Christianity began in a patrilineal society. This influenced the language and concepts that became “biblical”. But does that make Christianity inherently masculine in nature?
I haven’t heard the audio of the recent talk given by John Piper where he claims that “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.” But I have seen quite a few people talking about it. All that I have available to me are these excerpts (from “John Piper: God Gave Christianity a ‘Masculine Feel'”) to which I would like to respond:
“God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother.”
Is it a coincidence that the powerful rulers in the ancient Near East has been men? If God is to depict himself as the most powerful ruler it makes sense to communicate this through imagery understood by the audience. That said, Scripture doesn’t avoid depicting God as having motherly qualities, some examples including Genesis 1.27 where the image of God is male and female, God as mother-bear in Hosea 13.8, a woman in labor in Isaiah 42.14, a comforting mother in Isaiah 66.13, and I am sure there are others. In other words, yes, God is depicted as masculine more than feminine, but that he is depicted as feminine at all invalidates Piper’s argument. If God was gendered in any significant way there would be no reason to describe particular traits of God using prototypical feminine characteristics of the audience culture. When God is depicted in male language it is the same idea.
“Second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male.”
Again, fathers were considered the head of homes in the biblical world. It was thought that the man’s seed was what brought forth the “begotting”. Likewise, most Kings and their heirs were male. Piper’s point about Genesis 1.27 makes little sense to me since all that passage is saying is that God created “human” and he created “human” with the genders male and female.
“God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men; the Son of God came into the world to be a man; He chose twelve men to be His apostles; the apostles appointed that the overseers of the Church be men; and when it came to marriage they taught that the husband should be the head.”
God appoints male priest in a patrilineal society. Surprise? Also, it seems that many pagan temples often used women in an overly sexualized way. In other words, it doesn’t mean it is God’s ideal, per se. God had no trouble with female nation leaders like Deborah who was a prophetess (Judges 4.4) and Huldah who according to 2 Kings 22.15-20 speaks with authority on behalf of Israel’s God to Israel’s King! The story is told in 2 Chronicles 34.23-28.
The apostles are a reconstruction of the twelve tribes of Israel. The males chosen are significant because of this reconstruction and likely because of the intimate nature of their time with Jesus. Even then, Jesus has female disciples whom he taught and commission, who were present to receive the Spirit at Pentecost, and who could even be apostles (e.g. Junia in Romans 16.7).
Other offices were available to women as well in the church like Philips prophetess daughters and those women given permitted to use their prophetic gifts in 1 Corinthians 11.
While Piper may ignore the debates over the nature of Paul’s statements regarding male headship (I’m a bit surprised when this is argued so matter-of-factly when the same hermeneutic can be used to justify the master-slave relationship and has been used this way), this doesn’t mean his interpretation (and all of his friends at CBMW) isn’t full of problems both exegetically and hermeneutically.
“Now, from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And being God, a God of love, He has done that for our maximum flourishing both male and female.”
If this is so then there is little we can do. Often I ignore people like Piper, Grudem, and Driscoll. I came into Christianity through Pentecostalism where this is often less of a problem than evangelicalism (though a problem still). As Gordon D. Fee once said in an interview when asked about women as clergy, “It just isn’t an issue for me.” But I know many of my sisters in Christ who feel various calls from the Spirit cannot ignore this type of misguided rhetoric. They must stand for themselves and I stand with them.
I have many close friends who are some form of complimentarian. I disagree with them, but we can be civil (my local church has male elders only). But I disagree when they tell women “You can’t do this because….” Sorry, wrong. If the Spirit which is poured out upon our sons and daughters choses to anoint someone their gender doesn’t stop that. I’ve been in a church where one of the pastors was a woman and I thought she was wonderful in her calling. When she left our church to plant one elsewhere it was sad to see her go. She preached. She prayed. She functioned in the gifts of the Spirit. We lost something when she left.
Christianity is not a man’s religion. It is not a story where men should be in the spotlight while women stand back. While this may have been so in Israel’s past and the church’s, this is not what the prophets foresaw when they said God’s Spirit makes sons and daughters into God’s prophets. At the heart of the Gospel is Paul’s claim that there is neither “male nor female”. While Paul wrestled with the practicality of this, and we have wrestled ever since, it is my starting point, and I hope for people like John Piper it can become their’s as well.
the archives near Emmaus 
Thank you for writing this, Brian. I would be overjoyed to see this kind of freedom lived out.
