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?

Beware of Taking Genesis 1-3 Too Literally

When we read any passage in the Bible, it is very important that we interpret it as it is supposed to be interpreted.  If a passage is meant to be understood literally, then taking it purely figuratively is obviously going to lead to wrong conclusions about what it is saying.  Similarly, if a text is meant to be understood figuratively, then to take it purely literally would be a big mistake.

It is very common for readers of the Bible to go wrong in both of these ways. 

On the one hand, there are those who deny literal interpretations to passages that should be understood literally.  Sometimes even passages that refer to key components of the Christian faith, like the resurrection of Jesus or His future return, are interpreted purely symbolically.  This leads to extremely serious error. 

On the other hand, there are those who take literal interpretations of passages that should be taken purely figuratively.  In fact, many Christians today seem to think that interpreting literally means holding true to what the Bible teaches, while interpreting figuratively means compromising on biblical truth. 

This is actually a serious mistake.  The Bible contains a lot of non-literal teaching.  The Psalms, for example, constantly use vivid metaphors.  Books like Daniel and Revelation use powerful apocalyptic imagery.  And it is noteworthy too how in John’s Gospel we repeatedly find Jesus making statements that those listening to Him misunderstand precisely because they take His words literally (see John 2:19-21; 3:3-4; 4:10-15, 31-34).

One part of the Bible that Christians often interpret too literally is the first three chapters of Genesis.  Many believers, who are rightfully distressed by godless theories of how the universe and mankind originated, seem to think that one way to oppose these theories is to insist on a fully literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

In fact, a close reading of these chapters shows that it is a mistake to take them fully literally.  Let’s look at some reasons why this is the case:

Daylight created three days before the sun

In Genesis 1:3-5, we are told:

‘3 Then God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light.  4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.  5 God called the light ‘day’, and He called the darkness ‘night’.  And there was evening and there was morning, one day.’

However, in verses 14-19, we read:

‘14 Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the canopy of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years; 15 and let them serve as lights in the canopy of the heavens to give light on the earth’, and so it happened.  16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night; He also made the stars.  17 God placed them in the canopy of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.  19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.’

We see in verses 3-5 that on the first day God creates light that He calls ‘day’, i.e., day-time as opposed to night-time.  However, we read in verses 14-19 that on the fourth day He creates the sun, moon and stars.  But the light that gives us day-time obviously comes from the sun!

These verses stand as a strong piece of evidence that we are not supposed to understand Genesis 1 as a purely literal account.  On the level of the text, six 24-hour days are referred to.  But the reader is surely not supposed to think that these are literal 24-hour days on which God did His creating.  Instead, these six days are far better understood as a literary device that provides a framework for God’s creative activity.  When Genesis was written, Jews worked for six days of the week and rested on the seventh.  God is therefore portrayed doing likewise.

On the first day in Genesis 1 the focus is on God’s creation of light, darkness and 24-hour days.  And on the fourth day the focus is on His creation of the sun, moon and stars.  The point that is being made is that God created all these things: light, darkness, the 24-hour day, sun, moon and stars.  But the text is not meant to be taken as a literal, chronological account of when God made them.

Sometimes Christians who insist on taking all these verses literally come up with forced interpretations in an attempt to hold on to their view.  For example, it is sometimes said that God created the sun on the first day, but the sun appeared from behind clouds on the fourth day. 

Solutions like these are extremely unconvincing:

In verses 14-19 God seems clearly to be portrayed creating the sun on the fourth day.  Note how verse 16 says that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars on that day.  And note too how verse 17 tells us that He ‘placed’ them in the canopy of the heavens on that day.

And in verses 3-5 God seems clearly to be portrayed creating the light for day-time (which, in reality, comes from the sun) on the first day. 

The fact that there is an overlap between what is created on these days is not a problem, because the chronology in the text is a piece of art that is not meant to be taken literally.

After God’s activity on the first day of creation in 1:3-5 has been outlined, there follows immediately the sentence, ‘And there was evening and there was morning, one day.’ Similar sentences, referring to evening and morning and giving the number of the day in question, are also found after the other five days of creation (1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). 

