Terrorism: A Threat to Peace Anywhere is A Threat to Peace Everywhere.

I sit here numb and dismayed, writing a day after the attacks in Paris that so far have left 128 dead. Innocent people killed whilst watching a football match in the Stade de France, as two suicide bombers opened fire in a shock that the French nation is struggling to come to terms with. Bombs have been detonated and gunshots fired in six targeted locations around Paris, leaving bodies still in the streets, blood on the pavements, and fear in the hearts of the French people.

Now, I live in France. I’m on my year abroad as part of my studies and am currently residing in Marseille. So I’m far away from where all this happened. My first reaction when I heard the news was shock. The first attack to which my attention was drawn to was the one that took place just outside the national football stadium during a friendly between France and Germany. My first thought was that this had been a carefully planned attack: for suicide bombers to target hordes of innocent people only there to watch a bit of footy with their friends and families must have required serious preparation. I threw my plans to have an early night out of the window and sat attentively in front of the TV, watching the news unfold. As it was revealed that the attacks had taken place on a larger scale, including at a concert hall and cafés and restaurants, my attention immediately turned to my friends: this year many of them are spending their year abroad in Paris. Hearing the gunshots reverberating from the videos and seeing the scale of the disaster, I feared for them. I worried that they might be out on the same streets that were flashing across the plasma screen TV I was watching.

I went to Facebook to check that they were OK. I was relieved to be met by statuses letting me know that certain friends were safe and well, but with every realisation that there was another friend in Paris who hadn’t yet been accounted for, I began to type out frantic messages make sure they were away from the danger.  Gladly within the next hour and a half I heard from them all and was assured that they were safe, breathing a sigh of relief each time I saw that another friend had checked in as ‘safe’ on Facebook. However the extent of the gravity of the situation did really hit home when I read the responses of some of my friends – saying that there were so close that they had even heard the gunshots of the terrorists. My heart went out to them all and in my grieving and shock all I could do was pray for them and for Paris.

Soon everyone was caught up in the drama: those in the UK that initially hadn’t known what was going on started posting statuses encouraging the world to #prayforparis, and rightly condemning the actions of these lost psychotics that had taken so many lives on this Friday 13^th November. I even had people checking to ask if I was OK.

             After the initial shock had worn off and I had the comfort of knowing that all my friends were safe, I couldn’t help but think to myself, This is what people in Syria and Libya go through every day. Just the week before the church school I work at here in Marseille had been visited by the headmaster of the Christian school we’re partnered with and supporting in Libya, called ‘L’Ecole de la Paix’ (The School of Peace). The school had been set up in Tripoli at a time when Libya was in complete ruins: everything had been burned to a pulp; there were no schools; hospitals were damaged, and the city had descended into anarchy. As he spoke, my eyes were opened to the daily reality of living in a country torn apart by war and terror. The children at this school only had 4-hour school days because if they were to set out for home too late there was a high risk that they would be gunned down before they even reached the door-step. The principal of this school himself had been shot and another time confronted at gun-point with his two young children in the car, the oldest of whom is only seven. And all this happening in a country where the police is basically non-existent and crimes cannot be tracked and investigated. I imagined living my childhood in this predicament, finding myself in a daily battle with life and death.

That’s what I find myself thinking of now, the day after the Paris attacks. Terrorism isn’t new. It is a daily reality for many people. We’ve been hearing for years about suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Libya… Why is it when it happens in Paris that we suddenly wake up to the reality and the seriousness of the situation? The news bulletins say it all: France (of course), the UK, the States, everyone’s thinking in blue, white and red.

The last time Paris was attacked was in January. The twelve Charlie Hebdo journalists who were gunned down lost their lives on the same day an estimated 2,000 innocent civilians were massacred by Boko Haram, the Islamist extremist terrorist group, in Baga, Nigeria. I didn’t hear much about the attacks in Baga but I did hear an awful lot about Paris, and saw heads of state sending their condolences to the French capital, whilst the people of Nigeria suffered in silence. Next to no-one was thinking in green, white and green.

Today, in the aftermath of the Paris attacks which have left 128 dead, I have been enveloped by the news updates of the horrific killings that took place yesterday all day.  The French borders have been closed and the leaders of the biggest states in the world have announced their solidarity with France. My Facebook feed is full of friends who have stamped their profile pictures with the French flag to reflect their unity with the people of Paris. 

          I am glad to see this humanity. This shared spirit which cares for the suffering of others and calls our hearts to pray for peace, to the point that even those that typically identify as agnostics or even atheists join in praying for Paris. But I am awakened to the irony of it all: this humanity has been largely dormant when we have seen the news bulletins over the past decade or so alerting us to suicide bomb attacks and terror on the same innocent civilians in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, the list goes on. I too am guilty: I feel a pang of pain and shock when I see these bulletins but after a few moments I continue with my life because I am not affected. My family in Nigeria is far away from where the Boko Haram attacks have been taking place so after a while I’ve developed a sort of mild immunisation even to that.

Paris has stirred me: it has given me an inkling of what it feels like to live in dread that those you love are in danger of dying at the hands of crazed terrorists. It has reminded me that this is only one example of what has been happening for years around the world. It has pointed out a characteristic of our human nature: we pay the most attention to things that directly affect us. It has taken seeing such horror so close to home to realise just how horrible it is.

The attacks in Paris have marked a new turning point: next time I see or hear about terrorist attacks in Syria or Palestine and such countries, I will not listen for a few seconds and then go about my business. I will give them the time they deserve, just as I have spent time following the news of what’s happened in Paris, knowing that they have the same evils in common, all being heinous attacks by misguided individuals on innocent people. I will not satisfy myself with the excuse that I don’t know enough about the crisis in the Middle East to follow what is happening. I will go and educate myself. Murder is horrible, no matter what colour the skin it’s inflicted on and no matter the country.

