Book Excerpt: God's Image Seen In Gender

For a while now I've been working on writing a book for young men. I feel that this is a subject that has not been given nearly enough attention and I felt led to do my part to make up for the deficit. Basically, I want to write the book that I wish had existed when I was fourteen. I've (finally) finished the first draft and have begun the editing process.

This is an excerpt from my chapter on Imago Dei. Specifically, I want to explore how our being the Image of God provides us with the basis for sexual identity. I would love to get your feedback on this pivotal section.

---

Right from the get-go, being created in the Image of God was tied to the genders. “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27) The only thing called “not good” in God’s creation was the fact that Adam was alone. Without a mate he was lacking something. So God created Woman from Man.

One can hardly have a discussion about gender role without going to the starting point. Genesis 2 is the ground zero of this whole debate. It is this passage that both Jesus and Paul would go to in order to defend their positions on marriage and the roles of men and women (Matthew 19:4-5, I Timothy 2:12-14). And this idea of distinct genders makes perfect sense, seeing that God was making a creature in His own Image.

For what does the Image of God look like? Well, it looks like its Maker – One God eternally existent in Three Persons. The Triune God exists as both singular and plural. And within the Trinity there is structure and unity, submission and love, authority and equality. Therefore, the Image of God is also singular and plural, structured and unified, submissive and loving, authoritative and equal.

This is important because it seems that human being naturally use their view of God as blueprint for their interaction between the genders. For example, the Islamic conception of God is distant and authoritarian and thus many Muslim husbands tend to be distant and authoritarian toward their wives. Modalist denominations teach both that the Father, Son and Spirit are interchangeable and also that the roles of men and women are interchangeable. Likewise, I think it’s no coincidence that the fathers of Mormonism, a henotheist/polytheist religion, practiced patriarchal polygamy. I could give examples all day. Our theology proper directly effects our view of the marriage and the sexes. Christianity is the only faith that provides a balance of equality and authority, form and freedom, unity and diversity.

Just as God exists as one being in multiple persons, so do two human persons become a single organism (“one flesh”). In the Trinity 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and in marriage 1 + 1 = 1. This is mysterious math of relationships modeled after the Relationship. And just as the divine persons came together to create a creature in Their image, so do man and woman come together to procreate a creature in their image. The other Trinitarian reflections appear in how God designed the genders to relate to one another. Within the Triune Jehovah there is order and others-centeredness but we see the idea of submission within the Godhead very clearly throughout the Scriptures.

God the Son readily confesses His submission to the Father in John 5:19: “Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.’” In fact, Christ submitted to the point of death, crying, “Not My will but Thine.” (Luke 22:42 KJV)

Likewise, the Spirit obeyed of both Father and Son. Jesus said, "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever.” (John 14:16). Of the Spirit, Christ says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak.” (John 16:13 ESV) On the flipside, Jesus was led by the Spirit while he was on earth (Luke 4:1).

But, we mustn’t get the idea that the Trinity is some dictatorial regime where the Father beats the Son and Spirit into submission and forces them to do His bidding. The Trinity doesn’t contain bullies that push around the other members. To the contrary, the persons of the thrice-holy God relentlessly seek to exalt one another. Look at how the Father treats the submissive Son: “God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name.” (Philippians 2:9) He exalted His name above every single name. It goes on to say that every living thing will bow the knee and confess Jesus as Lord. This is how the Holy Trinity works: some members lead, others submit, all exalt one another.

Likewise, the Trinity is the Trinity in Unity. The fundamental Old Testament confession is, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) The individual persons of the Triune God are not independent beings with their own autonomy and agenda. Rather, they are singular in essence and will. There is One God eternally existent in Three Persons.

This is a very basic summary of how our beautiful God functions as triune, but I hope that it gives you a picture of why gender is such a big part of being created in God’s Image . Just like God, some members in creation lead, others submit but we all exalt one another. At creation, God determined that man would lead and woman would submit, as a reflection of His divine nature. But the headship of the man wasn’t about ruling with an iron fist. It was about loving and honoring and exalting the woman. And within that structured marital relationship, the man and woman are be one flesh (Ephesians 5:28-30), just as the divine persons are One God.

Some people seem to have the idea that God created men and women then arbitrarily assigned roles to them. In actuality, the roles came first, springing out of the divine nature, and then God created two distinct genders to embody those roles. Masculinity existed before male-ness and Femininity proceeded female-ness. What an awesome thing that we can reflect the breathtaking beauty of the Triune Jehovah!

That’s why I find it so disheartening when I see so many men and women attempt to downplay their sexual identity in the name of “personhood” and “equality”. It’s almost as if people are ashamed of their masculinity or femininity. Nowadays, men and women act the same, dress the same, behave the same and can even marry the same person if they wanted to. Gender has become a trivial technicality that is (at best) minimized and (at worst) obliterated. What a slap in the face to a God who made two distinct and magnificent genders for His glory!

John Piper hit the nail on the head in saying, “Confusion over the meaning of sexual personhood is epidemic. The consequence of this confusion is not a happy and free harmony among gender-free persons relating on the basis of abstract competencies. The consequence rather is more divorce, more homosexuality, more sexual abuse, more promiscuity, more social awkwardness, and more emotional distress and suicide that come with the loss of God-given identity.”[1]

A God-given identity obtained by gazing at God Himself.

