“What does it
mean to be girl?”
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Father-daughter-GettyImages-551986299-58937ae55f9b5874eef0b66b.jpg)
Defining womanhood is a great challenge
in our day. Our children are exposed to differing concepts of gender early,
shaping how they are growing up and thinking about their own sexuality. They
are hearing conflicting messages about males and females being interchangeable
and gender being maleable.
Beyond the rejection of God and his created order, I would argue that strong
stereotyping has done us huge disservice and is, at least superficially, one of
the main culprits for our gender insecurities. If a young girl prefers
stereotypical male activities, such as mechanics or building, and parents and
peers try to steer her away from those interests, or worse, belittle her for
having them, it is natural for the child to assume one or both of two
propositions. One, it is wrong for me as a girl to be interested in boy activities.
Two, if I am drawn to so-called boy activities and feel more comfortable with
the boys, maybe I’m not truly a girl. The feminist movement, on the one hand, has
focused its efforts on debunking the lie of the former. There is nothing a girl
cannot do! The transgender movement on the other hand is rooted in the
subjective truth of the latter. A girl is not necessarily a girl. Since the perception of gender is shifting from
objective to subjective, the transgender movement capitalizes on that
fluidity to promise that such a self-transformation is not only possible, it is
in fact desirable. But neither the “you can do it all” slogan nor the “you can
challenge your biology” mantra is helping young adults wrestle with their
gendered identity in a constructive way. Both lead to much disappointment,
frustration and pain.
As you can probably deduce for
yourself, another layer of confusion is introduced as the transgender movement collides
head-on with feminism. Classical feminism is the championing of women based on
the notions of objective equality and self-determination. But this kind of feminism
is being stretched to include as a part of self-determination anyone who feels she or he is a woman. In the last
few years, an intense debate raged at my Alma Mater, a women’s college, as to
whom would be granted admission. Is a male applicant who claims to be a woman
considered a woman just because he says so? The college ended up changing their
admission policy in spite of much opposition. "I think it's a step
forward, one that's long overdue," said Genny Beemyn, director of the
Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, a resource
group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. "If they say
they're women, then saying that they can't attend is denying their identities
and marginalizing them."[1]
Transgenderism and feminism have also come to loggerheads in the world of
sports in which biological women are crying foul.[2]The only place the feminist and the transgender thought intersect is in the
notion of an inalienable subjective man- or woman-made identity. Take it away,
and their common ground crumbles. The question of “what is a woman?” is
therefore first and foremost a question of human identity before it is one of
sexuality. Before we can answer the question about womanhood, we need to ask
the question about human identity and who gets to define it. Is it determined by
each individual’s authoritative self-perception or by something greater and
outside of the self? C.S. Lewis once said: “The question is not what we
intended ourselves to be, but what He intended us to be when He made us.”
Human Identity
The definition of what it means to be human has fascinated
philosophers and theologians throughout the ages. Where we come from defines
us. This is true not merely culturally and historically, but spiritually as
well. Jonathan Edwards, in his treaty on why God created the world, writes:
“Creation must have resulted from the way God saw the value of expanding
himself: his goodness, truth, beauty, and all the things that are a part of
him”. If we can accept the concept of God as creator, we must admit that God is
expressing something of who he is and his glory is in his creation, most
clearly in the creation of people made in his image. In Genesis 1:27 we read
that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.” This is a summary statement of both God’s creative
intent (Let us make man…) and his success in making man and woman to be images reflecting
his being. At a minimum, it means that humans image certain of God’s
glorious attributes, albeit in a lesser, more limited fashion. Human maleness
and femaleness both originate in God and are included as elements reflecting
something of his being, even though God is neither male nor female. How we act
and live out our maleness and femaleness flows out of who we understand
ourselves to be. There is a movement of men who believe they are dogs. Yes, you
read this right! They dress up as dogs and find a partner that will treat them
as a pet. They climb up on couches, bark and beg to be fed. What they believe
about themselves defines how they act. In a world where self-definition is unimpeachable,
no one can challenge their actions without attacking the core of their perceived
personal (or doggie!) identity. However, when we believe God the Creator has a
perfect plan, our perspective shifts 180 degrees. We understand that his
definition of who we are is ultimate and takes precedence over our own
self-understanding, feelings and orientations. Rosaria Butterfield left a life
of lesbianism behind when she came to terms with this truth. “If God is
the creator of all things, and if the Bible has his seal of truth and power,
then the Bible has the right to interrogate my life and culture, and not the
other way around.”[3]
She became painfully aware that God has a much more glorious plan for her than she had for herself.
Admittedly, it is neither natural nor easy for us to look to the Bible to discern
matters of personal identity, but in the end, we will find great joy and peace
when our hearts and lives are aligned with the will of the One who made us.
