Fundamental Fear of Fire: Terror Management Theory and Fundamental Christianity

  

A Fundamental Fear of Fire:

Terror Management Theory and Fundamental Christianity

by Jacob Oblak

The Psychology of Religion

Professor Raymond Lambert

December 11, 2011

Few topics produce anxiety like the topic of death. When confronted with the reality and inevitability of death, most people have internal fears and anxiety associated with those thoughts. In fact, historical study suggests that this anxiety is inherent to all of humanity. Indeed, psychologist Ralph Hood explained that “we humans do not take kindly to death…[but] repress, deny, shun, and withdraw where possible from reminders of death” (Hood, Hill and Spilka 184). German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, known for his investigation of human motivation, said that “the fear of death is the beginning of philosophy and the final cause of religion” (Durant 328). Christian Fundamentalists, like most people in the world, would readily agree that their death is inevitable. However, their intense fear of absolute death results in their condemnation of non-believers to hell, manipulative practices, and conformity that isolates them from dissent and suppresses contradictions.

Admitting death’s inevitability and proximity poses no problem for fundamentalists. However, this admission comes with major caveats. Christian fundamentalists present a choice: either you get saved by believing correctly, or God will send you to hell. More succinctly, these fundamentalists teach that there is no need to fear death as long as you have received Jesus as your savior. This dichotomous presentation stems both from viewing of death as the worst punishment and from a fear of death. When the God of the Old Testament was displeased with people, he most often killed them (Meredith 121-123). In the New Testament, Paul views death as the enemy (I Corinthians 15:26, NKJV). Jesus even argued that losing limbs was better than eternal death in hell (Mark 9:43, NKJV).

The fallacy of wishful thinking (claiming an argument’s veracity because things would be horrible if it were not so) often emerges as a response to fear of death. Fundamentalists claim to base their beliefs on the Bible, and many of their arguments for why Christianity is correct stem not from logical and reasonable persuasion, but from fear of death. A prominent argument propounded by Paul, to whom most fundamentalists attribute nearly half of the New Testament, posits that if Paul’s teachings about Christ were untrue, Paul’s “message has no meaning and your faith…is nonsense and sin still has you in its power. Then those who have died as believers in Christ no longer exist. If Christ is our hope in this life only, we deserve more pity than any other people” (Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, NKJV). Paul’s fear of cessation of existence, or absolute death, provides the ultimate foundation for his belief in Christ’s salvation.

In their groundbreaking Psychology of Religion, Hood, Hill and Spilka suggest that an inability to accept the reality of death could be the cause of fundamentalists’ insistence on heaven and hell, saying that “the idea of total termination is rightfully terrifying to most people; hence the need to convince oneself that life never really ends (Hood, Hill & Spilka 185-188). Fundamental Christianity compounds their fear of mortality by introducing punishment after death: hell. A prominent theologian for Christian Apologetics Research Ministries, a well-known evangelical Christian organization, states that “hell is a real place.  It is not mere unconsciousness.  It is not temporal.  It is eternal torment.  Perhaps that is why Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there” (Slick). Fundamentalist Christianity often employs this belief during sermons and revivals to pressure non-believers into accepting Jesus as their personal Savior. As one fervent fundamentalist puts it, “only 1% of the population is truly born-again.  This means that 2,328 people enter into Heaven each and every day.  And sadly, 230,548 people plunge into hellfire each and every day… It's Jesus or Hell” (Stewart). This form of manipulation of human fear and anxiety runs rampant throughout fundamentalism.

Indeed, one of the most famous sermons in Christian history, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards, finds its way into many sermons in fundamental churches all over the world. This sermon focused solely upon this premise: for the “unconverted persons [without] Christ,…that lake of burning brimstone is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air” (Edwards). Many fundamentalist Christians fear death more than anything else simply because they cannot be certain they have lived a life worthy of a Christian. Their ultimate fear is finding themselves at the judgment seat of Christ, being counted as one who was deceived, and being cast away as an unbeliever (Matthew 25:31-46). And many fundamentalists suppress this fear by repeating Paul’s argument that their beliefs must be correct; otherwise, their life would be vain and their death would be final.

