"If the Son Shall Make You Free...": Jesus and the Liberation of Women

While the movement towards the liberation of women is well underway, many within the movement wish to press further. Though some seem to be fairly disillusioned about achieving much more, others continue to work aggressively toward a more complete liberation.¹

At the present time some feminists are urging the use of the blunt instrument of International Law against religious groups who promote any distinction between men and women. They consider that the "liberty and equality rights" of women should belong amongst the "human rights and fundamental freedoms" protected by the United Nations Charter of 1948. If such a move is successful, then those who hold to the biblical portrait of male-female relation - a view which I will call Biblical Relationalism - will be amongst those targets whose beliefs and practices will be declared illegal at the bar of International Law.

After discussing this move, I will attempt to show that this attack upon orthodox doctrine springs from feminist fundamentalism. Against the assumption that Biblical Relationalism is a slavery from which women need to be liberated, the article then shows how this pattern of relationships between men and women actually flows out of the great freedom that can be enjoyed in Christ and promotes the common good of society. Since the United Nations protects religious belief and practice, and encourages every person to pursue what is for the common good, it is a pity that feminist fundamentalists seek to use its political power against those who are explicitly protected by it.

No Exemptions for Churches

In February 2000, Hiliary Charlesworth, professor and director of the Centre for International and Public Law at the Australian National University, an international lawyer with Roman Catholic roots, argued that International Law should be used as part of the strategy to prevent church practices which assume that men and women are different.

Due to previous successful lobbying, Australian churches enjoy exemption from certain aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act that protects, for example, the beliefs and practices of those churches which still only ordain suitable males. This exemption is problematic, according to Charlesworth.

As well as using all the normal means of political lobbying, Charlesworth thinks that Australian women should also "use available international remedies to argue against the exemptions."² Under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australians can take a case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee "if Australian laws can be shown to violate the guarantees set out in the Covenant. Here, the claim would be that the religious exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act breach the guarantee of non-discrimination on the grounds of sex set out in the Covenant."³

Courtney Howland (senior fellow, International Rule of Law Center and scholar-in-residence, The George Washington University Law School) similarly argues that religious fundamentalism, which she finds in Buddism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, is a particular threat to the "liberty and equality rights" of women. A state that allows a religious body to subordinate women or "that creates a zone of autonomy for religion to impose such religious laws upon women, is in violation of the Charter."⁴

Against Feminist "Fundamentalism"

Jean Curthoys, until recently a lecturer in philosophy at Sydney University, has taken issue with her feminist colleagues over the nature of their argumentation. Although she was responding in the first instance to Bodyjamming (a collection of essays from those within Australian academic feminist circles in reaction to a book by Helen Garner, a prominent Australian author intrigued by gender relations), her criticisms apply more broadly to feminist argumentation such as found in Charlesworth and Howland.⁵

Curthoys maintains that feminist theory found in Bodyjamming "is not just poor theory, but . . . it is pseudo-theory, by which I mean that it violates the norms of reason. . . . This violation is effected by conceptual moves which transfer the burden of proof from evidence and argument onto the alleged political character of the theory but which conceal that transfer within a maze of confusions."⁶

Since the book is filled with "unsubstantiated claims about what Garner purportedly maintained," and makes almost no appeal to evidence or reason, the conclusion is clear. We should accept the conclusions of Bodyjamming because of the "special capacity for insight of the author and/or their standing as an established intellectual." It is simply an appeal to authority which "settles theoretical questions on the basis of political loyalties."⁷

Because politics thereby replaces reason, and becomes the "concealed criterion of truth," argumentation suffers. Curthoys demonstrates this by reference to "the most popular theme in contemporary academic feminism," namely, the patriarchal dualisms of Western thought. Here, confusion arises from three central moves: (1) the assertion that Western thought is dominated by "dualisms"; (2) the assertion that dualisms are hierarchical and patriarchal; and (3) the conclusion that a radically new form of thought is required, namely, feminist theory.⁸

To establish the governing role of dualisms, attention is diverted from the content of the dualisms to the form. Lists of dualisms are simply presented in order to show their governing role. The dualisms are then declared to be patriarchal, an easy way to dispose of ideas without ever having to meet them.⁹ Curthoys shows that this second move relies upon confusion. The dilemma is that fault must be found with the binary form, which is absurd, for as a logical form it is simply and always neutral. The final result is that it is "feminist thought," with its "sexing of language," that provides the refuge against confusion. The three moves lead to "feminism itself as the arbiter of intellectual worth."¹⁰

Thus, feminism has become authoritarian, a kind a fundamentalism. "The transformation of radical movements into authoritarian ones - their corruption, in short - is marked by the fact that they cease acting on the basis of morality and reason but rather set themselves up as the measure of the good and the true. At that point their intellectual and moral claims become fraudulent, a mere disguise for the attempt to exercise unjustifiable power."¹¹ The danger at the moment is that this "unjustifiable" power is seeking to use the strength of the United Nations against any who does not hold to the agenda set by feminist theory. Feminist fundamentalism is now pitted against what it deems to be religious fundamentalism.

