Study: Neither Male Nor Female

Neither Male Nor Female:
Perspectives on Psychology and the Pauline View of Gender

by Artemio Allan Martin II, Doctoral Candidate
Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary

Abstract:

Taking an integrative look at the study and assertions concerning gender from a feminist psychology and Pauline theology perspective, this paper explores the relevance of first century Christian notions about gender to Postmodern deconstructivistic views of gender, and visa versa. A Christocentric paradigm emerges as a means of understanding which links both and calls Christians to a transcending reality for inter-gender relationships.

Neither Male Nor Female:

Perspectives on Psychology and the Pauline View of Gender

Feminist psychology, an influential facet of contemporary western culture, reflects research and debate regarding gender. Unger and Crawford (1992) sought to develop gender as a social construction rather than a biological fact, examine the importance of language as a source of power in science and society, explore the diversity of women's lives and the importance of integrating rather than fragmenting sources of diversity, and utilize knowledge as a source of social change. Even with such noble thematic goals, Unger and Crawford remain within a exclusively constructivist paradigm which perpetuates a gender continuum where the goal is still to be "as good as men" (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988). Constructivisms and positivistic approaches to the gender issue have yet to serve a validating and affirming role in the lives of women. Whether taken to the feminism-separatist extreme or towing the traditionalist line of women as subservient, the present paradigm lacks luster(Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988). Looking for scientific, socio-political, cultural/environmental means to be free of an androcentric ethic, the feminist have yet to substantially succeed.

Recognizing the social impact of Christianity on western culture, it would be an easy assumption that Biblical evidence supports and validates an androcentric cultural philosophy. Especially in analysis of gender roles in the Christian church, there seems to be clearly little to no practical sign of gender egalitarianism (Stendahl, 1966). Before the case is closed that Christianity espouses male gender dominance, careful study should be made of Paul's writings in the New Testament (Stendahl, 1966).

Galatians 3:28 breaks through by stating, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (The Layman's Parallel New Testament, 1970). Neither male nor female appears on the surface to coincide with a deconstructionistic line of thought which Hare-Mustin and Marecek (1988) advocate. Could Paul, a first century Christian author from an undoubtedly androcentric cultural set, actually be espousing egalitarian thought yet to be captured by contemporary feminism?

Furnish (1985) asserts that Paul "was committed to the fundamental principle that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus." Identity in Christ Jesus transcended prior roles. Although this did not destroy racial, national, legal, and sexual identities, their meaning was relativized (Furnish, 1985). In theology, philosophy, and practice Paul demonstrateed the concept of neither male nor female.

Stendahl (1966) further asserts this transcending of gender subordinate roles by extending neither male nor female to also have implications for the "order of creation" itself. Stendahl notes the tension between the early Christian church egalitarianism in Pauline writings and the old order of creation, denoting the subordination of women. Without hesitation he asserts that Paul's vision calls for Christian theology and practice to transcend, recognizing the newness in Christ Jesus.

In critical study of other Pauline passages which seemingly contradict the Galatians assertion, Ogletree (1983) concedes that on this matter (of male and female equality), "...he (Paul) may not have fully comprehended the radical logic of his own position." Witherington (1990) notes that Paul seems neither a male chauvinist or a feminist or some "amalgam of the two extremes." Study of his writings portray him as simultaneously being egalitarian and delicately patriarchal (Witherington, 1990). Even with passages that seem to contradict the Galatians statement, Ogletree (1983) still firmly notes that full equality between women and men as asserted by Paul shakes Christian patriarchal assumptions at the roots.

Hayter (1987) partially attributes the contemporary Christian community's reluctance to act on Paul's vision of neither male nor female as the Christian church's wariness to stress female equality in the midst of a society that akins women's liberation with immorality, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Taking a more conservative line, the church seemed to rely on the safety of "time-honored Jewish teachings on female submissiveness" (Hayter, 1987). With discernment, she advocates a Christian ideal that is both equalitarian and counter-cultural, reflecting the practice and thought of Paul.

Collins (1986) although not as overstated on the issue of equality between men and women notes that Paul was not an innovator in his thought nor in his practice of egalitarianism between men and women. Jesus Christ's recorded interactions and associations with women were truly revolutionary for a first century rabbi. Women and men are one in Christ. Paul and Christ shared "the vision of a fullness of humanity, created and yet to be redeemed, which exists by God's gracious will only in the condition of a creative relationship between male and female (Collins, 1986)."

Coming full circle to the Christian presupposition that women and men are one in Christ, the Pauline statement that there is neither male nor female has some intriguing implications for contemporary Western culture and psychological thought.

