On the Equality and Inequality of the Genders
March 17, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
Ms. Kipnis was right about feminism, in that its goal is to
find equality with men. It seeks to overthrow a history of abusive male
oppression, at least as perceived by the feminists. It is built on the
historical understanding (whether right or wrong) that women have been treated
as weak and inferior to men, and since this is not the case, builds an ideology
centered on correcting this view. In my next Friday/gender post I will look
specifically at the history of feminism. Towards that goal, we must first
understand (as much as possible) the Biblical equalities and inequalities of
women and men.
In any discussion of this matter I believe there is one essential place for us
to start. We must begin with the essential equality between women and men. This
too is where the Bible begins; the blessing of God’s creation (Gen 1:27). “So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them.” As is often the case “man” refers to male and female
(i.e. mankind). God created both male and female in His image meaning they are
of equal worth and value. The image of God is never destroyed in mankind
(though it is distorted by the fall), for His image is given as the reason for
man not to murder (Gen 9:6). Despite the impact of sin, male and female still
bear God’s image and are therefore valuable. We are more like God then anything
else in the universe, and though we are not God, He has granted us value and
worth in creation that renders every single human being equally precious and
significant.
Furthermore, God created male and female as perfect complements of one another.
In Genesis and in the New Testament we are told that in marriage husband and
wife constitute one flesh (Gen 2:24, Mt 19:6, 1 Cor 6:16, Eph 5:31). Coupled
with the recurring condemnations of homosexual activities, we find that male
and female complement one another in such a way that no other beings can. Even
though all females are made in God’s image, no two females can become one, and
likewise no two men. God created human beings in such a way that no other union
except for that of male and female can result in the beauty and glory of one
flesh made in the image of God. To be united in this way in utter devotion of
worship to God is the fullest sense of completion that can be had on this
earth. So, male and female are equal in virtue of being God’s image bearers and
of being each other’s only option for sacred union on this earth.
On the level of ontology, women and men are equal. That is, value and worth are
equal for all who are ontologically human (in essence or nature), regardless of
gender. Gender in no way diminishes ones ontological value. However, when it
comes to functionality, women and men are not equal. The biblical view of manhood
and womanhood is that we exist in ontological equality and functional
inequality. That is, women and men were created for different roles, or
purposes.
As for evidence of functional inequality, we’ve already looked at the roles for
which God created us and the curses He placed on them in Genesis 2. Paul also
spoke to our different purposes. (1 Cor 11:9) “Neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man.” This echoes Genesis in God’s creation of woman to be
man’s helper and support. (Col 3:18) “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is
fitting in the Lord.” This is to be a restoration of God’s creation, a mending
of the curse that gave woman desire to rule over her husband. I could easily tangent into what exactly is
meant by submission, the use and limit of the principle (the danger here is to
think there is no limit), but I’ll leave it there for now.
What is important here is the basic understanding the men and women are of
equal worth and value though we were created to fulfill different roles. We could
look at it as two trees that were cut down for different purposes. One was made
into posts used to hold up a roof, providing shelter during a dangerous storm.
The other was sliced to become the roof. They are both of equal value since
both are necessary to build the shelter. However they have different functions,
one of support and one of provision. They may be able to perform other
functions on their own without ever becoming a shelter, but there is an
exceptional worth that comes from the uniting of the two.
On a divine level, the Trinity is the type of ontological equality and
functional inequality. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally
God. They are all of equal worth and value regardless of function. But it is
because of their difference in function that we know the three persons of the
Trinity. “The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the
ways they relate to each other and to creation. In those relationships they
carry out roles that are appropriate to each person.” (Systematic Theology,
Wayne Grudem, 251.) Not only do the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
differ, but the roles of the Son and Holy Spirit are such that they are
submitted under the authority of the Father. “The Son and Holy Spirit are equal
in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in roles.” (Grudem, 249.)
The Father initiated the act of creation, speaking powerful words to bring the
universe into being. However, it was the Son who carried out the act of
creation (John 1:3, Col 1:16). Finally, it was the Spirit who manifested God’s
presence in His creation (Gen 1:2).
So in the Trinity we have the supreme principle of inequality of roles while
maintaining equality in value and worth. Seeing as women and men were made in
God’s image, it should not surprise us that we would reflect who He is by our
very existence. It is fair because that is the way God decreed it, because it
is a reflection of God Himself. Christ, “who, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” (Phil 2:6), but
delighted in doing His Father’s will. The beauty, complexity, and mystery of
the Trinity are reflected in the existence of male and female. Thus to live out
our equalities and inequalities is both God honoring and what is ultimately
best for us.
