Jesus and Gender: Living as Sisters and Brothers in Christ

A book on Gender and Jesus sounds like it could be a spicy book, as it suggests it will deal with some hot-button issues for today, however, I was a bit disappointed with this book overall. This may have to do with my own assumptions about the book and the topic at hand. This book doesn't touch on the gender debates we are having today on LGTB issues, and that is fine, I wasn't expecting that, but I was hoping for some commentary on marriage and gender in the church. Perhaps I wanted it to be on Jesus and Gender Roles or something like that. As I see it, the Bible really only talks about gender roles in marriage and in the church, outside of that the Bible is silent. 

This book kicks off like this and argues that regardless of gender, Christians are to be "Christic", which reflects Jesus' life and to have the same mindset as Him, that of humility.

"We are co-equals with the same callings. Christic women nurture life and use their strengths for the sake of others. Christic men nurture life and use their strengths for the sake of others."

When dealing with how we work alongside each other in the Church promoting the Gospel, the main idea which is unpacked in a chapter is 

"A Christic church is a body of gospel-believing brothers and sisters who covenant together to glorify God by displaying Christ through ministry partnership, shared authority, respectful unity, voluntary humility, reciprocal benevolence, and mutual flourishing."

And this was a good foundation for Christian living. We are to love one another, serving one another being humble and not striving for power to dominate each other. Amen to all of that. However, when it comes down to more specific relationships, on the issue of marriage and of roles in church leadership, I found this book wanting.

The summary statement on marriage that is unpacked, section by section in a chapter goes like:

"A covenantal display of Christ's glory, by both the husband and the wife, through which they cooperate to display the Gospel, imitating Christi in voluntary humility, reciprocal benevolence and mutual flourishing, as they recognize and respect one another's value, and pursue unity with one another."

That is wordy, but does sound nice, like who wants to disagree with that? However, it was in some of the details that I was very underwhelmed by, mainly when looking at some of the text in the Bible. 

When dealing with the roles of the husband and the wife, the New Testament talks about how marriage is a metaphor for Christ and the church, namely that the husband is to be like Christ and the wife is to be like the church. To me, this sounds like two distinct roles, confusing though it may be in how it plays out. However, this book tries to flatten this imagery too much for they say:

"God calls the church to look like Jesus. If the church is the living body of Jesus, then a wife picturing the church is a woman picturing Jesus. As the church is to display his glory, so is she. Therefore, being a wife is a Christic calling; its ultimate aim is to look and act like Jesus."

So you see, in marriage, the husband is to be like Jesus and the wife is also to be like Jesus, because she is asked to be like the church, and the ultimate aim of the church is to be like Jesus. If this is what Paul meant in Ephesians 5, then I think he used too many words to say "both are to be like Jesus". Instead, I do think Paul had a distinction in mind between husband and wife, in the same way, the passage goes on to deal with the relationships of children and fathers - I think those roles are also different from each other.

While this seems to be a loose reading of the text, in another section on marriage they helpfully pointed out to me:

"that the Scripture never tells the husband to “be the head of your wife.” Not even close. Nor is the husband ever exhorted to “lead” his wife or be the “spiritual leader” in the family. Some extrapolate “lead” from the wife’s call to submit. But that is simply an extrapolation. Others extrapolate “spiritual leader” from Paul’s admonition to love one’s wife as Christ loved the church “with the washing of the water by the word” ( Eph 5:26 ). But again, these are merely extrapolations, not the clear intent of Paul’s letter."

The first point about the husband never being told to be the head of the wife in scripture is interesting, as 1 Cor 11:3 in the NIV says

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

But because in Greek "man" and "husband", and "women" and "wife" are the same word, the ESV says

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This sounds close to saying the husband is the head of the wife, depending on how you translate γυνή and ἀνήρ.

Ephesians 5:23 (NIV) says:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

This passage also sounds pretty close to saying the husband is the head of the wife.

But on their "lead" bit, I was quite happy with their observation of the text. Husbands leading their wives is an extrapolation of what being the "head" may mean. But I think saying the roles of Jesus and the church really mean both parties are to be like Jesus is also an extrapolation of the text - and maybe more of a longer bow.

Then when it came time to discuss gender roles in church leadership, I was even more disappointed, not because of what they said, but in what they didn't say:

"Questions about male or female ordination are to be decided in local church contexts where members freely choose to follow Christ as their conscience and the light of Scripture is made known to them."

They then say later:

"we know some of our readers would have liked us to choose sides so they can be assured of our mutual orthodoxy. We’ve purposely chosen not to because we want to encourage our readers to lay down their swords and pick up the towel and basin. We refuse to get drawn into the discussion on ordination or male headship because we want everyone to seek to appreciate Jesus … then sort those particulars out on your own."

So, I didn't want them to choose sides as such, but I would have liked them to have expressed an opinion on the matter. Both authors introduced themselves as being old and have seen a whole bunch of things in their time, and have written on gender issues in the past, and yet still at this point in their lives, they don't have a position or an idea or a slant on women's ordination? At the start of the book they lament how:

"A cessationist, congregational, Baptist church gladly joins elder-ruled, paedobaptist, and contituationist churches in a city-wide evangelism campaign. It will not, however, partner with or invite the church that has a female pastor. What do such behaviors imply? They imply that differences over “gender roles” in the church constitute a de facto exclusion from Christian fellowship, if not salvation itself."

If the issues on women in leadership aren't that big, if churches shouldn't divide on the issue, then why did they avoid stating their own ideas on what Scripture says about it? Yes, let's put down our swords and have a discussion on the matter. Don't write a book on gender and then leave it up to local churches to decide, while also lamenting how churches disagree and divide on the issue. Either let churches disagree on the issue and let them decide, or help us out by maybe writing a book about it.

This book wasn't a complete write-off, there was much good in some of the chapters on trying to untangle Bible roles from Christian sub-culture roles. Blue is not masculine, pink isn't for girls. The Bible gives great freedom for girls to be into sports and cars (and shooting if in America), and boys to be into dancing and cooking and pink unicorns. We do make extra rules and are influenced by our culture and sub-culture, so a close reading of Scripture is needed when dealing with these issues on what it does and doesn't say. However, overall, I don't think I would recommend this book as one that would further discussion on this issue.