Teaching gender roles at a Christian liberal arts college is challenging. Students come to class with set notions about gender roles shaped by culture, political platforms, church positions, for instance, and their ideological orientation is typically conservative. Yet the task of a true liberal arts professor is not to reinforce set ideas about gender roles held by the students but to broaden their intellectual insights. Contrary to what some in the secular community may think, passing on sociology at a Christian college is a lesson in liberal arts. By offering students theory, research, cross-cultural and Biblical comparisons, and a socio-historical/political context of the subject matter, a Sociology professor at a Christian college leads students through a maze of cognitive dissonance that ultimately results in a broader understanding of gender roles. This process, from my experience, includes and goes beyond suggestions in Goldsmid and Wilson’s (n.d.) ASA booklet on teaching sociology by adding spiritual reflection. Although the process is exceedingly trying, it is possible at a Christian liberal arts college--and should be a model for secular colleges as well as Christian ones.

V. James Mannoia, Jr. (1993:3) suggests that the "genius of the Christian college is its aim to produce graduates who go beyond both [dogmatism and cynicism]; they are persons who embody critical commitment." By critical comment he means, "a kind of becoming which goes beyond: beyond both mere answers or mere questions, beyond both dogmatism and skepticism, bigotry and cynicism, and beyond both legalism and license" (11). Most students, Mannoia recognizes, go through a cognitive, moral and faith developmental process during their Christian college experience. Initiating this process is a formidable task for the Sociology professor because of the entrenched beliefs and expectations of many Christian students.

Typically, my students, most of whom have evangelical backgrounds, expect a Sunday school approach to the study of gender roles. It is not unusual early in the semester for a student to say something along these lines: "Why aren’t we reading more Christian works? In my church group, we read Dr. Dobson’s (1989) book on gender and sexuality. Have you read it? It’s real good. Why don’t you use it for this class?" More blatantly, I once had a student come to my office following the first day of class and literally throw the gender textbooks on the floor. Then he proclaimed that the books were "trash" and that I was one of those "feminists" who had no business teaching at a "Christian" college. He listed a number of "appropriate" books for the course, all written by nonacademicans who are part of the Christian Right.

There is a tone of anti-intellectualism coming from many of my students. They would rather read popular Christian writings on gender than engage in a serious study of the subject. They are drawn to answers to their questions that are bulleted, simple, and absolute. Again, popular is not bad—but it is not the stuff of scholarship. Theory, research, and cultural and historical comparisons may be abstruse, complex, and relative, but they are the staples of a good social science diet. Getting my students to understand this can be an arduous endeavor.

Compounding the problem is the dominance of political and ideological conservatism in American Christianity today. The affiliation of the Christian Right with the Republican Party and the influential force of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council result in students thinking if it aint Republican or from the Religious Right it aint moral and thus worth knowing. It is not that these powerful voices are wrong per se (speaking as a Christian) but that they are a single Christian, ideological viewpoint. There are other Christian viewpoints on gender roles, falling from the far left to the far right on the ideological continuum. There are Biblical interpretations that support the Christian Right, there are interpretations that do not. There is solid research that supports the views of the Christian Right, there is other research that does not. And, of course, the same is true of positions from the Christian Left. The standard in my classroom is to critically evaluate the views offered by Christians from one end of the ideological continuum to the other—and the full range of published research on gender roles.

At a Christian liberal arts college, it is expected that instructors integrate scripture and scholarship. This requires recognizing both the various translations and interpretations of the Bible and academic studies—even when they seem to contradict one’s slant on reality. Unfortunately, I find that many students resist this exploration process, desiring only that which reinforces their often dogmatic views on gender roles. Students have let others think for them. Their views on, for example, abortion, women working outside the home, day care, and homosexuality clatter like sound bites from Christian radio.

