By Claudia Ayers and Larry Watkins
Wrightwood Series on Gender
In this paper we will discuss mental and social gender differences as they are currently perceived, note the contemporary growth in gender awareness, present passages from The Urantia Book that speak to both the specific and the complementary natures of gender relations, and address Jesus as the role model for both men and women.
Although very much of our material has come directly from the book, in a slight break with tradition, we have chosen to paraphrase most of the applicable passages. This has been done for several reasons:
The objective of this study, then, is to lead our readers to believe with us that the insights from The Urantia Book promote, when put into practice, enhanced partnership associations of men and women in all cultures.
To set the stage, let us begin with a quick look at the partnership patterns as they are established from the Trinity on high down to Homo sapiens. The Paradise Trinity created and controls the Grand Universe. To our human way of thinking the Trinity association and other divine triune associations functioning in the cosmos provide the basis for group wisdom, division of labor, checks and balances, perspective, and depth of reason. Other complex personality structures, like the Seven Master Spirits, have organizational purposes of their own. Closer to home are the 700,000 local universes, each created and coordinated by one Creator Son and one Creative Mother Spirit working in collaboration. Similarly, the building blocks of human social evolution, families, are established in a partnership relationship of one man and one woman. Neither the Creators nor the creatures are intended to work alone. We have been created to live and work together, reaping uncounted benefits by doing so effectively.
One of the most important lessons to be learned in this lifetime is teamwork. Social groups, working in harmony, stand for a force far greater than the sum of their parts. Friendships and affectionate associations are socializing and ennobling because they encourage and facilitate four essentials:
The Urantia Book emphasizes repeatedly that personalities working together produce a synergistic effect. Far back in history, early humans discovered that groups were vastly greater and stronger than their sum. Cooperation is not a natural human trait; it was learned through fear, until it became evident that collaboration simply was more beneficial when meeting difficulties and guarding against danger.
We weaken and become discouraged when isolated; isolation exhausts the soul. Associations are essential to renewing the zest for life and are indispensable in maintaining the courage to strive for higher levels of living. Friendships enhance joy and glorify the triumphs of life. Loving and intimate associations help rob suffering of its sorrow and hardship of much of its bitterness; they are also efficient insurance against evil. Difficulties, sorrows, disappointments, and defeat are less painful and disheartening when shared with a friend -- for the presence of a friend enhances beauty and exalts goodness.
One of the glories of friendship is its power to empower imagination. Friendly associations do not automatically transmute evil into righteousness, but they do aid in greatly lessening the sting.
Fear, envy, and conceit can be prevented only by intimate contact with other minds. There is positive strength in knowing that you live for the welfare of others, and that these others likewise live for your welfare.
Jesus' statement, "Happy are they who mourn," could be qualified to include "if there is a friend at hand to comfort." Jesus never sent the apostles out alone to labor for the kingdom; he always sent them in pairs. All souls long for inclusion, intimacy, camaraderie, and unity of purpose. [UB: 312, 763, 1477, 1776, 1775, 1776]
In evolving society women seem to have had to struggle more than men. Taboos have operated down through the ages to keep women strictly within their own sphere.
Traditionally, men chose the more agreeable work, women were left with more of the drudgery, and this inequality has persisted throughout history. It is also true that men have usually been ashamed to do women's work but women seldom show a reluctance for the reverse. Historically, a great cultural step forward occurred when male captives were not killed but were enslaved as agriculturists. This change provided women with more time for homemaking and child culture.
Women's status has long been a social paradox; always a shrewd manager of men, women have capitalized upon men's stronger sex urge for their own interests and advancement. By trading subtly upon sex charms, women have often been able to exercise power over men, even when held in deplorable conditions, even in slavery.
Many early tribal and racial traditions relegated trouble to Eve, Pandora, or other female representatives. These narratives were always designed to make it appear that women brought evil upon men; and all this indicates a onetime universal distrust of women. The fact that most supposed witches were women has not helped female reputations.
Men historically have regarded women with a strange mixture of mistrust and fascination, if not with suspicion and contempt. Is there any wonder then that men and women have been so challenged in understanding each other?
Until relatively modern times women have been the real producers and burden bearers, carrying the family property and tending the children, leaving the men's hands free for fighting or hunting. Although in procreation women are men's equal, in child rearing women do most of the work. "Woman's work" originated because women naturally love babies more than men do. The handicap of enforced motherhood can be compensated only through the enlightened standards of advancing civilization and by an increasing sense of acquired fairness among men.
