Perhaps I may begin by noting that, for the sake of this forum, I am taking for granted that there are natures or essences which are instantiated in individuals, and when I refer to something which is “natural” or “by nature,” I am referring to that which, all things being equal, is found in every individual of a species, because of their “nature” or “essence” (i.e., human, feline, canine), regardless of environmental factors. “Environmental factors” may be taken to refer to anything which influences the individual in question, ranging from the geographical and meteorological elements of some physical location (compare the way humans who live in Canada do things differently from those who live in Arizona), to the socio-cultural, historical, political, and religious influences on an individual, their actions, desires, and so on. These terms have sometimes been referred to as “nature” and “nurture.” The former (“that which is by nature”) is often taken to be referring, in general, to the “sex” of the individual, which is determined by the genotypical and phenotypical characteristics of the whole individual human being. The latter, (“environmental factors”) are usually what is signified by the terms “gender,” “masculine,” “feminine,” and so on. Discussions on these subjects are often muddied when we point to socio-culturally bound signifiers of “masculinity” or “femininity” as if they were “natural differences.”
Q. What is Scripture’s basic teaching on the natural differences between men and women?
A: There are a variety of opinions on what the Scriptures teach concerning the natural differences between men and women. In my humble opinion, the Scriptures (Gen 1–2; Matt 19) teach that the primary, perhaps the only, natural differences between men and women are related to the role they play in human reproductive activities. The woman and the man, equally made in the image of God, are together ordained to govern creation and to reproduce (Gen 1:26–28). Human reproductive activities include not only sexual intercourse, but also the nourishing, protecting, and raising of the children from infancy to maturity. Though the Bible does not go into great detail about the manner in which reproduction is to take place, it is very clear that God created humans, with genotypical, neurological, and phenotypical characteristics, such that the male and female of the species are both necessary for these activities.
Q. What is the relation between the natural law and the natural differences of men and women?
A: There are different approaches to Natural Law Theory, some of which may be amenable to versions of Nominalism. However, traditional Natural Law Theory, as it is found in the writings of Medieval and Reformation era Christian theologians, begins with the recognition that all created things are instances of some nature or essence. That essence is typically said to be the divine idea of the thing in question. So, if we are talking about humans, we first recognize that the creation of humankind began with the divine idea of humanity. All humans are particular instances of that idea, much like the pieces of a handmade chess set all began as ideas in the mind of the artisan, who then crafted them each individually. All of the pawns are recognizable as pawns because they conform to the idea in the mind of the artisan. In the same way, humans are recognizable as individual instances of human nature because they correspond to the divine idea of humanity. If this is the case, then (1) Natural Law is simply the divine idea of humankind in the mind of God — it is the divine idea or standard of what humans are supposed to be, and (2) this entails that the natural differences between men and women are included in the divine idea — humans are, by divine design, either male or female. It is worth noting that this goes beyond simple recognition of individual phenotypical, neurological, and genotypical differences to, as Nicancor Austriaco points out, the end-directedness of the entire system of the human body — that is, the interaction of genotypical characteristics towards the development of neurological and phenotypical characteristics which are directed towards the specific ends of human males and females.[1]
One major Natural Law tradition within Christianity argues that there are natures or essences which determine what we are; that the natural differences between men and women are grounded, not in the soul, but in the body — they might be referred to as essential accidents or properties of the bodies of living beings; that the person is a composite of body and soul (not one or the other, but united together), such that the human person is male or female because of their body, and not due to their personal character traits, desires, or actions; and that though it is true that psychological states, and socio-cultural norms, do influence our self-perception, actions, and desires, among other things, it is false to say that there are no natural sexual differences, or, that these natural sexual differences do not determine whether we are male or female.
Q. How should natural differences between men and women inform their roles in the home, church, and society?
A: This question is more complicated than many assume, and many responses to this type of question conceal socio-cultural signifiers of masculinity and femininity masquerading as natural differences. The question itself seems to assume that there is a straight line between the natural differences and the socio-cultural roles of men and women. There very rarely is. If, however, the natural differences between men and women are primarily related to their role in the reproductive activities of the human species (as defined above), then we may begin by suggesting that their roles in the home, church, and society may differ based upon (1) their natural engagement in these reproductive activities, and (2) the changing needs of their children and growing family. For example, all things being equal, the woman’s role is to provide safety and nourishment for the infant from its conception until weaned from its mother’s milk. The man’s role, at this early stage of the child’s life, may be to provide for the needs of the mother, as human mothers and their infants tend to be more vulnerable at this stage of life. As the infant grows into adulthood, the roles of both the man and the woman may shift as they both should be involved in raising and educating the children. As the parents age, their roles may change such that either one may become nurturer or provider of the other, and ultimately the children may become caregivers for their parents. In sum, all things being equal, the mother typically has the role of nurturer, and the father of provider. Both would play the role of protector, educator, model, and so on, though at different times and for different reasons. If space permitted, it might be possible to follow this line of thinking further for each of these areas of social life.