I am often reminded of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand when I see students struggling with opposing Christian viewpoints and an array of empirical evidence, both Christian and secular, on a particular aspect of gender roles. Understandably, students are threatened by the material, and some even feel betrayed, after all, are not they paying good money to get a "Christian" education. Again, the issue is breath of knowledge. I am not out to turn conservatives into liberals, or vice versa. Instead, as a professor of Sociology at a Christian liberal arts college, I seek to train my students well in theory, methods, cross-cultural studies, socio-historical context, critical thinking, and spiritual reflection--an education in perspective and analysis. Difficult as the job may be at times, I am usually successful in leading most of my Christian students to a greater understanding of gender roles and appreciation of their liberal arts higher education.

The rest of this article is devoted to a closer look at my pedagogical approach to gender roles. I believe the material will be especially helpful for professors in both Christian and secular colleges who have Christian students. It should also be worthwhile for any instructor of gender roles.

Regardless of whether I were teaching gender roles at a Christian college or secular university, certain material would be included in a course covering gender roles. This would include theory, methods, history, cross-cultural studies, and critical analysis. Added to this list at a Christian college is Christian perspective. Aspects of my gender course content are discussed below.

THEORY, IDEOLOGY, AND CONCEPTS

Any respectable course, in my opinion, begins with an introduction of theory, ideology, and concepts. As a sociologist, I cover the three main sociological paradigms (structural functionalism, symbolic interactions, and conflict), along with phenomenology, ethnomethodology, feminist theory, from radical feminism to Christian feminism in its variations, and some theories on learning gender, e.g., identification theory, social learning theory, cognitive development theory, and Bem’s enculturated Lens Theory.

After a lecture on ideology, the theories are presented as ideological constructions, some conservative, some liberal. Basically, structural functionalism is regarded as a conservative theory whereas conflict and feminist theories are viewed as liberal, with symbolic interactionism falling more in the middle of the ideological continuum. (I recognize that this is a simplification of the ideological weightings of these theories. There is not enough time in the course, nor is it the goal of the course, to delve into the complexities of the sociological theories.)

Crucial concepts introduced early in the course include gender identity, gender roles, male/female, feminine/masculine, feminism, patriarchy, sex, gender, sexism, sex roles, and socialization. Students practice analyzing current, cross-cultural, and Biblical societies from the theories—and do so relying on concepts. This exercise assists students with seeing the power of perspective, and, hence, ideology, even when reading sacred texts.

METHODS AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Most gender roles textbooks fail to cover researching gender. Inclusion of major research methods, i.e., survey, observation, and experiment, in the course follows theory via lecture and is designed to (1)teach students about the relationship between theory and methods, (2)enhance students’ skills in inquiry, and (3)promote an appreciation of and what constitutes social science research. Most students resonate with this "scientific" part of the course.

In conjunction with an overview of basic research methods, I cover objectivity and critical analysis. Researcher bias and values are presented as both issues and solutions to the study of gender roles; issues in that they can result in monolithic, incomplete, and/or inaccurate findings, solutions in that they can add diversity of orientation, e.g., a Christian position verses a secular one (Annual Editions 1997; Baker, Anderson, and Dorn 1992). The key here is awareness that objectivity is an unobtainable ideal. Subjectivity (e.g., researcher bias, values, and ideology) should be deduced and evaluated when reading a work on gender roles. A review of critical analysis and accompanying assignments sharpen students’ skills at identifying subjectivity as well as assessing logic, reasoning, empirical evidence or lack thereof, and so on. The desired end is for students to understand that theory and methods, and, hence, social science works, are social products, regardless of whether they are created by Christians or not, that are held to disciplinary standards.