I’d like to hope that instead of thinking just in blue, white and red we will think in the colours of the world. Facebook’s novel idea to stamp people’s profile pictures with the colours of the République is a great way to show solidarity and support for France, but it leaves untold the stories of the countries that live this terror every day. I’d like to see the defiant stripes of the Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi, Palestinian, Israeli, Lebanese, Nigerian (etc…) flags introduced as stamps for Facebook profile pictures too.

The same humanity that has led me to pray for Paris will urge me to pray for the others.

Part 3 – Christianity, Complementarity and Equality: a compatible concoction?

This post makes up part of the series of posts on Christianity, Complementarity and Equality: a compatible concoction?  You can find the Intro, Part 1 and Conclusion here, and Part 2 here. 

 

PART 3: MEN AND WOMEN’S ROLES AS LAID OUT IN THE BIBLE

Women’s Unique Capacities

It’s not a sign of weakness to be naturally inclined to nurture, protect, cherish and support. It is a unique gifting that I wish women were not made to feel ashamed of. With the rise of modern feminism, which has largely gone beyond what first-wave feminism set out to accomplish – gaining social, economic and political rights for women – so many women nowadays dismiss their unique capacity to house another life within them and be loving mothers and instead put the pursuit of a career and competing with men in the workplace above all else. It’s gotten to the point where women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers are looked down upon as doing nothing meaningful with their lives. (Take a look at this rather hot-headed article, for example – http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/). Just think, what does it say about us when we consider the challenge, beautiful yet terrifying, rewarding yet one which often goes unpraised – of bringing new lives into the world and nurturing children to grow into great people – as meaningless?? It certainly isn’t – common sense and nature show us that without mothers the human race would die out.

The fact that I, like most women, desire to get married and have kids does not make me a weakling. The writer Amy Glass in her rather inflammatory article goes so far as to say: ‘You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.’ I would beg to differ.

So would the Bible. While the Bible exalts the position of a wife and mother, it by no means suggests that a woman should remain only within the limits of the home. The Proverbs 31 woman is a prime example of a multi-tasking, industrious woman who most of us wouldn’t see as that different from a 21^st-century working mum! She is the backbone of the family:

Her husband has full confidence in her
    and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm,
    all the days of her life.

[…]
She gets up while it is still night;
    she provides food for her family […]

Yet she is also an enterprising woman who makes and sells clothes and uses her earnings prudently to buy her own property. She also ‘opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.’ And she is an intelligent lady: ‘She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.’ She is also recognised as strong: ‘she is clothed with strength and dignity.’

It is thus perfectly clear in the Bible that the capability of women is not to be looked down upon: they are able to excel as wives, mothers and working women.

Something that is more of a contentious issue, however, is – does the Bible recognise the value of women in the church?

The Bible: an anti-sexism text

The Bible is often regarded nowadays as outdated in its teachings and therefore for many it is a common reflex action to simply dismiss its response to certain issues as irrelevant.

But although the Bible was written at a time when women were considered little more than the property of men, it led the way in reversing attitudes towards women. Take for instance the account of Zelophehad’s daughters in the Old Testament. At a time when female heirs were not given any property rights, these five daughters were each allotted their own inheritance after their father’s death. This is a clear example of the advocacy of women’s economic rights.

The Bible also stands up for the political rights of women. The life of Deborah, a female judge and leader over Israel, is hailed as leading God’s people to victory.

The Bible also chronicles events which confirm it to also be in favour of women’s social rights. Jesus, the cornerstone of the Christian faith, numerous times turned social conventions on their head in the manner in which he related with women. There’s the example of the woman at the well, whom Jesus approaches as she draws water. At this epoch it was completely unheard of for a man to talk to a woman; yet Jesus considered the Samaritan woman worth talking to. Another example which shows Jesus’ radical attitude is seen when he praises the sincere offering of a prostitute as she washes his feet with perfume. This same woman, called Mary, is later praised for choosing to sit at the feet of Jesus to listen to his teaching, rather than preoccupying herself with the domestic tasks, as her sister Martha does.

All these examples show that the Bible advocates the social, economic and political equality of the sexes: in other words, it – and Christianity by default – is wholeheartedly against sexism.

Women Precious in God’s Service

I was pretty sure of this already – I mean, a God of justice and love just doesn’t go hand in hand with the oppression of women. But what I did find myself asking was, Am I as a woman as valuable for God’s service as a man is?

Over the years I had read enough verses during church sermons that would seem to suggest that the answer was no. When Peter talked about women being the ‘weaker vessel’ I thought he was saying that we were less useful for God’s service (“vessels” are frequently used to describe an instrument for God’s use). In fact what he was referring to is physical strength, and the context is specifically advice to husbands and wives on how they should relate with one another. Husbands are admonished to give honour to their spouses. The idea of the ‘weaker vessel’ is in fact anything but demeaning; it is used to signify that women are like precious china – with a sign on them that tells the person charged with looking after them to “handle with care!” Men are to protect them – and as we have already discussed, their physical differences equip them well to do this.

So that’s that: women aren’t less valuable for God’s service. OK, happy with that. But what about that bit in Paul’s letter to Timothy saying:  “¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.”? He goes on to say: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. ¹⁵ Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:11-15) At first glance this seems like a profoundly sexist set of comments. A likely knee-jerk reaction (this is what went on in my mind): Say what now, Paul? Because Eve ate the forbidden fruit first you’re blaming all women for sin being in the world and telling us to shut up and be content with churning out babies?  

It’s easy to hastily dismiss passages like this as evidence of serious misogyny and decide to ignore them – but the truth is, we can only understand such texts when we examine them closely within their contextual frame. The first thing to note is that the apostle Paul is not talking about literal silence. The word used in the original Greek is (hesuchios/hesuchia) in fact used to denote peacefulness; indeed just nine verses earlier, it is used to lay down the importance of Christians leading ‘a quiet and peaceable life’. The next part reveals more about Paul’s meaning: he delineates the roles of men and women as marked out according to creation.