Shared Identity
“And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and
multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that
moves on the earth.’" (Genesis 1:28).
Though the mandate given to Adam and Eve overlaps in
part with the reproductive command given to the animals: “Be fruitful and
multiply,” God adds the special shared task of subduing and having dominion
over the earth and the other creatures. This task mirrors God’s own rule over
creation. They are to be responsible, good, innovative vice-regents over God’s world.
Adam and Eve need each other’s help for both the exercise of dominion and
for the reproduction and filling of the earth with image-bearers who will go to
the ends of it doing the same. Adam and Eve share in the
three general aspects of the image of God: functional rule over creation, physical
form, though man and woman are modally different, and ethical jurisdiction.[4] The
image of God is not shared in the sense of splitting a piece of pie between the
two of them, rather, each is fully in God’s image. In Genesis 2, we find a
second creation account. This one is like the zoom lens of a camera, focusing in
on the details of the creation of man and woman as different gendered beings.
The question of why woman was made emerges from a presenting problem addressed
there.
Interdependent Identities
Adam is alone. God calls this state “not good.” (Genesis
2:18) This dissonant statement is an attention-getter. Up until this point in
the account, Moses, the author, has presented realms of creation, each with
their respective rulers and each has been labeled “good.” All the other animals
have their matching counterpart, yet there is no one suitable for Adam. Though the Bible certainly is not
gender-specific when it comes to the way people are saved and their value to
God (Galatians 3:26-28), showing that the human condition is a shared one, it
is descriptive of how the mysterious design of the sexes is integral to both
the identity and task assigned to them. They were never intended to be independent
creatures. They were made to depend on God and each other. Their interdependent
identity and task should not come as a surprise. Why? Adam and Eve are made in
the image of a triune God. God the Father, God the Son as the Word and God the
Spirit are separate, yet willingly interdependent persons of the Godhead, who
work together to create. The Father creates through the Word, in the power of
the Spirit. This perfect unity in diversity is a great mystery. Both their
being and their work are interdependent, even though they also possess unique character
traits and functions. This relational and functional connection makes the
triune God’s being more glorious, not less, and his will more potent, not less.
[5] Man and woman must work together to create new humans. It is also their
privilege and joy. Their separate beings and functions are mutually
interconnected and utilized by God for the sake of the task of creation, reflecting
the Three in One they image.
Distinct Identities
Adam and Eve’s interdependence
doesn’t undermine their unique, separate identities. In fact, it is because they are very distinct persons that they can be
complementary to each other. They are not interchangeable. “Women aren’t just
small men with different plumbing…there are differences in all the
physiological systems of the body” states Sherry Marts, vice president of the
society for Women’s Health Research.[6]
Beyond obvious anatomical differences, God has a creative, purposeful and
all-wise plan for these differences. If we can believe that nothing God does is
haphazard, then we can be sure he is revealing something about who he is
through these very differences. If the interdependence of the sexes speaks of
the unity found between the three persons of the Trinity, their gender distinctions
speak, on a small scale, of the diversity of the Godhead. With this in mind, it
might be more helpful to rephrase the question “what is a woman?” to “What are
the unique characteristics that God has placed in women in order that we might
better understand him and the mystery of his redemptive plan for this world and
his people?” Woman is an expression of the wisdom of God. As such, she tells a
very special story and it is this story that we want to delve into.
To be continued…
[1]
http://www.wbur.org/edify/2017/09/05/ninotska-love-transgender-woman-wellesley
[2] After her eye socket was broken and repaired in seven places and
she was given a concussion by a transgender woman, boxer Tamikka Brents
expressed her frustration: “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the
strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether
it’s because [he] was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor,” she stated.
“I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an
abnormally strong female in my own right.” (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-female-boxer-gives-female-opponent-concussion-breaks-her-eye-so)
[4]
Meredith Kline boils the image down
to three non-negotiable areas: “Under the concept of man as the glory-image of
God, the Bible includes functional (or official), formal (or physical), and
ethical components, corresponding to the composition of the archetypal Glory.
Functional glory-likeness is man’s likeness to God in the possession of
official authority and the exercise of dominion. Ethical glory is a reflection
of the holiness, righteousness, and truth of the divine Judge (...). And
formal-physical glory-likeness is man’s bodily reflection of the theophanic and
incarnate Glory.” Images of the Spirit
[5] The Apostle Paul also notes man
and woman’s dependence on God and their interdependence on each other: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are
from God. “(1 Cor. 11:11-12 ESV)
[6]
Marianne Szededy-Maszak, “A Distinct Science,” Los Angeles Times, 9 May 2005,
special women’s health section.
