Some Thoughts on Gender(ed) Roles in Christianity

Of all the subjects of debate in Christianity, the gender issue has, for me, been one of the most difficult with which to come to terms. To put it bluntly, I often find the things that Paul says about women to be chauvinistic. This is not simply a matter of me imputing my ‘modern’ values – which are socially determined, and therefore not necessarily correct – onto my reading of scripture. What Paul says disturbs not only my social values, but also what I perceive to be God’s values, namely his design for creation, and the equality of all people in Christ (of course, that perception is undoubtedly influenced by my social values, but then the opposite is also undoubtedly true). Furthermore, when I see so many examples of women leaders (such as St. Hilda, abbess of Whitby Abbey), I can’t help but question the purpose of traditional gender roles.

I have recently found some measure of peace with this tension, however, by coming to understand the difference between delegated authority and real authority. This is actually a central topic of my PhD research, in which I argue that cooperative firms, in which all members are equal, are able to implement hierarchical management systems, in which authority is delegated to managers. When it comes to voting, managers have one vote each, just like any other worker-member. In the workplace, however, managers are delegated with the authority to coordinate the production process. This is purely a matter of function – managers are in no way ‘superior’ to workers – but at the same time, workers cannot defy the instructions of their supervisors just because they are equal members. In a similar fashion, we are all equal ‘members’ of Christ. At the same time, however, some figures – be it men, pastors, or what have you – are delegated some degree of authority in order to retain order (be it in the church, in the case of a pastor, or in creation/marriage, in the case of a husband). Another apt analogy is the body, which of course the Bible regularly invokes: we are all equally necessary, but nevertheless functionally distinct; and, to take the analogy further, some functions may appear ‘loftier’ than others, such as the heart pumping blood vis-à-vis the veins that carry the blood, even though both are equally important.

Of course, a crucial distinction with the cooperative analogy is that, when it comes to the Church or marriage, the delegation of authority comes from Christ – the head and bridegroom of the Church – rather than from the Church or marriage itself (although as the Church we are consummated with Christ – we become “one” with Him). And this leads me to a very important point, which is that all of us – men and women, pastors and laymen, etc. – have a very feminine role to play vis-à-vis God. Our role is one of submissiveness, yielding, obeying – letting Him have our way with us. So the chauvinism and bigotry that often characterises the Church is all rather ironic – there is an ‘elephant in the room’.

As usual, Christ provides the best example, I think, for how delegated authority should be exercised. Now, Christ’s authority is rather tremendous – after all, all things were created by and for Him, and through Him all things hold together; He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end; He is the righteous King that will one day judge the earth, and so on. However, his relationship with the Father is one of submission. This example stands in stark contrast to modern society, which encourages either a domineering male, who asserts his will (the ‘alpha’ male), or a spineless male, who yields his will to others (the ‘beta’ male). Jesus was neither of these. He was a ‘meta male’. He had a will (along with a mind, emotions, and so on) like any other person; yet he voluntarily yielded that will to His Father’s will (“yet not my will, but yours be done”; “my will is to do the will of the Father”; and so on)! He was the ultimate male, living in the Spirit (which is gender-neutral) and not the soul or body (which are gendered). Interestingly, perhaps the time when Jesus was at his most aggressive (while on earth, I mean), was in circumstances concerning the Church – namely the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the commodification of the Temple, and so on. He aggressively protected His bride.

In lieu of a conclusion, I will pose an additional question: if the authority of the husband over his wife is merely delegated from God as a means of ‘getting things done’, is it only necessary due to sin and the fallenness of the world, or was it meant to be thus from the beginning? On the one hand, Eve was clearly created to be a partner to Adam, and was even created from one of his ribs. Thus, we can see that the male/female distinction is part of the original, “good” design for creation. On the other hand, part of the curse that resulted from the Fall is that husband shall rule over wife (Genesis 3:16). This would seem to imply that hierarchy is a ‘necessary evil’ - one that may disappear with the coming of the New Heavens and the New Earth. I don't know the answer to this conundrum, but clearly it involves some sort of gender roles that do not necessarily involve domination or subservience.