JBMW Forum: Q & A on Importance of the Gender Debate

JBMW: In light of the fact that evan­gelical Christians committed to the gospel can and do disagree on the gender debate, how should pastors and churches understand this issue in terms of importance? Why should the question of gender roles of men and women in the home and in the church be viewed as more significant than de­bates about millennial views?

Peter Jones: Unlike millennial theories or "paedo" vs. "credo" debates on bap­tism, the issue of sex and gender takes us to the essence of who we are as cre­ated human beings, made in God's im­age. Please note: in our more and more pagan world two things especially go together: (1) the denial of God as tran­scendent creator, and (2) the denial of the divine image within us, especially as it is sexually constituted.

There are, in fact, two areas of that image expressly noted in the Genesis account, and both are under attack: (1) human dominion and (2) sexual differ­ence. In both we reflect what God is like.

(1) Human Dominion. In Gen 1:26 we read, "Let us make man in our image ... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock." According to Psalm 8 this is what Man (Adam and Eve) does; this is what Is­rael does (Deut 15:6); and this is what the last Adam now does (Eph 1:20, Rev 1:5). This dominion reflects God's do­minion since God rules over Israel (Ps 63:19) and over the whole universe (Ps 9:7).

The pagan overturning of who God is as Creator and Ruler (Rom 1:18-22) results in the overturning of that image of dominion in human beings who then proceed, in profoundly dehumanizing ways, to worship the things over which God intended that they exercise domin­ion. Paul states clearly, "They exchanged the glory of the [image of] the immor­tal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Rom 1:23), with a clear reference to Gen 1:26, cited above. Today we under­stand more and more what Paul is say­ing. For many opinion makers, we are no longer mankind or even humankind. We are "earthkind," just one among many other animal species, bowing be­fore the ineluctable progress of evolving Mother Nature.

(2) Sexual Distinction. Genesis 1:27 states, "So God created man in his own image ... male and female he created them. Though some argue that the only part of the image is dominion, there is reason to believe that gram­matically, the latter statement— "male and female he created them"—is not just a juxtaposition of a further, vague­ly related fact about humanity, among many that could be made. Rather, the first—"So God created man in his own image: in the image of God he cre­ated him"—programmatically declares the essence of man(kind) as a specially created being; the second—"male and female he created them"—unpacks ex­actly what that first statement implies in a sort of synonymous parallelism.

This binary structure of created personhood as male or female is thus deeply associated, both textually and theologically, with the divine image. Certainly God is not sexual and cer­tainly not male. But what is essential to God—namely, both unity and per­sonal Trinitarian plural diversity ("Let us make man," Gen 1:26)—also char­acterizes the human being. Plural dif­ference in intimate unity, essential to God, is essential to the created, hetero­sexed human being, and is supremely expressed in the structure of marriage (Gen 2:24).

This is repeated in the Scriptures of the New Covenant. According to Paul in Rom 1:18-22, the pagan over­turning/exchanging of who God is as creator and ruler results in the over­turning/exchanging of who we are as human beings (as Rom 1:26 explicitly states)—namely, bearers of the divine image—specifically expressed in sexual difference: "they... exchanged natural [heterosexual/creational] relations for those [homosexual] that are contrary to nature."

In our day, much exchanging oc­curs at the sexual level and is taught in all our "reputable" schools of "higher" learning. Virginia Tech English Profes­sor, Bernice Hausman gives an assign­ment in "Studies in Theory: Represent­ing Female Bodies," worth 10 percent of the total grade, that requires students to "choose one day in which [they] dress and comport themselves in a manner either more masculine or more femi­nine than they would normally."¹ Her published works include Changing Sex: Transsexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender, "Virtual Sex, Real Gen­der: Body and Identity in Transgender Discourse," and "Do Boys Have to Be Boys?" Presumably, this information is considered essential for the well-edu­cated college student at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Paganism is not attacking us about our positions on the millennium or bap­tism. It is attacking the very notion of both the person of God and the image of God in human beings, a special cre­ation, made as either male or female. Pagans today are attacking not the su­perficial but the foundational notions of our faith. You can be sure of this. The lie attacks the essence of the truth but in so doing cannot help but reveal the truth.

