Equality between Men and Women Does Not Mean Sameness

In each part of the world, there are positive and negative aspects to the mainstream culture. Every culture is surely more pleasing to God in some ways than many other cultures, and also more displeasing to Him in some ways than many other cultures. 

This is certainly true of mainstream Western culture. In some ways this culture is better than many others, and in some ways it is worse than many others. 

As far as attitudes to the roles of men and women are concerned, there is some of each of these things in mainstream Western culture. In some ways this culture has a good attitude to male and female roles, and in other ways it has a poor attitude.   

Equality of men and women in Western culture 

Firstly, I think that modern Western culture is among the best in the world in its insistence that men and women are equal. 

Mainstream Westerners rightly believe that men and women are equal in value and dignity. And they are also very critical of men who take advantage of women in any way. It is considered unacceptable and taboo to do this. 

That is not to say that Western society is perfect in its attitude to this. Far from it. But it is nevertheless a lot better than many parts of the world. 

In more than a few countries women are typically viewed by men as somewhat inferior human beings, and men often consider it acceptable to take advantage of women. They use their authority over women for their own benefit. 

Mainstream Western culture rightly has no sympathy for this sort of thinking. And so it is surely more pleasing to God on the issue of equality than the cultures in many parts of the world. 

Living out equality of men and women in Western culture 

Although mainstream Western culture is strong on the equality of men and women, it goes seriously wrong in the way it attempts to live out this equality. 

Huge numbers of modern Westerners seem to have the idea that equality between men and women means sameness. They seem to be forever trying to make men and women the same in everything. 

If, for example, there are more men than women who do some job or other, many people will automatically assume that something is wrong. They don’t stop to ask if there might be a good reason why fewer women do that job. Instead, they will immediately assume that there should be the same number of men and women doing the job. 

It is not a huge exaggeration to say that many in the feminist movement today are not just trying to get rid of inequality, but they are trying to get rid of as many distinctions between men and women as they can. 

It makes no sense to think that equality means sameness 

Despite the ideas of many in Western countries today, it makes no sense to think that equality means sameness. Men and women have been created by God to be different in some ways, and each sex has various strengths and weaknesses. To try to force a uniformity on human beings by eradicating differences between men and women is to work against God’s will for mankind. 

Instead, these differences should be celebrated. Where women tend to be better at something than men, we shouldn’t try to engineer society so that the same number of men do that thing. And where men tend to be better at something than women, again, we shouldn’t try to force the culture to fit with some politically correct idea. 

Men and women are equally valuable in God’s sight. But to think that this means that they should be the same wherever possible makes no sense at all. It is the result of confused thinking. 

Breastfeeding babies 

In some ways, the attitudes of mainstream Westerners on this issue are really quite disturbing. 

Take looking after babies as an example. Most women become mothers, and we should all want babies to be treated as well as possible. 

As God has designed things, babies are supposed to drink milk from their mothers’ breasts. Scientific studies have shown that for a baby breast milk is the most healthy, and that feeding from the mother helps to create a bond between mother and baby. 

Even without any science, however, it should be obvious that these things are true. Babies feeding from their mothers’ breasts is clearly part of God’s created order. 

It is true that exceptional situations arise when there is a good reason for a woman not to breastfeed. Some women are physically unable to do this, and sometimes a woman has to get a job away from her baby so that she can earn money to live on. 

Nevertheless, for a woman not to breastfeed her baby should be a last resort. Any parent should want their baby to get off to the best start in life, and part of this should be for the baby to breastfeed from the mother if possible. 

In Western culture, however, this important aspect of a baby’s life is often neglected so that politically correct ideas about the roles of women can be pursued. There are many women who abandon their babies for large parts of the day so that they can further their careers. And instead of sharply criticising women who do this and the men who support it, Western society tends to actually encourage this practice. To put it bluntly, aiming for sameness between men and women in Western countries is often at the price of treating babies badly. 