HISTORICAL, BIBLICAL, AND CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES

Nothing seems to debunk myths held by students about gender roles better than a sampling of historical and cross-cultural societies, including societies from the Bible. There is a range of women’s and men’s roles presented in the Bible. Back in 1955, Edith Deen, columnist for the Fort Worth Press, wrote a book entitled, All of the Women of the Bible, which covers the various lives of women in the Bible. There is Sarah, mother of nations; Rahab, protector of the Joshua’s spies; Deborah, a judge and general; Jael, a hero for killing Sisera; Hannah, mother of Samuel; Huldah, a Hebrew prophetess; Esther, a queen who risks her life for her people; Mary, mother of Jesus and among the first women to establish Christ’s church; Lydia, a businessperson and Europe’s first convert, and Priscilla, a leader in the New Testament Church, for example. At this point, students are asked: Which should be our role-model? Is there one singular female Biblical role-model for all women today? How are the cultural and religious contexts of these Biblical women different from our own?

I also explain to my students that Jesus, as presented in the Gospel, has both "traditional" masculine and feminine traits. He is masculine, in that he is, e.g., active, brave, rational, analytical, strong, aggressive, assertive, intelligent, dominant, and independent, and he is feminine in being sensitive, cooperative, caring, nurturing, intuitive, gentle, and concerned about children. There are male Biblical figures who have their own calling and others who are called to support the calling of a woman, as was the case of Joseph and Mary. Again, which is the "right" gender model for the America, Christian male today? It is at this juncture that many of my students, especially male students, rise above dualistic thinking about gender roles and traits.

Beyond Biblical references, a socio-historical and cross-cultural review of family life adds to students grasping the complexity of gender. A study of family life in western civilization reveals to students such practices as abandonment, abortion, child-sharing, infanticide, and wet nurses (some of whom cared for children in their own homes up to several years after the births of the children), which for starters begs the notion of "mother instinct" (Davis and Farge 1992; C. Klapisch-Zuber 1992; Pantel 1992; Veyne 1987).

Throughout the world today and historically, there are numerous examples of abandonment, infanticide, mutilation, sexual abuse of children, and neglect—by both mothers and fathers. Students begin to understand that cultural and personal circumstance lead to both women and men performing their mother and father roles, respectively, in various ways.

Likewise, students learn that roles of wives and husbands are impacted by social conditions. Sarah, wife of Abraham, is a good Biblical example for students. Sarah lived in a pastoral society, traveling with caravan, animals, slaves and servants at a time when a woman received little regard until she had given her husband a son. Many wives in the old testament had wet nurses and servants to care for their children and homes—and some shared their husband with his other wives. Cross-cultural studies such as Murdock and Provost’s (1973) reveal that there are societies where only men loom weave, preserve food, make clothing, spin, do the laundry, or throw pots; there are societies where only women butcher, clear land, housebuild, plant crops, or harvest. Today, there are matrilineal societies, polyandrous and polygynous societies, societies in which men and women are warriors and others where both are expected to actively rear children, and some where men adorn themselves and women provide. The crossroads of gender and personhood, sexuality, polity, kinship, religion, and reproduction differ dramatically from one society to the next (Brettell and Sargent 1997). The point is, a review of the people in the Bible and in the world today illuminates the diversity of gender roles, especially within a cultural framework. Students soon shy away from statements such as "traditional gender roles," "the Biblical family," "this is the way it’s always been," and "this is the way it’s supposed to be [i.e., American, middle-class, etc.]."

LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Once students realize that pre-cast conceptions of gender are limited (and have gained knowledge in theory, methods, history, cross-cultural studies, and critical analysis), they are ready to review literature and research on gender role topics such as "gender and employment," "gender and sexuality," "gender and education," and "gender and politics," and "gender and the military." Instead of proceeding with what students think ought to be, most students are prepared to evaluate the arguments by critically analyzing the theory and research supporting various topic positions. Their aggressiveness at critical analysis, not surprisingly, shines when they have a strong conviction on the topic. And when topics are value-loaded, such as dual-career couples, daycare, homosexuality, and women in combat, it is often extremely difficult for students to take an honest look at the empirical findings that run contrary to church teachings or political platforms. Nevertheless, an awakening occurs and students at least recognize that there are empirical findings that do not support all of their religious beliefs. What I stress to the students is that it is fine to have convictions, to disapprove of certain lifestyles, e.g., on a moral basis—but that doesn’t negate data. One must process and mentally file all findings from reputable research.

