Reflecting on women, Christmas
Recent works on gender and Christianity have reignited debates about gender roles in the Christian context. The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill by Mike Cosper is a very illuminating podcast that uncovers the celebrity culture and toxic masculinity that Mark Driscoll and his associates exuded in Mars Hill Church, which in the narrative that Cosper crafted, contributed to the eventual death of the church. In addition, Beth Alison Barr and KK DuMez, both history professors, wrote books about how the(American) Evangelical version of Christianity came to be, especially in terms of its construction of gender roles. Inevitably, these books offer a critical evaluation of patriarchal culture in Christianity and the complementarian view at large.
To preface the following reflection, I must say that I am on the same boat with Drs Barr and DuMez. Professional qualifications aside, I share the same convictions with the writers that social sciences offer methods and perspectives we can use to evaluate the practices of our faith. Religions, after all, are not just dogmas and theologies; they exist as praxis. And praxis is very situational; thus it would be naive to claim that theologies can be practiced in vacuum, devoid of cultural influences. It is only normal that we conduct critical evaluations of the practices of our faith to prune those that perpetuate views and ideals that do not align with the message of love, salvation, and the truth of the Gospel.
One of the key features of (American) Evangelicalism identified by Barr/DuMez is the patriarchal culture, and to an extent, “Christian” machoism (hence the title “Jesus and John Wayne”). One of the few aspects that Barr/DuMez criticises, which I agree with, is the broad Evangelicals’ view that men are ontologically superior (i.e., destined to lead, dominate and rule over all), and that women’s sole purpose in life is to obey and accommodate men. In this view, men have the responsibility and right to teach and lead in practical and especially religious matters, while women do not have the capacity to do so. Instances of prophetess and other female figures in the Bible were considered as “unprecedented situations” whenever proper male leadership was absent.
Thus, many proponents of this view would delineate spheres appropriate for men and women in making contributions in church and society, strictly based on their gender; their spiritual gifts and talents would be of secondary consideration. For instance, per this view, women are barred from writing on theological matters, nor can they teach in public or to a male audience, because in so doing they would exhibit masculine roles. Conversely, though to a more limited extent, men are not encouraged to nurture children and perform diaconal duties because they are set out to assume more public and masculine duties of leadership and rah-rahing the crowds — you get the idea. This shows that, in keeping with the gender roles, the strict governance of roles subjectively delimits Christians from exercising their gifts.
Surely, proponents of this view would defend the necessity of the strict organisation of roles, and numerous arguments have been offered by Barr and DuMez to challenge this extreme complementarian view; but what if we step back and reflect on how God engages both genders in His plans hitherto? I offer a piece of my own reflection which I think is appropriate in this season of Christmas.
I must say that my reflection is inspired by numerous tweets observing how Christmas stories feature women as the main actors: Mary and Elizabeth being visited by the angels, entrusted with very important and sacred missions, and were found faithful and delightful to fulfil the tasks to completion. Whereas, the male actors were slightly sidelined; Joseph was visited after Mary, Zechariah was mute, Herod was… well, he was simply evil.
However, what is the point of this comparison? To be clear, I am not here to say which gender is more loved by God, or useful in His mission. But the comparison is useful to show a “gynocentric break” where the voice and stories of women are central to the story.
So, what does this tell us? Firstly, it tells us that God uses women to accomplish His plan out of His own volition, and not because He does not have other alternatives. Secondly, the gynocentric break during Christmas teaches us that subservience, or obedience is not a feminine virtue but rather, a characteristic all Christians ought to emulate. If anything, the Christmas story is arguably the one instance where the (perceived) hierarchical relations between men and women are blurred and subsumed with the vision of God’s kingdom where all believers are siblings, co-workers in God’s field and equally partake in His mission.
God chooses to use females in bringing to life “the Word (that) becomes flesh”
The incarnation of Christ is a mystery, but we know for certain that since the Trinity exists from eternity to eternity, and omnipotent in nature; God was never constrained in terms of methods that He could have chosen to come down to earth. However, He chose, in his infinite wisdom, to be conceived in a woman’s womb. As a thought experiment, could God have chosen to just “be”? I think He certainly could. His resurrected body and instances of Theophanies made it clear that God could appear among human without being physically birthed.