*Long sigh of relief*
It’s so exhausting hearing Driscoll and Piper talk on and on about masculine this, man that, etc., etc. So much of Scripture just gets overlooked.
As always, Brian, thanks for posting.
Thanks for this.
What leaves a particularly sour taste in my mouth about the complimentarian teachers (those mentioned and others) is the seeming delight in which they give this message out. Is it appropriate to be joyful whilst dictating to a particular group they have only limited ways in which to function within society and church? That it is one group (males) who can truly represent God in matters of ultimate importance? It should be a cause of deep sadness if it is true. Their attitude to women speaks volumes in itself and I believe that it is this which is really informing their hermeneutics.
Thanks for the thoughtful post Brian!
You’ve linked to it before, but I thought that this would be a good place to point people again to this piece by Dianna Anderson I published a couple weeks ago: http://sparksandashes.com/2012/01/18/why-was-jesus-a-man/
Great response! And I agree: we must stand by our sisters in Christ.
i just love when Jesus says,
…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings…
a poignant and recognizable image, and so transcendant of gender.
@Mitra: You’re welcome!
Jeremy: You’re welcome too!
Ali: I agree 100%! I wonder if they have daughters and what they tell their daughters when those girls tell them their dreams.
@Paul: Thank you and yes, that link is relevant to the discussion.
@Justin: Thank you!
@Sarah: Amen!
I come from a background like yours where it was not only not an issue but girls/women were encouraged to testify, exhort, prophesy, teach, and, yes, preach. I only recently discovered that this is such an issue for our sisters in Christ from other tribes.
Thanks for writing this.
@Brian: Like you, I tend to (mostly) ignore people like Piper, Grudem, and Driscoll (who, it could be said, are often treated as something akin to modern day Protestant Popes). However, that being said, Piper is not always off the mark. Though his theology may be flawed, don’t believe in this case his reading of the text is wrong. God has specifically treated gender a certain way in the text, and this is not to say “Christianity is a man’s religion”. IF God has specifically portrayed gender a particularly way, it is a non-sequitur to argue that this makes Christianity a non-sequitur.
Why is the point of God’s treatment of gender worth working through? Because we risk moulding the God we worship into ‘our’ image rather being conformed to his. We cannot see arguments, such as Pipers, as excluding women simply because he correctly points out God’s habit of revealing himself as ‘father’ rather than ‘mother’ lest we create theologies into some type of blasphemous gender syncretism.
I agree with you that gender is a property of our fallen state. I also agree with you that God sees male and female as equal, equal in sin, and equal in needing redemption (but this does NOT mean equal in all other respects). Likewise, there is little biblical evidence that the angels or God himself posses gender in the same way we do, but you stretch your point far beyond what is reasonable in your use of some of the verses above.
For example, [Gen 1:27] is not about God, but about MAN in GOD’s image. Male and Female both were created in the image of God. Your use of this is dubious because this verse is not about physical appearance. There is debate (as you well know) about whether the claim, ‘we were created in the image of God’ is a physical claim or a spiritual claim. Monkeys possess gender, possess arms, legs, heads, are symmetrical left to right, looking a lot like man; yet the thing that distinguishes man from monkey’s is not our physical form, but our spiritual form. Being created in the image of God means our gender is irrelevant.
Besides, you miss the whole point of [Gen 1:27] in your usage of it. Just as God is one God in three persons, man is ‘suppose’ to be as well templated upon God.
“Let US make man in OUR image …” [Gen 1:26] (God is speaking about Himself in the plural here)
“Male and Female he created them.” [Gen 1:27]
” … and they shall become ONE flesh.” [Gen 2:24]
“So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” [Matt 19:6]
It is clear that ‘man’ created in the image of God is both the male and female as ONE joined in union of marriage. Even beyond ‘flesh’ however, [Mal 2:15] suggests that without this marriage union, ‘male’ and ‘female’ is incomplete. Without union, male and female possess only a portion of their spirit:
“Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? ” [Mal 2:15a]
This means that marriage itself is templated upon the trinity of God, with male and female both possessing a portion, and a portion is found in the union itself.
Our generation has faulty vision. Perhaps as a consequence of Greek thinking, democracy, we have become self absorbed, seeing only the individual, swollen with conceit (as Paul predicted [2 Tim 3:2-3]). When we look at ‘man’ (the species) in this our fallen state, and see ‘two genders’ we create a false dichotomy in our thinking about God. God does not possess gender, but neither was man intended to (for anything save our fallen state for the sake of procreation).