More data than ever can be found on the internet. Several publishers now offer booklets on the internet by discipline. One excellent Sociology source is J. Rivard (1997), Quick Guide to the Internet for Sociologists. Students seem to enjoy serfing web sites, retrieving information on topics from "Feminists for Free Expression" to "Men’s Movement Organizations." Key here is involvement: having students use the computer, amass and critique the information, compare sites, assimilate ideas, and summarize some well-thought-out statement on the topic searched. Generally, I find the active learning of internet assignments to be appreciated and desired by the students.

In addition to reviewing research on gender roles, I have my students engage in research via MicroCase¹. My intent is to familiarize students with basic research methods, statistics, data analysis, and the impact of structure on gender roles. To date, students have conducted small surveys or participant observation studies, and they have had the opportunity to work with actual data sets. The hands-on research reinforces to students the importance of a good research design and empiricism, in general.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY AND CHRISTIAN WORKS

Many students think that books and articles authored by Christians must be scholarly since, after all, they are published. The course enables students to distinguish opinion from empiricism—and to see writings as social products. Although there are plenty of popular Christian sources on gender roles, only a few are what I regard as scholarly works. One book that I have found academically worthy is "What Paul Really Had to Say About Women" written by John Temple Bristow (1988). During the course, students read Bristow’s book with the following goals: (1)to obtain information from it; (2)to critically analyze it; (3)to review epistemology and exegesis; (4)to apply various theoretical perspectives, (5)to consider and discuss our own views on scripture and gender roles, and (6)to examine the social construction of reality with regard to gender roles. It is this last goal that stretches students’ thinking on gender to a climax. I turn my attention to it now.

The social construction of reality² is defined by David Newman (1997:54) as "the process through which facts, knowledge, truth, and so on are discovered, made known, reaffirmed and altered by members of society." The fluid "stages" of this process are called externalization, objectivation, and internalization. The first "stage," externalization, is the "stage at which people construct a piece of cultural knowledge about some aspect of the world" (Newman 1997:56). The social event studied, referring to Bristow’s book, is gender roles. I begin by requiring students to write a paper on the social construction of gender based on Bristow’s book and their own life experiences; they may write in support or counter of Bristow’s thesis. During class on the day the assignment is given, I ask students, "Where did the ideas you have about gender roles come from?" Students commonly respond with "from my pastor," "from my parents," "from my youth director," "from listening to Christian radio," and/or "from reading the Bible." From here, I urge my students to think about where their pastor, parents, youth director, and persons on the radio got their ideas about gender and where these ideas came from in the first place. This always leads us to the Bible.

I use this opportunity to open discussion on Bristow’s suggestion that our ideas about gender in the western world emerged from the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Jews who had one thing in common: a low regard for women. He argues that the cultural influence of these earlier people impacted the translation and interpretation of Paul’s writing. In fact, Bristow’s thesis is that Paul was actually a champion of women’s rights, but because of the cultural influences of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Jews, Paul’s writings were incorrectly translated and later interpreted. I need to note here that I do not require my students to agree with Bristow’s thesis, but I do expect them to recognize that translations and interpretations of scripture are social products and that there are varying Christian ideas about gender roles based on the processes of these products. Hence, students must think about Bristow’s thesis with the tools of scholarship.