To remove the natural anxiety of the thought of death as far from consciousness as possible, fundamentalists must first ignore any contradictions, inconsistencies, or fallacies both in the Bible and in their interpretation and application of it. For instance, fundamental Christian theologian Charles Ryrie, in his Basic Theology textbook for many fundamentalist universities, addresses the question of the Bible’s authority by arguing that “the only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors….Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures” (Ryrie 106). This specific example of a priori reasoning clearly shows the avoidance of real questions or real discussion as to the veracity of the holy books in question. Indeed, Ryrie begins his writing by admitting that his trust in the authority of the Bible “is a basic presupposition” (ibid 16). Therefore, his efforts in later chapters to prove that assumption are mere circular reasoning.

Indeed, fallacies abound throughout fundamentalism’s arguments for their doctrines and for the Bible. Ryrie exemplifies multiple fallacies in one quote:

If I come to the Bible with confidence that its words were breathed out by God and are therefore without errors, and if that confidence has been buttressed by years of proving the Bible totally reliable, then I won’t be shaken by a problem and I certainly will not conclude that it is in error. But if I think that there can be errors in the Bible, however few or many, then I will likely conclude that some of those problems are examples of errors. And even if there is only one, I have an errant Bible” (ibid 108).

The overall fallacy is one giant bogus dilemma, as he presents readers the choice between two opposites: either the reader accepts Ryrie’s proposed explanation for the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, or the reader must conclude that errors exist and that the Bible is not authoritative. Missing are viable alternatives. One could ostensibly believe the Bible is inerrant and come across error, or one could believe in the possibility of errors, search for errors, but never find one.

Additionally, Ryrie claims to have proved the perfection of the Bible by years of never having found an error. Ryrie’s inability to find an error illustrates the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which philosopher and logician Madsen Pirie described as an “appeal…to ignorance” that “is committed when we use our lack of knowledge about something in order to infer that its opposite is the case” (Pirie 92-3). Incidentally, Ryrie’s reaction to a potential error shows his a priori reasoning process as he intimates that his prior belief in inerrancy will dismiss the problem. Ryrie has so insulated himself from the very possibility that his view might be incorrect that his illogic poses no threat to his faith in his systematic understanding of God. Biblical contradictions raise no questions as to the Bible’s historicity or accuracy; they merely show the world’s attempts to undermine his faith and his ardent avoidance of the thought of total cessation of being.

The fundamental Christian has already sidestepped those potential contradictions, obvious logical flaws, and subsequent mindfulness of death with a foolproof method called the belief perseverance effect. Faced with new facts that contradict existing beliefs, fundamentalists like Ryrie simply dismiss those new facts with a priori reasoning. According to PhD Psychologists Shiraev and Levy, this approach is “not rational at all. Specifically, when our beliefs are being challenged, we a prone to feel that we personally are being challenged...[and] we tend to cling to our beliefs, sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence” (Shiraev and Levy 85-6). As one prominent fundamentalist pastor, Ernest Pickering, argued, “The Bible presents a faith which, while not irrational, is not the product of human reason, nor sustained by it” (Pickering 75-6). Belief perseverance is no mere phenomenon in fundamental Christianity, showing up in select individuals who were especially prone to such illogic. Pickering preempted any questions, facts, or evidences contrary to his existing beliefs by discounting reasoning and logic themselves. Belief perseverance is a central, foundational piece to fundamentalism’s approach to thought. They are taught by pastors similar to Pickering that employing belief perseverance by “discounting, denying, or simply ignoring any information that runs counter to [their] beliefs” (Shiraev and Levy 86) is actually godliness.

A priori belief perseverance precipitates this godliness, and fundamentalists apply it to questions regarding science as well. Without delving into the various arguments surrounding creation and evolution, one need look no further than Ryrie’s analysis of the question to know that further discussion is pointless. Ryrie argues that “whatever truths science may uncover can never be accepted as absolute truth” (Ryrie 206). No matter what verifiable scientific facts might be presented to the fundamentalist Christian, regardless of the topic, the Christian has been coached by pastors, theologians, and spiritual leaders in fundamentalism to reject scientific practice outright. In this way, those leaders maintain control over their constituents, because no outside facts are permitted to cloud the thinking of their followers.