The modern idea of sex equality is beautiful and worthy of an expanding civilization, but it is not found in nature. When might is right, men lord it over women; only when justice, peace, and fairness prevail, do women eventually emerge from slavery and obscurity.
The evolution of science and its resulting technology have become the true liberators of women; factories largely set women free of the confines of the home. Men's physical abilities are no longer essential in a technological society; science has so changed the conditions of living that man-power is no longer superior to womanpower.
Still, civilization and technology can never obliterate the behavior gulf between the sexes. From age to age ideals change, but instinct never will. Innate maternal affection will never permit emancipated women to become significant rivals of men in industry. Each sex will remain supreme in its own domain, domains that are determined by biologic differentiation and by mental dissimilarity; each sex has its own distinctive sphere of existence, together with its own rights within that sphere.
Evolution increasingly works toward the realization of women's rights since women and men are equal partners in reproduction and equal in the unfolding of evolution. But, if women aspire literally to enjoy all of men's rights, then, sooner or later, pitiless and emotionless competition will replace the chivalry and special consideration so many women now enjoy and which they have so recently won from men. Women cannot thrive on men's rights any more than men can prosper on women's rights.
Only socially will men and women compete on truly equal terms.
A man and a woman, cooperating, even aside from family and children, are vastly superior in most ways to either two men or two women. It becomes possible, through associations with the opposite sex, to unite views of this life and beyond -- the mind of one augmenting its spiritual values from the insights of the other, their souls mutually enriched by pooling respective spiritual assets. Likewise, we are enabled to avoid that ever-present tendency to fall victim to distorted vision, prejudiced viewpoint and judgment when we associate with the opposite gender. [UB: 774, 794, 932, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 941, 1775, 1776]
Nineteen centuries of misunderstanding about Jesus' attitudes regarding women provide a massive body of Christian tradition which is hard to lift and turn around. In the older religious doctrines, before the teachings of Jesus, women had little or no spiritual standing. Among the 120 who received the visitation of the Spirit of Truth at Pentecost were many women disciples who equally shared these blessings with the men. Pentecost obliterated all religious discrimination founded on racial distinction, cultural differences, social caste, and gender prejudice. After Pentecost, in the brotherhood of the kingdom, women stood with men as equals. No wonder the believers in this new religion would cry out, "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
The Pharisee might have thanked God that he was "not born a woman, a leper, or a gentile," but among the immediate followers of Jesus, women were set free from discriminations based on sex. While the status of women in Palestine was much improved by Jesus' teaching, it would also have improved throughout the world if his followers had not departed so far from what he had taught them. For example, over many hundreds of years the cult of renunciation and humiliation emphasized the assumed evils of sexual gratification. This cult originated as a ritual among soldiers prior to engaging in battle; later on it became the practice of "saints." Marriage was tolerated as an evil only lesser than fornication. Many of the world's great religions have been adversely influenced by this ancient cult, but none more markedly than Christianity. This cult led one of its advocates, the Apostle Paul, to inject such personal views into the teachings of Christian theology: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." "I would that all men were even as I myself." "I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to abide even as I." Paul well knew that such teachings against women were not a part of Jesus' gospel, and his acknowledgment of this is illustrated by his statement, "I speak this by permission and not by commandment." And the pity of it all is that his personal opinions have influenced the teachings of a great world religion. Furthermore, the involvement of a religion with this cult leads directly to a war against marriage and the family, society's true foundation and the basic institution of progress.
In Riane Eisler's book The Chalice and the Blade, a convincing argument is presented that the Christian religion enshrined a dominator social structure rather than the partnership structure we see exemplified in Jesus' message. Jesus' message, she says, was subsequently molded to conform to patriarchy, the ancient Hebrew social pattern where men dictate with power over women. Eisler contends that the New Testament texts reflecting this bias have been the basis for justifying the subjugation of women in modern western history. For example, the biblical dictates for women to submit to the authority of their husbands in marriage and in the family are, according to Eisler, dominator tenets pulled from the patriarchy of the Hebrews. [UB: 977, 1840, 2065]
Returning to the contemporary world, let us look at perceptions regarding the natures of men and women. Over the past several years, relations between the sexes have hit a boiling point. Women's rights, women's issues, women's studies, men's issues, and even "gender wars" have been the hot topics of an increasingly large segment of both popular and scholarly literature. In addition to the works already cited, others include: the movie Thelma and Louise; countless stories regarding William Kennedy Smith, Mike Tyson, Tailhook, and the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown episodes. We are impressed by the public's growing concern and willingness to understand gender differences. The political fallout of the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas hearings still continue to dramatically affect not only governmental, but most private sector and educational institutions as well. Even children are becoming more aware: a friend who teaches at a local middle school noticed a boy annoying a female classmate and asked the boy, "This isn't some sort of harassment, is it?" and the disruption instantly ceased.