God’s Design and Order

As we’ve already seen, diversity and order are reflected in God’s design for men and women because diversity and order are at the very heart of the Godhead, and men and women were created in God’s image. Just as God the Son (Jesus) submits to the will of His Father, and the Spirit flows from them both, women are called to submit to the leadership of men. Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve is not pointing the finger at Eve and all women for sin being in the world; rather he is referring the designated order established by God when he created the man first. This connotes that men are the ones designed by God to lead. Thus when a woman ‘usurps authority over a man’ she is turning God’s intended order on its head.

God’s intended pattern for men and women is to reflect the relationship between Christ and His church. The man is to fulfil the position of a loving, humble head and the woman is called to intelligent, willing submission. However with the Fall in the Garden of Eden this perfect plan was marred: Adam abdicated his leadership role and allowed Eve to take his place. The passage in Genesis 3 that recounts the Fall tells us that Adam was ‘with her’ as she was tempted by Satan. Instead of taking the initiative to dissuade his wife as she was being deceived, Adam stood by passively. When Paul says ‘Adam was not deceived’, he does not mean that Adam did not sin. The implication is that whilst Eve was manipulated into thinking that eating the forbidden fruit would bring good, Adam took the fruit with full knowledge that it was a sin.

The consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions are clear: when we as humans take matters into our own hands and think we know more than God, trouble is sure to come. Adam and Eve learnt the hard way – when they disobeyed God’s instruction, they were cursed and banished from the utopian Garden of Eden.

The Implications of the Curse

The curse has resounding implications. The unique responsibilities that God had given man and woman would now become more difficult:

¹⁶ To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
¹⁸ Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
¹⁹ In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”                                                                                                    Genesis 3:16-19

As a consequence of sin, the unique capacity to bear children that women have was made more difficult. The responsibility of the man to provide for and protect his family, helped by his physical strength, would now no longer be a smooth ride. As well as the primary capacities of men and women becoming more difficult to fulfil, in God’s words to Eve we see another ramification introduced by sin: ‘ “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” ’ The ‘desire’ referred to here is not sexual desire; rather it indicates a desire for mastery. To understand the real import of this words it is important to look at Genesis 4:7, which forms a close parallel: “[Sin’s] desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

What this reveals, therefore, is that with the Fall was introduced a flaw which means that instead of willingly submitting to her husband’s lead, the woman will tend to seek to dominate her husband. And rather than treat his wife with self-sacrificial love as he leads, the man will find himself battling to assert power over his wife in an autocratic, sometimes violent way. In other words, sin distorts the pattern God intended for men and women, resulting in a conflict where women either try to rule over men and men become passive, or on the other hand where men seek to master their wives and women become servile.

All this to say… When men and women place themselves in positions that go against what God commanded, a quest for supremacy rather than equality ensues, and the result is an image that does not resemble God, whom the church is called to reflect.

Men and Women to mirror the relationship between Christ and His Church

To continue with 1 Timothy 2:11-15, then, it is most useful to see the passage as reflective of the typological relationship between Jesus Christ and His church. Paul was a big fan of using metaphors and similes to illustrate his points; one key analogy that he used in Scripture being the likening of the dynamics between a husband and a wife to Christ’s selfless laying Himself down for the church under His guidance. In view of this, we can read the references to Adam and Eve as standing for Christ and the Church respectively. Through this lens, we can see that the sentence: ‘Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control’ is not saying that women have been relegated to second-class status and can only be saved from sin if they produce babies – rather than Christ’s atonement on the cross being their redemption.

Rather, it is saying that although mankind has sinned, God has freed them from the stigma of sin by providing a way for them to return to God’s intended design. The woman may have been the first to sin but it is through the woman that Christ, the giver of salvation, entered the world! If, instead of attempting to turn God’s plan on its head, the Church follows His lead, they will be able to bear fruit in Christ (grow to reflect His glory). This is only possible if they have faith in His plan and lay their own selfish desires down, committing themselves to love and holiness. Part of God’s plan is that men and women should have different functions. They are called to embrace these callings rather than reject them. Women are called not ‘to have authority over a man’, but are reminded of their unique abilities as women. The appellation of ‘childbearing’ in this passage is a synecdoche (a figure of speech which uses a part of something to represent the entire whole) for the essence of womanhood. That’s not to say that every woman will be a mother or a wife or that God places married mothers on a pedestal above single women (indeed Paul praises single women for being more devoted to God’s service, given that they are free from the added demands that marriage brings), instead it indicates that there are certain competences that women have that men do not, for the very reason that they can have children whilst men cannot. And it is these skills and capacities that they are called to exercise in the church.

Complementarity once more is key.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 12-20:

⁴ There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵ There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. ⁶ And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 

¹² For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 

¹⁵ If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? ¹⁶ And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? ¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? ¹⁸ But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. ¹⁹ And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

²⁰ But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. ²¹ And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” ²² No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 

This passage makes it very clear that every member of the body of Christ has an important part to play.  Although people in certain positions may get more glory than others, each part is indispensable.

It is this we need to bear in mind when we consider the roles marked out for men and women in the church. Instead of regarding the roles which are most visible as the most important, we need to recognise that those at the very heart of the church are what keep it together. To go back to Paul’s analogy (yep, I love analogies!), using the image of the body; think about the significance of the heart. We don’t see it but is the organ that keeps blood flowing through the entire body and keeps a human being alive!