Fundamentalists avoid their anxiety over their imminent death not only by refusing to consider alternatives to their views, but also by striving for conformity through isolation from dissenters and by suppressing any apparent contradictions. The immense pressure placed on both prospective converts and existing members intensifies with the threat of hell as the alternative to belief. This exemplifies an extreme version of the normative influence, which “leads people to conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant” (Kassin 227). This normative influence bringing conformity shelters fundamentalists from the alternative of death. To avoid pondering the possibility of their wrongness, many have separated themselves from that very possibility, for the anxiety created by the consciousness of impending death can be profound.

Pioneer psychologists and researchers Solomon, Pyszczynski, and Greenberg found that salience of death greatly affected Christians’ view of other people. They conducted studies in which “mortality was made salient to half of the subjects,…[and] mortality salience led to more positive evaluations of the in-group member (the Christian) and more negative evaluations of the out-group member (the Jew)” (Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon, 1990). This intergroup bias surfaces in most social issues confronted by fundamentalism. Since in-group/out-group bias is difficult to avoid in any circle, its presence alone might not be problematic if many in fundamentalism were fighting bias.

However, this bias does not merely occur in random sections of fundamental Christianity; intergroup bias, like belief perseverance, is mandated by their doctrine. Fundamentalists use the term separation instead of bias. Ernest Pickering argued that if someone “is teaching error and he cannot be persuaded to the truth, he must be excluded from fellowship” (Pickering 219). Other criteria warranting separation according to Pickering included those “walking in immorality” (ibid 219) and those who “failed to follow the prescribed rules and to maintain the required standards” (ibid 220). Essentially, fundamentalism requires a total separation from those who disagree with their dogmas, beliefs, morality, standards and practices. For fundamentalists, there can be no acceptance of differences, for this would lead to apostasy. In fact, many fundamental Presbyterians have enacted ecclesiastical separation for years to avoid apostasy (14^th General Assembly 52-72).

The intergroup bias resulting in total separation from opposing ideas is foundational to Christian fundamentalism. Fred Moritz, the executive director of the fundamental Christian Baptist World Mission, argues that “a militant spirit…is a necessary, greatly misunderstood, and oft opposed part of our faith and heritage” (Moritz 97-8). The militancy and separation required by fundamentalists isolates the followers of fundamentalism from dissent or people who disagree. All outsiders are cast into the category of unsaved, thus enforcing fundamentalism’s out-group homogeneity bias through detaching themselves and their fellowship from those out-group members. Many such Christians will quote Jesus’ admonition that “he who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad” (Matthew 12:30, NKJV) and apply it to anyone who disagrees with them on any matters of importance. This false dichotomy merely further separates the fundamentalist group from what is often termed the Other.

Professor Lilia Melani, of Brooklyn College, defines the Other as “an individual who is perceived by the group as not belonging, as being different in some fundamental way….The group…judges those who do not meet that norm…as the Other” (Melani). Such segregation and separation often results in prejudice: “the Other is almost always seen as lesser…inferior…less intelligent…or immoral” (Melani). Indeed, such prejudice frequents fundamental Christianity. Homosexuals are viewed as out-group and the Other. Famous fundamental Christian pastor John MacAurthur authored a book called Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong, and he argues that “gay and lesbian desires are…‘unnatural,’… [and] a person who is homosexual (gay or lesbian) or effeminate is not a true believer no matter how passionate their claim… [and] have an unresponsive and hostile heart when it comes to the truth” (MacAurthur 98-9, italics in original). The foundation for his denunciation of the gays who disagree with his view of truth rests on the term unnatural. This naturalistic argument lies at the very heart of their intergroup bias. Shiraev’s and Levy’s study on critical thinking outlined the naturalistic fallacy quite succinctly, citing Scottish philosopher David Hume’s research into the is-ought problem. As they point out, “our personal values can bias our thinking…when we equate our description of what is with our prescription of what ought to be” (Shiraev and Levy 82).

