Masculinity and Femininity as Forms
Some initial thoughts towards a theology of gender
I’m copying and pasting a paper I wrote a few years ago now as a starting place for my own thinking on a theology of gender. I’ll probably go back to this, but there’s already a difference now as I’m reading it. Instead of masculinity-in-marriage as “initiative love”, I’d want to describe it as a kind of principle of order-unto-flourishing, which will probably—more often than not—initiate. But the more central form in marriage is that of a principle of order. She, in response to him, is a perfective principle; that is, it is not good that he is alone, and her existence brings that not-good state to a state of goodness.
But with those caveats in mind, here are some thoughts:
“In the image of God he created humanity; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) In this opening phrase of the Biblical text, we are told that the mystery of “male and female” are both enfolded within the mystery of the imago dei. Image bearers are sexed image bearers. What does it mean, then, to image God according to our sex? Is that even a meaningful or answerable question?
In this paper, I’ll argue that it is answerable. More specifically, I’ll contend that we can start to fill out gendered categories of “masculinity and femininity” by using the expressions of masculinity-in-marriage and femininity-in-marriage as a hermeneutical key. That is, masculinity and femininity are that which render masculinity-in-marriage and femininity-in-marriage (gender expression in marriage, or GM for short) intelligible and practicable. First, I’ll define the terms “sex”, “gender”, “masculinity-in-marriage”, and “femininity-in-marriage” as they are used in this paper, stating my operative assumptions. Second, I’ll give theological justifications for these assumptions and the methodological prioritization of GM as a hermeneutical key, defining the precise sense in which GM functions as a hermeneutical key for interpreting gender in general. Third, I’ll articulate a methodology for discerning gender from GM. Finally, I’ll articulate areas for further consideration.
1. Definitions and Assumptions
As a wise professor once said, with great power to write papers on gender comes great responsibility to distinguish sex and gender.[1] In light of this, we must start by defining the term “sex.” The “sex” of a person denotes those bodily realities which render one male or female.[2] Sex, then, specifically refers to something true of bodies; a “male” is someone with a particular kind of body, and a “female” is someone with a different kind of body. What characterizes the “male” and “female” kinds? According to most biologists, sociologists, and philosophers, “sex” refers to reproductive potential—that is, a body ordered towards producing sperm from a penis (male) or ovum from a uterus (female).[3] Gender tends to pertain to the social manifestation of sex; gender denotes the “psychological, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female.”[4] Gender is one’s “way of being” a man (masculinity) or “way of being” a woman (femininity) in social space.
Masculinity-in-marriage is a subset within the broader gender expression of “masculinity” or “manhood”, as is femininity-in-marriage to femininity or “womanhood.” They are, in other words, ways of being “masculine or feminine” in the social context of marriage. In this paper, I will define GM (which denotes masculinity-in-marriage and femininity-in-marriage) in normative terms, not descriptive terms. That is, I will specifically define GM in terms of what GM ought to be, not what it often is. Hence, I do not think that there are many particular actions that can provide content to GM. It is not, for example, “masculine-in-marriage” to drink a cold beer after work and “feminine-in-marriage” to provide a husband with said beer (as a matter of fact, my wife likes beer way more than I do!). Rather, normativity with respect to GM is best understood as a pattern of lived action. To understand this claim, consider a virtue like humility. When Jesus washes his disciples’ feet, he is not merely being humble when he ties a towel around his waste or fills a basin with water or physically performs the action. Rather, his humility is an organizing principle coordinating these actions into the pattern or form of “humility.” Similarly, GM can be understood as an organizing principle coordinating the actions of married men and women in particular ways.
These “particular ways”, I believe, are described in Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5:22-33. I will assume that these texts conjointly teach male “headship” in marriage and female “submission” as norms applying to married men and women in every culture. Of course, we need to define exactly what is meant by “headship” and “submission.” I will thus further assume that “headship” is the ordering dynamic of “initiation in self giving love for the flourishing of the other.” That is, headship does not mean that the husband is the boss of his wife or is the absolutist king of his wifely servant. Rather, “headship” seems to be coordinated to the ratio for why a man holds fast to his wife, nourishing and cherishing her. To be a “head”, then, is not to be first in the order of prominence but in the order of self-gift. Masculinity-in-marriage is thus distinctively defined as the dynamic of “initiation in giving oneself for the flourishing of the other.” Femininity-in-marriage is distinctively defined as the dynamic of “responsive-transformative-perfecting for the flourishing of the other.” That is, “submission” denotes that whereby she receives her husband’s initiation in the Lord[5] in order to transform it and bring it to its completion, thereby fulfilling the creation mandate. As organizing dynamics, this does not mean that husbands never respond and transformatively perfect what they receive from their wives, or that wives never initiation in giving themselves for the flourishing of their husbands. Rather, this means that the over-arching normative patterns of their life together, in which all acts of initiation in self gift and responsive-transformative-perfecting take place, ought to be distinctively appropriated to the husband and wife according to GM. While a full-blooded defense of this view is beyond the scope of this paper, nevertheless these definitions of GM require some theological justification.