From a feminist perspective, The Urantia Book has some surprising things to say that will mightily support basic feminist attitudes on equal rights, while at the same time affirming that women are not the same as men, nor expected to achieve the same goals. It asserts that male and female will need each other throughout all phases of their ascendant careers and that the differences in viewpoint between male and female persist beyond this life. Even in Havona, the pilgrims who were once men and women will still be aiding each other in the Paradise ascent. We will never transform so far as to obliterate the personality trends of gender; these two basic variations will always continue to intrigue, stimulate, encourage, and assist us. Male and female characteristics will always be mutually interdependent for cooperation in the solution of problems and difficulties.
The message to social policy idealists is: be aware that inherent differences between the sexes have value and must not be overlooked or pushed aside in the otherwise appropriate goal of obtaining equal rights for women. By working together and by dividing tasks and responsibilities intelligently, men and women can make better use of their unique strengths, qualities, and abilities.
An article in Parents magazine (April 1986, Lori Andrews) represents
the more realistic view that there are inborn gender differences. In "How
Women Think" Andrews explains that women and men do think differently:
"Males tend to view themselves more as individuals, while females
view themselves as part of a web of relationships."
She makes
the case that although women and men are intellectually equal they have
different ways of viewing the world. In a recent and popular book by Deborah
Tannen, You Just Don't Understand, she, too, presents dozens of sketches
supporting the thesis that gender differences are inborn. She relates that
even from early childhood males get status and identity from independence
while females gain standing by developing intimacy -- first with family
and playmates, and later in adult relationships. As a result, the way men
and women express themselves is often mutually confusing. As an example,
a woman asks her husband whether he wants to stop on the way home from
work to relax and have a drink at a place they frequent. In refusing he
thinks the conversation is over. For her, the suggestion was supposed to
be a way of starting a discussion to decide what to do together. She is
hurt because he appears to have decided for them both. He wonders why she
is hurt since he answered her question the way he honestly felt.
A concern of many women is captured by Tannen when she writes: "Some
women fear, with justification, that any observation of gender differences
will be heard as implying that it is women who are different -- different
from the standard, which is whatever men are. The male is seen as normative,
the female as departing from the norm."
She goes on to say,
"Pretending that women and men are the same hurts women, because
the ways they are treated are based on the norms for men."
Many
men use a communication style which challenges authority, jockeys for position,
and seeks to gain status by asserting an individual and independent view
that is perceived as better than any other. A man who believes he treats
women and men equally may well be using this masculine communication style
with women. Meanwhile, most women seek interconnectedness (intimacy), and
tend to relate by consensus, group processing, and cooperation. Women gain
standing when well-liked. Women tend to work at understanding their feelings
and the feelings of others, and then solve problems by agreement. Men tend
to look for solutions to problems, often skipping over the processing.
For these reasons, for example, a man with a challenging communication
style may view a woman manager's style of seeking consensus as weak and
inefficient.
Since habitual ways of thinking and talking are difficult to change, learning to respect others' ways is just a first step toward more empathetic relationships. Men need to accept the fact that many women regard exchanging details about personal lives to be a basic ingredient of intimacy. And women need to accept that many men do not share this view. Mutual acceptance will at least prevent the pain of being told you are doing something wrong when you are only doing things your own way.
At this point we need to emphasize that the generalizations here about men and women cannot be assumed to be true for every individual. While most men are physically stronger and taller than most women, it is also true that some women are stronger and taller than most men. Similarly this is true for mental, emotional, and other gender differences. Spiritually there are no gender differences.