The fallacious nature of fundamentalists’ argumentation slows them only slightly. For set against the foundation of isolation from such opposing ideas or viewpoints, members of fundamentalist groups rarely encounter strong opposition, thereby avoiding their fear of mortality almost entirely. This avoidance of critical opposition creates some cognitive dissonance as bible-believing fundamentalists wrestle with biblical examples of persecution that early Christians faced. This often results in fundamentalists intentionally looking for persecution wherever they can find it, sometimes through their own invention or instigation. Moritz believes that “impending persecution” justifies “contend[ing] for [the faith] at any cost” (Moritz 101), and in the Bible Peter warns that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12, NKJV). Christians find such persecution at the hands of liberals who somehow refuse them the right to even say the word ‘Christmas’ (Gibson 1) or liberals who promote a “‘gay agenda’ in our postmodern era” (MacAurthur 98). Fundamentalists’ search for persecution yields persecution, which essentially creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their “expectations create reality” (Shiraev and Levy 74), and they believe that they are being persecuted. This in turn comforts them, because Jesus explicitly states that his followers “will be hated by all nations for [Jesus’] name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9, NKJV). Their comfort through persecution directly alleviates their fear of complete cessation of life and their fear of meaninglessness.

Fundamentalists fear the absolute cessation of consciousness so greatly that they go to great lengths to condemn non-believers to hell, ignore contradictions and opposing facts, and enforce conformity. Their methods are psychologically manipulative, as they rely heavily on mental control and fallacious reasoning. Their constituents remain isolated from those who would disagree, and fundamentalist leaders strictly enforce this separation. Sadly, this psychological, mental, and spiritual abuse merely compounds the eventual anxiety that will be produced when a fundamentalist does finally, truly consider death. They find ingenious ways of avoiding these death thoughts and putting them off indefinitely. As noted philosophical psychologist Ervin Yalom says, “Every person must choose how much truth he can stand” (Yalom 277). Apparently for fundamentalists, their choice involves only their preexisting suppositions. Other truths are simply too much.

Works Cited

Durant, W. (1977). The story of philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster. Print.

Edwards, Jonathan. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Calvin College Computer Science, 08-06-1741. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Gibson, John. The War on Christmas. New York: Sentinel HC, Penguin Books, 2005. Print.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory ii: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(1), 308-315. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-14626-001

Kassin, S., S. Fein, and H. R. Markus. Social psychology. 7th. Boston: Houghton Mifflin College Div, 2008. Print.

MarAurthur, John. Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2009. Print.

Melani, Lilia. "The Other." Core Curriculum 10.07; The Emergence of the Modern . Brooklyn College, 09 05 2009. Web. 11 Dec 2011. Meredith, J. L. (2009). Meredith's complete book of bible lists, a one-of-a-kind collection of bible facts. Bloomington: Bethany House.

Moritz, Fred. Contending for the Faith. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 2000. Print.

New King James Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979. Print.

Pickering, Ernest D. Biblical Separation, The Struggle For A Pure Church. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1979. Print.

Pirie, First. How To Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1969. Print.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology, A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth. La Habra: Moody Publisher Press, 1999. Print.

Shiraev, E., and D. A. Levy. Cross-cultural psychology, critical thinking and contemporary applications. 4th. Boston: Pearson College Div, 2010. Print.

Slick, Matthew. "Hell." Christian Apologetics Research Ministries. Carm: Christian Apologetics Research Ministries, 2011. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Stewart, David. "Billions of People are Going to Hell!." Jesus Is Savior. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Yalom, I. D. When nietzsche wept, a novel of obsession. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.

14th General Assembly. "APOSTASY AND ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION." PCA Digest. 1985: 52-72. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. .

Christianity ...... and then women

In his treatise “On Paradise,” Saint Ambrose of Milan wrote that “though the man was created outside Paradise, an inferior place, he is found to be superior, while woman, though created in a better place, inside Paradise, is found inferior.” Ambrose was certain, due to the Bible’s teachings, that women were inferior. And for centuries since the Bible was written, women have been regarded as the lesser creation that came from man and was subservient to man. Cataloguing the injustices committed against women throughout history would fill books (and probably has), so here are some highlights: marital rape, blame for husband’s infidelity, forced marriages, little to no political rights, father’s then husband’s property, emotional manipulation, oppressive dress rules, blame for men’s lust, sole responsibility and punishment for adultery, and practical slavery in the home, among others. While many argue that the Christian subjection of women derives largely from Greek myth and Roman law, the basic premise of much of the early church fathers’ teachings centered on Paul’s arguments (in I Timothy 2) that women were created after men and drew men into sin and from the belief that God is masculine. While modern Christianity would have us believe that it has left behind its subjugation of women, many or even most denominations of Christianity and other religions that believe in the Bible still hold to these basic and corrupt premises. By holding onto the hierarchal and patriarchal power structure taught here, Christianity falls far short of renouncing its oppression of women. Instead, modern Christianity reinforces these stereotypes and generalizations while claiming to denounce them by maintaining this fraudulent foundation.


