Women are unequal to men.
This is the biological reality, anyway: Women are physically different from men. Different hormones, different physical characteristics and limitations, different organs, different “plumbing” (as one of my former pastors liked to put it), and different roles in the family unit when it comes to bearing and nursing children. Whether these physical differences are the causes of our cultural differences, is debatable. But there they are.
Human cultures have singled out these differences, and used them as justification for treating women different than men. Usually as inferiors: They’re determined to be physically weaker, emotionally weaker, or intellectually weaker. As a result they’re not entrusted with certain jobs or responsibilities or rights. In some cultures women have no rights: They’re the property of the men of their family. They’re born into slavery.
How does God feel about this issue?
This post is part of a synchroblog, a bunch of different Christian bloggers reacting to a common topic. Wanna get in on it? Visit the synchroblog blog.
When God created women.
First let’s look at God’s intentions when he originally created women. In the Genesis creation stories, women are introduced like so:
God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.”
- So God created human beings in his own image.
- In the image of God he created them;
- male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”
—
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” So the LORD God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. … But still there was no helper just right for him.
So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the LORD God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the opening. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.
- “At last!” the man exclaimed.
- “This one is bone from my bone,
- and flesh from my flesh!
- She will be called ‘woman,’
- because she was taken from ‘man.’”
This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.
—
Now you can, as many have, read this into these passages: Since the woman was created second, after the man, for this reason the man’s more important. But such an interpretation isn’t consistent with how Genesis 1 reads. In this chapter, greater things were made later. Land and plants on the third day, lights in the sky on the fourth, sea animals and birds on the fifth, land animals and humans on the sixth. If women were created after men, the implication is they’re greater. And indeed, some women have taught this: “God created man, then said, ‘Wait; I can do better,’ and created woman.” Some in jest, but some aren’t actually kidding.
But you notice Genesis 1 skipped this idea entirely: “God created human beings… male and female he created them.” For the purposes of this chapter, neither men nor women were created first. In the order of creation, they’re equal. They had equal status as being in God’s image, in reigning over the earth and its life.
And equality is likewise the main principle in Genesis 2. The LORD wanted a suitable helper (Hebrew ezér, one who physically and spiritually assists you) for the man. None of the animals qualified. So the LORD created a new being, but not a separate being from the man. He created her out of the man, indicating she’s the same species, and equal to the man. The man immediately recognized this: “This one is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh!” She’s a suitable helper because she was him, duplicated in another body. She was human. Plus she was compatible in that she could do certain things, and recognize certain things, which the man couldn’t or wouldn’t. Which is still true.
Where the equality all fell apart was in the Fall: When the humans sinned, God proclaimed their consequences would be unequal. Both would die. The man would be forced to work for his food instead of gathering it freely. The woman would suffer differently:
- I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
- and in pain you will give birth.
- And you will desire to control your husband,
- but he will rule over you.
—The LORD,
- and in pain you will give birth.
As a result of sin, childbirth is gonna hurt. (A lot.) And, much as they might want to control their men or even just moderate their extremes, their curse was their men would rule them.
From Genesis’s point of view, this is the source of all the subjugation of the women in the world. Certain Christian interpreters, including Paul, have pointed out the woman was led into sin first, and therefore women in general might be led into sin first. For this reason they ought not lead men.
Of course, Paul’s statement is best interpreted this way: Women ought not seize authority. It’s perfectly all right for them to lead when they’ve been given authority or are recognized as authorities. Refusing to allow women in leadership in any circumstance is simply a case of allowing one’s sexism to distort one’s interpretation of the bible.
When Jesus conquered sin.
The purpose of Jesus’s death, among other things, is to conquer sin and undo the curses over men and women in Genesis. We’re all familiar with the idea that while the product of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. Similarly all the other curses of sin will be done away with.
We’ve seen how these curses have gradually been undone. Does it take hard labor to produce food? Nowhere near as much as it used to. Most Americans don’t work in agriculture—or even food service. We have more than enough food to feed everyone, including the needy in other countries. (The fact we don’t feed all the needy in our own country has nothing to do with a lack of food. Just a lack of compassion.) Do women have to suffer through childbirth anymore? Not unless they want to.
We’ve also seen how the subjugation of women has been gradually done away with. Of course, like labor for food, or painful childbirth, it’s not been completely eliminated. Sexism and chauvinism still abound. Many have found the curse of sin to be quite advantageous for them personally, and are perfectly fine with perpetuating the status quo. It helps them maintain their power. Or dodge their responsibilities.