It might be thought that the explicit references to evening and morning suggest that God literally created in six 24-hour days.  However, there is no need to think this.  It is true that in the story line God is portrayed creating on six consecutive 24-hour days.  But, as I have already said, these days can easily be understood simply as a literary device that is used to give a framework for God’s creative work, and the references to evening and morning can just be seen as part of this device.

The earth producing vegetation and animals

Genesis 1:12, referring to the third day of creation, states:

‘The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kinds, and trees yielding fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.  And God saw that it was good.’

And then Genesis 1:24, referring to the sixth day of creation, states:

‘Then God said, ‘Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock and creeping things and animals of the earth according to their kinds’.  And so it happened.’

It is interesting that these verses speak about the earth ‘producing’ plants and animals.  There may well be a hint here that natural processes were involved in God’s method of creating these things.  If so, it seems reasonable to think that these processes would have taken much longer than a literal 24-hour day.

The snake that speaks to Eve

In Genesis 3:1-5 we read:

‘1 Now the snake was more crafty than any animal of the field which the LORD God had made.  And it said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, ‘You are not to eat from any tree of the garden?’’

2 The woman said to the snake, ‘We are allowed to eat fruit from the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said, ‘You are not to eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you are not to touch it, or you will die.’’

4 The snake said to the woman, ‘You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’’

Some Christians try to interpret this passage literally.  There are two ways in which this is attempted. 

First, there are those who claim that the passage refers to Satan manifesting himself as a snake and speaking to Eve. 

This interpretation is very problematic, however:

To begin with, we must note that the first sentence of verse 1 tells us that the snake was more crafty than any animal of the field.  The way that the snake is set alongside other animals and compared to them surely shows that we should understand the snake in the same way that we understand the other animals.  The other animals are surely understood to be real animals.  So in the first sentence of verse 1 the snake should be understood as a real animal too.

In the second sentence of verse 1 we read, ‘And it said to the woman’.  The subject of this clause is the snake that has been referred to in the first sentence.  Because the snake in the first sentence is a real snake, this means that the snake that speaks to Eve must be a real snake.  In the story line, then, a real snake speaks to Eve.

However, if this passage were simply about Satan manifesting himself as a snake, there would be no real snake involved.  It would just be some sort of appearance of a snake.  Therefore, the fact that the story line refers to a real snake seems to rule out the idea that this passage is about Satan manifesting himself as a snake to Eve.

There is a second way in which some Christians try to make this account literal.  This second method acknowledges that the account portrays a real snake speaking to Eve, not just an appearance of a snake.  But it claims that the passage refers to Satan speaking through the snake in a way similar to the way God speaks through Balaam’s donkey in Numbers 22:28-30. 

There is also a huge difficulty with this interpretation:

When the passage says that the snake was the most crafty of the animals, this implies that each animal has a certain amount of craftiness in itself.  And this obviously includes the snake. 

Therefore, the craftiness that the snake uses to deceive Eve is surely portrayed as its own craftiness.  But if Satan is simply speaking through the snake, it would be Satan’s craftiness that was involved, not that of the snake.  So the passage is surely not about Satan speaking through the snake.

Both attempts to understand this account literally therefore fail.

The snake in this passage certainly symbolises Satan.  The passage is teaching us that Satan was instrumental in tempting the first human beings to fall into sin.  But on the actual level of the story, it is the snake as an animal that talks to Eve and tempts her to sin.  And this cannot reasonably be taken literally.  To interpret this passage in a literal way is to seriously misunderstand the type of literature that is present here.

We should also note carefully that in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 Satan is described as ‘the ancient snake’, which is surely a reference back to this passage in Genesis.  These verses in Revelation fit perfectly with a symbolic interpretation of the snake in Genesis 3.

The tree of life

Genesis 2:9 and 3:22, 24 refer to ‘the tree of life’.

There is great difficulty involved in understanding this tree literally.

Importantly, we need to take account of the references to the tree of life that are found in the book of Revelation.  This tree is referred to in Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19.

Revelation 2:7 states:

‘To the person who overcomes, I will grant to eat from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God.’

The tree of life here is a symbol of God’s provision of abundant spiritual life to those who reach heaven.  It should certainly not be taken literally.

Revelation 22:1-2 says:

‘Then he showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city.  And on each side of the river stood the tree of life . . .’

