his little girl,” can also be a stark reminder of girls who are still literally given (or sold) away. Whether figurative or literal, it still expresses that the bride is a possession even if her daddy has cherished her. The groom is not correspondingly “given away” to his bride. Since free human beings are not possessions, then is the bride not fully human or is she permanently enslaved to men? During the traditional wedding ceremony, the bride is usually walked down the aisle by her dad and delivered over to her awaiting groom. No parallel symbolism occurs for the groom leaving his family. Also, it is the cultural norm for the groom to retain his family name while the bride usually loses or “leaves” hers. Compare these cultural traditions with Genesis where we are told that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 TNIV)

I have just been browsing a website which promotes roles for women and men as God’s ordained will for all time. It showed again the enormous power of words to create impressions and convince people of a point of view. History shows that many strong people convinced others that what they promoted was the ‘truth’ and consistently it has been done by ridiculing those who have a different way of looking at the same facts.

I am not writing this merely to criticise those who made the statements I will reproduce below, but mostly as a reminder to those of us who believe in true biblical equality that how we say things is vitally important. We do not want to have a reputation for gaining ground or new adherants by misrepresenting those who have another opinion. We want to recognise that those who believe in gender roles have varying degrees of that doctrine and hopefully, many are in the process of examining history and biblical scholarship for themselves.

The article I read was about Deborah from the book of Judges and was quite long, covering many aspects of her life. Three statements stood out which I believe should be refuted and they are in italics. They all use Deborah to portray how the author believed Deborah would have acted had she been an egalitarian.

“Egalitarian women want to replace men in these roles”

Biblical egalitarian women do not want to replace men but desire to work alongside them in the spirit of unity and deference to one another while recognising that Christian service is not about leadership but servanthood and working together for the cause of the gospel.

“Her goal would have been to take Barak’s job”

This is suggesting that if Deborah had been an egalitarian she would have had unworthy motives and not been listening to what God had to say to her in this instance.

“She would have filled her hymn with her own achievements”

Would it have then been acceptable for a male judge to write a song about his own achievements instead of honouring God who is ultimately the one who raises up and puts down all leaders and gives victory to his people? I’m not at all sure that God would have been happy with such a song being written by a man or a women on this occasion.

Rather than being inspired to retaliate for such misrepresentations of our biblical beliefs, let us resolve to honour God by writing of his great deeds and wonderful redemption where we all have been given freedom and equal standing as much-loved children.

The following is from the second paragraph of the United States’ Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The mention made of ‘men’ above refers to both men and women; right? Wrong! When Thomas Jefferson and those who helped him draft the Declaration of Independence wrote of governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, they did not include women. In fact, in 1787 they gave white male property owners over the age of twenty-one the right to vote, and they did not give the same right to women. That would have to wait until 1920.

One of the problems of using masculine-only language to inclusively represent the human race is the confusion over whether it refers to men alone, as in the Declaration of Independence above, or to men and women together. I know that some people say women know when masculine-only language applies to them, but I wasn’t always sure. I prefer gender-inclusive language because it specifically alerts me to when something includes women and when it doesn’t.

How about you? Do you ever have difficulty knowing when something includes women and when it doesn’t?