Gender Roles in Christianity

current Connection 3.2
       Gender Roles in Christianity


      We are born as male and female, however we would not align to any gender roles of man and woman were they not taught to us. In "Gender, Gender Equality, and the Church," Nantondo Hadebe clarifies the source of what we know as gender roles to be "though church/cultural teachings" that we learn to become the separate Man and Woman. We may be born with different genitalia, defining male ad female, and perhaps different mind sets; however, without a rigid cultural expectation, we are simply humans.

      Hadebe notes that within the Church, the church commonly defined religious gender roles as "Gods will." Let's remember the crusades and the Middle Ages. If the Catholic Church said something was "God's will," it might as well have been. Faithful people will follow that which they think is from God. But honestly, the Catholic Theocracy invented purgatory, forgave predetermined sin, and allowed murder so long as it was confessed. These people were not exactly level-headed. These people, unaware of their folly, we're succumbing to the expectation of society.

      Woman were created second to a man. Nantondo makes the point that women were depicted primarily "as secondary role players in God's plan for humanity." Women were created from the side of man. Women were not created from the foot, the head, the back, or the chest. Women were created to be of equal value. This does not change the fact that women have different uses and strengths than man. If man could do it all himself, there would have been no use for God to create Eve, Adam's life companion.

      The author, Nantondo Hadebe, argues that "Jesus, a man" is the best physical representation of the Gender of God. In the Christian Bible, very little of the contributions by women are accredited as much as their male counterparts. Adam, a male, was the first created human. The apostles, the disciples, Jonah, Noah, Isaac, Solomon, Saul, and many more were all male. There is a definite male bias in the basis of Christianity. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways; however, in doing so, we have collectively, over time, come to conclude that men, and only men, are meant to lead the church.

      I've grown up in a Church of Christ. This denomination of Christianity is a very close relative and bears many similarities to the Catholic Church. There has never been a woman to get up and speak at the pulpit. I have grown up in a church led solely by men, and therefore I have always aligned to similar beliefs that God is, by non-physical appearance, male. To me this is how Church should be. Women work in their strength area, teaching the children, while men, though not technically dominating, do assume the leadership roles.

      All of these example bring us back to one point. Men and women are of equal value, and should be treated as equals, though men and women do have very different strengths.



I had trouble with the link function, here is the source should the hyperlink fail:
http://ecumenicalwomen.org/theology/academic-articles/gender-gender-equality-and-the-church-by-nantondo-hadebe/




 

.

The Real Man Right Where He Belongs

Society has established specific requisites and norms for the male gender's cultural role. Will Meek outlines the rules to masculinity in his study of the psychology and expected psychology of the male population. Among all manly thought process, our expected male ideology is to strive for dominance and succumb to our more primitive thought patterns and traits.

Meek notes the need for men to be the only, purely dominant leaders and to "stay in control." At first I might write even this off as primitive. I make the conclusion on that point that we are then primates. It is entirely natural for men to be most comfortable in their dominance. Masculinity, by tradition, has been defined as the ability to stand as the protector and provider.

There are plenty of debates on the "nature and nurture of gender roles." Plenty of humans want to argue whether it's okay for the woman, the nurturing wife, to be the primary money-earner. Most that are aligned with tradition will take that argument to their deathbed with the firm stance that men should financially dominate and fully support the family.

Categorizing males all too specifically, Meek differentiates between "biological sexual or personality traits and complete cultural constructions." We must be aware of the clear asymmetries between that which is found naturally in the male and what is formed out of smoke by some opinionated group of humans. What we cling to and follow are the offspring of our twisted surroundings. We are expected to hide feelings, be purely dominant, self reliant, unfeeling animals forever lusting after sex and greater achievement. The real man does not need to become a disciple of the man-cult of our culture. Hypothetically, the real man focuses on primal instincts of protecting and providing for his family. He would still be comfortable with his feelings, and not necessarily strive to constantly be dominant, a fight I often have with my sibling and father that usually ends negatively.

I often think about what life will be like as a father. I think about how I will raise whatever children I have, and how my parents have shaped my opinions and led me in such a way that I will one day feel capable to lead. I've resolved to not succumb to the man-cult driven by society, but rather to forge my own perspective and not shove it down everyone else's throat.

Masculinity may never again be what it initiated as. Our society has warped and molded the minds of children and struggling adults alike to the point that now those who can be considered truly masculine have become a minority. We will reach a day when Christianity, the best guide to fatherhood, will almost completely disappear. At this point, men may cease to exist and be replaced by feminine wannabes in an exponential plummet of true masculinity unto oblivion.

http://www.psychologyofmen.org/index.php?itemid=6