Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Being Human 3 (RJS)

Being Human 3 (RJS)

Last updated on: October 12, 2010 at 11:23 am by RJS

Being Human 3 (RJS) 2010-10-12T11:23:30-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In my last post on Being Human After Darwin I commented on Francisco Ayala’s essay on the characteristics that make us human. The suggestion is that our “humanness” is not at its root reducible to chemistry, physics, or even biology. Rather the things that make us human are abstract properties related to mind and to culture. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before, not simply in our biological composition, but more importantly and more profoundly in our knowledge, our understanding, and our culture, in the knowledge of good and evil, in the awareness that things could be better. We are human collectively and in the context of culture. Sure – one can look for chemical, physical, and biological roots that give rise to our capacity for culture and abstract thought, but there has been something of a phase transition. We are not simply smarter animals. Exactly how this came about I don’t know – or I should say I don’t know the mechanism used to bring this about. However it happened it is, I think, an important part of the biblical concept of humans created in the image of God, part of the mission, purpose of God in creation.

One of the commenters noted:

While these and other characteristics are highly relevant and interesting, I would say, as others have on this thread, that our uniqueness and essential humanness is that we are image of God. I would further say that image of God is not based on any particular capability or function. Thus, our humanity is not a function of any thing we possess in and of ourselves but is wholly derived from the one who made and sustains us. To put it in theological terms, we are most basically covenantal beings. In saying this I’m not locating image of God in an immaterial soul or spirit at the expense of the material/physical.

Tying our humanity to image of God allows for something that the merely descriptive accounts don’t consider. It accounts for the intuitive sense that there’s a way to be human we don’t live up to. This sense is demonstrated in our reflexive reaction to conduct we deem immoral or repulsive: “how could a human being do such a thing?”; “he behaved like an animal”, etc.

This is a good way to summarize the topic. Science can only get us so far as we try to understand ourselves. This isn’t a knock on science. We are fully embodied creatures and science can and will explore the connection between brain and mind. There is much to learn. But while science can address cause and effect, it cannot address purpose and it cannot address the role of God who made, sustains us, provided a function and a mission. It cannot comprehend or address the concept of “image of God” that provides the core part of our essence as humans. But I also think that there are human characteristics that shed much light on exactly what this means.

This leads to a rather significant set of questions. Does our view of what it means to be human change “after Darwin”? Does this have an impact on our understanding of, not theology, but anthropology?

And, in a rather abrupt right turn: Does it impact our understanding of the women in ministry question?

Note added: – as many have suggested, this post really has nothing much at all to do with science, evolution, or Darwinism… it is a post that connects with our discussion of humanness that arose in the context of Dr. Ayala’s essay. It also connects a stream of thought that runs from there to our discussion on many posts that relate to gender and gospel.

I rather expect that this question will inspire a rather vigorous debate, but first let me frame the question a bit. A few weeks back Scot posted a simple question for the Gospel Coalition (here). He asked “How close to the gospel is complementarianism? And I think it turns around too: How close is the gospel to egalitarianism?” The post was followed by a long conversation that meandered over many issues, only occasionally touching on the actual question posed. Several posts since then have focused on related issues.

The idea that we complement each other, as men and women, and more broadly as human beings, is indisputable. In the one absolute – most women can give birth, all men cannot and the related corollary with a role for men holds as well – men and women are complementary in procreation and fulfillment of the command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). Many of the distinctions though are more subtle – and carry with them exceptions. Men tend to be larger and stronger. Men tend to be more aggressive – or perhaps it is better to say that aggression tends to be manifest in different ways. In the Myers-Briggs analysis only one trait – thinking vs feeling – has a significant correlation with gender, men tend to be thinkers and women feelers. Of course something like 25% of us, both male and female, are exceptions to the general rule. 1 Corinthians 12 is a great discussion of our complementarity. Complementarity is the rule within a family, within a church, and across any human society.

The factors that make us human – from compassion to creativity, abstract thought, moral sense, culture, mission, and purpose, ambition and ego – are neither male nor female, but strictly human. Procreation is not a property of our humanness – animals do just fine in the same fashion. Partnership, companionship, team work, family, marriage, these enhance our humanness. Gen. 2 institutes and ordains marriage.

But complementarianism within our church is something completely different. Complementarity in this context is a biologically defined, God ordained, hierarchy. It is tied up with power and control and cultural norms. It is justified by what seems to me a selectively excessive literalness (read Scot’s The Blue Parakeet for some idea of what I mean here by selective literalness).

I struggle with this whole discussion within our church on two grounds.

First, no matter how abstract or academic the discussion starts it always devolves to an intrinsic justification based on superiority and inferiority of the basic “animal”. There is a touch of the Jewish prayer – I thank God for not making me a woman… Very few are willing to stop at a simple arbitrariness based on scripture, required by inerrancy; it has to be justified by biology and the end result is human characteristics transformed into masculine characteristics.

Second, within our church a demand for rights, power, position, leadership, prestige, has no place. Preaching, teaching, prayer, and prophesy are not rights but callings and gifts. Scheming to wrest control and acquire power destroys our church. Demands for “equal rights” also destroy our church. There is always a touch of this in the conversation every time it comes up on this blog. Change will come, (if it is to come), when people (men and women) simply do what they are able and called to do and follow God’s leading. We are called to follow Christ, not to demand. (I rather expect this comment will raise the most ire.)

I’ll be blunt – to attach complementarianism to the gospel in any fashion is to distort and damage the gospel message. Complementarianism devolves to rules. But God will use our efforts anyway. To attach egalitarianism to the gospel message is to distort and damage the gospel message – it takes the focus off of Christ and onto us, and this has dire consequence. Egalitarianism devolves to rights. But God will use our efforts anyway.

What do you think – does the way we think about the essence of our humanity and its ground in the sustenance and image of our creator have an impact on the discussion of “women in ministry”?

If you wish you may contact me directly at rjs4mail[at]att.net

You can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Previous Post

October 12, 2010

Beyond the Abyss 7

Next Post

October 12, 2010 America, a Christian Nation?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm is entirely focused on God's word, using each letter of the Hebrew alphabet?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 24 Psalm 119 Psalm 23 Psalm 51