The "Fundamentalist" versus Feminist Fundamentalism

This present article by no means seeks to defend all "fundamentalisms" in all religions. Howland lumps enough groups together to enable her to portray "fundamentalism" as the fount of all kinds of evil, but too many to enable any insight into the real people concerned. However, since this article assumes a Biblical Relationalism that proposes that men and women are complementary, on this criterion alone it would place the author under Howland's "fundamen-talist" label.

Rather than seeking to expose all the fallacies present in the arguments of our international lawyers, this article seeks to answer what seems to be a fundamental attitude problem for both Howland (more stridently) and Charlesworth (more moderately). Both authors assume what seems to be an inescapable part of feminist thought, namely, that the pattern of male and female relationships found in Biblical Relationalism is a slavery from which women need to be liberated.

This would be a great surprise to the biblical writers. They would see that the "liberation" being offered to women by today's feminism is the slavery from which they need to be rescued. The New Testament presents its own pattern of relationships as part of a glorious new freedom that is found in Christ.

Pairs and Freedom

In New Testament times, people knew what it was to be a slave or to be a free person. Jesus drew upon the institution of slavery in His teaching (e.g. Matt. 10:24-25; 13:27), and He was in contact with slaves (Luke 7:8, 10) and slave owners (Matt. 8:9; John 4:51). Although it is a matter of speculation as to whether Paul himself used slaves, his letters, like those of Peter, show that he was well acquainted with the institution and its abuses, and the famous case of Philemon reveals that on at least one occasion he was involved in a case of returning a runaway slave to his master. As the Gospel penetrated every level of society, slaves and free "sat together" as part of the same Christian congregation (1 Cor. 7:21-22; Col. 3:22-4:1; Eph. 6:5-9; 1 Tim. 6:1-2). Slavery was a part of the society at large, as well as part of the society of Christian churches. The use of the metaphor of freedom was therefore well anchored in these social realities.

The paired terms "slave and free" appear in the New Testament alongside other pairs or dualisms. There are different kinds of paired terms, however. Some are given to show how far-reaching something is - a "limiting pair." By including two boundaries along a particular axis, these pairs can be used to show just how inclusive something is: "great and small," "rich and poor," "Jew and Greek," "circumcised and uncircumcised," or, to return to our topic, "slave and free" (cf. Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:11; Rev. 6:15; 13:16; 19:18).

But there are also "relational pairs." The use of these terms implies some kind of complementary relationship exists between the two. Sometimes these can be symmetrical, such as "brothers," "sisters," and "fellow-workers." But at other times, they are "asymmetrical," that is, they cannot be reversed: "husband and wife," "parent and child," "mother-in-law and daughter," "master and slave," and "ruler and citizen."¹²

Whereas the "limiting pairs" are used in the New Testament to show that all people have equal access to Christ (e.g., Gal. 3:28), these "relational pairs" provide how to live properly amongst other human beings -how to behave in their social relations. The feminist who rejects all "dualisms," risks losing the New Testament's wisdom on how she might properly relate to her fellow human beings.¹³

Freedom in Christ 

Because God did not spare His Son, but gave Him up for us all, we can be assured of God's love and His will-ingness to finish what He has started (Rom. 5:1-11; 8:28-39). The Cross is the source of true liberation.

Paul warns the Galatians about allowing anyone to enslave them again, for Christ died to set them free (Gal. 5:1). Jesus told the crowds that "the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32), and that the freedom brought by the Son of God was "truly freedom" (John 8:34). He explained that sin led humanity into being "homeless" in the world (cf. John 8:34-35). John's Gospel shows that Jesus came to "liberate" from such slavery - to give us a permanent home (14:1-7), to bring eternal life (3:16), and to raise people up on the Last Day (6:40).

Paul repeats these same themes. We have been "freed from sin" (Rom. 6:18), and "enslaved to righteousness," which is the exact opposite of the way it used to be (Rom. 6:20). And then, after a discussion of the negative effects of the law when it meets sinful people like ourselves (Romans 7), Paul declares that "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death" (Rom. 8:2).

Christ's victory on our behalf has given us a new lease on life. The Spirit of God lives within us, and our lives are transformed. Our rejection of God led to a messed-up world (Rom. 1:18-31). The Gospel brought liberation from "the futile ways of life inherited from your forefathers" (1 Peter 1:18; cf. 4:3-4), such as the fornication and idolatry mentioned in the apostolic decrees issued for the Gentiles (Acts 15:29). The new life of the Spirit leads to a lifestyle of freedom, for there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).