----

[1] John Piper, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity: Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible,” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, (Wheaton, IL; Crossway Books, 1992), p. 33

C.S. Lewis On Queen Elizabeth II

On June 2nd, 1953, an Englishman sat watching the coronation of his queen. Due to his dislike for crowds, he had decided to take advantage of the accesability first fully televised coronation. This Englishman was C.S. Lewis and a month later he expressed his thoughts on the event in a letter to a friend (Letters, 3:343):

"You know, over here people did not get that fairy-tale feeling about the coronation. What impressed most who saw it was the fact that the Queen herself appeared to be quite overwhelmed by the sacramental side of it. Hence, in the spectators, a feeling of (one hardly knows how to describe it) — awe — pity — pathos — mystery.

The pressing of that huge, heavy crown on that small, young head becomes a sort of symbol of the situation of humanity itself: humanity called by God to be His vice-regent and high priest on earth, yet feeling so inadequate. As if He said, ‘In my inexorable love I shall lay upon the dust that you are glories and dangers and responsibilities beyond your understanding.’

Do you see what I mean? One has missed the whole point unless one feels that we have all been crowned and that coronation is somehow, if splendid, a tragic splendor."

Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?

During the recent TeenPact Iowa event, someone posed a question to me that I haven't been able to get out of my mind. It's continually come up in conversation and has taken on new relevancy with the recent death of painter Thomas Kinkade. The question is this: is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Another way of asking it is this: is art and beauty objective or subjective. In a previous post ("Butterflies and Growingdown") I talked about the artistry of God. God is the great Artist who painted the cosmos and the grasshoppers and you with His voice. But He's more than that. He's the Source of all other art. The only reason you are artistic is because you're created in the Image of an artistic God.

All artists make things based on their personality. Likewise, God made things springing from His own divine character. Is that character beautiful or ugly? Naturally, He's beautiful. Everything about Him is objectively beautiful. More than that He is the Standard and the Sourse of beauty. The Beauty that is God can't be in the eye of the beholder for if that were the case He could not be soveriegn. Were that Divine Beauty subjective than God would be the mercy of His creature's personal tastes.

Thankfully, such is not the case. God is Beautiful. The Trinity is Beautiful. The Father is Beautiful. The Son is Beautiful. The Spirit is Beautiful. Likewise, all His attributes are objectively Beautiful. Love, mercy, justice, grace, compassion, holiness, righteousness are all objectively Beautiful because they spring from Beauty Himself. Even if every creature on the planet called those things ugly they would still be beautiful.

Furthermore, everything that reflects God and His attributes are also beautiful. Thus, everything that reflect God and His attributes are objectively beautiful. Just like love and justice, if everything single person in existence came together and decided sunsets were ugly it wouldn't matter. They'd still be beautiful. Thus, beauty is not the eye of a beholder but in the eye of the Beholder, the Lord. Everything He declares to be beautiful is objectively beautiful and everything He declares to be ugly is objectively ugly.

Now, I can see at least two possible questions that may arise from this assertion. One, how does this work in a fallen world? Two, what about personal tastes?

Firstly, how does this work in a fallen world? For example, are cockroaches beautiful? Most people would say no. But they were created by an objectively beautiful God weren't they? Well, here's the problem, sin has corrupted God's beautiful world. Therefore, we find ourselves in a mixed up world where beauty and ugliness often appear on the same canvass. However, this need not lead us to despair.

Since God is the standard of beauty, ugliness is anything opposed to Him. A similar definition could be used to describe sin. Sin is the Standard and Source of Ugliness, just as God is the Standard and Source of Beauty. However, God, though not the author of sin or ugliness, is such a good Artist that He can use sin to make Goodness more good and ugliness to make Beauty more beautiful. Every artist (whether your art is painting, music, writing, mechanics, drawing, landscaping, ect.) needs to apply a good dose of Romans 8:28.

Here's an example: I would call a painting that featured only black and gray splotches to be ugly. However, I would describe a painting that uses black and gray to draw attention to beautiful shapes and colors to be beautiful. Ugly things are only beautiful in as much as they draw our attention to true beauty. Thus, the "blacks and grays" of this world can be beautiful in their own way in that they point us to God. We'd better all be very thankful for this truth for we are ugly splotches of black and gray that are only beautiful in as much as we draw attention to our Beautiful God.

Second question: where do personal tastes come in? Well, let me first say that some personal tastes are just warped. There's a lot of people calling sunsets ugly and garbage dumps beautiful and they're simple wrong. Period. End of statement. However, within what God has defined as objective beauty, I do believe that there's room for personal tastes. The objectiveness of beauty doesn't limit creativity and personal artistry. It enables it.

In J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion, Melkor, the Lucifer figure, attempts to create creatures that are superior to God's creation and free of His influence. However, he finds that the farther away he gets from God's standard the less he's able to create. Eventually he can't create at all but can only corrupt that which is already made; turning Elves into orcs and Ents into trolls. Standards don't limit creativity but empower it.

Nor is objective beauty a monist one-size-fits-all mold. That would be ugly. Remember God is the Standard of Beauty and God is triune. In other words, within the Beauty that is God there's diversity. Thus, within the objective standard of beauty there can also be diversity as long as it remains true to the Source.

In closing, I would just like to point out that we all desire beauty. That pursuit may take different forms, but it's the same basic human desire in every case. That pursuit may express itself through art and creativity. However, the highest fulfillment of that desire is a relationship with Beauty's Source. Take some time today to praise God that through Jesus Christ you can stare into the eyes of Beauty Himself.