And Mary! God chose Mary, someone who was still very young and unmarried as a vessel for the incarnate Babe. This was an obviously conscious decision –- if God was only concerned with achieving his target of becoming incarnate, atoning for human sins, and proclaiming that the Kingdom of God is at hand, he would skip all the hassles of being birthed by a teenage mother. However, in God’s sovereignty, Mary bore the incarnate Christ because the message of the Christ’s upside-down Kingdom and the redemption for Eve’s offspring could best be shown in Mary’s faith amid her helplessness, “I am the Lord’s servant…May your word to me be fulfilled” (Luke 1:38). Compare with Zechariah, the archetype of a strong and devout male figure, yet doubted the answer to his prayers for a child (Luke 1:18–20).
What’s the lesson here? Firstly, God includes women in his plan for salvation. Women are not standing on the periphery, but are designed as active participants in His work. Secondly, God may very well use women to deliver His truth despite there were actually “eligible” males to use instead. Nothing in Mary’s youth, modesty, and naivety hindered her to be used by God more effectively than Zechariah was (in the context of being obedient). In other words, Christianity does not treat women as second best, nor lesser in ability to serve God.
Mutual obedience of men and women to God’s call
However, this is not about a competition between women and men, or that women are better than men or vice versa. The point of this reflection is to show how hierarchical language that is often used to characterise the relationship between men and women has outlived its usefulness. I borrow Aimee Byrd’s explanation that women and men are more often than not work as equal co-workers, siblings, in God’s kingdom. Instead of a hierarchy where the superior rules over and constraints the inferiors, both men and women serve faithfully as partners in accordance to the specific tasks God has entrusted them with. Obedience to God’s call precede any cultural expectations.
And this was the case in Joseph’s admirable obedience, along with Mary’s, to embrace the task that God has given to their little family to raise and shelter baby Jesus. What I see here is not an imposition of hierarchy, or that Joseph/Mary tiptoeing on each other’s designated roles. Both Joseph’s and Mary’s main preoccupation is to accomplish the tasks God has set out for them. To me, this meant Joseph had to give up his life to support Mary’s pregnancy. Joseph could have left Mary when he found out that she was pregnant with a baby that is not his, but he heeded God’s instructions through the angel that appeared in his dream and took Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:19–21). Joseph could have abandoned baby Jesus who was on Herod’s hit list, but he protected his family — together they fled the country, became refugees in a foreign land (Matthew 2:13–14). Finally, Joseph faithfully brought Jesus up in accordance to the Jewish faith and traditions (Luke 2:22–52).
We see here that men’s and women’s absolute obedience to God’s call results in a harmonious collaboration: an integral complementarity instead of a fractional one, where men and women are whole persons who work together not to complete each other’s gaps, but in their equally unique capacities, to bear more fruits. To put it mathematically, according to what Byrd quoted, instead of 0.5+0.5 = 1, it is 1+1 = 3.
All that being said, I must say that I am still learning. And I know that are so many authors, texts that discuss these topics, that I have not read. But it has been a blessing that I grow up in a family, and attend a church where women and men are seen more or less as equal co-workers. It is a privilege too to befriend fellow Christians who encourage me to be more inquisitive on theological matters. And these experiences have definitely led me to reflecting on Christmas from an especially feminine/feminist lens, something that is close to me: recognising the predominant female voices (like, Zechariah was literally made mute; and that Mary’s song was placed before Zechariah’s in the Book of Luke), the abject failure of Herod’s aggression and the safe passage of the small Holy Family to Egypt. I hope the Christmas story speaks to you in a personal way too.
At the end of the day I am thankful that the God I worship became flesh and was born of a virgin’s womb; I am thankful that Joseph obeyed God’s call for him and his family; I am thankful that Jesus reaches out to women and preaches the Gospel of salvation to women too. I am thankful that I can ponder upon these things and share them with you.
Merry Christmas!