That God portrays Himself mostly as ‘father’ does not mean wo-man was not also created equally in His image. It does however say something about the man’s role in the male/female relationship; namely that the man will always be held accountable for the provision of the Godly example within the marriage, and for leading the union in a God glorifying direction. This is what the whole ‘headship’ business is about [1 Cor 11:3].
As unpopular a notion as it may be, biblically – man and women are not equal in ALL other respects apart from sin and redemption. Man cannot give birth, and women are NOT held responsible for headship in the union of marriage [Eph 5:23]. This inequality is not effected by the fact that we were both created in the image of God.
Should have read “it is a non-sequitur to argue that this makes Christianity a man’s religion”.
Andrew:
We need to work on your comments friend. They aren’t comments. They are blog post in themselves. Have you considered starting your own blog?
Obviously we disagree on the degree to which God chose the language of Scripture. I do not see inspiration as being anywhere close to so-called verbal plenary or dictation theory. I am not sure if you do, but it would seem so. While God inspired Scripture, the human authors of Scripture wrote it in the language and concepts of their time.
We will have to agree to disagree on Genesis 1.27. I think your over-reading a passage that is really quite simple: God made humans in his image and this image includes maleness and femaleness. Let’s not forget Genesis 1 and 2 are two angles on the theological account of creation, not one. Genesis 1.27 has it’s unique voice in relation to the imagery of Genesis 2.
While you are right that Genesis 1.27 it was applied to marriage I think you’ve missed the principle of humanity is male and female and the coming together in marriage represents that joint rule. Otherwise single men and women are not the the image of God–I reject that proposal if that is what you are saying.
@Angie:
You’re welcome!
@Brian: to blog, one would have to possess something worthy of being read (by others). This, I lack. However your blogs are often reasoned arguments (more or less) and so responses to them often need to be as well to fully engage the point (else the comments will only ever be superficial; agreement or disagreement). Even so, I am trying to ‘comment’ tersely and concisely.
While I agree the character of the human author is contained and reflected in scripture, and also agree that infallible does not mean the text we contained is without error, still see the human author, the secondary author, has having been subtended by the primary author, the Holy Spirit. If this is the so-called verbal plenary or dictation theory, so be it. What it means in terms of my reading of the text though is what is evident in the text is primarily God, and what is incidental in it is man.
God’s portrayal of Himself as ‘Father’ is hardly incidental especially given the apparent disdain for mother-goddess worship and gender attitudes such as [Gal 5:12]. My belief that God is timeless, eternal, consistent, without shade or variation, means that I don’t believe God ever tailors Himself to man. Rather God expects man to tailor himself to God (this in direct opposition to your belief God did anything to make it more palatable to our understanding). I also believe our ‘modern’ democratic focus on individuals is unbiblical (as argued above).
WRT to my reading (or misreading as you say) of [Gen 1:27], follow this thread through the bible. Don’t just stop at [Gen 1:27]. From there this theme emerges in [Genesis 2:24][1 Corinthians 6:16][Matthew 19:5-6][Mark 10:8][Ephesians 5:31]. In every instance, in both Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek thinking, the concept of ‘one’ was wholly and absolutely indivisible. I am not understating the case then, when I say the bible’s view of man was ‘one flesh’ consisting of both male and female.
You raise the counter argument that the coming together in marriage represents ‘joint-rule’ but I don’t see marriage about ‘rule’ at all. It is about completion in this our current state (where procreation is necessary, a consequence of our sin, and the defining (oftesin corrupting) element in our gender relations. I believe this is what the [Mal 2:15] verse shows when it makes this unity spiritual rather than physical. This means we should re-examine verses such as [Ephesians 4:3][Philippians 1:27] (as well as [Romans 12:4-5][1 Corinthians 10:17, 12:12-14,18, 12:20,25], [Ephesians 2:16], [Colossians 3:15]) to better understand the [Gen 1:27] thread.
You also raise the issue of non-married males and females, and argue that if I’m correct unmarried folks are not created in the image of God. I join you in rejecting such an idea, but point out that this argument is NOT what I’m saying or a consequence of it. Unmarried males and females are absolutely created in the image of God. [Luke 20:27-40] makes it clear that marriage is a thing of THIS AGE. In heaven, because of resurrection, we will be one spirit with God (not given in marriage) [Luke 27:35][Mark 12:25]. Thus unmarried men and women are more directly created in the image of God (being sons and daughters of God) IF they have been baptised in Christ.