Men and Women should recognise their Unique Giftings

I’ll now take up a couple of my illustrations from earlier. Let’s turn our attention first to the example of voice parts in a choir. Say one day one of the altos decides she’s had enough of sitting in the shadow and ups and moves to the soprano section – even though her voice doesn’t go higher than the D above Middle C. Naturally she’s going to struggle with singing musical lines that sometimes go as high as top C, nearly an octave above her vocal range. She’ll strain her voice and likely do it some serious damage, not to mention she won’t exactly be doing the choir any favours by belting out notes that her voice isn’t naturally developed to cover. Likewise with the defence in a football team, if a defender suddenly decides he wants the glory that the strikers on his team get when they score and abandons his area to try and score a goal, he leaves the defence weaker and ultimately abandons what he is best at to do something he’s not that skilled at.

God’s plan for the church is that it should be men that occupy the positions of ultimate authority – acting in overseeing roles, such as the ones we would call ‘pastors’ and ‘bishops’ etc. Yet women are called to minister in many arenas of the church. As 1 Peter 4:10 says, ‘As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.’ In verse 11, Peter adds: ‘If anyone ministers, let him [‘him’ here signifies people in general] do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ’.

Getting to Grips with Paul: Women in Mission

Paul encourages the ministration of women in the church. He in fact worked with women in his ministry. Phoebe in Romans 16 is described using the same word in Greek as Paul used to describe himself and others who proclaim the gospel – ‘diakonos’, which signifies a worker in the church. “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.” It is clear that this woman has been central to the furtherance of the gospel and has been a mighty instrument in God’s service.

Similarly, in his next breath Paul pays tribute to another woman and designates her the same term – in the original Greek the word ‘synergos’, meaning ‘co-worker’ – as he uses elsewhere in the Bible to indicate missionaries with whom he sees himself as a partner: ‘Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus’. Along with her husband Priscilla is described using the same term Paul uses for his own missionary service, and for the gospel work of Timothy, Mark and Luke, notable apostles in the Bible. Paul praises Priscilla and Aquila as having ‘risked their own necks for my life’, and is quick to say that he is not the only one who owes gratitude to the couple and their ministry, but ‘also all the churches of the Gentiles [non-Jewish believers].’ This couple’s Christian ministry is bound up with their home life: Paul goes on to extend his greetings to ‘the church that is in their house’.

It is evident that Priscilla is regarded as being an important missionary worker. This is not the only time she is mentioned in the Bible; another notable passage which highlights her significance in the Christian mission is found in Acts 18. Here we are told that alongside her husband, she engages in the instruction of Apollo, who is described as ‘an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures’ (verse 24). We are told: “This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.” In other words, Apollos is an anointed man of God and a gifted preacher, and teaches everything he knows with accuracy. The only thing is, his knowledge of Christ’s acts on Earth is limited; he only goes as far as Jesus’ baptism of John (pretty early on in terms of what Jesus accomplished while on Earth). The narrator tells us: ‘When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.’ The fact that Priscilla is in a position to teach a bold evangelist the Scriptures so that he can better understand them shows clearly that women are not excluded from teaching (or if you like, ‘imparting wisdom)’. It is not in dispute that women are capable of understanding the Scriptures and are capable of explaining them.

All Christians are called to guide one another: ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.’ (Colossians 3:16)

The thing to be remembered is that in all ministration, the Church is to uphold male and female distinctions as designed by God. This concept is emphasised in 1 Corinthians 11:

³ But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. ⁶ For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man is not from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. ¹⁰ For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. ¹² For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

¹³ Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him? ¹⁵ But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. ¹⁶ But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Whoooa, hold on there…, you might be thinking. Say what? A man is the image and the glory of God but the woman is the glory of man?!? Excuse me? (OK you might not have phrased your thoughts exactly like that, using black American phrasing and quite so many question marks, but you know what I mean…) That’s what I thought when I read it. And the whole ‘woman was created for man’ didn’t exactly get my heart racing. But once again, as I’ve come to realise, these types of passages need to be examined through a close-reading lens and picked apart to understand what their true meaning is. 

Well the first thing to note is that both men and women [‘mankind’] were created in the image of God. (See Part 2: Complementarity.) Next, the ‘glory of God’/’glory of man’ thing… 

From the first read it seems as though Paul is saying that men are closer to God and reveal more of His glory than women can – who are relegated to just the flash jewellery that their men like to show off. Thankfully that’s not what Paul’s on about; his reference to woman being created for the man and being his glory is in fact anything but derogatory. It signifies, as we discussed in Part 2, that the woman is the one who helps the man fulfil his purpose. Our culture already takes this as fact: the saying ‘Behind every great man there stands a woman’ is based on this very idea. In other words, the man gets his glory through the help of a woman.

The ‘glory of God’ thing is a different matter. This is indicative of the creation order that we explored in Part 2 and earlier on in Part 3. In being created first, the man is the ultimate leader and is the one accountable to God when it comes to matters of the home and church. He is the one who must take primary responsibility for failures within either system, at it is he who oversees. When he leads in both spheres in the way that God intended, he brings glory to God as he imitates the selfless headship that Christ has for the Church.

This does not at all mean that women cannot bring glory to God. All human beings are made in the image of God and can reflect His glory if they repent from their sins and turn to follow Him. So what does it mean then? It signifies that women honour God most when they occupy the position God designed for them – a design which is founded on complementarity. This is emphasised by verses 11 and 12: ‘neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. ¹² For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.’

In all of this we need to draw our attention to the fact that women are called to pray and prophesy in front of the whole church just as men can!  Paul goes on to say later that those who prophesy speak ‘edification and exhortation and comfort to men [people in general].’In fact, Paul takes it for granted that women can pray and explain revelations given to them by God – here his concern is to emphasise that the way in which men and women pray and prophesy should reflect their male-female distinctions rather than blur them. 

