Gender Roles: Can a Helper be A Holy Calling?

In the waters of gender roles, I am dipping my metaphorical blogging toes.

There is a passage in Genesis that is somewhat controversial in how it assigns the role of women as a helper. The context was God had just created the whole earth and the heavens, He created man, and he lived within the Garden of Eden. He had just finished telling the man that he should not eat from the tree in the centre of the Garden–“then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”” Genesis 2:18 (English Standard Version)

On the surface, perhaps it is a bit misogynistic—a justification to belittle females and make them lesser than men. In fact, I am sure this mindset has been played a million times by atheists in an attempt to ridicule Christianity as men being power-hungry and seeking to control lives. In many ways, there is some truth in this claim looking at Christianity of ages past–but the problem has been the interpretation, not the actual Bible.

What I find fascinating is that the word used for “helper” is the word, “`ezer” which means according to Strong’s Dictionary, “to surround, to protect or aid” The reference of the Bible translators when they say, help is in context with being all encompassing in their aid.

In Maori culture (the indigenous of New Zealand), in iwi meetings where the whole tribe would meet in the central marae or town hall–women were and still are forced to sit at the back row while men sit at the front of the tribe meetings. Yet, this is not out of male domineering, but out of respect, that women are more valued than men in this context.

Moreover, the function of a helper is a Holy function because God is a helper. The 54^th Psalms was written by David when the Ziphites went and revealed his hiding place to Saul, saying that he was hiding in their land. David’s praise was to God:

“Behold, God is my helper; the Lord is the upholder of my life.” Psalms 54:4 (English Standard Version)

The word used for helper here is “`azar”, which is the variant on the root “`ezer”, and means exactly the same as before. So then, perhaps, if God is a helper then perhaps being a helper is not an undesirable aim in life? Therefore, the problem perhaps is not so much what is wrong with the functions of a bridegroom and bride—but what functions we have assigned to God. Perhaps, we have imposed an idea of what we expect God to be and creating a hierarchy of what His nature should be, instead of seeking to submit to what He is. Changing the God is often much easier and simpler than changing the natural closed nature of our hearts.

If I could posit the question: Is our idea of God a strong arm that swipes away all that defies Him, that we are struck with fear to obey Him? But also, do we believe a God that helps, that stoops down to help me, even the most stubborn of creatures?

One thing I am learning more and more, is that though there are many that find it difficult to stomach the vengenance of God in the Old Testament, but truly this one thing is sure: He truly did love Israel. Though, however many times He was disobeyed, he still loved Israel and continued to provide for them. There are perhaps two harsh opposites of the nature of God when we read the Old Testament, there is the holiness of God occurring, but there is also the loving hand of the Helper as well working in unison together in marriage together.

“The LORD is on my side as my helper; I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.” Psalms 118:7 (English Standard Version)

Abortion: Breaking the Human Hierachy

One of the books I have been reading recently among many is Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.

The book is crazy popular among the peers that I hang with, but I can’t say I’m entirely enamored like many people who have recommended it to me. His greatest sin, though there is a sizeable chunk of the appendix filled with citations, is probably the use of oversimplification in many of his conclusions which makes reading the book somewhat frustrating to me.

He does make a interesting point in that abortion being linked to the decrease in crime in the 1990′s. I would tend to find his line of reasoning as convincing as possible, without doing a repeat experiment would I suspect would not be such a good idea. I could understand the criticism that he received for this proposition. Attracting accusations from conservatives for proposing abortion as a genuine crime fighting tool, as well as shouts from liberal for supporting racial eugenics by removing entire races through abortion.

Morever, he does make some interesting points on abortion, and the value we place in a baby. His argument begins with the Connecticut schedules used for the compensation of pay for work-related injuries:

“8 weeks for the loss of a other toe.

35 weeks for loss of nose.

36 weeks for loss of first finger.

168 weeks for loss of master hand.

155 weeks for loss of other hand.

157 weeks for loss of eye.

520 weeks for loss of heart. (very common in political positions).

35 -104 weeks for the loss of sexual member. (dependant on the size, jk)”

Levitt proposes the question : “What is the relative value between a fetus and a newborn? If faced with the Solomonic task of sacrificing the life of one newborn for an indeterminate number of foetuses, what number might you choose?”

My question in addition, is how many third trimester babies would you sacrifice for a newborn life? How many second trimester babies? How many first? I ask these questions because I suspect people do put prices onto a fetus, going from an ascending price to the first trimester babies. But aren’t trimesters a artificial human standard to differentiate between development? With this, aren’t we imposing an unfair standard to determine where it is morally correct to abort a fetus? Therefore, we are putting values into human life that is simply not there naturally.

My greatest problem with abortion is the implication of facelessness of fetuses. Where abortion is designed to flush out the fetus out of the womb of a mother, the desacrilisation of the human body through this creates a hierarchy of body parts. A fetus is deemed less important than – for example, an arm. No one would willingly lose an arm, but to lose a foetus renders a more ready attitude – there is a disconnection here.

There is such a great disparity between those who are willing to have a baby, and those who did not plan for one. The unlucky ones who didn’t use protection will be stuck paying for the loss of a toe perhaps, but the ones who do, would pay more than 520 weeks because they feel they are missing so much more than a heart.

Either way, it is disparaging to think of so many attitudes that we can pigeonhole such a precious life.

It is ironic, the separation of ideals that occurs with the rise of women’s rights of her own body within society coupled with the removal of the distinctive of feminism. The apex of being a woman’s power in society is embodied within the medical procedure of abortion. Through the procedure that rids her of her child, there too is removed all there is that makes us human. For what is a woman without reproduction? Is she not merely another man?