Many great philosophers and theologians in Christian history demeaned women and relegated them to statuses barely above animals. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and immense influence of much of Western Christianity and thought, argued that in “regards [to] the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power....” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.) So women are only valuable in as much as they reflect men. And since they fall far short of men, women are that much more imperfect and defective. Not only were women considered flawed, but, as Tertullian argued, all women are like Eve; they are “the devil's gateway,” “the unsealer of that forbidden tree.” Tertullian further argued that the woman (and therefore all women) was “the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die” (Tertullian, “On the Dress of Women”). Tertullian blamed women not only for dragging men to hell, but for causing Jesus to die.

Some of the harshest words ever penned about women come from Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation: “Women are created for no other purpose than to serve men and be their helpers. If women grow weary or even die while bearing children, that doesn’t harm anything. Let them bear children to death; they are created for that” (Martin Luther as quoted by Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks in “Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe”). But it wasn’t like Luther one day woke up and decided to oppress women with such degrading and asinine statements. Luther merely finds himself essentially quoting the Apostle Paul, who says to “let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (I Timothy 2:11-15). It’s incredible how so much oppression can stem from this verse and the two others that Paul includes in his writings. If oppression of women were relegated to only the Old Testament (covenant), then perhaps women would have stood a better chance of attaining equality. However, because of Paul’s words here and in I Corinthians 11:3 and 14:34, Christianity has found many ways to keep the women subjected and out of power.

Protestantism’s (and larger Christianity’s) rallying cry is solo scriptura, or Scripture alone. But Paul’s teaching about men having been created first contradicts what is actually written in Genesis. In Genesis 1:27, where God creates the first human being, the Hebrew word “adam” was used where we have the word “man.” However, this translation conveys masculinity where masculinity is absent in the Hebrew. Rather, the word “adam” is gender neutral. In Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word “adam” (H120) means “a human being, an individual, the species of mankind, a person.” English did not contain a genderless pronoun (in modern English we use “it,” but translators did not want to apply “it” to a human), so the translators used the word “man.” But instead of having created a man as we define man today, God had created a genderless human being. This was the first human, and it was created in God’s image. The last phrase of the verse shows that “adam” is not male; when verse 27 says that “male and female created he them,” the word “male” is a completely different Hebrew word. “Zakar” is Hebrew for male or masculine, and “nqebeh” is Hebrew for female. And even though Christian history has named the first human Adam and assigned masculine gender to Adam, the truth is quite different. Even the Hebrew name Adam (Genesis 2:20) merely means “the first human” (Strong’s H121).

In the second creation account, in Genesis chapter 2, we find the same genderless word for human in verse 7: “And the Lord God formed ‘adam’ from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and ‘adam’ became a living soul.” God then, in verse 8, placed ‘adam’ in the Garden of Eden. Even when God was creating the second human later in the chapter, God never took a rib out of ‘adam.’ Rather, the word King James’ translators translated “rib” actually literally means “a side of the body” according to Strong’s concordance (H6763). So the first human wasn’t gendered, and what God created the second human from was half of the first human. No wonder ‘adam’ immediately, upon awaking, exclaims that its new companion is “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” (2:23).

Paul neglected to take this into account. He, in accordance with Greek myth, Roman law, and Christian tradition, assumed that men were created before women and were alone created in God’s image. However, if God created the second human from half of the first, who is to say which of the halves bears the image of God and which does not? Rather, both were and are equally God’s image. Relationship defined the atmosphere of God’s creation. Everywhere the first human looked he saw friendship and companionship. Even though God had created a complete human and declared that creation “good,” something was still missing. The animals all had partners, but the human, “adam,” did not have anyone to cherish, love, and become one with. The whole point of dividing “adam” into two was so that the two could reunite as “one flesh” (2:24). The point of creation was companionship.