But it gets even worse. Western media are full of commentators who constantly complain that there are not enough women in high level jobs. However, part of the reason why fewer women than men do these jobs is because some women have chosen to do something more important. They have decided to prioritise breastfeeding their babies instead of selfishly pursuing a career at the expense of their children. The arrogance and hypocrisy of many in modern Western culture is truly of a very high order. 

Husbands have authority over wives 

Another way in which the attitudes of mainstream Western culture contradict the Christian faith is in the relationships of husbands and wives. 

According to the Bible, husbands have a degree of authority over their wives. 

In Ephesians 5:22-24, for example, the apostle Paul writes: 

‘Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.’ (ESV) 

Mainstream Western culture rejects the idea that husbands have authority over their wives. But in doing so they are rejecting what God has designed. 

Misunderstanding the authority of husbands over wives 

I think one reason why many are so opposed to husbands having authority over their wives is because they misunderstand the nature of this authority. They look at examples of authority in the world at large, and they wrongly assume that Christians believe that the authority of husbands is supposed to be similar to these examples. 

There are various typical characteristics of authority that we see in the world around us. 

To begin with, authority figures are usually more important than those under their authority. For example, if the CEO of a company spends a week off sick, that might cause real problems for the other workers. This person is such a key decision-maker that doing without them for a whole week is likely to make life difficult for the others. However, if someone much lower down the authority structure in that company is off sick for a week, the problems caused will probably be far fewer. 

Second, authority figures are usually more privileged than those under their authority. For instance, in the workplace a person in authority will almost certainly receive a higher salary than someone under their authority. 

Third, authority figures often use those under their authority to serve themselves. For example, bosses will frequently tell their subordinates to do the unpleasant tasks, while avoiding these tasks themselves. 

In the world at large, then, we are surrounded by people who have this sort of authority. So, when Christians talk about husbands being in authority over wives, people often simply assume that this is the kind of authority we have in mind. Many think we mean that husbands are more important and more privileged than wives, and that it is acceptable for husbands to use their wives for their own advantage. And then they get very offended. 

The true nature of the authority of husbands 

If the above picture did correctly represent the true nature of how husbands should have authority over their wives, it would be perfectly reasonable for people to be appalled by it. In reality, however, a proper understanding of husbands’ authority is vastly different from the above picture. 

Crucially, the true nature of authority in marriage in no way means that the husband is more important or more privileged than the wife. 

There is, in fact, a good parallel to this sort of authority in the Trinity itself. According to the Bible, God the Son is eternally under the authority of God the Father. However, both Father and Son are equal in importance and privilege. And exactly the same is true of the marriage relationship of husband and wife. 

This concept of authority without extra importance or privilege is something that modern Westerners find hard to grasp. It goes so against the grain of our culture. Yet this is the true nature of the authority of husbands over their wives. 

What is more, whereas worldly authority usually involves taking advantage of the person under authority, the proper authority of the husband does exactly the opposite. The Bible teaches that husbands should not only avoid using their authority in marriage for their own benefit, but that they should actually use this authority to serve their wives! 

In Ephesians 5:25 Paul tells his readers: 

‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . .’ (ESV) 

Note carefully what Paul says here. He tells husbands to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. 

How did Christ do this? He volunteered to be crucified! In other words, Paul is saying that husbands should be enormously self-sacrificial in the way they love and serve their wives. Using authority in this manner is totally different from the standard pattern of authority that we see in the world at large. It turns the world’s values on their head. 

When we recognise the true nature of the authority of husbands over their wives, it should be clear that there is nothing abusive about this authority. Nor is there anything unequal. It is just that the husband and the wife have different roles in the marriage. 

Husbands abusing their authority 

Of course, it is true that many husbands around the world abuse the authority they have over their wives. They take advantage of their wives in various ways. 

This, however, is something that Christians should be totally against. Abusing authority to manipulate anyone is a serious matter indeed.  

Nevertheless, if a husband doesn’t abuse his authority, it is good that he has it. And when a husband uses his authority to serve his wife, it works out very well for her. Christians should therefore oppose the way that mainstream Western culture tries to get rid of differences in the roles of husbands and wives. 