Andrew:
I would agree that God revealed himself in the masculine to avoid the negative connotations of female deities. That said, God does reveal himself in the feminine on occasion as I noted in this post. Likewise, I recommend Daniel Kirk’s recent post “Imagining the Biblical God” (http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/02/imaging-the-biblical-god/) for more on this. God is spirit, not giant cosmic man or giant cosmic woman. I think we part ways here because I see him as revealing himself as humans can understand him. That means adapting to the world to which he was communicating.
As to the “biblical theology” you present we also part ways on how echoes of Scripture are used. I see them as being varied in their application. Genesis 1.27 can be used to marriage and it is used as such, but it is about the imago Dei being created to rule the creation first and foremost. Male and female are God’s image to creation as humans. So I am not talking about marriage as “rule” like I think you read it, but man and woman as rulers over creation as Genesis 1.27 intends it.
Ah. I see where you get your point about ‘rule’ now.
Imago Dei justifies man’s authority over creation. We were created in the image of Christ, Christ is the first born of all creation, we share this ‘rule’ with Christ (both male and female). I agree, so it’s not clear to me where exactly we part ways. If there is controversy between us, it is not male and female equality (since both were created in the image of God).
Rather, I suspect if there is controvesy, it is how we treat the issue of ‘male headship’ from [Eph 5:23][1 Cor 11:3].
Though gender is neither a qualifier nor a dis-qualifier before God, this does not mean there is no gender distinction. The bible bestows separate responsibilities on each, for which each is accountable. Verses such as the following, show this:
[1 Cor 11:8] “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.”
[Eph 5:23] “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour”
(The verse [Eph 5:23] can be understood by looking at how Paul uses it in [Eph 5:28] “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”)
Now if in understanding [Eph 5:23,28][1 Cor 11:3] we discount them as mere reflections of Paul’s prejudice, we step on a very slippery slope brother.
Andrew:
It is a slippery slope worth traversing in my opinion because the other side is not firm ground either, but the type of slope that has lead to the oppression of women for generations. One could argue (and I have seen it argued) that if we should have women where head coverings or uncut hair in worship because of Paul’s appeal to the creation narrative. It is the same argument as he one for women not speaking in form. Likewise, he argues for master-slave relationships in the same breath. If it is a slippery slope to say women don’t have to wear head veils, slaves don’t have to be subject to their masters in all places and times, and that women aren’t subject to men nor inferior to men inherently than I am happy to take the risk.
@Brian: One the one hand we have the issue of struggling to understand God’s apparent view of gender. This isn’t the slippery slope.
On the other hand we have an issue similar to your question of historical veracity. How can we believe the text if it reflects attributes of it’s imperfect secondary author. Here is the slippery slope.
I would agree with you that the wearing of veils, as an example, is incidental, and of Paul, but the underlying point being made is not. Christ is the head of the assembly, and the husband is the head of his wife (including his family). I further agree that struggling to understand God’s perspective of the genders is a worthwhile pursuit – IF for no other reason than the one you’ve given – to preserve the glory of God by denying misogynist false reasons to justify inequality.
However consider the logic ‘most doctors beat their wives, therefore we doctors are false’. That theologians have pointed out the biblical elements of gender distinction (especially WRT to headship) does not mean it is NOT TRUE because it has indeed resulted in oppression. What is Satans’ favourite tactic but to make truth hated (or warped)? Oppression of women is precisely a corruption of the fabric of headship which is why Paul also has to say [Eph 5:28].
If it is true that God charges a married man as ‘head’ (with responsibility) for his family, including his wife, we cannot ignore this simply because some men (or perhaps many men?) abuse this responsibility.
(What a stimulating dialogue, Brian and Andrew! The comments from both sides have been intelligent, well-reasoned and thought-provoking! I’ve enjoyed reading all this. Thank you both.)
Andrew:
I am not motivated primarily by the idea that somebody has abused something-or-rather. I am saying that while you note a slippery slope one way I am noting a slippery slope the other direction. In other words, both interpretations have their potential slippery slopes.
@Luke: Thanks!
Just linked over to your blog in the flurry of posts on the subject. Your post is by far the most encouraging I have read, for in it you not only oppose a runaway theology of “masculine christianity” but offer a Biblical perspective of something fuller and more complete.
Thank you for your helpful contribution to a discussion that can get heated all too quickly.
@Levi: Thank you!
@Levi: More than ‘runaway’, it’s ‘mis-represented’.
Thanks, for sharing. I found you while looking around for posts on women in ministry (something I wrote about recently in a post entitled Philemon). Keep up the good work!
Shalom,
Jonathan