There was no power structure in the first account of humanity. Hierarchy was nonexistent in God’s perfect, created world, because love consumed every thought and all intent, leaving no room for control. There was nothing to control. Even the first rule, the only rule that God gave the first humans, had nothing to do with controlling them or their actions. Instead, God’s command to not eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil centered more on the desire for power and knowledge of sin than eating an actual fruit. The fruit was merely a symbol for the larger picture: God created humans to live in love. They lived in a world devoid of selfishness, as evidenced by the fact that both humans were naked and didn’t even notice. Nudity didn’t register in their thoughts because no one was taking advantage of anyone else – raping, killing, stealing, swindling, and fighting did not exist. But when they were tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit, the serpent did not merely offer a delicious fruit – they were already in a garden full of wonderful fruit.

The real temptation came when the serpent informed the humans that choosing to do something, anything, just for their own pleasure and satisfaction (pure, unhindered selfishness) would allow them to be like gods knowing good and knowing evil. And there’s the catch. They already knew good; it surrounded them. But they had nothing to compare good to. For a comparison, humanity had to literally experience evil. Immediately upon taking this fruit, the reward of their selfishness became apparent. They knew they were naked, and they were afraid. They had experienced evil by acting selfishly, and now they could not stop. It controlled them, and they feared its power. In reaction, Adam selfishly blamed Eve. Eve then selfishly blamed the serpent. Selfishness defined them, and fear consumed them.

God proceeded to curse the serpent and to change childbirth from a joyous occasion to one of pain. Then, God pronounces the most interesting declaration. God told Adam that the earth itself has been cursed on account of humanity’s sin, and God tells Eve that her “desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (Genesis 3:16). God never says that he wants this to happen or that he is causing it to happen due to his just and righteous punishment. Rather, God informs the two humans that this is their fate due to their own selfishness. God is actually predicting what form humanity’s selfishness will take. And how right God was! Throughout the centuries, injustice in the form of male domination over women has been rampant. Ironically, its hold on humanity has only been fueled by Christianity’s insistence that God wants this to happen. This was the very sin that started sin. This selfishness (that results in men taking advantage of women emotionally, sexually, and hierarchically) was the exact same selfishness that led the first humans to choose themselves over God by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. How horribly mocking the serpent was when it claimed that selfishness doesn’t bring death (Genesis 3:4-5). No, the first humans and humanity after them were condemned by their own selfishness to a fate worse than death, a life characterized and consumed by unfulfilled and unfulfillable desire, a living death.

Not only do Christians employ the image-of-God-on-men argument to subjugate women, many argue that because the Bible indicates that God is masculine, men should retain and maintain the authority over women. Paul himself seemed to combine these two arguments into one treatise on hierarchical power, arguing that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I Corinthians 11:3). Paul uses this argument here to defend his position that women should cover their heads to show proper respect for men. God is presented by Paul as the head of Christ, who is the head of the man, who is the head of the woman. In other words, Paul is arguing that only males can be the head of anyone because the image of God is passed through the men.

But when Colossians 1:15 says Christ was the image of the invisible God, should we take that to mean that God looks like a shepherd, has long hair, and has a beard? Obviously not, because the phrase directly after says God is invisible. God is invisible because, as Jesus argued, God is Spirit (John 4:24). The true essence of God is not his visage or appearance; this is no physical description. His true being is spiritual. So when we are created in God’s image, this too is not a physical description, but spiritual. God’s image is clearly stated in I John 4:8: “God is love.” Therefore, being created in that very image, we are created to love like God does. This theme is constant throughout Jesus’ ministry and teachings.

The image of God, pure and unconditional love, has been marred by the evil of choosing and experiencing selfishness. But it would be absurd to argue that Adam looked just like God before sin, and after sin his entire physical form changed. Instead, Adam and Eve both changed on the inside. They suddenly had a break in their relationship with God; they changed spiritually. They were sinful, and fallen, and depraved (Romans 3). That was the difference. There were still remnants of God's image left, but they were completely obscured and scarred by sin. Sin is spiritual, as is God’s image of love.

God is indeed referred to hundreds of times with masculine names and with masculine pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his.” God is never given a feminine name, or referred to with feminine pronouns such as “she,” her,” and “hers.” But this does not mean that God is male. The masculine pronouns referring to God in the Bible are always the second, generic sense, referring to both male and female. Just as “Man” has been used for centuries by translators and theologians alike to refer to both men and women, so “He” was used to intimate a genderless, spirit-being named God. To argue that God is male or female is unbiblical. God exists eternally, and in the eternal sphere there is no sexual differentiation (Matthew 22:23-32). God is God. When Moses asked, “Who are you,” God said, “I am that I am!” (Exodus 3:14). Just as the Pharisees and Sadducees argued which husband would get the seven-times-married woman, today Christians argue about God’s gender. In heaven, there is no physical marriage; no sexual gender. Instead, there is a spiritual marriage, and spiritual, genderless beings.