But freedom from sin means much more than this. Because His death conquered "him who had the power of death," He has freed us from our slavery to the fear of death (Heb. 2:14-15). Jesus Christ has broken the stranglehold of sin. Our world is under the wrath of God, and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Because Jesus died and rose from the dead, we look to our ultimate liberation in God's glorious future, but for now we begin to experience the freedom from that slavery to sin that has now been broken. Even now our life is transformed, as we put on the resurrection life (Rom. 6:12-14).

The Paradox

The paradox of Christian freedom is that it leads to "slavery." Paul says, "Though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all" (1 Cor. 9:19). He placed this pattern before the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:1), the Romans ("we have been freed from sin, and enslaved to God"; Rom. 6:22), and Galatians ("through love become slaves to one another"; Gal. 5:13). Peter, likewise, calls his readers to live as "slaves of God" (1 Peter 2:16). The paradoxical nature of these sayings is clear from the sense that the language of slavery is no longer strictly correct, for we are adopted as God's children (Rom. 8:15; cf. John 8:35-36). Any talk of slavery is speaking "in human terms" (Rom. 6:19). The paradox goes back to Jesus Himself, who spoke of the first (i.e., in status) being the last (i.e., of least importance), and then used this paradox of Himself. He was the greatest, and yet He became "a slave of all" (Mark 10:44), "to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

We have been freed to become slaves! But slavery was no longer a metaphor loaded with contempt, for Jesus Christ had transformed the metaphor when He died as a slave on behalf of humanity (Phil. 2:6-11). The Christian life can now be described as "slavery," as long as it is understood along the lines of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament brings to light the many horrendous forms of slavery that exist in this world. It also points out that people can embrace a form of liberation that is really a deadly slavery (e.g., Gal. 5:1, 2 Peter 2:19; cf. Phil. 3:18-19). But when the metaphor of "slavery" is applied to the Christian life, it is in a highly paradoxical way. For this "slavery" is freedom, and freedom indeed.

Freedom to Serve

Being set free by Christ from self-interest, we now serve others from genuine love (Gal. 5:13). Service of others focuses upon their need to be saved and molds us into being flexible for their sake (1 Cor. 9, esp. 19; 10:31-11:1). In this way, freedom leads to a service that can be described as being "a slave to all, that I might win the more" (1 Cor. 9:19).

This doctrine of self-subjugation is tempered by the notion of complementarity. The Spirit of God has gifted each person in some way, and this gifting is not for his own self-aggrandizement, but for the benefit of others. This is Paul's theory of ministry - a servitude to the interests of others, and a stewardship that was at work in the Christian community (cf. 1 Cor. 1-4).

The risen Christ has equipped His Church for the work of service (Eph. 4:11-12). The various gifts are given to the Church - they belong to "us", not to "me". They are to be used, when needed, for the sake of the other person, to be exercised with enthusiasm, appropriately, and governed by love (1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12; 1 Peter 4:8-11). In our freedom we are equipped, so that we can have an impact on others, so that they too might share in that ultimate freedom at the Resurrection Day.

Freedom to Serve in Society

Although Jesus lived with all the constraints of a man in a particular society, He operated by a view of reality that relativized human political structures, and enabled Him to function with a certain freedom from them (cf. Luke 17:26; John 18:36). Paul enjoyed this same sense of being, free from obligation to others (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1, 19). The Christian's first loyalty is to the Kingdom of God, not to the earthly kingdom in which he belongs. He will be different from the world around him - in worldview, values, commitments, and behaviors. This causes the persecution of Christianity from time to time, for the State only tolerates civil religion well, rather than the alternative commitment necessary to Christianity.¹⁴ But it does not mean that Christians will be bad citizens, for the duty to be a good citizen is another aspect of Christian freedom (1 Peter 2:16).

Because Christ is Lord of this world, the freedom to serve Christ extends into ordinary social life. We are to live as free people (1 Pet. 2:16), knowing that we have only one master. It is a fact of history - even if it is not an argument to retain the institution of slavery - that those first-century slaves in the New Testament churches had found a freedom that enabled them to transcend the social institution in which they lived. They were liberated by the knowledge that their ultimate master was in heaven and they could serve with their eyes on Him (Eph. 6:6-7; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; 1 Peter 2:18-25). No matter what your situation in life, Christ frees you to serve.

Freedom and Order

Service is rendered within our social relations. Our service is shaped, firstly, by who we are. If an elder, then there is an elder's role in the church (1 Pet. 5); if a new convert, there are certain responsibilities to avoid (1 Tim. 3:6); if further down the track, there are other problems to avoid (2 Tim. 1:6-7). It is also true that the structure of service is different for males and females in the New Testament (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12).

