1990 November/December issue Part 1

Men, Women, and Biblical Equality. Part 1

   A few months ago a double-paged advertisement with the above heading appeared in Christian magazine, containing a statement drawn up by seven Christian leaders, and signed by (if I counted correctly) 164 others. It appeared to be a direct rebuttal to The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which was formed several years ago.
[Address of this council: P.O. Box 1173, Wheaton, IL 60183. I recommend a fine little booklet they publish; John Piper’s What’s the difference]
  
   In the section on Creation, the MWBE advertisement states: “The word ‘helper’ (ezer), used to designate woman in Genesis 2:28, refers to God in most instances in Old Testament usage (e.g. Sam 7:12; Ps 121:1, 2). Consequently the word conveys no implication whatsoever of female subordination or inferiority.” That makes sense. The English word would convey no such implication either. But let’s not overlook texts which do clearly convey subordination (not to be confused with inferiority or worth0. While we know that the Lord is our Helper, and human helpers are often superiors (parents, teachers, coaches, public servants to had political office), we also take for granted that a helper may be subordinate (an assistant, a flunky, a gofer, a servant). The Lord of the universe Himself was willing to accept the status of a slave. The position in no way diminished His worth, much less did it cancel His lordship, but He did not consider equality something worth grasping (see Philippians 2:6).

   It’s the idea behind the expression “biblical equality” that gags me. For years we’ve been told that biological sexual differences mean nothing beyond reproduction. Isn’t this anti-Christian? We look not only at the reality of physical things but beyond the visible to the invisible meaning. Research and logic have been twisted to support the idea of an “androgyny,” a wonderful new blending of masculine and feminine traits into a supposedly new human type. Unfortunately this concept has taken strong hold of theology, with vastly destructive results. It’s a hoax, of course, for the design (our respective human forms) is the vehicle of deep theological mysteries- the relationship between Christ and His bride. The Genesis account shows clearly who was made first, and what God’s purpose was in creating Eve.
   She was meant to be a helper. So far as I can see, this is not in the least demeaning- for her or for any of us who follow the Master. It is a privilege and a vocation. Much resentment has risen in women’s minds because of the suggestion (strong in the advertisement and in nearly all feminist literature) that one’s position defines ones worth, a grossly secular view. Ought not Jesus’ position (born in a cattle shed, raised in poverty, rejected by those to whom He came, then acting the part of household slave when He washed the disciples’ feet, and, at last, forsaken by His nearest friends, bound and imprisoned and flogged and finally nailed to a cross) prove to us beyond any least doubt that there is no such equation? Was His worth impaired by these humiliations? He told His followers that whoever is chief is to be servant of all. Why should we who have the high and holy calling of being His servants, ever protest for equality in the sacred realms of marriage, home, and church? These are not political arenas, for here a much higher law than the civil one is in operation, the law of love.