That there are physiological brain structure differences between male and female was brought to our attention by a biochemist friend. Male stroke victims, he said, tend to lose discrete functions while female stroke victims tend to lose partial functions, that is, men's brain functions seem to be more linear than women's. For example, if a TV screen were to represent a stroke victim's perceptions, for a male some part of the picture would be absent; for a female the whole picture would be more fuzzy. Another difference, we are told, is that in cases where the nerve connection between the two hemispheres of the brain (corpus callosum) is severed, women and men react with typically consistent yet very different responses. How different are we? While there is considerable overlap in the following list of characteristics, studies show widespread agreement with these gender-related character traits (which are not intended to be a one-to-one correspondence):
Males Generally Are: Females Generally Are: independent interconnected objective subjective active neat competitive tactful logical intuitive decision-makers collaborative workers providers nurturers directors comforters aggressive passive bold patient and kind courageous gentle/meek strong sensitive/sincere autocratic democratic spatial thinkers artistic, literary motivators responsive specialty teachers generalists selfish selfless doers listeners
The following passage provides a wonderful entry into the topic of the
feminist movement. At the same time, it's a bit of a sticky wicket. I know:
for years I read this passage with a furrowed brow. Today I appreciate
it. "The differences of nature, reaction, viewpoint, and thinking
between men and women, far from occasioning concern, should be regarded
as highly beneficial... both individually and collectively. Many orders
of universe creatures are created in dual phases of personality manifestation.
Among mortals, Material Sons, and midsoniters, this difference is described
as male and female; among seraphim, cherubim, and Morontia Companions,
it has been denominated positive or aggressive and negative or retiring.
Such dual associations greatly multiply versatility and overcome inherent
limitations, even as do certain triune associations in the Paradise-Havona
system." [UB:938]
Doesn't this passage say that men and women
are different in "nature, reaction, viewpoint and thinking"?
Many women will not want to agree; they have sought equal rights and opportunity
and do not want to think they have either less ability or undesirable natures.
Women have worked long and hard to achieve their goals; they do not want
to be told that it was all for naught. At least, these were my initial
reactions.
But, truthfully, this is neither what the quotation says nor what it implies. Men and women are different. One is not superior to the other, we are merely different. This is to say that even if identical opportunities existed for both men and women to become engineers, this would never lead to equal numbers of practicing male and female engineers. Neither would equal opportunities for men and women to become nurses lead to equal numbers of male and female nurses. After much consideration and reflection, I now acknowledge as much.
There are certain phrases and words that catch in the throats of feminists.
Linking positive with aggressive and negative with
retiring (and knowing that female is linked to both of the
latter) can mightily stir the emotions of modern women, and, thankfully,
many men as well. I'm working to overcome what simply may be a semantics
problem with words like retiring and negative (of course,
in considering electricity, it is the negative charge that gets all the
action). While the Urantia Papers have much to contribute during this era
of gender-consciousness, often gladdening a feminist's heart, we are frequently
required to maintain open minds to see this wider perspective, as with
these two well-known paragraphs from page 938: "Male and female
are, practically regarded, two distinct varieties of the same species living
in close and intimate association. Their viewpoints and entire life reactions
are essentially different; they are wholly incapable of full and real comprehension
of each other. Complete understanding between the sexes is not attainable.
"Women seem to have more intuition than men, but they also appear
to be somewhat less logical.
Feminist literature and attitudes generally hold that, excepting
biological differences, men and women are basically the same; our differences
have been assumed to indicate a purely cultural socialization process.
We, and many of our peers, have attempted to raise our children free of
gender bias. Among other things we have provided them with non-stereotyped
role models, with non-gender- specific toys, and we have encouraged our
sons to be sensitive and our daughters to be brave. Yet along the way,
despite our best intentions, these sons and daughters have made it clear
to us that they were not cut from the same cloth. The crack in the wall
of gender-free thinking has always been present and now the social pressures
for equalizing the sexes are making it even more evident.
Woman, however, has always been the moral standard-bearer and the spiritual
leader.... The hand that rocks the cradle still fraternizes with destiny."
Gender differences show up early. As a teacher I continually see studies
and articles on gender-related issues in educational contexts. "Boys
and Girls Learn Differently" is not only a statement that has been
verified by my classroom experience, but is also the title of an excellent
article by Susan Chira in Redbook (September, 1992) which, considering
its brevity, does an excellent job of summarizing key research in learning
style differences. To quote from her introduction: "No matter
what parents thought before they had children, most soon become convinced
that boys and girls are distinct creatures. Whether the traits are inborn,
the result of hormones or different brain structure -- as some experts
claim -- or the result of being treated differently -- as others believe
-- is hotly debated. But for whatever reason, from the moment they enter
the classroom, boys and girls do tend to behave differently."