The thought pattern which governs Paul’s instruction on head-coverings at church is that ‘God is not the author of confusion but of peace’. This is the same paradigm that governs what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: ‘Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵ And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.’ Clearly in context Paul is not saying that it is disgraceful for women to speak in the church: how would women be able to prophesy and minister, as he encouraged them to do just three chapters earlier, if they could not speak? No, rather this is a specific instruction to the Corinthian church.

 Corinth in Paul’s day was a place of paganism and sexual permissiveness, so much so that ‘Corinthian girl’ was synonymous with ‘prostitute’. The result was that when Corinthians converted to Christianity, the pagan background of the converts affected their comportment in the church. Corinthian women were largely uneducated, due to the fact that most of them had been prostitutes from a young age before their conversion. The result was that they were rather brazen in their behaviour and knew very little about the Christian faith. They had a lot of basic questions about Christianity and rather than respecting the pastor preaching as we would nowadays – well, the natural thing to do when your pastor is preaching a message and you don’t understand something is not to shout out, “MR. PASTOR, I HAVE A QUESTION!!!” – rather you’d have the sense to wait until after the service to ask him what he meant, right? Trouble is, the Corinthian women weren’t doing this: they were disrupting the service and making church gatherings disorderly. The suggestion is that their questions were so basic (due to lack of education they struggled with the simplest things) that they didn’t even need to ask their pastors, it was presumed that their husbands would know the answers. It is worth noting that Paul says ‘your women’ in this passage, rather than referring to women at large – it is clear that this instruction is meant only for the Corinthian church and women are most certainly not prohibited from speaking or asking questions in church, within the proper context. 

So now we’re clear: Paul wasn’t the misogynistic chauvinist that we all might have thought. His letters just need to be read with a close-reading lens to get the sense of what he’s saying.

Specific Callings of Women in the Church

As we looked at in Part 1, the physical differences between men and women equip them better for certain activities. The nurturing and protective instincts that are in-built into women are specialised to make them excel in their unique capacity to be mothers, for example. As I pointed out earlier in Part 3, this does not mean that a biological mother is looked upon as the best type of woman. It simply means that the roles that encourage women to utilise their interpersonal skills, including high sensibility to the emotions of others, capacities to comfort and much more – should be the ones that they preside over in the church. Some might like to call this the post of ‘spiritual mothers’.

Just as there are certain roles in the church that women cannot fill, there are certain roles in the church that men cannot fill. In Titus 2:3-5, Titus gives over the responsibility of teaching the young women in the church to the older women. Men having different biological functions, they’re not exactly the best people to advise women on what they should do on how they should look after themselves when they’re pregnant, or how to breastfeed, for example! Titus calls the older women ‘teachers of good things’ and calls for them to ‘admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.’ The older women are the best people to teach the younger ladies what it means to submit to their husbands and how to be a good mother, because they have already lived through it – whereas a man never will have!

Women’s relational instincts equip them in a special way for certain ministries. For example, woman’s heightened sensitivity to danger and her capacity to deeply feel the needs of others can make her a great prayer warrior. Many great men of God recount the role that their mothers had to play in making them the men they are today – through their endless hours on their knees, interceding for the needs of their family. The prophetess Anna and Hannah, the mother of Samuel, are great examples of intercessory women in the Bible.

Furthermore, the woman’s greater capacity for empathy can make her especially useful in encouraging others through counselling people in need in the church. The female capacity to nurture also means they are especially capable of making others feel welcomed in the church. Hospitality is seen to be a prevailing response of women in the Bible: Lydia, amidst several other women, is praised for welcoming the church into her home – the equivalent of which nowadays would be ‘house fellowships’ or ‘cell groups’.  The importance of hospitality in the furtherance of the gospel is also evident when we read about the women who travelled with Jesus as he preached to ‘care for his needs’.

Women’s tendency to be more relational also means that she is more likely to share the gospel with people, an obligation that all Christians are commanded to fulfil. There is certainly a minefield of mission work, including leadership roles, that women can fulfil: there is no distinction made between men and women as regards evangelisation.

Equipped with the skills needed to be mothers, women are often found in children and youth ministry in the church, raising up the younger generation for Christ, as they do as mothers in the home. I remember with fondness the female Sunday-school teachers that made Sunday mornings a delight for us kids.

Women’s skills in self-expression often mean they will often find themselves well-suited to musical ministry in the church, leading praise and worship, for example.

Click here to go back and read the conclusion.

Christianity, Complementarity and Equality: a compatible concoction?

This post is divided into sections. You can find the intro, Part 1 and the conclusion in this section. For Part 2 and Part 3, click on the links below. Hope you enjoy the journey!

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

PART TWO: COMPLEMENTARITY

PART THREE: MEN AND WOMEN’S ROLES AS LAID OUT IN THE BIBLE

CONCLUSION

             Introduction

I remember a time in my first year of university where along with a friend, as part of our termly Christian Union ‘Text a Toastie’ evening, during which members of the CU go round to students’ rooms and answer their questions about different aspects of Christianity, I was summoned to answer a question about Christianity’s views on women, in particular in relation to women bishops. I was rather taken aback by the response: I found myself met with an alarming amount of hostility when I voiced my views. I soon realised that of the eight or so people in the room, most hated religion and wanted to mark it out as irrational with every ounce of their being. More than that, I found myself in a position where I was essentially being asked whether I supported a sexist religion.

It was at that point that I started on my own personal journey which at times called into question my unquestioning belief in the compatibility of the Bible and the equality of the sexes. As I stood in that room being prodded by this entourage of my peers, I found myself doubting the words I was saying. Men and women have equal roles in the workplace, don’t they? So why should that be different in the church?  Doesn’t the man being the head mean that the woman’s in a subordinate role? I’ll be honest: there were already parts of the Bible which enumerated how men and women should behave that I struggled with. Some things that Paul (the apostle and writer of many of the New Testament books) said I definitely had issues with.