2. Theological Justifications for GM’s Content and Hermeneutical Priority
Why define masculinity-in-marriage in terms of “headship” or “initiation in self gift for the flourishing of the other? In Ephesians 5:31-32, Paul links the ratio or basis for “headship and submission” God’s Christological purposes for marriage in general. That is, since Christ nourishes and cherishes the church as his own body, “therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one.” Thus, the fact of a man’s holding fast to his wife in love is designed to be reflective of Christ’s own loving cleaving to his own Bride, the church; and Christ’s loving nourishing and cleaving to his bride is definitional of what it means for him to be a head (Col. 3:19). It follows that Christ’s headship to the church is the ratio for what the man is and does in marriage. Masculinity-in-marriage, then, is suitably bound up with headship. Furthermore, “headship” is suitably defined as “initiation in self gift for the flourishing of the other” in light of Ephesians 5:25-28: husbands are to love their wives as “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
Of course, many writers disagree that “headship” denotes “initiation” of any kind, and instead insist that it means “source of life” in the context of mutual submission.[6] Westfall takes “headship” as contextualized to the patron-client relationship. For Westfall, the husband in this system functions as a “patron” who supplies life for his wife and in return she responds with gracious submission; yet this patron-client is a contextual manifestation of mutual submission, with the latter being the underlying principle that manifests culturally in the terms of the former.[7] Once again, I cannot even begin to adequately settle these exegetical points in this paper. However, I will offer a few theological judgments which weigh in favor of the position that marriage at creation is intended to reflect Christ’s loving headship to the church, and the church’s loving responsive submission to Christ as her Head and bridegroom.
First, I do not think that the word κεφαλη in Ephesians 5 can be reduced to either “authority” or “source.” But it is also too simplistic to say that κεφαλη simply means both in this context, since that risks committing the illegitimate totality transference fallacy.[8] Rather, I think it’s better to view κεφαλη in Ephesians 5 as denoting the initiating principle of order within a given domain. There are two considerations that lend weight to this judgment. On the one hand, κεφαλη occurs in contexts that frequently link source-hood imagery with connotations of authority. As Westfall observes, tribal “heads” are accorded a kind of authority due to their being the source of life and chief representative (source of social presence, we might say) in the community.[9] The use of the word κεφαλη provided a fitting bodily metaphor, given that the “head” of a body was considered both the cause of bodily life; the “progenitor” of a family was considered the “head”, insofar as a line of descendancy was considered “downstream”, as it were, of the head.[10] But as Westfall herself notes, this vision of “headship” could include concepts of authority, as the tribal head was both the source of a tribe’s social presence and had consequent authority. I think it’s best to unite these two meanings under the semantic domain of “initiating principle of order within a given domain.” In this sense, a progenitor is a “head” of a family by being the initiating principle of social order. The head of a river provides a kind of initiating directional order to it. Similarly, the head of a household provides an initiating principle of order which reverberates throughout the household.[11]
On the other hand, there are immediate exegetical considerations within Ephesians and Colossians that weigh in favor of construing “headship” as an initiating principle of order. In Ephesians and Colossians, Paul uses κεφαλη in ways that require readers to infer both authoritative and source-based aspects. In Ephesians 1:22, Paul connects God’s act of putting all things under “the feet of Jesus” (πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ) to Jesus’ headship over all which respects the church (αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ). The connotation of either authority or, at minimum, “firstness” cannot be missed here. And yet, in Ephesians 4:15-16, Jesus as head is the one from whom growth and coherence comes to those who are in Christ; they are ordered towards each other’s edification from their growth and nourishment in Christ. This seeming duality is reflected in Colossians 2:10 and Colossians 3:19. In Colossians 2:10, Paul portrays Jesus as the “head of all rule and authority” in the context of persuading his readers to listen to the distinctive wisdom that comes from Christ. The notion of “firstness” fits the argument that Christ should be prioritized above all other authorities as the first in authority. But on the other hand, Colossians 3:19 presents Christ’s headship in terms of Christ being the source of the growth and coherence of the church. Provisionally, then, I think the idea of “an initiating principle of order in a given domain” best captures these two senses in which κεφαλη can be employed. With respect to all “rulers and authorities”, Christ is the initiating principle of the order of action that constitutes “rulership and authority” as well as the organizing telos to which all authority is aimed. He is also the initiating principle of order in his body as the One from whom coherence, unity, and order arise in the church. In the case of a husband’s headship over his wife, then, I propose that the sense in which the husband is the “initiating principle of order in the domain of marriage” is in terms of “initiation of ordering life towards the flourishing of the other.”
