Human Beings or Human Doings?

Mark Galli has ignited a minor firestorm with his article on the proper roles of men and women. Many of the reactions fall into the all too predictable "you're just an angry white male" category (insert "evangelical" between "white" and "male" and you've really got a recipe for disaster). But I think Galli's main point is well taken. Ironically, he could have articulated it better if he had not tried to tiptoe around a few mine fields.

Evangelicalism over the last thirty years has become infected not simply with "the language of equality," but with a seriously flawed understanding of equality. I saw this coming while a seminary student in the early 1990's when I was force fed the egalitarian view. It took me over a decade of real world experience to realize just how upside down and backward such a view of men and women was. In essence, egalitarianism teaches that men and women are created equal and, therefore, women are just as capable as men of performing traditionally "male" roles and responsibilities. The logical implication of such a view, that men are just as capable as women of performing traditionally "female" roles and responsibilities, was never considered.

This, I believe, is the point Galli is making in his objection to the over eager husband exclaiming, "We're pregnant!" Women--and women only--are biologically equipped for pregnancy and childbirth. That is a traditionally "female" role and responsibility which no man can perform even if he wanted to. But, that being the case, does it not also logically follow that there may be some traditionally "male" role and responsibility that no woman can perform even if she wanted to?

The reason such a question cannot be asked in our "egalitarian culture" is that the obvious answer would lead to yet another logical implication which would likely undercutt the whole system of egalitarian presuppositions. Ultimately, it would lead to the realization that we are, after all, human beings, not human doings. Equality is not about what we do, but all about who we are. God created human beings, male and female, in his image and likeness. He ordained for each of them certain unique roles and responsibilities which, when carried out in a complementary fashion, are a reflection of the image and likeness in which they were created.

That men and women have, throughout history, come up short in this regard is a consequence of the Fall (see Genesis 3). Male headship has been corrupted into male domination. Female submissiveness has been corrupted into female subjugation. Moreover, a perfectly ordered creation has been thrown into chaos and confusion, with gender roles being among the first casualties. Thus, as Galli concedes, we are forced in our society today to add "the usual caveat: Not all women excel at nurturing, not all men excel discipline, and so on." On this point, he could have strengthened his case by delving into how such exceptions may be a reflection of the consequences of the Fall, rather than an example of naturally occurring diversity.

Even in more traditional evangelical circles, this topic is taboo these days. I don't know if I've done any better at articulating the case for a careful re-examination of the proper biblical roles and responsibilities of men and women than has Galli. But, at least, we've got the conversation started.