General Christian attitudes to male and female 

It is, of course, a fact that in many ways men and women really are the same. Physically we have more in common than not, and in spiritual, mental and emotional qualities too we seem to have more similarities than differences. 

It is also true that cultural factors are often morally neutral, and we should show flexibility in our approach to masculinity and femininity in various cultures. 

For example, in modern Western culture blue is a colour that has a tradition of being attached to boys, and pink has a tradition of being attached to girls. In this culture, it makes sense for Christians to fit in with this way of doing things. 

However, in a culture that does things differently it would be right to have a different custom. If there were a culture somewhere in the world that connected girls with blue and boys with pink, Christians should follow suit. 

There is nothing in God’s created order itself that attaches blue to boys and pink to girls. This is just a cultural thing. And in many morally neutral issues like this, we should show some flexibility. 

Yet in areas where God has created a difference between male and female, Christians should refuse to give in to pressure to try to get rid of these differences. Instead, we should be unembarrassed about opposing this distortion of God’s created order. 

And when modern Westerners dress up issues of sameness under the appearance of equality, we mustn’t be fooled. We need to understand clearly that these are separate things. 

Christians should oppose real inequality between men and women 

Finally, although Christians should resist the attempts of Western culture to make men and women the same, we should be as outspoken as anyone against real inequality, wherever it exists in the world. 

I have already mentioned the example of husbands abusing their authority to take advantage of their wives. Sadly, this happens a lot. Christians should condemn this strongly and without hesitation. 

Something else that is wrong is for women to be paid less than men for doing the same job. Nothing in Scripture supports this sort of inequality. 

Similarly, when men are given poor legal rights as fathers, Christians need to speak out. 

As far as it opposes real inequality between men and women, Christians should side firmly with the feminist movement. 

However, feminism in its current form goes far beyond opposing inequality. It is a loud voice supporting various forms of immorality and is at the forefront of trying to get rid of differences between the sexes. In these respects, Christians should strongly oppose this movement. 

 

See also: 

Turning the World’s Values Upside Down: Christian Leadership Is All about Serving 

The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of Western Society 

The Will of the People: A Big Idol among Christians Today 

Is It Wrong for Women to Be Church Leaders?

Does Ephesians 2:19-20 Prove That God No Longer Gives the Gift of Prophecy?

Ephesians 2:19-20 is a passage that is often said to prove that God no longer gives the gift of prophecy.

In this passage, the apostle Paul, speaking to Gentile Christians, states:

“19 So then, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.”

The argument

Christians who claim that God no longer gives the gift of prophecy frequently argue in the following way about this passage:

Paul uses the metaphor of a foundation to describe the apostles and prophets of the church, and he implies that the rest of the church is built on this foundation. A foundation is the first part of a building to be built. Therefore, the fact that Paul uses this picture to describe the apostles and prophets shows that they had a role only in the early stages of the church. This must mean that God no longer gives the gift of prophecy.

Not the only possible interpretation

This is not a forced or unnatural way of taking Paul’s words. Nevertheless, it isn’t the only way they can be interpreted, as I will argue below.

Preliminary points

Before I give an alternative interpretation, I want to make some preliminary points about this passage. I won’t try to defend them, because in all of them I agree with at least the majority of those who say that God no longer gives the gift of prophecy.

(1) We should understand the foundation in this passage to consist of the apostles and prophets (and Jesus). It is not something that is laid by the apostles and prophets.

(2) Although Paul doesn’t refer to the church explicitly in these verses, that is what he is talking about. And he is saying that the apostles and prophets (and Jesus) form a foundation, on which the rest of the church is built.

(3) The apostles and prophets here are two separate groups, as in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:29. The text is not referring to a single group of Christians, each of whom is both an apostle and a prophet.

That is not to say that no Christians fell into both categories. But basically, Paul is referring here to two groups of Christians.

(4) The prophets in view are Christian prophets, not Old Testament prophets.

(5) The foundation is apostles and prophets who ministered in the early decades of the church. The idea is not that apostles and prophets who minister throughout the church age are a foundation.