This
same theme is continued by Tannen, who shares several anecdotal observations
of young children. After observing second graders she says, "Comparing
the boys and girls of the same age I had the feeling I was looking at two
different species."
For understanding and healing gender conflicts
her book is invaluable.
Let us follow the development of marriage and the family as social institutions as they are explained in The Urantia Book. Nearly everything of lasting value in society is rooted in the family. It is the cornerstone of civilization. The family was the first successful peace group -- men and women learned to adjust their antagonisms and at the same time teach their children the pursuits of peace. However, the history of the development of family life has also been one of struggle.
The home as an institution, a partnership between one man and one woman, dates from about 500,000 B.C. Adam and Eve later exerted a lasting influence in the Garden; for the first time in history men and women worked side by side.
Women's instincts to love and care for children conspire to make them the more interested party in promoting marriage and family life. No direct biologic urge led men into family life or held them there. Men were forced into home life only by the pressure of mores and social conventions; they were slow to take an interest in the establishment of marriage and home -- it was not love that made marriage attractive to primitive man but hunger and the shelter woman provided for her children.
Because of physical and emotional attachment to their children, women depend upon cooperation with men. This urges women into the sheltering protection of marriage. It may be that it was the instinct of motherhood that led women into marriage, but it was the male's superior strength that compelled women to remain with them.
The mother and child relation is natural, strong, and instinctive, and one which compelled primitive women to submit to many strange conditions and to endure untold hardships. Even at that, maternal instinct is not indestructible; it may be thwarted by ambition, selfishness, and religious conviction.
The ideals of marriage have greatly progressed in recent times; in some cultures, wives enjoy nearly equal rights with husbands. In concept, at least, the family is a loyal partnership for child rearing, accompanied by sexual fidelity. But marriage is not just an individualistic ideal; it is the social partnership of a man and a woman, existing and functioning under current mores and enforced by the laws and regulations of evolving society.
During any age it is the status of women that is the best criterion for measuring the evolutionary progress of society. The progress of marriage itself is a reasonably accurate gauge registering the advances of civilization. Twentieth-century marriages stand high in comparison with those of past ages, although family and home have endured a serious testing because of the problems so suddenly thrust upon society by the expansion of women's liberties, rights which have long been denied.
The family is humanity's greatest achievement, combining as it does the evolution of the biologic relations of male and female with the social relations of husband and wife.
Truly, it is not good to be alone. Many noble impulses die because there is no one to hear their expression. Some degree of recognition and a certain amount of appreciation are essential to the development of character. Without the genuine love of a home, no child can achieve the full development of normal character. Of all social relations calculated to develop character, the most effective and ideal is the affectionate and understanding friendship of husband and wife. Marriage, with its myriad relations, serves best to draw forth the impulses and motives which are indispensable to the development of strong character. And such a relationship, men and women in the embrace of the highest ideals, is so valuable and satisfying an experience that it is worth any price, any sacrifice, requisite for its possession.
Marriage always has been and still is a supreme ideal and temporal dream; a dream seldom realized in its entirety. Yet it endures as a glorious ideal, ever luring on to greater strivings for happiness. [UB: 765, 930, 932, 933, 935, 939, 940, 1775]
These insights from The Urantia Book do give a sense that it has long been two steps forward, one step back in striving to achieve an effective partnership between men and women.
Throughout most of recorded history human affairs have been dictated with a masculine orientation. Control and domination, subjugation and tyranny, selfishness and greed; these broad categorizations can be attributed to the male-controlled, patriarchal cultures of the past thousands of years. Modern women could look at this history with disdain; they might see it as reason enough to rebel against social systems predominately designed by men.
During this time of social upheaval at the end of the twentieth century there may be too much emphasis placed in developing a lack of gender distinctions. Urantia Book readers know that we are created as two distinct types of beings, like two varieties of the same species. This is not a cosmic mistake; there is meaning and plan to such diversity. Distinctly different, the sexes are frameworks upon which our mortal characters develop and through which we express divine potentials.
Let's take a moment for a bit of humor (the divine antidote for exaltation of ego -- in case we're still suffering from such an affliction):
Luann: You know what're really weird, Bernice? All the
famous chefs at fancy restaurants are men. But
who does most of the cooking at home?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: And the superstar hair stylists are men, but who
usually does hair at your local salon?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: The big-time fashion designers are mainly men, but
who does most of the sewing in real life?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: Men deliver most of the babies, but who has them all?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: Most world leaders are men. But who's less violent?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: There are lots more men lawyers, yet who wins the
arguments in a typical marriage?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: And men are physically stronger than women, but who
always ends up carrying everything?