But in Christianity, because we’re seizing and living in the benefits of the Kingdom (even though it’s not entirely arrived yet), we should see the end of sexual inequality. And in fact, in the early church, we did see things starting to go in that direction. Women served as prophets, apostles, deacons, and elders. The first group of Europeans Paul ever spoke to was a prayer group led by women.
The problem? They didn’t overcome their culture. Women from women-centered religions, sensing an opportunity in Christianity, tried to assume positions of authority in the church without putting aside some of their heretical teachings. The backlash against them produced some of those statements from Paul which have, ever since, been interpreted to mean no women can lead in the church. (I explained this elsewhere.)
The proper principle of the church is this: “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Or it should be… once we recognize Jesus has freed us from sin and its consequences, including sexism. I’m glad to say some churches do indeed recognize this. Others are a lot slower on the uptake: Though they’d never phrase it this way, they feel it’s their duty to perpetuate the curse of sin among their members, keep women “in their place,” and require them to submit to their husbands and to all men, despite Paul’s teaching for all Christians to submit to all Christians.
Feminism, reproductive rights, and Christianity.
This being the case, Christians should, and do, share a great deal in common with feminist and women’s liberation movements. Of course, we differ many ways. The bulk of feminist movements are grounded in a humanist worldview—i.e. people, if left to their own devices, will ultimately choose to do the right thing. Christianity, which teaches total depravity, believes just the opposite: Humans are inherently selfish, and won’t change without the Holy Spirit. So naturally we can’t agree on everything. We can definitely agree women and men ought to be politically equal. Even the most sexist of Christians can grudgingly accept the idea, even though they may not practice such equality in their own churches. But we don’t always agree on what constitutes equality.
For example, many feminists believe reproductive rights—full access to birth control and abortion—helps them achieve political equality with men: Men rarely have to suffer the consequences of unchastity, and women feel it’s unfair how women always should. Provide them a means of preventing those consequences, and voilá, equality in this area is achieved.
Of course, many churches teach life begins at conception or even before it. So to them, abortion or contraception are forms of murder. And of course a right to life always trumps a right to equality.
I realize people will look at this summary as an over-simplistic view of the whole complicated issue. People are different, and some of them naturally come at this issue with their own agendas—or assume others come at it with the worst of intentions. Those who want unrestricted access to contraception or abortion are painted as uncaring, unfeeling, or evil. Those who want to end abortion and contraception are likewise painted as uncaring, unfeeling, or wanting to subjugate women all over again. And let’s be honest: Some people are evil, and do have evil motives for taking their side. Either side.
The problem with Christians, as I’ve said, is not all of us recognize our job is to fight both sin and its consequences. A lot of us believe our job is to fight only sin; if we fight the consequences, we worry we’re endorsing sin, because we’re not letting it run its course. Hence, we don’t all agree it’s unfair for women to suffer the consequences of unchastity. Many of us think they should suffer. Sexually transmitted disease is therefore God’s judgment upon them. So are babies.
Here’s where this whole philosophy fell apart for me: Babies are God’s judgment? Back the truck up.
If God actually believed we should suffer the consequences of our sins, we’d all be condemned to hell. Thankfully he doesn’t. Jesus paid our penalty for us, and we praise him for it every Sunday. It makes absolutely no sense how we praise Jesus for eliminating our consequences, then condemn others for eliminating others’ consequences. If we condemn them, we need to condemn Christ too.
Yet while we can agree it’s indeed unfair for women to suffer the consequences of unchastity, our focus too often is not, “How can we help you?” but “Abortion is murder!” or “You need to practice chastity!”—which do nothing to help women. And once the women give birth, and the risk of abortion is past, we still do nothing to help women. So while we should be on the same side when it comes to the consequences of unchastity, we wind up fighting one another over solutions to the problem, and as a result solve very little.
This attitude really has nothing to do with following Jesus. It is, as usual, using the bible to back our personal views, rather than changing those views to suit the bible. Actually the bible addresses neither contraception nor abortion. Every Christian position has been extrapolated from verses which are actually about predestination.
Speaking for myself, I can’t approve of abortion. But I don’t claim I have a biblical basis for my view. Just a solid philosophical one (as far as I know). Regardless, my priority should be, as Jesus commands, to love my neighbors. It’s to ask “How can I help?” rather than condemn the things I consider sin. It’s to minister a Kingdom where the consequences of sin are undone. It’s not to take sin’s side, and in so doing, perpetuate sin.
If we Christians actually applied love to the reproductive rights issue, instead of insisting upon consequences and absolutes, we would of course see a completely different argument than we currently do. Till we do, we’re just going to see more arguing and animosity and fury.