Peter R. Schemm, Jr.: For some time now, I have observed both comple­mentarians and egalitarians who seem to think of the man-woman debate as a tertiary matter. That is, in the larger scheme of things, it is not all that im­portant whether you believe that a man ought to be the head of his household or not. What is important, they would say, is that one believes in the primary matters of the faith, the first things—the triune God, the deity of Christ, a substitutionary death, and salvation by grace through faith. But is it that sim­ple? Is the gender role question merely a tertiary matter (e.g., the timing of the rapture)?

I think the short answer is "No." The gender role question is not simply a tertiary matter. In a typical three-level ordering of theological matters (pri­mary, secondary, and tertiary), I see the gender role question as a second-order matter that bears on first-order matters. If this is a correct way to think of gender roles, then pastors and churches ought to direct attention to it accordingly. This means that the doctrine of man—cre­ated as male and female according to God's design and redeemed as men and women according to one gospel—has a significant place in forming and reform­ing the people of God.

I see the gender role question as more than a tertiary matter primarily because of what I learn from 1 Timo­thy. Here I am following my friend David Nelson. He suggests that Paul's purpose in writing to Timothy—"I am writing these things...[that] you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God," (3:14-15)—cen­ters on the idea of "gospel order."² By gospel order, Nelson means that there is a good and ordered way of living that directly assists in the promotion of the gospel. It is another way of saying "the stewardship that is from God by faith" (Gk., oikonomia, 1:4).

The reason that certain conduct assists in the promotion of the gospel is that it is rooted in the reality of the gospel (1:3-11). After all, this gospel is "the gospel of peace" (Eph 6:15). It is that which brings order to a disordered state of affairs according to the purpose of God. Thus, it is good and pleasing to God our Savior that we relate to the world by praying for all men (including the civil authorities; 2:1-4). And it is good and pleasing to God that we re­late within the church in peaceful and ordered ways (2:8-15). This includes the way that men and women relate to one another. In Nelson's words,

In 2:8ff. Paul takes up vari­ous relationships within the church. . . . [He] urges that men within the Christian community should relate to one another in a particular way—in a sanctified way that avoids anger and quar­reling. In other words, in a peaceful, ordered way. The women ought to present themselves in a manner that reflects godliness and does not distract others in the congregation. Further, Paul insists that women relate to men in a particular manner with respect to teaching and learning in the congregation . . . [which is] essential to the well-being of the church, the gospel order that is critical to the existence of the church as the pillar and foundation of truth.³

If we are reading Paul correctly here, then how women relate to men in the congregation is rightly understood as a second-order matter. I am not sug­gesting that it is a first-order matter, a requirement to understand and believe the gospel. But I am saying it is of rela­tive importance to the gospel. This rela­tive importance means that it is neces­sary to the maintenance of the gospel in the church. Apart from this gospel order, the church is not the church God designed it to be.

Bruce A. Ware: Let me suggest two main reasons why issues of gender are of decisive significance for the church, in ways that disagreements over many other secondary doctrines are not. First, issues of gender are unavoidable for lo­cal churches, denominations, and min­istries. Either a church body supports women's ordination or it doesn't; either a ministry permits women to teach the Bible to a mixed audience (i.e., men and women) or it doesn't; either a church would consider a husband and wife as "co-pastors" or it won't. Unlike differ­ences over the millennium, one cannot simply ignore the differences on ques­tions of appropriate roles for men and women. They must be faced, and they need to be faced biblically.

Second, facing these questions biblically is easier said than done, and sometimes facing them biblically is only thought to be done when in fact the ac­tual teaching of the Bible has been con­troverted in the process. Why? Because issues relating to gender are among the most pressured and challenged by our culture. Few if any areas of Christian faith or practice are more at odds with our present culture than what we believe, and what we should practice, in relation to gender and sexuality. It is fair to say that our culture despises the traditional Christian understanding of gender roles. It is no wonder, therefore, that enor­mous pressure is placed on Christians, particularly Christian leaders, to make concessions so that the resulting "Chris­tian" stance adapts into one that is less offensive to the modern ,em>Weltanschau­ung. Given the intensity of this pressure to conform to reigning cultural values over the teaching of the Bible, Chris­tians must resolve with earnestness and passion to remain faithful to God and his Word, despite the consequences in public opinion. Fearing man rather than fearing God has resulted in the multi­tude of ways in which those claiming the name of Christ have in fact denied the clear teaching of his Word. Faithful­ness here is costly, and it won't happen without intentionality. Yes, it matters whether the church stands faithful on issues of gender. Nothing less than the integrity of our own lives as Christians and that of the church itself is at stake.