We finish the class by looking at the remaining two "stages"³ of social construction of reality, objectivation and internatlization, as they apply to Bristow’s book. Objectivation "occurs when the ‘facts’ that were originally someone’s ideas, speculations, or theories take on an objective reality of their own, independent of the people who first created (externalized) them" (Newman 1997:56). Questions I raise to students include: "If Bristow’s thesis is correct, how have gender roles been objectified by Christians today? What is self-evident about gender roles that may, in fact, be the ideas generated by others centuries ago? How have we reified ideas about gender roles in American society? And, if Bristow’s thesis is incorrect, what then?" These questions, which generate tremendous in-class discussion, are also to be answered in the students’ papers.

Externalization is "the process through which people learn the objectified ‘facts’ of a culture and make them a part of their own internal consciousness" (Newman 1997:58). Building upon the other two "stages" of social construction of reality, I ask students to consider how through everyday socialization they have acquired their specific knowledge about gender roles. Answers to this question reinforce the significance of externalization and, overall, the social construction of gender. They also enhance the quality of class discussion and analysis in the students’ papers. The class activity and paper altogether help students to see how powerful culture (especially language) and socialization are in shaping how we think about gender.

Inevitably, I find that most students, although startled at first, enjoy this process of enlightenment. A fair number of the students by the end of the semester, however, have not finalized their position on their personal views about the Bible and gender roles and experience some uneasiness in this development. A prevailing, closing comment goes something like this: "I’t’s a lot to take in. I’m still thinking about it. My image of it has definitely changed, though." Students committed to learning grow cognitively, morally, and in their faith, although it is a painful process. Recognizing the tension embodied in moving beyond dualistic thinking, V. James Mannoia, Jr. (1993:13) writes: "In relativism, the ‘certainties’ of dualism have been lost, and with them much of the intellectual confidence and passion they brought along." From my end, it is gratifying to know that students’ images about gender roles have at least been budged.

I believe the way in which students’ regard gender roles influences the careers they choose for themselves, the way they view people in other cultures, and how they interact with others in their daily life. Christians believe, based on Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (4:1), that we are to live a life worthy of the calling we have received. I wonder how many students raised in evangelical homes have missed their "calling" from being socialized according to "traditional" gender roles. What if a woman is called to be a judge, a politician, a warrior, a church leader, a businessperson, or even a professor-- but for her entire life, she has been told that a woman’s proper place is in the home. And what if a man is called to follow his wife’s calling which may place him in the role of caring for the children, but he fails miserably because of the traditional messages he has heard all of his life?

Gifts from God, a belief among Christians, and how we use them are likewise fashioned by gender roles. There are numerous gifts mentioned in the Bible; they include: prophesying, serving, teaching, encouraging, contributing to the needs of others, leadership, showing mercy, message of wisdom, message of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, miraculous power, distinguishing between spirits, speaking in different kinds of tongues, and church administration. An important point to bring out to students is that no where are gifts presented as gender specific. Instead, we are told in Romans 12:6 that "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us" and in 1 Corinthians 12:4 that "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit." Yet, if we were to assign gifts according to traditional gender traits, many gifts would fall squarely under masculine traits, e.g., leadership and church administration, and others under feminine traits, e.g., serving and encouraging. Furthermore, in Romans 12:6-8, the importance of using our gifts is stressed, pleading if one’s gift is prophesying, let the person prophesy; if it is serving, let the person serve; if it is teaching, let the person teach; if it is encouraging, let the person encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let the person give generously; if it is leadership, let the person govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let the person do it cheerfully. Again, I can’t help but wonder how many well-meaning Christians have not used their gifts—or at least one of their gifts—because of gender constraints.

Finally, the commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 34:39) shoots straight at conceptions of gender. Throughout history and the world today, one sex is mistreated at the hands of the other due to sexist ideology, practices, and laws. Furthermore, without an education in gender roles, Christians who enter the missions field may be ill-equipped to love their neighbors whose ways are so far from their own. In addition, the new commandment: "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another" (John 31:34) sets a holy example of how we are to treat one another, male and female. Questions I raise to students are: How can we love if we think others are beneath us? Or if we limit their callings or gifts? Or if we find them queer because their lifestyles shock us? Clearly, views on gender are tied to Christian students’ lives in multifaceted ways..