But what justification is there for defining femininity-in-marriage in terms of a “responsive-transformative-perfective” dynamic? Since Scripture correlates wives to the Bride of Christ, it seems best to take our cues from this correlation while also attending to the disanalogies arising from the church’s relationship to Christ as her sovereign Lord and sole object of worship. In Genesis 2, the woman seems to be created as a “helper fit for him.” There are two points embedded in the Genesis narrative relevant to the argument here. First, the man is made in a state of incompleteness in his solitude, for it is “not good” for the man to be alone. He is fully who he is intended to be (“good”) only with the woman. Second, she is made as a fit for him; that is, she is made from his rib and correlated to him to make a one-flesh unity. He needs her, and she needs him, to fulfill the creation mandate of fruitfulness and dominion. Thus, she is made responsively to Adam’s incompleteness, perfects him in translating his existence from a state of “not good” to “good”, and transforms that which she receives from him into new life—for she is the “mother of all the living.” This seems to map onto the church’s relationship to Christ in several key ways. The church forms a one-flesh spiritual unity with Christ, brings Christ’s work to completion in her own existence, and takes the life she receives from her Head to transform it into forms of exercising dominion over the earth. These points of “fit”, as well as the explicit connection between the church as the Bride and the woman of Genesis 2, suggest that femininity-in-marriage orders married life within the dynamic of responsive-perfective-transformation.
Of course, it is important to note the points of discontinuity to prevent potential abuses. First, Christ is the absolute Lord of the church, to whom she owes her absolute and unqualified allegiance. The man, on the other hand, is not the Lord of his wife; she is to be primarily and ultimately ordered towards the Lord her God, not her husband. That contextualizes the dynamic underneath the order of manifesting the glory of God, which is her ultimate aim in marriage. Second, Christ has pre-eminence over the church as the One who is ontologically superior to it. The man, on the other hand, does not have pre-eminence over his wife since he is ontologically equal to his wife. “Headship”, when translated into the relationship between husband and wife, cannot therefore entail any sort of subordination of the wife to her husband. She is not ordered “below” him, but receives, transforms, and perfects that which is received from his initiation. Third, the man is deficient without his wife; he finds the meaning of his goodness given her arrival in creation. Christ, on the other hand, is utterly sufficient without us. While his work is completed in the church, his person is sufficient of himself. The man, on the other hand, finds the very goodness of his existence together with the woman. There is thus an equality between a husband and wife that doesn’t exist between Christ and the church.
Given these qualifications, we may rightly ask: why prioritize GM as a hermeneutic for gendered claims? It seems to me that the story of marriage is central to the narrative arc of the Bible. We are told in Ephesians 5 that the one-flesh unity of man and woman in Genesis 2 exists because of Christ’s own nourishing and self-giving love for the church. Furthermore, the covenant between God and his people seems central to the structure of the Bible’s story from Genesis 12 onward; interestingly, a central metaphor for this relationship is the metaphor of marriage. (Is. 62:5) The teleological thrust of the Scriptural story is also aimed at a marriage: the marriage of heaven and earth, and of the Lamb and his Bride. Jesus portrays the eschatological “feast” in terms of a marriage feast; that image fits the portrayal of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21, which is the “Bride” of the Lamb and symbolizes the domain of God’s people in Christ ruling the new creation.[12] Matthew Levering rightly argues that “marriage” is a motif that summarizes God’s very purposes for all of creation.[13] Thus, there is an ordered-ness in the structures of creation towards the marriage of God and creation in the Lamb and the Bride. As Jonathan Edwards argues, the creation is ordered to the “moral world” as the telos of creation, and the purpose of the moral world is the procurement of a Bride for the Son.[14] It will follow that masculinity and femininity, as gendered norms emerging[15] from maleness and femaleness, have a structure fit for the overarching purpose of creation: the display of God’s glory in the Son’s marriage to a covenant people.