Bernice: Women.
Luann: How'd things get so screwed up anyway?
Bernice: Men?
(LUANN Comic Strip by Greg Evans; Sacramento BEE, April 25, 1993)
Perhaps it seems we have overly emphasized the negative role of the male, creating a lopsided view of the reasons for gender misunderstandings. Yet, The Urantia Book generally does place the fault for most of the strife between the sexes fully upon men's shoulders, and for good reason. The gender challenges men and women face today have their genesis in the far- distant past, long before Christian theology -- nearly 35,000 years ago -- rooted in the default of Adam and Eve. Their personal influence lasted not much more than a few hundred years, not the thousands and thousands of years intended. Gender challenges, as well as many of the other social problems which we face today, result in good part from not having historically appropriate role models, roles Adam and Eve would have provided. Among the roles they would have fulfilled are: biological uplifters, establishing planetary culture, providing patterns for government, exhibiting the reality of the spiritual world here on earth. Perhaps most importantly, they would have exemplified the appropriate masculine and feminine role models, and would have demonstrated the pattern for truly uplifting family life. This world missed a tremendous amount of knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and guidance because of their unfortunate default. Then came Jesus to relevel the playing field for gender relationships.
Let us review specifically what The Urantia Book says regarding
Jesus' view of marriage and gender relations. One of the best examples
is Jesus' talk with the man who mistreated his wife (See UB: 1470; also
on pg. 2.7 of this series). Other pertinent examples are: "The
apostles were at first shocked by, but early became accustomed to, Jesus'
treatment of women; he made it very clear to them that women were to be
accorded equal rights with men in the kingdom." [UB: 1546]
"It was most astounding in that day, when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the synagogue (being confined to the women's gallery), to behold them being recognized as authorized teachers of the new gospel of the kingdom. The charge which Jesus gave these ten women as he set them apart for gospel teaching and ministry was the emancipation proclamation which set free all women and for all time; no more was man to look upon woman as his spiritual inferior. This was a decided shock to even the twelve apostles. Notwithstanding they had many times heard the Master say that `in the kingdom of heaven there is neither rich nor poor, free nor bond, male nor female, all are equally the sons and daughters of God,' they were literally stunned when he proposed formally to commission these ten women as religious teachers and even to permit their traveling about with them. The whole country was stirred up by this proceeding, the enemies of Jesus making great capital out of this move, but everywhere the women believers in the good news stood stanchly behind their chosen sisters and voiced no uncertain approval of this tardy acknowledgment of woman's place in religious work. And this liberation of women, giving them due recognition, was practiced by the apostles immediately after the Master's departure, albeit they fell back to the olden customs in subsequent generations. Throughout the early days of the Christian church women teachers and ministers were called deaconesses and were accorded general recognition...." [UB: 1679]
"Though Jesus refused to be drawn into a controversy with the Pharisees concerning divorce, he did proclaim a positive teaching of the highest ideals regarding marriage. He exalted marriage as the most ideal and highest of all human relationships. Likewise, he intimated strong disapproval of the lax and unfair divorce practices of the Jerusalem Jews, who at that time permitted a man to divorce his wife for the most trifling of reasons, such as being a poor cook, a faulty housekeeper, or for no better reason than that he had become enamored of a better-looking woman." [UB: 1838]
"...Jesus said: `Marriage is honorable and is to be desired by all men. The fact that the Son of Man pursues his earth mission alone is in no way a reflection on the desirability of marriage. That I should so work is the Father's will, but this same Father has directed the creation of male and female, and it is the divine will that men and women should find their highest service and consequent joy in the establishment of homes for the reception and training of children, in the creation of whom these parents become copartners with the Makers of heaven and earth. And for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall become as one.'" [UB: 1839] "In one generation Jesus lifted women out of the disrespectful oblivion and the slavish drudgery of the ages. And it is the one shameful thing about the religion that presumed to take Jesus' name that it lacked the moral courage to follow this noble example in its subsequent attitude toward women." [UB: 1671] We clearly see that Jesus confronted the ancient traditions and dismissed the belief that men have rightful authority over women, stating that women and men are spiritually equal and that the heavenly Father treats the Spirit Mother as one equal to himself. He exhorted husbands to be willing to bestow loving care and consideration upon their wives as it is done in heaven. He exalted marriage as the most ideal and highest human relationship and portrayed the family as the Father's will for mortals.
