Women are feminine and men are masculine

I was reading this piece which is addressing the trinitarian debate on the "Eternal Subordination of the Son". The conclusion,

Being a wife is a role; being a husband is a role; being a servant is a role; being a citizen is a role. Being male and female are not roles. While our biological sex necessarily shapes the roles we hold (in marriage, a woman will be a wife and not a husband), submission does not stem directly from gender but from a role that exists in the context of relationship. A wife submits to her husband not because he is a “man” but because he is her husband and has committed himself to certain vows and duties in the context of their marriage. The same is true of a servant and master, a congregant and elder, and a citizen and his government. Submission happens in context of specific privileges and responsibilities found in specific relationships bound by specific covenants.

In contrast to the belief that women are ontologically (and therefore eternally) subordinated to men, we believe with Paul in I Corinthians 11:3 that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [Emphasis added]

And she is right that a wife submits to her husband and not to other men. In fact, wives should not submit to men just because they are men. Yet I think the author misses something.

Herein lies the problem. Grudem and Ware argue for submission of the Son on the basis of role. So far, so orthodox. But when they apply ESS [eternal subordination of the Son] to gender, they have tied submission to the essence of femaleness and not simply the role of being a wife. By necessity then, when they talk about the Son’s submission to the Father, it is almost impossible not to hear it as an ontological argument. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know gender (more accurately, biological sex) to be an ontological category. We know that being female is an identity given by God and intrinsically bound up in the imago Dei. This is the fundamental argument against transgender positions: “So God made man[kind] in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.” '

When these leaders emphasize female submission instead of wifely submission, they are speaking of submission as if it were an ontological characteristic. [Emphasis in original]

Now without getting into the trinity debate specifically, it seems to me that leadership is a masculine quality and that submission is a feminine quality. When a woman runs a household (whether servants or just children) she is exercising masculine qualities. And when a man obeys his boss he is exhibiting feminine qualities. All men and all women have both, but a man has more masculine qualities and should not neglect them, and women have more feminine qualities and should not neglect them either.

The problem isn't when men obey appropriately (being feminine) it is when they neglect leadership (lacking masculinity). Likewise, strong women are not necessarily a problem, in fact the attribute can be quite appealing. The problem is in women usurping authority and acting in a rebellious manner.

Therefore the question is not so much: Does submission stem from gender (female) or stem from a role (wife)? The question is more, Why do wives submit and not husbands (generally)? What is it about the roles and why do men and women fit those roles? Is it arbitrary? Or are there qualities that aid and inhibit leadership and submission? Does protection go with leadership? Does putting one's life at risk go with leadership? Does provision go with leadership? Does nurturing go with submission? Does respectfulness go with submission? Etc.

If those qualities in themselves are masculine or feminine, cannot a composite of the masculine qualities that make up leadership also be masculine? Likewise submission feminine? This means that a mother is masculine in relationship to her children when she is leading them. And (male) soldiers are feminine in relationship to their commander. There is nothing wrong with this as the commander is doing the protecting and the soldier is doing the respecting.

Yet women are intrinsically very feminine and men are intrinsically very masculine.

The authors are arguing for the submission stemming from the roles and not the gender without asking why the genders are assigned the roles.

As mentioned, I think (like these authors) that wives are to be submissive to their husbands not to men in general. Further, I would say to complementarians that they need to realise that the egalitarian argument for the high status of women needs to be heard.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The dominion mandate is given to them. It is given to the man and it is given to the woman. Together they are to fill the earth and subdue it. Together they have dominion. Everything in the earth in under the woman as well as the man.

But to the egalitarians I would argue that men and women are not interchangeable sans their genitals. Women are feminine and men are masculine. This will work its way out into society and culture and a culture where this distinction is not present is disregarding how God made us. Women should not be in combat, all things considered. By all means teach your daughter how to defend herself, so that when the army breaks down the walls, or when the criminal breaks in and her husband is away, she may put an evil man to flight. There is nothing wrong with having Jael know more that one use for a tent peg, or a woman being resourceful with a millstone, but you should not send your daughters to the frontline.

Considering other occupations, it is to be expected that more men will be in the dangerous occupations and more women in the caring ones. So the problem isn't any one example of a man being a nurse, or a woman being a cop. Given the habitus of the average person we need strong men to move patients in hospital. We also need lady cops involved in dealing with sexual crimes against women. But if all the cops are girls and all the nurses are guys something is awry. Especially if all the women also put their children in daycare, school, and after-school care from birth to adulthood.

The Fall: Woman

The curse on the woman is the shortest of the 3 curses containing 4 lines. God says to the woman,

I will greatly multiply your pain in conception;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you. (Genesis 3)

The words for "pain" here are not identical, though they derive from the same root. Pain (`itstsabown) in conception; pain (`etseb) in bearing. I am not certain anything can be made of this difference, rather they are synonyms used in a poetic parallelism. Conception is not generally painful so we have a synecdoche for pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing. Translators frequently replace conception with childbirth, though it may be preferable to consider the more expansive inclusion suggested here.

There is much debate over the meaning of the second half of this curse. Much of the meaning is dependant on the semantics of the word "for." Does it mean "toward" or "against"? The meanings are quite different in themselves and the implication of the last line of the curse is dependant on which meaning is chosen.

• Your desire shall be toward your husband
• Your desire shall be against your husband

Both meanings are apparently linguistically possible. Because of this it is best to leave the translation with the ambiguity, ie. use the word "for". The only slight problem with this is that in English "for" tends to favour the positive interpretation, ie. toward. A footnote is therefore helpful with the mention of both interpretations.

Advocates for the first interpretation note that "desire" in Song of Solomon is a positive noun.