Q. Where is the Christian teaching of male-female natural differences most at odds with the prevailing narrative regarding men and women in the Western world?
A: Recent developments in Western philosophical, psychological, and scientific studies have contributed to helping us better understand human beings and human sexuality, though they have also caused a great deal of confusion. Three areas of serious disagreement concerning male-female natural differences, between Christian teaching and some major strains of contemporary thought in the Western world, can be found, first, (1) in the rejection of ontological realism — that there are natures or essences which determine what something is. The rejection of ontological realism appears to lead directly to the claim that we ourselves determine what we are (this can be seen in the writings of major twentieth-century philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and others), or that our socio-cultural, political, and historical contexts, as well as societal and historical power structures, determine what we are (Michel Foucault seems to lean in this direction). Secondly, flowing from the first major difference, (2) is the current agnosticism about, or rejection of, the biological differences between human males and females — as seen in the writings of influential psychologists, anthropologists, and gender theorists. Twentieth-century feminists such as Gayle Rubin and Monique Wittig have directly connected the first point with the second, sometimes noting that since there are no natures, it follows that everything is socio-cultural convention. A third difference, flowing from the first and the second, (3) is the tendency (found in Freudian & Lacanian psychoanalysis) to prioritize the psycho-analytical approaches to masculinity and femininity over biological approaches (which has contributed to the notion that one may be a biological male, but truly — psychologically — a woman, or vice versa), and the conclusion that psychological states (not to mention socio-cultural structures) influence and even determine biological states. If there are no natures, or natural differences, then everything is determined in some other way: by socio-cultural, political, religious, or psychological structures and forces.
Q. What do you see is the greatest temptation or strongest challenge to Christian faithfulness with regard to male-female natural differences?
A: Some of the most influential scholars of the twentieth and twenty first centuries, such as Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beavoir, Luce Irigaray, Gayle Rubin, Jacqueline Rose, Judith Butler, and many others, present well-articulated and rigorous arguments which (1) assume that realism or essentialism has been refuted (often pointing towards arguments made by Nietzsche and others), and (2) call upon readily observable phenomena, such as hair length, musculature, clothing choices, leadership styles, certain aspects of character or personality, and so on, which are given socio-cultural meaning as signifiers of sexual difference, and then use these observed differences to motivate us to discard all notions of natural sexual difference. Failing (1) to defend ontological realism and arguing that there are natures which determine natural sexual differences, and failing (2) to adequately distinguish between natural sexual differences and socio-cultural signifiers of masculinity and femininity, puts us in danger of easily and readily falling prey to the arguments brought by these scholars. This will be the greatest challenge to Christian faithfulness on these points. If Christian scholars elevate or overemphasize socio-cultural signifiers and fail to defend natural law and the importance of natural sexual difference, Christians will fall away from the traditional Christian understanding of the natural differences between men and women. It is worth noting that Christians are not the only ones arguing for natural sexual differences. We are joined by contemporary feminist Aristotelians such as Charlotte Witt and Martha Nussbaum, who, though they may disagree with some Christians on the socio-cultural signifiers, appear to agree with some aspects of traditional Christian teaching concerning the natural sexual differences between men and women — as well as how these natural sexual differences influence the roles of men and women in the family and society.
Q. How can Christians employ the Christian view of men and women as a witness in the midst of cultural opposition?
A: We need to be careful to not allow the argument to be situated around the socio-cultural signifiers, but, rather, must continually bring the argument back to the question of human nature, and the natural differences of male and female humans. We must recognize that to conform to “human nature” is not to impose our own views of what it means to be human upon ourselves and others, but, rather, it is to accept the natural limitations and proper ends of our species — as it was designed and created by God. Ultimately, to live according to nature (not against nature — Rom 1:26–28) is to submit to God’s plan for humanity. We may point to the very sad results of trying to rebel against that nature. We may do our best to model, simply and quietly, what it means to be human men and women in a variety of relations. We should confront and seek to abolish the socio-cultural signifiers of masculinity and femininity which have either caused people to reject the Christian view of men and women, or contributed to the breakdown of healthy relationships between men and women in society and in our churches.
[1] Cf. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, “The Specification of Sex/Gender in the human species,” New Blackfriars, 94.1054 (2013): 701-15.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Share This Article
-
Introducing Eikon 6.2 (Fall 2024)
By Michael Carlino
-
Book Review: “Embracing Complementarianism: Turning Biblical Convictions into Positive Church Culture”
By Josh Hayward
-
Book Review: Terran Williams “How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy”
By Tom Sculthorpe