I’m glad that that journey was started because I’m now quite sure of where my feet stand, instead of wavering unsteadily along the pathway. I’m convinced that, contrary to what modern feminism likes to say, equality does not mean sameness. Men and women are equal but different

PART 1: PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

The Physical Differences between Men and Women

The facts show it quite plainly: men and women are different.  It isn’t typically difficult to tell whether someone is a man or a woman, just from a quick glance or from hearing the person’s voice on the other end of the phone line.

On a basal level, it is the genetic make-up of chromosome pairs that an individual possesses that determines their sex: males have a pair of one X-chromosome and one Y-chromosome, while females have a pair of two X chromosomes. It is this fundamental difference that lies at the root of the many distinct characteristics which mark out men and women.

1. Of course we all know that men and women have different reproductive organs and genitalia. And I think it’s safe to say you’ll already be fully aware that on average men are taller than women. Skeletal structure varies greatly between the two sexes, meaning a woman typically has a shorter head, broader face, less jutting-out chin, longer torso, shorter legs and smaller hands and feet than her male counterpart. Moreover, a woman’s pelvic bone is much larger than a man’s and results in wide hips, making a woman’s hip line the broadest part of her body and her waist markedly narrower. By contrast, the broadest part of a man’s body is his shoulder line, due to his wider shoulders. And even men’s and women’s elbows are different. When a man stands in a relaxed position, his elbow points out – whilst in the same position, a woman’s elbow points either backwards or inwards. The anatomical differences continue:

Photo credit: http://design.tutsplus.com/articles/human-anatomy-fundamentals-advanced-body-proportions--vector-19869

2. Women have larger kidneys, livers, stomachs and appendices, but smaller lungs than men. In body weight, the male anatomy is made up of 40% muscle, whilst the female anatomy is composed of 23% muscle and tends more towards the storage of body fat.  Owing to this divergence in physiological make-up, on average a man possesses 50% more brute strength than a woman.

3. Men and women store body fat in different ways: females store fat right below the skin (subcutaneously), whilst males tend to have more visceral fat (fat stored within the abdomen), meaning that they have a higher rate of basal metabolism – but are also more prone to heart disease. This difference in method of storing fat doubtless contributes to the fact that women live longer than men.

4. A woman’s heart rate is much faster than a man’s, however she has a lesser tendency towards high blood pressure. Furthermore, a woman’s blood contains more water and 20% fewer red blood cells than that of a man. The sex hormones that males and females produce have a great part to play in widening the gap of divergence between men and women. In males, testes release testosterone in a relatively constant amount and in females oestrogen and progesterone predominantly are released from the ovaries. It is the presence of testosterone that causes men to grow facial hair and thick body hair, and causes their voices to deepen. High testosterone levels are also associated with a tendency towards aggression in men. Oestrogen and progesterone are the hormones that regulate menstruation in females and begin the process of breast development at puberty. Women in fact mature earlier than men, with females beginning puberty on average two years before their male counterparts.

5. Men and women’s brains work differently. Women are more skilled at using both hemispheres of the brain, whilst men tend to use mainly the right side. Scientific studies have revealed that the right side of the brain is where mathematical and visual-spatial thought takes place, whilst the left side is the seat of abstract and verbal thought.  The areas thought to influence language skills, the frontal and temporal areas of the brain’s cortex, are larger in females than males. Women also have a larger hippocampus and a deeper limbic system than males, which makes them sensitive to the full range and depth of the emotional spectrum. Differences in the brains of men and women also equate to differences in vision between the two sexes: men have better depth perception and distance vision, whilst women have better night vision, better visual memory, and can see more of the red end of the colour spectrum than men can.

So there you have it: men and women differ in quite a lot of ways owing to their particular physiological make-up! But what does this have to do with anything, you might be asking yourself… How does this link in with the title of this post: ‘Christianity, Complementarity and Equality: a compatible concoction?’

Well, I think the anatomical differences between males and females have some pretty important implications. They show that we are adapted to function in different ways. There must be a reason for this, right?

The Implications of the Physical Differences in Men and Women

1. Let’s focus for starters on the varying skeletal structure of the two sexes. The more angular a man’s facial features, the higher his level of testosterone. Meanwhile the rounder and more fuller-faced a woman’s features are, the higher her level of oestrogen. Studies have drawn a link between high levels of these two hormones in the respective sexes and attractiveness to the opposite gender: women are more likely to choose men with higher levels of testosterone as their life partners, whilst men are more sexually attracted to women with high levels of oestrogen. Likewise, the pitch of a man’s voice correlates with the amount of testosterone he has – and as a high level of testosterone is indicative of fitness and muscle strength in men, women are more likely to go for men with deeper voices. Scientists have concluded that this is an instinctive response to the need to find a suitable partner with whom to procreate. 

The fact that women have a bigger pelvic bone aids in their unique capability to have children: it creates space for their bodies to house a foetus during pregnancy. Men’s broad shoulders help them effectively use their upper body strength. The difference between men’s and women’s elbows – which at first appears inconsequential – reveals another incredible specialisation (and helps to explain some frequently-observed peculiarities). The fact that women’s elbows naturally fold inwards renders the action of delicately holding a baby an effectively reflexive one for a woman, whilst for men, with elbows that naturally point outwards, carrying a new-born correctly doesn’t come quite so easily. On the other hand, the natural movement of men’s elbows means when running and throwing they assume the necessary position without thinking, whilst for girls it usually takes a bit more work. 

2. The fact that women have larger vital organs enables them to take on the load of another life inside of them during pregnancy. Similarly, another evident specialisation in women is demonstrated through breastfeeding.  During this unique bonding experience between a mother and her child, any micro-organisms that have infected the baby pass to the mother through the contact of the infant’s mouth to the breast, and then the antibodies the mother’s body has developed to fight those micro-organisms are transferred back to the baby in the milk produced by the mother. The unique lactation process that a woman’s body is able to implement is thus a clear indication of her natural capacity to nurture.