I am my beloved's,
and his desire is for me. (Song of Solomon 7)

Thus it is viewed that the woman has a positive, probably sexual, desire toward her husband.

There are a couple of difficulties with this view.

Firstly, how is positive desire or sexual desire a curse?

Prior to the Fall the woman would have had both a positive desire toward her husband as well as a sexual desire. So these are neither new phenomena nor curses.

Secondly, the comment that the man will rule over her does not seem to fit this reading.

To maintain this interpretation one must regard the 3rd line as merely descriptive in order to introduce the curse of the last line: the man ruling over the woman.

You will still desire your husband [status quo] but he will now rule over you [curse].

Advocates of the alternative interpretation—that "for" means "against"—point to the other use of "desire" in Genesis 4. In its favour is the fact that the 2 phrases share a similar construction. Cain is angry that God doesn't accept his offering. God says to Cain,

Why are you angry,/
and why has your face fallen?/
If you do well, will you not be accepted?/
And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door./
Its desire is for you,/
but you must rule over it.

Here the word "for" clearly has a negative connotation. Sin's desire is not positively toward Cain, rather it is negatively against Cain; sin desires to have or dominate Cain. The command to Cain is that he must rule over sin. This is not a negative command to Cain, it is stating the right response to the problem.

Thus some commentators would see the curse on the woman as a desire to control her husband. The comment that the man will rule over her is not necessarily part of the curse; rather paralleling Genesis 4 it would be the appropriate corrective.

Your desire is against your husband [curse] but he is to lead you [right action].

One may suggest that because the word for "rule" can mean "dominate", there may be a tendency for men to dominate as part of this curse.

Your desire will be against your husband [curse] and he will dominate you [curse]

A minor quibble with this last interpretation is that the curse is directed at the woman not the man. However one could argue that the curse on the man at the end (death) also applies to the woman, though this is perhaps indirectly thru his federal headship.

The wisdom of youth

Amanda Witt shares a brief conversation she had when her boys were 3 and 4.

"I really don't like you pretending to shoot people," I told them.

"We're not pretending to shoot people," my older son said. "We're shooting pretend people. Dangerous ones."

Mark Driscoll interviews Wayne Grudem

I enjoy Wayne Grudem's writing. Recently Pastor Mark Driscoll meet Grudem and asked him about which doctrines he thought Christian leaders should study in their preparation for the future. Grudem's initial response was Scripture and authority.

[Grudem] said that he sees authority as a pervasive problem in our culture. As we talked, it became clear that what he meant is that people profess to be Christians yet refuse to submit to God’s authority, including Scripture, and people God has ordained to be in loving authority, such as godly parents and pastors.

Grudem is also praying about writing further books and on which topics. The options being ethics, global poverty, and government. These are important issues and if God has given Grudem significant insight into these subjects then some good books may be forthcoming. He desires prayer for wisdom about whether to write them and in which order.

He has previously written a well regarded systematic theology and much material on gender roles in Christendom. Several of his books are free for download:

• Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood
• Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
• Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth

Happiness and self-control

Dennis Prager is a Jewish columnist who writes on several topics. Some of his recurring interests include:

• The superiority of the Judeo-Christian ethic
• The immorality of the (politically) left
• Happiness

He has written a book on this last one.

In a recent commentary Prager talks about why he thinks so many (Western) women are depressed.

Societies and parents also always knew that it was imperative to teach girls to control their natures – in particular their predilection to be ruled by their emotions. Women who allowed their emotions to rule them not only became destructive (to members of their families first and foremost), they became unhappy women.

However, with the advent of contemporary feminism and other social trends that coincided with the rise of feminism – among them the elevation of compassion over standards, the great emphasis placed on feelings, the rejection of patriarchy and the devaluation of traditional masculine virtues (like subdued emotional expression) – female nature came to be seen as far less in need of discipline than male nature.

So, while society continued to teach boys to control themselves, it stopped teaching girls to do so. Girls' emotions and feelings were inherently valuable. And denying this was attacked as sexist, if not misogynistic.

Consequently, the women many of these girls grew into lacked the ability to control their natures, to control their emotions or their moods, and therefore lacked the facility to engage in the self-control necessary for happiness and the avoidance of depression.

I don't know if this is true but it seems somewhat reasonable on the face of it. I know that males (in general) deal more with aggression and that control of this aggression is important, though focusing it to do good is legitimate. It seems that focusing is now frowned upon and it should be suppressed rather than controlled. I do not think society sees an uncontrolled emotional disposition as a vice (which it is). Rather that emotions are and the expectation that other people submit emotion to the will is now the vice.

In an earlier article on the same topic Prager said,

As I wrote in my book on happiness ("Happiness Is a Serious Problem," HarperCollins), much unhappiness comes from having expectations. When our expectations are not fulfilled – and most are not – we can become unhappy and even bitter. And when our expectations are fulfilled, we are no happier because fulfilled expectations undermine gratitude (we are not grateful when we get what assume we will get), and gratitude is indispensable to happiness.

Feminism raised women's expectations beyond what life can deliver to the vast majority of them. It was hard enough for women in the past to realize their far fewer expectations of marrying a good man and making a happy family. But feminism told a generation of women that they can not only expect to have that but, perhaps even more important to feminism, they could also expect to have a fulfilling, financially rewarding, society-honoring career.

On a more fundamental level, the issue is what philosophy we subscribe to and does that philosophy reflect reality. I think the self-expectations one has of reality is important. False expectations can lead to disappointment. We live in a fallen world so even having true expectations can lead to disappointment. But better to think rightly about the world and deal with the issues as they come. Thinking wrongly may lead to more unhappiness for you because the world fails to be how you want it to be or it may lead to wrong behaviour which may create unhappiness for you or for others.