Serving Bread

Here is a recent paper I wrote on a Biblical framework for male and female relationships.

We live in a culture that has a confused understanding of male and female relationships. Perhaps this confusion exists among all cultures and has been experienced through the generations, but it seems that in our current cultural context, human sexuality and relationships among men and women are far from the Biblical ideal and the intention of God.

There are many ways we see the implications of a broken view of human sexuality and male-female relationships, whether it be gender identity confusion, the prevalence of divorce, or promiscuity. And it is not just the prevalence of these implications that points to this distortion, but it’s the glorification and affirmation of them.[1]

Culture will never affirm or provide a Biblical picture of right relationships between men and women. Culture will distort and redefine God’s intention, and the Church may not necessarily be immune from that distortion. The aim of this paper is to focus our attention on God’s intentions for humanity in male and female relationships.

As I mentioned in my introduction, what our culture communicates is that we have a distorted view of human relationships. But this is not just a cultural phenomenon—it’s a theological one. Author Wendy Farley illustrates human sexuality and human relationships as tragedy. There is a tragic dimension to human sexuality, where men and women will suffer the effects of the brokenness, regardless whether the couple within the relationship contributes to that brokenness or are aware of that brokenness.[2] Ray Anderson put it this way, “There appears to be something tragic about the human condition.”[3]

In Genesis 3, the man and the woman suffer the consequence of choosing away from God and their relationship (among other aspects of creation) becomes distorted. What God said to the woman stands in contrast for what God intended for the woman. God’s words of “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” imply that desire and rule are consequences of the humans’ choices.

Even this idea of desire falls into the tragic dimension of relationships. Farley observes that “it is the nature of desire to be in principle un-fulfillable.” [4] If desire for the other is part of the human relationships, it points to the tragic element in these relationships.

In contrast to the tragic that we experience and observe in our relationships, God had intended for relationships among men and women to be reflective of the very image of God. Genesis 1.27 reads that “God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” First and foremost, our humanity is tied up in our sexuality as male and female. Though we experience humanity in various relational structures, they are secondary to our identity as men and women. [5] Phyllis Trible put it well when she described all social structures as “adjunctive.” She explains, for example, that parents are not a part of “God’s creative activity.” Parenthood exists and is made possible by sexuality. She concludes, “roles, then, are secondary at best; they do not belong to creation.”[6] This is very important as it lays the foundation for any discussion of role issues and submission.

Too many well-meaning couples and churches have focused on nurturing relationships among men and women by redefining roles. But any focus on male and female relationships must first and foremost begin with God’s creation of men and women. To determine male and female relationships by focusing on roles is counter to the Biblical understanding of male and female relationships.

God created humans—males and females—in the image of God. Karl Barth notes that the only differentiation we have as humans is that of sexual differentiation. God created humanity to exist as a co-humanity of men and women. God has uniquely given humanity the gift of expressing the likeness of God. We are “endowed with the imago Dei” as Anderson put it.[7]

If anything, scripture states that any role we express in this life is temporary and only in this life. Marriage is one of those relationships that uniquely expresses the image of God through the relationship between a man and a woman.[8] And though it may be ordained by God, it will pass away. [9] This is an important point when we look at principles of a healthy marriage. It should raise this question for each of us: How do we express ourselves in our marriage considering that marriage is a temporary relational structure?

While our sex determines our role, it is not so much a biblical mandate as it is cultural. What is important and necessary is that every person—male or female—come under the command of God.[10] The various “rules” and laws established throughout scripture were designed to move the community of God to live under the command of God. Having said that, rather than look to a teaching on roles and regulations for relations between men and women, each of us must seek God and determine how to live under the command of God.[11]

Ray Anderson put it well when he wrote, “To live as husband or wife, mother or father, is to live responsibly under the command of God, but the sociological role order itself cannot be determinative of the command of God.”

What this raises for us is how do we do that well? How do we seek God and look for God to have authority over all of our relationships without subscribing to a theology of role assumptions?