(6) Although in the Greek text there is a definite article before “apostles” but not before “prophets,” “prophets” should be regarded as a definite noun. The text could just as easily have been written, “the apostles and the prophets.”

(7) From other passages of Scripture, I accept that there have been no apostles, in the full sense of the word, since the original apostles. I also believe that Ephesians 2:20 is referring only to apostles in the full sense, not to any lesser sort of apostles (whether or not lesser apostles have ever existed). I therefore believe that this verse has in view all the apostles, in the full sense, that there have ever been and that they all lived in the first decades of the church age.

(8) As a related point, I accept that Ephesians 4:11-13 doesn’t prove that apostles and prophets exist throughout the church age.

These are the preliminary points, and in all of them I agree with at least the majority of those who say that the gift of prophecy has ceased.

The alternative interpretation

Let’s turn now to the alternative interpretation.

I believe that this is the scenario underlying this passage:

Apostles, in the full sense of the word, had a role only in the early stages of the church. Prophets exist throughout the church age (although much more commonly at some times than at others). But crucially, the most important prophecies were all given in the first decades of the church age, meaning that all the most important prophets lived at that time.

It is entirely plausible that this scenario could be described by saying that the church is built “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” as we find in Ephesians 2:20.

Let me now defend this interpretation in a bit more depth.

Biblical metaphors often correspond loosely to reality

To begin with, there is the nature of biblical metaphors to consider.

Those who say that this passage proves that the gift of prophecy has ceased typically take the foundation metaphor in v. 20 in a very precise way. They look at the picture Paul is giving and seem to assume that it must correspond to reality very precisely.

When we look at how the Bible uses metaphors, however, we often find that they don’t correspond precisely to reality.

A good example of this can be seen in Matthew 20:28. Here Jesus says:

“. . . the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

In this verse, Jesus’ death is metaphorically described as a ransom for people.

This is an excellent metaphor for illustrating what His death accomplished. Nevertheless, this metaphorical ransom doesn’t correspond to a literal ransom in every respect. A literal ransom has to be paid to someone. Yet if we ask to whom Jesus’ metaphorical ransom was paid, we are demanding too much of the metaphor. There is no one to whom Jesus’ ransom was paid.

This metaphor of ransom, then, corresponds quite loosely to reality. It is a mistake to interpret it too precisely.

Another good example can be found in Hebrews 12:1. Here the author encourages his readers with these words:

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a large cloud of witnesses, let us get rid of every weight and the sin that so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that lies before us . . .”

In this verse, the Christian life is described using the metaphor of a long distance running race.

Again, this is a great metaphor, but we mustn’t demand too much from it. In a literal race we run against competitors. However, in the metaphorical race being described in this verse there are no competitors we run against.

This is another metaphor, then, that corresponds quite loosely to the reality it is describing. And many more similar examples could be given from Scripture.

In view of how biblical metaphors often correspond imprecisely to reality, it is a mistake to simply assume that the metaphor of apostles and prophets as a foundation must be interpreted very technically and precisely. And once we allow that Paul could have used this metaphor loosely, it is easy to fit what he says with prophetic ministry continuing throughout the church age at a lower level than in the first few decades.

The Bible often makes simplifications

Something else we need to take account of is how the Bible often simplifies things. This actually overlaps with the point about loose use of metaphors.

A good example of simplification can be seen in 1 Kings 9:4. In this verse, the LORD says the following to Solomon:

“As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness . . .”

God says here that David walked with integrity of heart and uprightness.

We know, however, that David was in fact guilty of no less sins than murder and adultery (2 Samuel 11:1-27). And we know too that as a sinful human being he must have sinned in a multitude of other ways too.

In saying that David walked before Him with integrity and uprightness, then, God is making a big simplification.

Another example of a verse that simplifies matters is Matthew 5:42. Here Jesus teaches:

“Give to the person who asks you, and do not turn away from the person who wants to borrow from you.” 

Actually, there are many situations when we shouldn’t give to a person who asks us for something or wants to borrow from us. For example, if someone asks us for money to buy illegal drugs, we should certainly not oblige.