Teaching gender roles at a Christian liberal arts college is not about catering to the whims of students. It requires a willingness to uphold the rigors of a liberal arts education with a faithful and critical reading of scripture. Students who complete a gender course at a Christian liberal arts college should be able to hold their own academically with their secular counterparts—and to grow in spiritual wisdom. Upholding rigorous academic standards and offering a classroom where both secular and religious ideas can be considered and critiqued should prevail at any liberal arts college, Christian or otherwise. It can seem like an ominous undertaking the first weeks of teaching a gender class as students espouse their preferences for readings and lectures that reinforce their nearsighted views on gender roles. Nevertheless, the integrity of integrating faith and learning in higher education must be protected for the sake of the student, the institution, and preserving the liberal arts. A Christian liberal arts education need not be an oxymoron.
 

¹ MicroCase Corporation publishes textbooks, workbooks, and accompanying software containing rich and real data sets, such as  General Social Surveys, the National Survey of Children, the High School and Beyond Study, and the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample.

⁴Organizations such as United Nations, U.S.A.I.D. Women and Development, U.S.Catholic Bishops, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (committees), and World Vision publish statistics on gender.  A riveting work on women’s subordination in Latin America is Bunster-Bunalot (1993:252-261), “Surviving Beyond Fear:  Women and Torture in Latin America.”   “Part Two, Women’s Oppression and Cries of Pain,” in King (1994), ed., Feminist Theology from the Third World, offers accounts of women’s suffering in the Third World.

Annual Editions. 1997.  Sociology Instructor’s Resource Guide 97/98.  Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Baker, Paul, Louis Anderson, and Dean Dorn.  1992.  Social Problems: A Critical Thinking Approach.  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luchmann.  1966.  The Social Construction of Reality.  Garden City, NY:  Anchor.

Brettell, Caroline and Carolyn Sargent.  1997.  Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective.  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:  Prentice Hall.

Bristow, John Temple.  1988.  What Paul Really Had to Say About Women.  New York, NY:  Harper Collins.

Bunster-Bunalot, Ximena.  1993.  “Surviving Beyond Fear:  Women and Torture in Latin America.”  Pp. 252-261 in Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical   Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men, 3rd ed., edited by Alison Jaggar and Paula Rothenberg.  New York:  McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Davis, Natalie Zemon and Arlette Farge, eds.  1992.   A History of Women in the West:  Renaissance and Enlightenment Paradoxes.  Cambridge, MA:  The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Deen, Edith.  1955.  All of the Women of the Bible.  New York:  Harper & Row.

Dobson, James 1989.  Answers Your Questions About Marriage & Sexuality.  Wheaton, IL:  Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Goldsmid, Charles and Everett Wilson. (n.d.)  Passing On Sociology:  The Teaching of a Discipline.  Washington, D.C.:  American Sociological Association/Teaching Resources Center.

King, Ursula.  1994King, Ursula.  1994.  Feminist Theology from the Third World.  Great Britain:  The Cromwell Press.

Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane, ed.  1992.  A History of Women in the West:  Silences of the Middle Ages.  Cambridge, MA:  The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mannoia, V. James, Jr. (unpublished/1993).  An Education that Goes Beyond.  Houghton, NY:  Houghton College.

Murdock, George and Caterina Provost.  1973.  “Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex:  A Cross-Cultural Analysis.”  Ethnology 12:203-225.

Newman, David.  1997.  Sociology:  Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, 2nd ed.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Pine Forge.

Pantel, Pauline Schmitt, ed.  1992.  A History of Women in the West:  From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saintes.  Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rivard, Joseph.  1997.  Quick Guide to the Internet for Sociologists.  Boston:  Allyn and
Bacon.

Veyne, Paul, ed.  1987.  A History of Private Life.  Cambridge, MA:  The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.