We must pay attention to God’s intention for our relationships. In Genesis 1, we learn that God has created us male and female in the image of God. Role or value was not given to each sex. Instead, both must interact to recognize and know the image of God. In Genesis 2, while it may be tempting to note that the man (Adam) was created before the woman and thus must have some sort of superiority over her, that is not true to what Scripture intends.

God had created man and found him to be incomplete. God had failed to find a “helper” to this creature. Phyllis Trible argues that it would be a misnomer to even consider this creature as a man. It is only after this man was put to sleep and the woman was created out of his rib that he recognizes himself as sexually male.[12] The intention of God is that men and women together would know the image of God, and that neither man nor woman would have superiority or a role that defines their sexuality. Thus male and female emerge simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Because we can only uniquely know the image of God in relationship with another (particularly of the other sex), we must nurture relationships with one another. On a practical level, practicing virtues such as the fruits of the spirit in Galatians offers a way where we can honor one another and know one another in order to know fully who God is.

In addition to practicing the virtues toward one another, we must value forgiveness at the heart of all of our relationships. At the core of our Christian beliefs exists the idea that our sins are forgiven and that forgiveness marks our relationship with God and our relationships with one another. When brokenness and distortions mark our relationships, we must turn to God for grace and extend it to one another.[13]

There may be some who will argue for a focus on roles citing the teachings of Paul, particularly in Ephesians 5 or Colossians 3 (among other texts). In these passages, it seems that Paul is commanding and defining a Biblical concept of male / female relationships. To focus on these passages without a theological framework that begins with the image of God as expressed in Genesis will render these passages out of context.

We must also embrace all of scripture and the writings of Paul. The same Paul who told women to be silent argued that in Christ human sexuality is no longer defining (Galatians 3.28). In Ephesians 5, he calls men and women to equal submission and however he defines roles (that are temporal), I assert again that they are secondary to the creative activity of God. These roles are also secondary to who we are primarily as male and female. Mutual submission is to each other’s humanity not to sexual roles

In conclusion, the implication for our lives is that we must reclaim a Biblical understanding of male and female relationships. We cannot focus on reclaiming a particular role. Instead, we must determine as a church, as family units, and as individuals what it means to put all of our relationships under the command and authority of God.

Notes:

1. �� We easily see this distortion through various media outlets, movies, TV shows, and government outlets. For example, in California, the law allows for no-fault divorces which allows for dissolution of marriages without anyone having to take responsibility for the failure of the marriage.
2.��� Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion, Westminster JohnKnox Press, 1990, pp. 31-32), in “Lecture 7. Human Life as Male and Female. Ray S. Anderson, ST512 Theological Anthropology and the Revelation of God, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2004, Expanded Syllabus Page 6.”
3.��� Anderson, Ray. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, page 88.
4.��� Farley, 35-36, extended Syllabus Page 6.
5.��� Ray Anderson writes, “ Singularity is a determination of the other. For theological anthropology, therefore, marriage and family is a secondary order, made possible by the primary order of differentiation as male and female.” (Anderson, 52).
6.��� Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Fortress, 1978 (98-99), in “Lecture 7. Human Life as Male and Female. Ray S. Anderson, ST512 Theological Anthropology and the Revelation of God, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2004, Expanded Syllabus Page 15-16.”
7.��� Anderson, 116-117.
8.��� Anderson notes that marriage “in some way, to use Paul’s terminology, a “mystery” by which the uniqueness of the covenant relationship between men and women can be experienced.” (123) Though marriage may be a provisional relational structure, it offers a unique opportunity of co-humanity and an expression of the image of God.
9.��� Anderson, 121 and also Jesus’ words that “when they rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage.”
10.��� Anderson, 120. It is important to note that this is true for all regulations including food, rest (Sabbath) and sexuality.
11.��� Anderson, 121.
12.��� Trible, Expanded Syllabus, page 16.
13.��� Michael Jenkins notes that St. Benedict outlined that “we glorify God when we put the interests of others before our own…. The forgiveness of sin strikes at the heart of our personal self-interest and security in which we take such pride.” (Jinkins, Michael. Invitation to Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 2001, 237.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----