Many Christians might point to the fact that God appears as men throughout the Bible in what are termed Theophanies and Christophanies. But Isaiah presents God as a woman in childbirth (42:14), a mother (66:13), as a pregnant woman (46:3), and as a woman who refuses to forget her child (49:15). In a parable (a picture of truth), Jesus portrayed God as a woman diligently sweeping her house in search of one lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). Jesus, in Matthew 23:37, portrayed himself not only as a female, but a hen. The Holy Spirit appears in a physical form like a dove (Luke 3:22). God would not be insulted by taking the physical form of any of His creation.

Still, Christians will point out that Jesus refers to God as his father many times during his time on earth. But since God is absolutely Spirit, Jesus’ prayer to “Our Father” is not defining God as a human gender. It is rather a picture much like those Isaiah presents. His reference to Father most likely refers to God's providential character that a loving human father emulates. This is definitely one of the closest analogies to God's providential and caring nature. But just as “Father” humanly describes attributes of a divine God, so do other analogies that God gave in Scripture about Himself. To describe the incredible compassion and faithfulness God has for his children, He uses the analogy of a human mother in Isaiah 49:15. Does this mean God is defined as a human mother? No. But His attributes can be enhanced by understanding this image.

Interestingly, most Christians have no problem equating God with the Father that the wayward son ran away from in the Prodigal Son story in Luke 15. But what about the analogy used right before it, of the woman searching diligently for the lost coin? Can we accept that some of God's attributes are described just as thoroughly by a diligent woman as a providential Father? Even more poignantly, not only does God employ women to analogously describe His eternally Spiritual attributes, but He also uses another of His creation: animals. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus describes Himself as a mother hen who wants to gather it's chicks under her wing, but is rejected. He is not saying that His eternal visage is a beak, wings, and eggs. However, Jesus' (and therefore God's) attribute of love for His children and his eternal sadness when his children reject him is well described by a mother hen. The analogy of a dove was used by God to describe Holy Spirit. Those watching said Holy Spirit looked like a dove. Does this mean that Holy Spirit's eternal form is that of a dove? No. But perhaps a dove describes Holy Spirit well.

Every physical or human quality used to describe God is merely an attempt to bring God slightly more within our grasp of understanding. As a Spirit, He does not have a body and therefore does not have hands or feet or a nose or any of the “bodily” qualities that we so often refer to. He may choose to show Himself in that way to help us understand Him better, but he is not limited to a male form, a Jewish form, or even a human form. He is a spirit. To worship God as a man completely disregards Numbers 23:19, where God clearly states that “God is not man.” God wanted to distance Himself and His character from man’s propensity to lie and change his mind. God is, however, much more and much better than a man – He is the essence of the opposite: Truth! Therefore, to say that God’s eternal character is masculine is to indict Him for lying and changing His mind. So saying that “God cannot be a woman” is partially true – God cannot be defined as a human female. However, with the same respect, God cannot be defined as a human male. But God does indeed associate with both male and female qualities, thus describing Himself in human terms to help us humans better understand His completely divinely Spiritual nature.

Any arguments for man’s inherent superiority result in faulty reasoning, further selfishness, and continued subjugation of women. The fallen nature of humanity is shown most clearly in God’s prediction that men would subjugate women, literally reigning over them. History shows, once again, that God sees and predicts the future accurately. It would seem appropriate that those who hate God and his essence of love should embrace the definition of sin; selfishness. But the unfortunate irony of our depraved world shows us that the most ardent advocates of the curse of sin are those who claim to be God’s children. These are the same Christians who have perverted Christ’s message of unconditional love into a call to war. They transform Christ’s saving sacrifice of himself, the ultimate act of unselfishness, into a creed and a law and a noose. The very selfishness that Adam and Eve chose has come full circle; many of today’s God-followers claim that selfishness as truth. They have twisted the essence of God’s character from love to selfishness, which is the polar opposite of love. To these Christians Isaiah (5:20) pronounces his most profound warning: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” For, truly, this is when the anger of the Lord burns most fiercely.