God … is only rightly and fully imaged as male and female. Together.
Doesn’t that quote from Prof. Kirk sound relevant to God’s design for marriage? Here is a larger excerpt:
The first indication we get in scripture of how the nature of God is represented by human gender is Genesis 1. When God creates humanity in God’s own image, we read, “Male and female he created them.”
This is significant for two reasons. First, in what is the clearest representation of God in human gender, perhaps the only clear and intentional connection in all of scripture, is that it is both male and female, together, who mirror God to the world.
This means that a “masculine” church or a church with a “masculine feel” is inherently lacking in its ability to reflect the image of God.
But Genesis 1 isn’t simply about “being like” God in some general way.
To bear the image of God is to be the person whom God has entrusted to rule the world on God’s behalf. The purpose of humanity, “Let them rule the world on our behalf,” is inseparable from the categorization of these creatures as those made “in the image of God.” In other words: it is not merely as humans that we reflect God together as male and female, but as those who rule over the world as male and female we bear the image of God. The kind of rule God has in mind is not a “masculine” rule, but a masculine plus feminine, male plus female, rule. Only this kind of shared participation in representing God’s reign to the world is capable of doing justice to the God whose image we bear. [by J.R.D. Kirk: read more…]
I appreciate Prof. Kirk’s recognition that men and women are different and that BOTH are essential parts of the Whole Image of God. BOTH are necessary for the right exercise of dominion.
Shouldn’t the marriages of two professed Christians shine so brightly with unity and love that people are banging down the doors of the church wanting what we have?
Why is the death rate of marriages so high?
What does marriage done right look like?
See Also: Femsculine Christianity