3. The Constructive Task: GM and Gender
How do we move from claims about GM to claims about gender in general? In my judgment, it is best to construe this relationship along lines of “fit” and “intelligibility condition.” That is, whatever we claim about masculinity and femininity in general, it should fit with GM by rending it intelligible why GM carries the content it does. That is, masculinity and femininity in general should situate GM in such a way that explains why masculinity-in-marriage and femininity-in-marriage have the dynamics they do in marriage.
There are several ways in which a broader context might render a more specific frame intelligible. Alasdair MacIntyre illustrates this in After Virtue, arguing that certain contexts can render specific speech-acts intelligible.[16] For example, the warning “train!” doesn’t really make sense apart from some sort if situated context in which a train is approaching. A closer analogy for our purposes might be the analogy of figuring out what makes a particular pastor a good pastor. This pastor might be a good listener to his people, humble, driven by conviction, etcetera. If we were to look at this person’s life, we might find that s/he practices discipline, maintains a fruitful and personal prayer life, and reads spiritually edifying material. That wider context of this pastor’s life would render intelligible why, in the specific context of being a pastor, this person manifests the dispositions s/he does.
We might also think of this kind of relationship through the analogue of virtue. In his book After You Believe, N.T. Wright retells the story of the pilot who daringly and safely landed a crashing plane on the Hudson River. Wright points out that the kinds of habits and practices the pilot put into play before that moment intuitively expressed themselves in the context of crisis.[17] The pilot’s actions on the Hudson were rendered intelligible in light of the practices and dispositions cultivated in general. Similarly, then, we might say that masculinity and femininity in general (as norms) involve the kinds of dispositions and habits which, if situated in the context of marriage, would express themselves as GM. To say, then, that GM is a hermeneutical lens, is to say that GM is a significant puzzle piece of the broader question of gender to which we might fit other puzzle pieces. It is not to say that GM ought to be taken on in our broader gendered existence outside the context of marriage, but rather that our gendered existences should situate and explain why GM manifests as it does.
Charlotte Witt’s account of gender is useful here to explicate this account further. For Witt, gender is fundamentally a “uniessence”—that is, a unitive organization of various social roles into a form. She uses the analogy of the parts of a “house” to illustrate this; just as the various parts of a house find expression as a house in their organization towards realizing a certain function, so gender organizes various social roles towards a gendered function. Gender is a “mega social role” which organizes other social roles towards realizing a particular gender.[18] Felipe do Vale appropriates this to frame “gender as love”, arguing that gender is the appropriation of social goods to the sexed body by means of what one loves.[19] For do Vale, gender expresses a mode of love manifest in picking out social goods pertaining to sexed bodies; this organizes social goods (including social roles) in accord with a unity of loves—that unity being gender.
Building on Witt and do Vale’s accounts, then, we can frame “gender in general” as a house of loves. This house is organized in particular ways towards realizing the function of “gender.” Even though certain parts of this house might change without at all compromising the total function towards which the house is ordered, this house must still be consistent with realizing GM should it need to. That is, the structure of the house in general should fit with realizing GM should the proper context of marriage arise. GM can be depicted as a particular love within this house of loves ordered towards manifesting the glory of God by reflecting the dynamics of Christ and the church. Gender in general, on the other hand, is a love for God above all through exercises of dominion, or reflections of God’s wise and loving rule, which pertains to sexed bodies. GM is thus situated within the wider love for God in exercising dominion as his royal representatives.
