The Man-made Argument for "Man made in the Image of God": An Argument Against the Complementarian View of God (Made by a Man Who Has It Made as a Man)

A new theological doctrine has emerged in our time; a doctrine which has emerged due to the emergence of feminism in evangelicalism. For centuries since the time when the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the feminine had long since been forgotten, ignored or misunderstood, the Church believed that Scripture taught that woman was inferior to man. The advent of Renaissance humanism, the individualism of the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent philosophical, sociological and scientific knowledge that accompanied the Enlightenment changed man’s understanding of both the human individual and human social and sexual natures. Such changes in understanding led to similar changes in how the Church and individual Christians interpreted Scripture (one massive change was the Reformation dictum of sola scriptura and the realization that the meaning of Scripture is not dependant upon the interpretation of Church leaders). Just as the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo changed how man viewed the creation and interpreted the Scriptural teachings about creation, so the arrival of social studies and the sexual revolution reformed the way many Christians (including conservative Christians) looked at male-female relations and the Scriptural teachings on the matter.

Thus moderate to liberal Christianity moved from a complementarian understanding of gender roles to an egalitarian position. Conservative Christianity, however, moved from an hierarchical understanding to the recently vacated complementarian position (as a conservative Christian who holds to egalitarianism, I really like the progress of my fellow conservatives).

The new theological doctrine has emerged in our time has proceeded from conservative complementarianism which has recently discovered that the Scriptures have taught complementarianism all along (silly us).

For conservatives in the modern age, complentarianism allows them to admit the equal worth of women and men while still maintaining separate but equal gender roles in the Church (though I have yet to hear what female role is afforded to women in the Church that men cannot hold). Of course, since moderate and liberal Christianity have come from the complementarian position, they know well the problems inherent in such a position.

The main criticism to which modern complementarians have had to respond is the idea that equal worth and equal substance can co-exist with subordinate positions. The very clever response by complementarians to this argument is the roles within the Godhead. The idea being that Father-Son have equal worth but the son is subordinate to the Father. I think this is a good reply to the criticism by egalitarians.

However, I believe that such an argument has lead to the theory which is quickly becoming doctrine that the roles within the Godhead are in fact not merely an analogy for the complementarian position but the basis!

Such an idea is based upon Genesis 1:27:

“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

This is also on 1 Cor 11:3:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”

The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is that God created Man in His image thus Man in of itself is in the image of God and God created this Man in his image in two varieties: male and female. This traditional interpretation does not advocate that the differentiation in male and female reflects the being of God but that both male and female are created in the image of God.

The new interpretation of Genesis 1:27 argues that God created Man in His image and that the differentiation of male and female is a result of such a differentiation in the Godhead. The basic analogy would be that God as Father-Son is equated with Man as Male-Female. Such an idea apparently leaves out the Holy Spirit in the equation, which is odd because all thought God as Yahweh (presumably the Father) is in Genesis 1, references to the Son are absent (which is to be expected sense such an idea wasn’t even considered until the advent of Christ) but the Spirit of God is present (Gen 1:2) though certainly not recognizable in the Christian understanding.

Though this new interpretation is based on the desire to ground the new conservative view of gender roles in Scripture and in God, any further understanding of what these divine roles involve in relation to Man as Male-Female is completely absent from the discussion, aside from the general view that of subordination. Certainly, sexual characteristics are not considered because God is sexless. Thus, Father-Son can not relate to Male-Female in that the Father has male characteristics and the Son has female characteristics. Indeed, the only corresponding feature between God and Man is the coincidence of subordinate fellowship with a self-equal entity. Anything else is absent from the analogy.

There are a few problems with this interpretation of Genesis 1:27:

1) Such an interpretation is completely absent from the verse and passage of Genesis 1. It’s not there.

2) The idea of subordination is absent in this passage, either with God or within Man as male and female. Not there.

3) I myself would not mind such an interpretation because it strengthens my argument that God is eternally ONE person and not Three. Regardless, Trinitarian ideas are absent from Genesis 1.

4) Going to the other creation story of Genesis, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 contradicts the J-writers contention that male and female were co-equal helpmeets (Gen 2:22ff.) until the fall of Man (Gen 3:16).

5) Such an interpretation of male and female forms is both completely absent from both the OT and NT and contradicts both the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding gender relations.

6) Even if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 were true, it is only relevant to married couples and has no relevancy to issues outside the family such as women pastors and the authority of women in the Church.

1 Cor 11:3 is the other key verse for modern complementarians. Their interpretation of this verse is that Paul is basing male “headship” and gender subordination on Man being created in the image of God and thus the female is subordinate to the male based upon their fundamental being as made in the image of God.

There are a few problems with this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3:

1) The doctrine of “headship” as taught by Paul in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians is NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I cannot stress this enough. No where does Paul teach that “headship” is about “leadership.” Nowhere does Paul teach that “leadership” has to do with “headship”. This has been a perennial and general assumption without any or cultural Scriptural basis. With Paul “headship” is about sanctification. “Headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family. Read the appropriate Pauline passages concerning headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:21-32 and gender issues. Also, read these passages in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 and Ephesians 5:26.

Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. HOWEVER, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 points out, if the husband is an unbeliever but the wife a believer, the believing wife is the means by which God sanctifies the husband and children. Therefore, although the general rule in terms of headship is the husband, by Gods’ grace, the wife can be “head” if the husband is unbelieving. Reason for yourself: who is the “head” of a family in a single parent household? Who is the “head” of the family if the father dies leaving the mother and two younger children?

2) This passage has nothing to do with the fellowship within the Godhead. Reread the verse.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”

Notice that the terms “Father” and “Son” are absent in this passage (cf. 1 Cor 1:3; 9; 8:6; 15:24, 28). Notice what term is used: “Christ”, the Messiah, the “anointed one,” who makes righteous. Again, “headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family. Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. Jesus Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit by God. Christians are a part of Christ’s body and we thus share in the gift of the Holy Spirit by being in Christ’s body which is anointed with the Holy Spirit by God. Similarly, in marriage the husband and wife come together to become one flesh (i.e., one person) and (in Christian families) this union sanctifies the children.

[Paul, Luke and John all repeatedly deal with this issue of the results of the corporate Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Sprit in their works.]

3) The idea that the subordination of the male is based upon Man’s correspondence as the image of God is completely absent if not contradicted. Paul himself says in verse 7, “For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Thus Paul is not saying that the “role” of the female is based upon her fellowship with the male in the image of God but because the male is made in the image of God and she is his glory.

4) Even if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 were true, it is only relevant to married couples and has no relevancy to issues outside the family such as women pastors and the authority of women in the Church.

Therefore, while the analogy of Father-Son and Male-Female is a good one insofar as it presents the ideas that subordination of one doesn’t lessen his or her equal value, such an analogy is only an analogy and we should not base our theology of God’s being on such an idea. I say this because too many SBC leaders and seminary students are grasping at any straw they can find to legitimate their views of gender roles in the face of overwhelming Scriptural opposition.

Abandon this line of theorizing; it will only lead to more heresy and the second generation of such thinking will cause far too much theological, ecclesiastical, social and familiar damage.

Just accept Jesus, Paul, Luke, the P-writer and the J-writer at face value and believe in the egalitarian position of gender roles.