Proof #30: Examine God’s Sexism

It is absolutely undeniable that God has created women as a functional subordinate to men, but this was not the ideal situation. In the Garden of Eden, God’s perfect world, what He declared to be “very good,” men and women were equal. It wasn’t until after the Fall that God declared “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16b).

But it is still important to note that woman was created from the same stuff as man (see Gen 2:18-25): this means that while she might be functionally subordinate to man, she is not ontologically subordinate to man. Marshall Brain has confused these two concepts. He wants us to assume that the Bible is talking about ontological subordination in all of the passages that are talking of functional subordination.

Functional subordination is not a bad thing. We see it anytime that we must work together as a team. Someone assumes the role of leader, and this person becomes functionally superior to the other team members. This person is still has the same ontology as the others; he or she simply has more responsibility than the others. This is the same with corporations, churches, and even family units among brothers and sisters. We see this among social animals. We accept this as normal. Why does it become evil, then, to suggest that a husband be functionally superior to his wife?

Let’s look at the passages that Brain cites in support of God’s supposed sexism:

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35: Of course Brain doesn’t cite the following paragraph (vv 36-40):

Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

Now, why the change in tone?   Because Paul was echoing a practice that the Corinthians did in vv 33b-35, but then in 36-40 was rebuking them for doing that.  This means that he doesn’t want them to continue the practice of forbidding women from speaking during church services.  This is really an uplifting passage, not a denigrating passage.

1 Corinthians 11:3-10:  As above, Paul is echoing a practice that the church is doing, then rebuking them for it:

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.  If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.  (1 Cor 11:11-16)

1 Tim 2:9-12: First, why is adorning oneself modestly a bad thing?  Why is putting on good deeds denigrating to women?  Perhaps the real problem with this passage is “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”  Brain says that this is an example of God’s sexism, but he fails to consider who is actually teaching this–who is “I?”  In this passage, Paul is the first person, so this is only an example of Paul’s sexism, not God’s.

Gen 17:10-11: Brain even cites circumcision itself, the sign of the covenant, as sexist.  Since women can’t be circumcised, reasons Brain, they are not part of the covenant.  However, he seems to miss that God says “every male among you,” indicating both males and females share in the covenant, but only the males are circumcised.

Matthew 25:1:  This is the first line of a parable and not sexist.

John 20:17: Mary needed no additional proof of who stood before her–she already knew it was Jesus (see Rom 10:9).  Thomas, on the other hand, wanted more proof and had to actually touch the wounds before he was willing to believe.  I think that Mary actually looks better here!

Genesis 3:16: The implication here is that God didn’t punish man, but that isn’t true–see Genesis 3:17-19 for man’s punishments.

Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:7:  These would be sexist if a woman’s submission was a license for the man to do whatever he wanted to his wife.  Since women are ontologically equal to men, this is not logically such a license.  Instead, the husband is called to love his wife the way that Christ loves the church (Eph 5:25).  This would be the same love found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

1 John 2:13: Brain is pointing out that John says he is writing to fathers, young men, and children, but not women.  Well, children is sexless, so I would say that that phrase includes women.

Then Brain asks the following rhetorical questions:

Are any of Jesus’ disciples women?  Yes–Mary Magdalene is considered a disciple.

Are any of the elders in the book of Revelation women? Elders are supposed to be men, see Titus 1:5-6.  This follows from the introductory arguments on functional subordination versus ontological subordination–this subordination is only functional.

Are there any books of the Bible written by women? Well, there are plenty of anonymous books to choose from, so we don’t know the answer to this question.

This is followed by the usual conclusion–since this is ignored by Christians, then God is imaginary.  This conclusion does not follow from its premise, because there is a precedent for “ignoring” this–2 Corinthians 3:6 (cf. Rom 2:29; see also Gal 3:10-14).  Christ freed us from the Law; we live by its Spirit and are not bound to the letter of the Law.