The Greek of these verses is rather obscure in places, and English versions translate and punctuate differently.  Regardless of any obscurities, however, the tree of life in this passage cannot be understood literally.

Revelation 22:14 tells us:

‘Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life . . .’

Once again, it is completely implausible to take the tree of life in this verse literally.

Revelation 22:19 states:

‘And if anyone removes any of the words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove that person’s share in the tree of life . . .’

Yet again, the tree of life in this verse should certainly not be taken literally.

In Revelation, then, the tree of life cannot be taken literally.  To think that people in heaven will actually eat the fruit of a literal tree of life would be literalistic interpretation at its most absurd.

It is very important to recognise, however, that the end of Revelation clearly corresponds in a significant way to the beginning of Genesis.  The work of Christ on the cross means that the final outcome of the universe will have much in common with how things were before the fall of mankind into sin. 

So, given the correspondence between the end of Revelation and the beginning of Genesis, and given that the tree of life in Revelation cannot be interpreted literally, we have a strong piece of evidence that the tree of life in Genesis 2:9 and 3:22, 24 is not supposed to be interpreted literally.

God walking in the garden

Genesis 3:8 tells us:

‘They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.’

This should surely not be interpreted literally.  Literally God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not have a body with which to walk around. 

Some claim, however, that this verse refers to an occasion on which the divine Son of God clothed Himself with humanity, an incarnation that was a kind of foreshadowing of the incarnation when Jesus came as redeemer.  The footsteps that Adam and Eve heard, it is claimed, were therefore the literal footsteps of Jesus Christ.

This is a very forced interpretation.

First, it is theologically questionable whether an incarnation was really possible in any meaningful sense without a virginal conception.

Second and much more importantly, when we are looking for solutions to things, it makes sense to take the easiest solution.  And it is so much easier to understand this verse as a symbolic account of the broken relationship between the first humans and God than as an incarnation.

Summing up

There are other parts of Genesis 1-3 too, which suggest that these chapters are not meant to be taken fully literally.  But I think I have given enough examples to make my point.  To insist that this part of the Bible should be interpreted completely literally is simply to misunderstand the type of writing that we have here.

How Christians relate to modern science

One reason I have for writing this article is a concern for Christians to be wise and balanced in their dealings with modern science.

The standard scientific teaching about the origin of the universe is that it originated 14 billion years ago.  There seems to me to be nothing in Genesis 1-3 that would conflict with this.  Once we recognise the high degree of symbolism in these chapters, it becomes apparent that they tell us little, if anything, about when or how God created the universe and all that is in it.  These chapters teach us that God made the universe, that human beings are created in God’s image, that we fell into sin through the tempting of Satan, that we have some degree of authority over the earth, etc. etc.  But they don’t really tell us how or when God did His creating work.

Mainstream biologists also teach, of course, that all biological life-forms today, including humans, evolved from earlier species of plants and animals.  So what should Christians make of this?

Well, I think the scientific basis for so-called micro-evolution, i.e., evolution within species, is very strong.  Nor does there seem to me to be anything in this that conflicts with the Bible. 

I am much more unsure about evolution from one species to another.  From what I have seen, there may well be some good evidence for this.  And certainly God could have created in this way if He wanted to.  Nor am I aware of biblical passages that would clearly conflict with some form of evolution between species that God caused.  Nevertheless, I don’t feel that I have the necessary knowledge about this issue to make clear statements on it. 

Even if we do accept that there has been evolution between species, however, there are still massive problems with how theories of evolution are typically portrayed and understood in modern Western society.  At least in the UK, where I live, whenever theories of evolution or of the origin of the universe are referred to in the mainstream media, there always seems to be an underlying assumption that people or the universe originated by chance.  This is never made explicit, but it always seems to be implied that God was not the creator.  The seriousness of this error, of course, can hardly be overstated.

However, as long as we are clear that God made all that exists, we should not be closed to theories of exactly how He did this.  If a theory certainly conflicts with the Bible, when the Bible is properly interpreted, then it should be rejected.  But we must not be too quick to say that a theory contradicts Scripture before carefully considering the matter.  And, as we consider, we must beware of interpreting Genesis 1-3 too literally.

See also:

Beware of Taking Biblical End-Times Prophecies Too Literally

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally 

Were the Gospels Designed to Be Works of Pure History?