On the other hand, the fact that men have larger lungs than women equips them better for hard physical labour as it means they can work for longer periods without rest. Men’s muscle composition also works in their favour in this regard. Furthermore, their greater physical strength enables them to defend themselves better than women. This is why typically men come to the aid of women in situations of physical aggression, and men are naturally disposed to protect their partners.

3. By contrast, the manner in which women store body fat is specially adapted to prepare them for pregnancy and lactation, two of the unique capabilities of a woman. Women’s bodies store fat around the hips and thighs as soon as puberty begins, getting the body ready in preparation for having a baby. It is perhaps worth speculating over the fact that women live longer than men: this means a mother is usually a mother much longer than a father is a father!

4. The difference in the blood composition of males and females means that women are more susceptible to fatigue: the fact that they have fewer red blood cells means they have less oxygen. On the other hand, the high levels of testosterone that men build up can have somewhat of an opposite effect, boosting their physical energy. Oestrogen and progesterone in women are instrumental in making the unique process by which she is able to conceive possible – although you can be sure not many women feel blessed at that time of the month, believe me! These two hormones have also been linked to an enhanced ability in women to recall memories with strong emotional components.

The fact that girls mature before guys (we all knew that already) is probably actually quite important. Carrying another life within your own body, giving birth and nurturing a child requires quite a lot of maturity, wouldn’t you say?

  

5. The differences in the way men and women’s brains work provide scientific basis for another well-known tongue-in-cheek observation – women can multitask, men not so much. It has to be said, with children, it’s a very useful skill to be able to juggle several thoughts and processes at once. Men’s predisposition towards using the right side of the brain makes them much more spatially-aware (there lies the reasoning behind another quip – ‘women can’t read maps’) and therefore more task-orientated. On the other hand, naturally inclined to use language, women are much more people-orientated than men. Whereas men tend to go about things with a single-minded approach, women are much more likely to think about the feelings of the people involved. Being more sensitive to emotions than men enables women to better read non-verbal cues and body language – all part of that female gift known as ‘intuition’. There is evidence to suggest that women also possess an enhanced physical alarm response to danger or threat, with the parts of the body that regulate the fight-or-flight response having a greater reactivity and lower threshold of arousal than in men. This goes hand in hand with the fact that women have better night vision and visual memory and a greater capacity to discern between colours than men do – all of which can be classed as part of ‘a mother’s instinct’ – where her natural response is to protect her child from danger.

Now I don’t know what you think, but I think the differences between men and women are pretty incredible. Mind-blowing in fact, in view of just how down to the letter their specialisations are (think elbows…!). I believe that God made us male and female for a reason: we complement each other in our differences and in so doing make it possible to keep the world going.

Click here to continue reading to Part 2: Complementarity

Click here to go on to Part 3: Men's and Women's Roles as laid out in the Bible

CONCLUSION

So, I’ve taken you on this journey with me through these last three posts. This journey was for me a very personal one; and when I started it felt I was trying to find my way through a dimly-lit maze. I wasn’t too sure of my footing on a lot of issues and felt unsteadied by the tension between certain things I read in the scripture and the secular definition of ‘equality’ between men and women.

Did Christianity, complementarity and equality make for a compatible concoction? Were women really equal with men if they were always being reminded of the order of creation? Did the fact that men were meant to lead mean women were little more than doormats? Was I really as valuable as a man in God’s sight? Was there really much women could do in church service?

I’ve got my answers now, and they would be:

YES, YES, NO, YES and YES. Christianity is compatible with the equality of the sexes. Recognising that we as men and women have our differences and that we have different skill-sets does not mean that we consider one sex as superior to the other. It means that we recognise that we do not consider equality as sameness, or complementarity as incompatible with equality. It means that we appreciate that we are expressly and magnificently designed to fulfil different functions.

Men’s leadership does not have to mean women become passive slaves, nor does it mean that men have the right to become tyrants who beat their wives claiming that in doing so they are showing them their place as women. God’s design was for the man to lead in humble love and for the woman to follow his godly leadership with intelligent submission.

Women’s role is not inferior to that of men’s. Increasingly, sadly, the radical branch of the feminist movement is convincing us that that is so in order to make us reject our precious nurturing, people-orientated capacities and trade them in to compete with men on men’s terms. We don’t have to compete, because we are different. Our capacity to bring new life into the world is a blessing, not a curse.

Women have plenty of options available to them as regards working in the church. They are not called to be silent, as it may at first seem, but are called to express their spiritual gifts in prayer and prophesy and so much more. What is more, they are singled out for having capabilities that men do not have.

Women may not be called to be archbishops, bishops and pastors in the church but they are called to build it up and make it a body. Without women at the heart of that body, the church would crumble. Men and women need each other: in the home, in the church and in the world at large.

I hope you agree with me.

Thanks for reading as always.

Part 2 – Christianity, Complementarity and Equality: a compatible concoction?

PART 2: COMPLEMENTARITY

This post makes up part of the series of posts on Christianity, Complementarity and Equality: a compatible concoction?  You can find the Intro, Part 1 and Conclusion here, and Part 3 here. 

Recognising the differences between men and women doesn’t have to mean we reject the equal value and worth that they each bring to the table. That's what I'd like to talk to you about now.