In a perfect world men and women would be surrounded with the divine guiding influences necessary to direct and mold character values toward those which will steer civilization into the era of light and life. This guiding light on the path of progressive evolution was, for the most part, lost, then rekindled by the teachings of Jesus, and then again dimmed through the course of the evolution of Christianity. We have been, and are still, in the process of learning these values on our own. The Urantia revelation provides the means for retrieving the values which are essential to restoring suitable gender relations.
The Urantia midwayers, in writing the Jesus Papers, declared Jesus "a true man among men." When Pilate brought him before the crowds for the final time he was introduced with, "Behold the man." It is understandable that spiritually guided men have looked to Jesus throughout history as exemplifying the best of masculine nature.
But what of women? Does the model Jesus' life provides therefore exclude half the human race? As we worked on this study, we found that we had differing opinions regarding the role Jesus does provide for men and women. Claudia said, "Jesus is the role model women wish to emulate." She illustrated this by saying that all of the female Urantia Book readers she knows look to Jesus as their guide and inspiration. And she said Jesus not only embodies the best of masculine characteristics but the best of feminine ones, too. Larry disagreed, saying, "Jesus is a masculine role model not entirely appropriate for women. The most meaningful feminine role would have been Eve; Jesus does not fully exemplify feminine character ideals." Discussing these opinions and working together to prepare this study, Larry proved to his own satisfaction, with Claudia's help, that his original prejudices were inaccurate and required updating -- a fine example of the benefits obtainable through working together in partnership.
The primary intent of Jesus' earth mission was spiritual. His life demonstrated the gospel of the kingdom: the family relationship between God and creatures. While Jesus was essentially successful in staying clear of the social and political issues of his times, he nonetheless exemplified the ideal values of a well-balanced character. Referring to the list of character traits, we see that Jesus readily fits either side of the list. The attributes most admired by those who knew Jesus personally are expressive of the best of both masculine and feminine character qualities.
The Urantia Book gives the following insights into Jesus' character as seen from the perspective of his Apostles:
unfailingly kind non-hypocritical refreshingly genuine true to his convictions supernally tender forbearing positive a real man of great experience in the things of the world free from affectation sympathetically affectionate magnificently firm in devotion to doing the Father's will unaffectedly dignified helpful and sympathetic lovingly merciful yet inflexibly just and fair firm; never vacillating never rough or crude a lover of nature but free from the tendency to revere nature strong yet gentle never meddlesome or dictatorial broadminded unselfish tolerant calm tolerant humourous and playful free from levity and frivolity never obstinate never indifferent truly courageous never rash or foolhardy pure and innocent tender virile, aggressive, and forceful
Others, those not his Apostles, commented that Jesus:
lived a life of truth never stooped to pretense never resorted to shamming
The book also notes these additional qualities exhibited by Jesus:
stalwart strength of character calmness poise the capacity for going about doing good assurance unusual cheerfulness a love for everyone as brothers and sisters superb self-respect touching consideration truly consistent sincerity unostentatious humility understanding interest in the small and the great, the rich and the poor a forgiving disposition inexplicable composure
The patterns established in heaven are intended to eventually be reflected down into material creation. Although marriage and family life are human social institutions, there are divine plans in heaven exalting the partnership between masculine and feminine personalities as well as for marriage and family. These plans are portrayed by the association of the Creator Son and the Creative Mother Spirit.
The Son initiates the creation of many of the orders of universe children, while the Universe Mother Spirit is responsible for bringing into existence other numerous ministering orders. In none of these creative functions does one act without the counsel and approval of the other.
The Universe Mother Spirit cannot alone challenge insurrection or defend authority, but she sustains the Son in everything he may be required to experience in his efforts to stabilize government and uphold authority. Only a Son can retrieve the work of their joint creation, but no Son could hope for final success without the incessant co-operation of the Universe Mother Spirit.
At the enthronement of the Creator Son as a Master Son the Universe Mother Spirit makes public and universal acknowledgment of subordination to the Son, pledging fidelity and obedience. Not before this occasion has she acknowledged subordination, and not until after this voluntary relinquishment of power and authority can it be literally proclaimed that "all power in heaven and on earth has been committed to his hand."