It would be a big mistake to take what Jesus says in this verse precisely. Instead, His words give a general principle that allows for numerous exceptions. Jesus is simplifying things greatly.

The Bible also contains many other similar simplifications.

Given that Scripture often simplifies things, it is wrong to just assume that Paul is not making a simplification in Ephesians 2:19-20. When he says that “the apostles and prophets” are a foundation of the church, we should be open to the possibility that he could be simplifying things somewhat. There could potentially be other, less important prophets, who are not actually part of the foundation.

Paul’s emphasis is on the existence rather than timing of the apostolic and prophetic ministries

Those who say that this passage proves that God no longer gives the gift of prophecy place a lot of weight on the temporal aspect of Paul’s metaphor. They claim that the fact that the apostles and prophets are a foundation, together with the fact that the foundation in a literal building is the first part to be built, shows that the apostles and prophets existed only in the first part of the church age.

However, the metaphor itself encourages us not to emphasize its temporal aspect:

The Greek word underlying “built” in the above translation is epoikodomethentes, which is a past tense participle. The fact that it is a past tense means that some of the non-apostolic and non-prophetic part of the church had already been built on the foundation at the time Ephesians was written.

Yet it is Paul, an apostle, who is writing this. So the apostolic ministry is envisaged as ongoing at the time of writing.

Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to say that the foundation refers to something that is temporally completely before the part that stands on the foundation. Otherwise, how could Paul’s apostolic ministry still be ongoing when there is already a structure standing on the apostolic (and prophetic) foundation?

This shows that temporal factors are not at the heart of what this metaphor is being used to express. Rather, the metaphor places more emphasis on the existence of apostolic and prophetic ministries than on the time of operation of these ministries. That is where the stress lies.

Given that the emphasis is not on timing, it is unwise to use the metaphor to draw firm conclusions about the time of operation of apostolic and prophetic ministries.

Paul’s focus is on the early stages of the church and not a later time

Not only does Paul place more emphasis on the existence of apostolic and prophetic ministries than on their time of operation, but, even as regards timing, his focus is on the early stages of the church rather than on a later time.

By using the metaphor of a foundation, he is telling his readers that apostles and prophets had key roles in the early stages of the church. However, he is not attempting to comment on the roles, or lack of roles, of apostles and prophets after the early stages. That is not his concern.

Therefore, since Paul’s focus is on the early decades of the church, it would be unwise to use his words to draw any firm conclusions about the place of prophecy after the first decades.

This clause is very brief

Finally, it is important to note how few words Paul uses to form his metaphor of a foundation.

Paul really says very little here, and it would be a mistake to draw confident conclusions from these few words.

Summing up

In the above discussion, I have noted several things.

First, the way that the Bible often uses metaphors loosely makes it easy to think that the metaphor in Ephesians 2:19-20 could be a loose one that allows for the gift of prophecy to continue throughout the church age in a less important way than in the first few decades.

Second, the way that Scripture often simplifies things suggests that “the apostles and prophets” could easily be a simplification meaning the apostles and most important prophets.

Third, the emphasis in the metaphor is more on the existence of apostolic and prophetic ministries than on their time of operation, so it is unwise to use the metaphor to draw firm conclusions about timing.

Fourth, because Paul’s focus is on the first decades of the church, it is unwise to use his words to draw confident conclusions about the place of prophecy after that time.

Fifth, the fact that Paul says so little also makes it unwise to draw firm conclusions.

Given all these points, Ephesians 2:19-20 can easily be interpreted to fit with a scenario in which God still gives the gift of prophecy today. If all the most important prophets lived in the first century, yet God continues to give this gift in our day, there is nothing in these verses that would conflict with this understanding of things.

At the very least, this passage falls far short of proving that God no longer gives the gift of prophecy today.

See also my longer article:

Every Christian Should Desire the Gift of Prophecy

And see also:

God Wants to Use Christians in Miracle Work Today

The Importance of Ministering to People Afflicted by Demons

A Time to Avoid Speaking in Tongues