Now, everyone knows the story of the creation of Adam and Eve in the Bible. God made the first human being from the dust of the earth, and gave him the lush Garden of Eden as his bachelor pad – full of beautiful greenery and good food, not to mention flowing waters. Adam even got the chance to meet every animal that God had just moulded and name them as he wished. He had it good! God clearly wanted the best for this Adam fellow. The concerned parent that He is, God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18, NIV)

This is what followed:

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

Included in the chapter’s last lines are the words: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

So there you have it, the point from which it all began – the very first example of man and woman in the Bible shows them in a marriage – clearly fashioned as a relationship of mutual dependence. The phrase ‘one flesh’ represents the complementarity of two persons joined together physically and emotionally through marriage. The fact that God decides to make a woman as a companion and helper for Adam shows that he is not adequate alone. However, it is worth noting that it is the man who is created first. Moreover, it is Adam who is instructed not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and it is he who God holds primarily responsible, scolding him first – even though it is Eve who ate the fruit first. This would all point to the man being the one who is charged with taking ultimate responsibility for actions and decisions; God designed the man to be the leader. By contrast, being created second and to provide companionship for the man, the woman was intended to be his helper and support him.

As a concept this was something I used to wrestle with. And seeing as this is the image that lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching on the roles of men and women, more than a few times I found myself squirming when reading certain passages – written almost exclusively by Paul, who more and more appeared in my eyes as an appalling sexist.

I got tired of reading about women being ‘the weaker vessel’ and wasn’t crazy about the whole ‘wives, submit to your husbands’ thing (Ephesians 5:22). I’d seen enough of marriages where the man justified abusing his wife because she ‘ought to submit’ to his authority. I had no intention of being a doormat!  I needed answers. I wanted to discover for myself what my God-given role as a woman really meant.

First thing to note is that there is absolutely no question that men and women are of equal value and dignity in the eyes of God.

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image,
                 in the image of God he created them;
                male and female he created them.

²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

So Adam and Eve were both made in the image of God and were both instructed to fill and rule over the Earth, having place above plants and animals. This is clear evidence of God’s desire for equality.

However, equality does not mean sameness. Men and women are equal in status, but have different capacities. 

But what about the ‘Helper’ thing?

My instinctive response when hearing the word ‘helper’ used to describe the role of a woman whilst the word ‘leader’ was accorded to the man was always to cringe and consider it demeaning – as I expect many of you will have reacted on reading so far. In fact, as a term it is anything but derisive. Rather, it indicates that the man has gaps missing that can only be filled in by the woman – in the form of the unique capacities that she brings to the table. They are each most effective when they work as a team, compensating for what the other lacks. This is complementarity.

I’ll try and bring it home with a few examples:

Think of a choir, which has the soprano section at the top and the parts of the lower lines below (alto, tenor, bass etc). The soprano line may sing the tune and be the most audible to the audience, but without the other parts, it is weak. It does not have the full-bodied support of the lower lines. Similarly, in football, the strikers may be the ones who get the most glory but their efforts are cancelled out if the defence is weak. So it is with the husband and the wife. Without the support of the wife, the man can’t do much at all. If you prefer, she is ‘the fulfiller’: she helps him be the best he can be.

Let’s move on to the concept of the man being the one to whom the leadership role is assigned. Imagine a group activity for which a team leader is universally selected as the person best equipped to lead the team. He/she has team members who work together to achieve the objectives set down by the team leader. Without the members, the team leader’s role is redundant. Equally, if the team leader allows the power to get to his head and starts magnanimously ordering everyone around, his members will not be too happy! The effectiveness of the group will be undermined.

I’ve always appreciated an analogy that the pastor of my family church likes to use: the man is the head of the home but the woman is the neck. He may be the one responsible for making final decisions but if the woman ever disagrees, she can refuse to turn – and what can the head do then? The Bible verse Amos 3:3 asks for good reason: ‘Can two walk together unless they are agreed?’ This demonstrates that although the man is the one in the leadership position, the woman’s input is valued along every step of the way - her thoughts and opinions matter. The unique capability of foresight that a woman possesses means that often she may intuitively sense something fishy in a possible course of action before the man does.

Equality and Diversity, Unity and Order at the heart of the Godhead

If you’re still not convinced that embracing our differences as men and woman can go hand in hand with being equal, let me tell you something else. This model of interdependency and complementarity between a man and woman in fact mirrors the diversity, unity and order that are found at the very heart of God. We are reminded that the creation was realised not by God the Father alone, but by the three Persons in the Trinity:  God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. ‘Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness […]" '. 

 The Holy Trinity is a concept that understandably befuddles a lot of people, so I’ll try to explain it using another analogy (all credit for this goes to the pastor at my home church in Manchester). Think of water. Water can be found in three forms: liquid; solid and gas. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s water. The same goes with the Trinity: each of the three Persons within the Godhead has a different function but they are all still one God. Jesus submits to the will of His Father but remains equal in deity and majesty. Order and diversity are important in achieving unity: having two captains steering the ship only leads to confusion!

The same goes for men and women: they have different roles but are equal in status. Moreover, the assignment of the role of ‘helper’ to the woman cannot be considered derogatory because God Himself is described as a ‘helper’ numerous times in the Bible! Take this example in Psalm 118:7, for one: ‘The Lord is with me; he is my helper. I look in triumph on my enemies.’

What’s more, God describes Himself using exclusively female imagery a significant amount of times in the Bible, showing that the woman’s mothering and nurturing instincts are prized by God.

“When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son. […]
It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms; […]
I led them with cords of human kindness,
    with ties of love.
To them I was like one who lifts
    a little child to the cheek,
    and I bent down to feed them.”                                                                           Hosea 11:3-4

In other images God pronounces His protective nature by describing Himself as a mother bear riled up by the seizure of her cubs; as an eagle stirring up its nest, hovering over its young and spreading its wings to carry them; and as a mother hen gathering her chicks together. God even likens himself to a woman in labour: ‘For a long time I have kept silent, / I have been quiet and held myself back. / But now, like a woman in childbirth, / I cry out, I gasp and pant.’

Click here to go on to read Part 3: Men and Women's Roles as laid out in the Bible.