Related posts:
- EFBT 1: A Summary of the Complementarian Position
- Interview with Mary Kassian - Part I
- God Hates Injustice, Not Inequality
- What Fathers Do Best
- Defining Gender Roles
- Book Review: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware
Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
March 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am
March 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Roger,
Could you expound more on why a woman's functional difference equates to functional inferiority. I agree that men and women are different, and thusly, function differently. But I'm not so sure there is an inferiority as you suggest. It seems to me that if your argument is true, then what my functionality produces for my home is somehow more important/signficant than what my wife provides through her functionality (I say these things as if function has nothing to do with our nature. You strike a very firm line between function and ontology, which I don't think is warranted. But I'm conceding that for the sake of argument). I don't know too many husbands/fathers who can say (with a straight face) that what their wives provide through their functionality is somehow inferior to what they provide.
I appreciate you talking about these issues. They are important.
Brian
March 17th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Brian,
I don't think I said women are functionally inferior, and I think if I were to say something like that it would go against everything else I've said. I'm merely claiming difference in roles, not an inferiority in roles. In the example of the trees used for different purposes- each purpose is valuable, though different, and one's not inferior to the other. Furthermore, in the case of the Trinity, though the Son fills a different role than the Father and submits to the Father, because of His ontological status as God He's not inferior to the Father.
When I say men and women are functionally not equal, I'm not suggesting one is inferior to the other- both functions are qually valuabe. The point is that they are functionally different. The more I've though about this, though, I think there is ontological difference between men and women as well. Both are ontologically (and functionally) of equal worth, but our differences are certianly not merely physical nor merely functional. Gender differences do go deeper, but I lack the expertise to go further with that.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I appreciate the clarification. I think the use of “equality” and “inequality” begs my question, though. Personally, I like sticking to term “different”. I don't think the word “different” carries the conotation of “value” as the terms “equality” and “inequality”. Inequality can easily contain the ideas of “inequity” and “disparity” that we wouldn't want to bring into the discussion between the relationship between men and women. But that's just me.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I think this explains why Amy hasn't posted lately. Clearly Roger has exerted his power over her in order to emphasize the sexist view that her “knowledge, wisdom, opinion, desires and right to self determination are fundamentally less valued” than his, for I am certain that this is his position. Amy was only really brought onto the A-team in the first place so she would bring Roger and me sandwiches and beer while we watch the NCAA Tournament.
[/sarcasm]
March 18th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Seems like “equal” is being used as if it is synonymous with “identical”. This is indeed how many feminists might view the matter, but the clarification above helps ward off confusion.
I think we should point out that's how the word is often used, but I'd hesitate to use it that way myself.
When it comes to worth, or value, etc. equality as a concept fades in its use to describe human beings made in God's image, especially when compared to each other. How can we measure the depth of the worth of one for whom Christ has suffered and died? It's immeasurable.
That's on an ontological level I suppose, the trick is how to think of equality on a legal and cultural level, where equality as a term has more purchase.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Why did you respond with sarchasm?
March 18th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
This is Micah. I'm on another computer and don't remember the blasted login stuff. Anyway, I'm not sure I entirely understand what Bill is saying, except perhaps that how society perceives our worth plays a greater role in our actual worth than Roger seems to allow.
If that's the case I'm not sure I buy it, though I do second Bill's questioning of the interpretation of the curse as resulting in women having the desire to rule over their husbands. I've never heard of it either and find it implausible to say the least, but would be receptive to an argument supporting such an interpretation.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I offered the basic argument for this interpretation in last week's post:
“The curse is
March 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I can see how the “equal/inequal” terminology causes some confusion given our cultural baggage. I have no problem dropping that in favor of simply saying men and women are different on various levels.
March 18th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I don't know, but Timbo's been a bit abusive lately. Thursday he beat me up in the Talbot lounge.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I would expect that to be a raucous place. Best it seems to avoid Timbo in such a hostile environment.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Micah again.
I wonder what makes this a curse specific to women in marriage. It seems that people as such desire to have control and dominion over one another. A sister tries to control her sister, her mother, her friend, and vice versa. Same thing with a man in relation to his brother, friend, etc. And surely both husbands and wives desire to control each other in sinful ways and from sinful motivations (the difference, I suppose, is that the woman's desire is intrinsically wrong, whereas the husband's can be right if he takes care to exercise his authority in a holy way?).
(as an aside I wonder if “control” is the right word. Not even a traditional patriarchal view would see husbands “controlling” their wives as a good thing, right? Whereas they can, and should, in such a view, exercise authority.)
