The loved are free to love (if they are men)

I was reading the blue fish project (dave bish): The loved are free to love. Sadly a promising start "There's nothing macho about Christianity" goes downhill as even when writing against bullying masculinity (presumably including this: We Mixed Our Drinks: Mark Driscoll, the Facebook status and the blogosphere fallout) those who believe in Male Headship can't find a way to include all people:

The loved are free, sons who can become fathers.

Please tell me how a woman is supposed to understand this or relate to it. I only ask because I thought the gospel was for all people not just 1/2 of them.

The post quotes from the last of a series of 6 posts on Galatians You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!: Freedom and Slavery in Galatians (6). The quote begins:

The true son rests solely in the love of God shown in the cross of Christ – He needs no other affirmation, encouragement or reassurance.

I find it amazing that a series on Freedom and Slavery from Galatians does not mention freedom from gender divisions (Galatians 3:28) once. Despite the clarity with which Paul declares that freedom in Galatians 3:28 the whole 6 posts refer consistantly to men only.

It seems that supporters of Male Headship can only read the first part of Galatians 3:28, the literal understanding then ends. Galatians 3:28 is now literally true for slaves but not for women.

Dave Bish almost makes a jump that could have been a powerful argument when he refers to humans as the bride of Christ:

Hosea 1:11 sums up the gospel as concerning the appointment of Christ as Head, as the true husband who gives himself for a desperately unfaithful whore of a wife. The image isn't flattering – we're the whore.

However, he then jumps straight back into masculine language where humanity is only ever referred to as men, sons, fathers & he. Where is the exploration of what it means for us to be this bride? Where would it take us if we considered all of us as women, married to Christ? Not much macho masculinity in that! Incidently, there is a huge interpretative jump to get to that meaning from Hosea1:11, at least read from verse 1 for it to make any sense.

I am left with these questions:

  1. If freedom is so important as a contrast to slavery then why is the second part of Galatians 3:28 ignored?
  2. I want to know how these writers believe women should relate to Christ. How do they think women will understand these posts which refer to humanity and God only as "he", "man", "son"?
  3. I want to know why the image of all humanity as the bride of Christ is not explored and how that would be understood. It seems to lump men in with women as the bride of Christ. How does this support any hierachy between men and women?

 

One thought on “The loved are free to love (if they are men)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>