In order to render this account practicable, we need to flesh out the kinds of things we might say about gender in general in light of GM. My suggestions here, however, are purely provisional and intended as stimuli for further conversation. When we consider masculinity-in-marriage and femininity-in-marriage as the modes of “initiation in self gift for the flourishing of the other” and “responsive-perfective-transformation”, we must situate this within a wider context of “what it means to be masculine and feminine.” First, GM is the implied norms flowing from maleness and femaleness per Ephesians 5:22-33. Given that GM must be enabled by masculinity and femininity in general, it follows that gender in general cannot contravene nor obfuscate the normative dynamics of “initiation in self gift for the flourishing of the other” or “responsive-perfective-transformation.” That rules out, then, the possibility of gender-identity being more fundamental than one’s sex at birth; for one’s sex at birth carries with it a normative ideal which, in marriage, a sexed body ought to appropriate. The appropriation of a gender opposite to the gender normally tied to one’s sex at birth is the appropriation of a gender unfitted for GM.[20]
In order to see this relation in practice, let’s examine the relationship between GM and gender in general in application to both a specific question and to daily living. First, consider the question of combat roles involving the highest levels of risk in the military.[21] If masculinity-in-marriage expresses itself as first in the order of self-gift, then it seems to me that men should be first to give themselves on the field of combat. This doesn’t necessarily mean that women should be excluded from high-risk combat roles, but rather than the military’s structures should encourage men to give themselves first.[22] Second, in relation to the broader question of daily living, consider modes of thinking. My wife Sophia suggests that in general, more distinctively feminine modes of thinking seem to be more bottom-up, whereas more distinctively masculine modes of thinking seem to be top-down. This isn’t to say that women only think practically and men only think abstractly, or even that women and men are either more practical or abstract in their thinking than each other. Rather, it’s to say that men (in general) tend to start with abstract first principles and work to practical, embodied implications, whereas women (in general) tend to start with embodied practical life and work up to abstractions. There seems even to be some research probative of this suggestion in communicative styles.[23] This general pattern seems to help render GM intelligible. A woman in marriage, for instance, seems to need to attend to bodily aspects of her existence for more than a husband does. She carries a baby in pregnancy, experiences regulations of her menstrual cycle, etcetera. If femininity tends towards more embodied ways of thinking (i.e. how does this impact my life?), then this provides a fit with GM.
Of course, the normative implications of this are difficult to spell out. Should women seek to think in more “bottom-up” ways than men? I’m not sure. In any case, it’s not clear to me that the model suggested here entails that kind of normative content. However, there may be other dispositions for men and women to cultivate that are useful in ordering their gendered existence towards being suitable for GM. For example, while the virtue of “humility” is simply a virtue required of any Christian, male or female, there may be certain practices of humility which are more characteristically “masculine” or “feminine.” Given that a good husband initiates for the sake of the flourishing of his wife, he must be the kind of man that is eager to listen and learn the needs of his wife. He must always be willing to change the destination towards which he initiates so that his wife flourishes. To be this kind of man, however, he must cultivate a kind of humility expressed in an eagerness to listen first and seek to learn the needs of those around him. Humility in her might be predominantly expressed in an eagerness to encourage and exhort[24] others towards realizing their potential. Again, this isn’t to say that men never encourage and exhort others towards realizing their potential or that women never cultivate an eagerness to listen to and learn the needs of others. Rather, it is to say that a certain virtue might be inflected in more characteristically “masculine and feminine” ways, and as such that it might be prudent to cultivate those inflections.
These particular examples are intended to be illustrative of the way GM might elucidate gender in general. However, I may be incorrect about the particular application of this relationship (this is tricky stuff!). Most importantly, GM is a central puzzle piece to which other pieces might fit. It provides a kind of litmus test for whether we are on the right track about gender in general, insofar as the gendered organization of the “house of loves” constituting gender can realize GM.
4. Areas for Further Research
There are several significant objections and areas for future consideration I want to highlight. First, I am assuming that the general complementarian exegesis (albeit with modification) of Ephesians 5:22-33, insofar as the exegesis places Paul’s norms within God’s intent for creation in general, is correct. That is by no means a given, however. Although I do not find egalitarian interpretations of Ephesians 5 ultimately persuasive, there is much, much more to say by way of exegetical observations than can be said here. I hope to offer these observations about the word κεφαλη as a distinctively theological step forward—even if it is not a decisive step forward. Second, as stated above, I am by no means committed at this point to the particular applications of relating GM to gender in general sketched out above. I offer those applications as a way of showing this relationship in practice. My primary task in this paper was to show that masculinity-in-marriage and femininity-in-marriage can be a hermeneutical key providing insight into masculinity and femininity in general. Granting my first assumption of a broadly complementarian exegesis of the text, I think I’ve shown that this can in fact be done. Obviously, however, there is so much more that can and should be said about this topic for the glory of God and the edification of Christ’s Bride.
Alasdair MacIntyre. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Third. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
BAUMERT, LISA. “Biblical Interpretation and the Epistle to the Ephesians.” Priscilla Papers 25.2 (2011): 22–25.