I guess if this is what the woman's curse is I wonder what makes it much different from what we all seemed to be cursed with, a sinful desire to take for ourselves authority that is not ours.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Roger, the interpretation I am familiar with is that the curse is not a desire to rule over her husband, but rather, that the woman will now be subjugated to her husband. The two who were equal, because of the fall, become unequal. This is not a recent interpretation. Mathew Henry, not a particularly liberal commentator and not recent as this was written in 1710, here states it thus:
I believe I encountered this interpretation originally in Paul Jewitt's book, Man As Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View
March 18th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Tim, if Amy were Roger's wife, your point would make more sense. If she were, then she would have to submit to Roger's authority regardless of her relative knowledge or wisdom to his. Her opinion and desires, though valued and listened to would be subjugated to his, and her right to self determination would be limited by his decision to exercise his authority over her.
If that is a misstatement of Roger's position, I would be happy to be corrected.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
I am sorry I wasn't more clear, Micah.
Clearly, our worth should be founded first and formost by the image of God that we bear, and by God's value of us, which is so great as to lead to the sacrifice of his Son on our behalf. We are though social beings. When I speak of our own self worth, I speak not of society's perceptions, but of philosophy of selfhood, and a psychological understanding of self perception.
Our own perception of worth is dependent upon how we are esteemed by others. I am not willing to accept that this social facet of our human make up is purely sinful. Rather, I believe it is an intrinsic part of the social beings that God made us to be. Though we may be esteemed as valuable to God by others, if those same people do not esteem our opinoins, knowledge and judgement, if they limit our influence by our class, if they establish a ceiling to the authority which we can attain relative to others around us, we incorporate these diminished estimations of us into our sense of self worth.
Beyond our self perception, I would argue, that in a social group dynamic, those who are more influential are perceived to have greater worth. We protect our officers behind the lines of our enlisted men for practical reasons, but also for reasons of pragmatic worth.
I have not honed these thoughts, but I continue to believe that though you may only seek to evaluate our worth in terms of our standing before God, this excludes a significant part of what it means to be a human being.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Thanks Bill, I think we may agree on some of these things, though I'm sure we'd have some quibbles too. (I don't think you were necessarily unclear, it's a complex topic and a the reader has to work as well).
March 21st, 2006 at 1:55 am
Guys, I'm just reading through this post now. I think it's a little late for me to jump in at this point (I'll wait for next time), but I am very curious about something, and I would love to hear your answers to this if you're willing to give them…
I have often written on the topic of men and women–I've talked about the differences, I've discussed why I think men ought to be in leadership, etc., etc. But I rarely get more than a couple of comments, and comments challenging my positions are even more rare.
So my question is–and I really want to understand this–why so few challenges to my posts on this issue? Why is it you're arguing with Roger (17 comments!), but not me on this?
I'm not asking this accusingly. I honestly ask this out of curiosity with some amusement. Is it because you think Roger doesn't have a right to say it (because he's a man)? Is it because you think you're not allowed to argue with me on this (because I'm a woman)? Do you feel like you have to protect women from men (Roger), but not other women (me)?
If I had written this post, would you have responded differently? If so, then do you think the gender of the writer ought to affect the way you respond to the ideas?
If you're willing to really get outside yourself and figure this out and then be open about it, I would be fascinated by your answers–mainly because I'm fascinated by men/women issues and how we relate to each other. Any ideas?
March 21st, 2006 at 9:59 am
Amy, this is a great topic and you've asked some very good questions. If I might make a suggestion, granted one that means more work for an A-teamer, why not make a new post asking these questions, with links to your posts on gender and Roger's?
), though if I might tease a bit I think if you're position is right (from my memory of it) I might have good reason to treat you and Roger differently.
I suggest this not only because I think it's important enough to warrant it's own “headlined” space, but because I honestly don't remember how/if I responded to what you've written. I seem to recall your posts to be more along the lines of recognizing that men and women are different than men being called to leadership as such, though I don't doubt that's in there too. I'd also like to see if I disagree with Roger more than I do with you, and if so how vocal I am with each of you.
I tend not to get too involved in some of these debates for a number of reasons, but I don't know that I've ever really carefully thought through why (part of it is the discussion is so thoroughly personal. It's personal for non-married folks too, but not in the same way).
You can rest assured, though, that I won't hold back any disagreement I have with you (I grant this is rare
March 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Hmmm. That's not a bad idea. If I can find the time in the next couple of days, I'll try to get something up there.
This whole topic really interests me. In the past I've just accepted the fact that people will let women say things about gender issues (this doesn't apply to any other issue that I've noticed) that they won't let men say (I'm not just talking in terms of the blog here). But I would love to understand why this happens.
In general, I think much of this has to do with the fact that men like women and want them to be happy, but I think a lot of things may be at play here.