Our service is shaped, secondly, by our "slavery" to those we serve. Because everything we have has been given to us by God (1 Cor. 4:7), and all for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7), the relationships in which we live must necessarily shape our service. Love is to guide the use of what we have been given (Gal. 5:13; 1 Cor. 13), so that Christ's church might be strengthened (1 Cor. 12-14).

This means that our service must be rendered in the context of a proper orderliness: "all things should be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). Our sinful hearts tell us that freedom must be from all restraints (cf. Gen. 3). The "freedom generation" that arose in the closing decades of the twentieth century gradually crossed all boundaries. The post-modern world is left with so many blurred edges that there seem to be no more boundaries to cross. As we enter the twenty-first century, our society provides much evidence of fragmentation and disorder - the glorification of chaos. But is freedom from everything that orders life true freedom?

The Bible tells us that God made the world an orderly place, not a chaos, so that it would be habitable (Isa. 45:18-19). Sin is the attempt to throw off God's order. This is portrayed for us in Genesis 3-11. Here boundaries are crossed, and, in particular, God's creation order is overturned between man and woman.¹⁵ But when Christ sets us free, we find that we are now free to live within God's order once again. Freedom does not imply disorderliness, spontaneity, haphazardness, or simply an ad hoc responsiveness to the ever-changing situation. Freedom from slavery to sin, means that we are now permitted to live in God's way, according to plan, ordered by our Creator, living by His will. It is in this orderliness that we find true freedom.

So, for example, we find that even tongues and prophecy, the spiritual gifts that are regarded by many today as the most spontaneous of gifts, are to be exercised with due order: a limited number of speakers, speaking in turn, with interpretation, and judged by others (1 Cor. 14:26-33). As is well known, the same chapter also regulates the relations between women and men in the congregation. Women are to ask questions of their husbands at home, rather than in the congregational setting, while a prophecy is being judged. This illustrates both the ordering of the assembly, and the ordering between husband and wife.

A few comments on this ordering of the relations of husband and wife are in order. First, the dualism is neutral, describing a "relational pair," which shows that we are created to be related. Second, this is an ordered relationship. If using the term "hierarchy" has too many negative connotations, then it can be described more neutrally as "asymmetric" (i.e., the man and woman are not reversible in the relationship). But if we don't use hierarchy then something is lost. When human life is considered relationally, and human beings are regarded as deeply interdependent, then a hierarchy allows a responsibility for care.¹⁶ Third, it must also be stressed that this ordered relationship is amongst people of equal value and status in the eyes of God, and one in which there is genuine complementarity (for we are all gifted for the common good). However, there is a definite order and asymmetrical responsibilities, for the male has the primary responsibility of care, and the woman is called upon to respond to that care through submission. Fourth, it is in this orderly life that we serve. The Gospel frees us to live according to the "order" that we find not only in age and station, but also in gender. Instructions can be found for proper relationships between the elder and the younger, parent and child, master and slave, ruler and citizen, and even the weak and the strong, as well as men and women.

Service occurs within these structures, as part of these relationships. Our freedom in Christ will one day issue in our ultimate freedom in the age to come. In the meantime, we have been freed to serve. This ordering of human relationships is for the common good of men, women, the Church, and society.

Conclusion 

The United Nations Declaration provides for freedom of religious belief and practice (Articles 2, 18), and also the right and responsibility for all people to work towards the common good (in its entirety). Christianity is a voluntary movement, which people enter freely, even women, and so it is protected by the "right to freedom of peaceful assembly" (Article 20). As a missionary movement, Christians have always sought to persuade people in both public and private arenas to freely assemble with us. The freedom of speech and opinion that allows this is also protected by the Declaration (Article 19). There have been times in history when, in the name of Christianity, power has been used to coerce people, but this is actually a lapse from the Christian way of gentle persuasion. Part of the task of Christianity in this day and age is to persuade the world about the biblical patterns of male and female relations. This bears upon our church practices (protected by Article 18), our family life (protected by Article 12), our patterns of marriage and family (protected by Article 16), and the special care and assistance afforded to mothers and children (Article 25), as well as society, since "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by society and the State" (Article 16.3). Christians, like any other group in society, have the freedom, and in fact, the responsibility (Article 29.1) to work towards what they believe to be the common good, even using the appropriate channels of government (Article 21).

It is a great indictment on feminist fundamentalism that it loses faith in reason and persuasion, and resorts to political muscle against the Church. To attempt to use the UN Declaration against the freedoms of other persons is expressly against the Declaration itself (Article 30).

But there is an even greater tragedy here. If feminism manages to bring Biblical Relationalism before the bar of International Law, it will do so by tragically misperceiving the Lord's ways as "chains and shackles," when Biblical Relationalism is part of Christ's glorious liberation for humanity. Christ is the way to true liberation for both women and men. "If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed" (John 8:36).