Beck, James R. “Is There a Head of the House in the Home?: Reflections on Ephesians 5.” Priscilla Papers 2.4 (1988): 1–4.
Charlotte Witt. The Metaphysics of Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Cook, Christopher C H. “Sex, Gender and Human Identity: Science and Theology.” Modern Believing 62.1 (2021): 24–36. https://doi.org/10.3828/mb.2021.3.
Cynthia Westfall. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.
D.A. Carson. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996.
David A. de Silva. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlcoking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Edwards, Jonathan. A Treatise Concerning The End for Which God Created the World. Vol. God’s Passion for His Glory. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
Felipe do Vale. “Gender as Love: A Theological Account.” Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Methodist University, 2021.
G. K. Beale and David Campbell. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015.
Joel Daphna. “Captured in Terminology: Sex, Sex Categories, and Sex Differences.” Feminism and Psychology 26.3 (2016): 335–45.
Joshi, Priyanka D., Cheryl J. Wakslak, Gil Appel, and Laura Huang. “Gender Differences in Communicative Abstraction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118.3 (2020): 417–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000177.
Mark Yarhouse. Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015.
Matthew Levering. Engaging the Doctrine of Marriage: Human Marriage as the Image and Sacrament of the Marriage of God and Creation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020.
N.T. Wright. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishing, 2010.
Philip Payne. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
[1] Felipe do Vale if he were imitating Uncle Ben from Spider-Man.
[2] Christopher C H Cook, “Sex, Gender and Human Identity: Science and Theology,” Modern Believing 62.1 (2021): 24–36, https://doi.org/10.3828/mb.2021.3. I leave the question of how to classify “intersex” people with respect to sex in order to narrow down the topic of this paper.
[3] Joel Daphna, “Captured in Terminology: Sex, Sex Categories, and Sex Differences,” Feminism and Psychology 26.3 (2016): 335–45.
[4] Mark Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015) 16-17.
[5] I.e. only insofar as it does not contradict the Lord’s will for both her holiness and flourishing
[6] See Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009); James R Beck, “Is There a Head of the House in the Home?: Reflections on Ephesians 5,” Priscilla Papers 2.4 (1988): 1–4; LISA BAUMERT, “Biblical Interpretation and the Epistle to the Ephesians.,” Priscilla Papers 25.2 (2011): 22–25.
[7] Cynthia Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016).
[8] D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996).
[9] Westfall 82-83
[10] Westfall 83-85
[11] The word “initiation” is used to capture the sense of “firstness” that seems to be prominent throughout the various meanings and uses of the word κεφαλη. As David DeSilva argues, the connotation of some kind of firstness” seems difficult to avoid. David A. de Silva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlcoking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 231.
[12] See G. K. Beale and David Campbell, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015).
[13] Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of Marriage: Human Marriage as the Image and Sacrament of the Marriage of God and Creation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020) 20-79.
[14] Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise Concerning The End for Which God Created the World, vol. God’s Passion for His Glory (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012) 186-187.
[15] I will clarify this connection below, but suffice it to say that I don’t equate the words “emerging” and “determined by.” Emergence allows for a great deal of social flexibility in masculinity and femininity, as well be articulated.
[16] Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Third. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007) 204-225.
[17] N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishing, 2010) 35-38.
[18] Charlotte Witt, The Metaphysics of Gender (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011) 87-97.
[19] Felipe do Vale, “Gender as Love: A Theological Account” (Southern Methodist University, Doctoral Dissertation, 2021) 310-311.
[20] This is not to deny the painful reality of gender dysphoria. This section should not be understood as containing any suggestions for pastoral care; rather, I am only using this paradigm to illustrate how we might understand a mismatch between one’s gender identity and body—particularly, whether one should seek to appropriate the gendered norms implied by their identity or their body.
[21] This is not the question of whether women can be in the military at all; rather, I am addressing whether combat roles involving the highest levels of risk in particular are fittingly a masculine or feminine role. The combat roles I have in mind are those of foot soldiers, or those in trenches, etcetera—namely, those exposed to the most danger.
[22] This account allows for female generals or strategists, since the context doesn’t seem to require male authority.
[23] Priyanka D. Joshi et al., “Gender Differences in Communicative Abstraction.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118.3 (2020): 417–35, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000177.
[24] Which includes prophetically calling people out, like Deborah!