Following this pledge, the Master Son acknowledges his eternal dependence upon her, the Spirit co-ruler of his domains, and requires all the creatures in their domain to pledge themselves in loyalty to her as they have to him.
As sovereign of his universe, the Master Creator Son is undisputed in all the details of its management although he always accords the Universe Mother Spirit a coordinate position and equality of authority in all its affairs.
The Master Son and the Mother Spirit preside over their universe much as a father and mother watch over their family of children. It is not altogether out of place to refer to the Universe Mother Spirit as the creative companion of the Creator Son and to regard the creatures of the realms as their sons and daughters -- a grand and glorious family.
When he became the Master Son of the local universe, Michael published to the worlds the fact of the Universe Mother Spirit's equality with him in all endowments of personality and attributes of divine character. And this became the transcendent pattern for family organization and government for the creatures of the inhabited worlds. Here were established the human ideals of the family and the institution of marriage. [UB: 368, 369, 930]
In this paper we have briefly described some factual gender differences, given attention to current gender awareness issues, and discussed Jesus as a model for both men and women. We may now have a better understanding of some of the reasons the gender wars still continue. Women continue to struggle to break free of male domination. In so doing, many feminist attitudes emphasize the belief that women are very much like men and therefore men and women should be be equal in every regard. Modern research and The Urantia Book show this belief to be untrue and detrimental. Just as some language in The Urantia Book could be more gender-inclusive while still noting gender differences and complements, so too could today's feminists be focusing on equality while protecting partnerships, the family, and legitimate gender roles.
There are many areas where gender inequality and discrimination have been artificially imposed by men. However, there are also many areas in which one sex generally functions better than the other. The genders are not the same; our roles differ, we are intended to be complementary.
The Urantia Book clarifies the causes of many of the problems we currently face -- problems attributable to inadequate and insufficient historical role models across the march of the ages and attributable to inherent biological dissimilarities. Jesus, as revealed in The Urantia Book, exhibits the character qualities men and women must strive to develop so that together we will foster the unfolding of the full human potential.
As the patterns established in the celestial realms are incorporated in our material existence the metamorphosis from conflict to partnership between the sexes will eventually give dawn to the age of light and life.
The "might makes right" days are history in gender relationships. There is no justification for one sex to subjugate the other. We know Jesus' plan for our spiritual growth. While all human beings are children equal in the eyes of God, the biological, mental, and character differences between male and female are to be celebrated, not denied.
We believe it is immensely important that the Urantia Papers' concepts become more widely spread outside of the Urantia community and that the revealed life and religion of Jesus becomes more thoroughly understood. With the teachings of Jesus to guide us, then truly will men and women be led to accept each other as separate but equal complements.
Parents, "How Women Think," Lori B. Andrews, April,
1986
Bell, Linda, Vision of Women
Bowning, Christine, The Goddess: Mythological Images of the
Feminine
Craighead, Meinrad, The Mother's Song: Images of God the
Mother
Eisler, Riane, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our
Future, 1987, San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Faludi, Susan, Backlash
Fiorenza, E. S., In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological
Reconstruction of Christian Origins, 1988, New York:
Crossroad.
Giles, Mary, The Feminist Mystic and Other Essays on Women and
Spirituality
Griffin, Susan, Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her,
1978, New York: Harper and Row.
Hosmer, Rachel, Gender and God: Love and Desire in Christian
Spirituality
Miller, Casey & Kate Swift, The Handbook of Non-Sexist
Writing, 1988, New York: Harper and Row.
Ohanneson, Joan, Woman: Survivor in the Church
Osiek, Carolyn, Beyond Anger: On Being a Feminist in the
Church
Papa, Mary Bade, Christian Feminism: Completing the Subtotal
Woman
Redbook, Boys and Girls Learn Differently, Susan
Chira, September, 1992
Ruether, Rosemary, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist
Theology, 1983, Boston: Beacon Press.
Scientific American, "Profile: Vive La Difference," Doreen
Kimura, October, 1990
Scientific American, "Sex Differences in the Brain," Doreen
Kimura, September, 1992
Sharma, Arvind, Women in World Religions
Tannen, Deborah, You Just Don't Understand, 1990, New York:
Ballantine Books.
The University of California Press, Gender at the Crossroads of
Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era; Gender
and Religion: On the Complexity of Symbols
Utne Reader, "Women and Men, Can we get along? Should we
even try?" June, 1993.
The Urantia Book, 1996, Chicago, Uversa Press.
A service of
The Urantia Book Fellowship