Hare-Mustin and Marecek (1988) cite that Western thought is built on "interrelated hierarchical oppositions" (e.g. reason-emotion, presence-absence, fact-value, good-evil, male-female, etc.) and that the former in each pair is thought of as "more valuable and a better guide to truth." In this hierarchical structure the paired terms have meaning through difference from each other, being defined by what the other is not. Further, in order the stabilize their respective meanings, each pairs' similarities are marginalized. This illustrates how Western culture has constructed a representational understanding of reality. Highly dependent on shared meanings derived from language, history, and culture, constructed explanations are organized by particular assumptive frameworks and reflect certain interests (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988).

An arena where this constructivist view of reality is readily apparent in contemporary society is in psychological gender theorizing (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988). Contemporary psychology looks at gender as a continuum of psychological difference. Although some in feminist psychology assert a desire to go beyond sex differences, maintaining a constructionist frame of reference always has women chasing after patriarchal standards (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988; Unger & Crawford, 1992).

But given a deconstructionistic view, where meaning is explored below our everyday awareness level, language is not a stable association of words to objects but rather has meaning in its similarity, difference and paradox with other words (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988).

Taking a deconstructivist view of gender, the visionary statements of Paul regarding women and men reveal a Christocentric view of two as one and there being neither male nor female. Now setting aside the biological facts (positivism) of sex differences between male and female, and pushing aside Western constructivistic notions of the female being the "opposite sex" of male, Paul seems to resonate with what Hare-Mustin and Marecek (1988) see as "the complexity of human action." Although Christianity may be predominantly viewed in a Postmodern era as archaic, primitive at best, Pauline principles regarding gender seem to push Postmodern intellectual knowledge to its cutting edge.

Given Postmodern acceptance of randomness, incoherence, indeterminacy, and paradox, Pauline views of gender seem much more relevant than in the positivist paradigm which predated the Postmodern era. Conversely, use of deconstructivism may shed light on the, at times, contradictory nature of Paul's writings on gender. Deconstructive readings rely on "gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the text, and even metaphorical associations, to reveal meanings present in the text but outside our everyday level of awareness (Hare-Mustin and Marecek, 1988)." Here an insinuation of the need for spiritual discernment seems appropriate to understand what psychological researchers note as awareness beyond the everyday level.

Collins (1986) articulates that expression of the female-male relationship "in a fully responsible and authentic way remains part of the eschatological task..." Being a part of the Body of Christ was established on the basis of faith commitment (Hayter, 1987), not on racial, legal, or sexual criteria. Beyond the everyday the level of awareness of meaning in the first century, Paul could have very well been espousing a reality beyond even his complete personal comprehension (Ogletree, 1983). The need to transcend present cultural, socio-political, and the barrage of other pressures to understand gender and/or inter-gender relationship is just as apparent today as it was in the first century.

Hare-Mustin and Marecek (1988) note that "from a Postmodernist perspective, there is no one "right" view of gender, but various views that present certain paradoxes." Given this frame, Paul's egalitarian view of women and men (Furnish, 1985), coincides agreeably with his "carefully limited sense" of patriarchy in various passages (Witherington, 1990). Given the perspective, the "view," of the passage context, Paul appears to be Postmodern enough to effectively minister to the first century church, female and male alike. Even with the inconsistencies, Paul's writings appear to have accomplished what present secular feminist psychology has yet to achieve, "theorizing gender in heretofore unimagined ways (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988)."

Given a Christocentric paradigm, it appears clearly unclear that what we perceive we know about gender may simply be the whole of our present everyday level of awareness. No doubt, Feminist Psychologists, Postmodern deconstructionism advocates, Western culture citizens, and contemporary theological ethicists, will continue to refine their representations of gender reality. It may be well worth it to divert all that intellectual energy towards finding out what the rest of that Galatian passage means, "...for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

References:
Collins, R. F. (1986). Christian morality: Biblical foundations (pp. 193-207). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
Furnish, V. P. (1985). The moral teachings of Paul: Selected issues (2nd ed., pp. 83-114). Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43(6), 455-464.
Hayter, M. (1987). The new Eve in Christ: The use and abuse of the Bible in the debate about women in the church (pp. 118-145). Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.
The layman's parallel new testament. (1970). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Ogletree, T. W. (1983). The use of the Bible in Christian ethics. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Stendahl, K. (1966). The Bible and the role of women: A case study in hermeneutics (pp. 25-37). Philadelphia: Fortress.
Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Witherington, B. (1990). Women and the physical family. In A Witherington (Ed.), Women and the genesis of Christianity (pp.123-146). New York: Cambridge University.