Tag Archives: Egalitarian

The Lost World of Adam and Eve with Dr. John Walton

I just learned something MIND BLOWING about the creation of Eve that has astounding implications for understanding the equality of men and women as God’s original design and intent.

I have been listening to lots of fascinating podcasts as my summer cleaning has kicked into gear here in beautiful coastal Maine.  I cannot be subscribed to enough podcasts as I spend around 40 hours a week allllll byyyyy myselllllffff tidying up vacation rentals.  This past week, one particular episode from the Phil Vischer podcast stands out.  They had on Old Testament scholar and Wheaton College professor Dr. John Walton to discuss the creation account in Genesis.  In particular, he was discussing his books, The Lost World of Genesis One and The Lost World of Adam and Eve (with contributions from N.T. Wright).  If you cannot listen to the whole podcast, start at 29:00 to hear Dr. Walton’s thoughts on the creation of Adam and Eve.  Your world will be rocked!  Here is the entire discussion, and I will highlight the conversation’s main points below.

  • Ancients were more interested in discussing FUNCTIONAL origins rather than MATERIAL origins.  It’s more about ORDER than about STUFF.
  • Reading the text with our modern lens DISTORTS the text.  We ought to read the text exactly for what it was written for.  Read it according to the author’s intent, understanding the language they used and the culture they came from.
  • A Hebrew word and its meaning cannot always be reduced to an English word.  We have no suitable translation for some Hebrew words, like bara translated “create,” asah translated “to make,” and yatsar translated “formed.”
  • We assume because of our modern worldview and culture that these words are material in nature, but in Hebrew it can refer to PROCESS. For instance, with asah, the subject is somehow involved in a causation process, but it does not necessarily denote direct causation or to what level the subject is involved.  It also means we cannot prove a literal six day process just from the text.
  • Adam is used in Genesis 1-5 in a variety of ways, sometimes with a definite article on it (the adam), so that this is not his name, this means “human.”  “Adam” and “Eve” are Hebrew, which didn’t exist at the time, so these were not their names until Hebrews wrote their story down.  We have an Israelite account written to Israelites in a particular period.
  • We assume Genesis 2 is giving us more detailed information about day 6, but day 6 never mentions man and woman, it talks about the creation of HUMANITY.  Perhaps more than two people.  This makes more sense when we get to chapter 4 when Cain finds a wife and says “anybody who finds me will kill me” when he is driven away, and forms a city.
  • At 29:00 they begin to talk about the Creation of Adam and Eve–This is a must hear!  Dr. Walton asserts that forming from DUST and building from a RIB in ancient near eastern accounts are ARCHETYPAL claims, not claims of material origin.
  • “Dust” pertains not to chemistry but to mortality. Humans in the Bible were NOT created IMMORTAL.  Creationists argue, “There can’t have been evolution because there was no death before the Fall,” but Dr. Walton asserts they were created mortal but given an antidote, the Tree of Life.
  •  At 38:30, they start going into Eve’s creation.  The translation “rib” is not represented in the Septuagint or Latin or Aramaic.  This is the only place in the Bible that the word tsela is translated “rib” instead of “side.”  It is an architectural term, “this side of the temple,” “this side of the ark,” and there are always TWO sides.
  • Adam knows this is not just a bone; “this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.”
  • “Deep sleep” has two possible contexts.  It could pertain to a situation where there is imminent danger and the person doesn’t know because they are asleep.  Jonah in the bottom of the boat, Saul is asleep in the camp when David is creeping in, Sisera is asleep in Jael’s tent when she drives a tent peg through his head.  Or “deep sleep” may have to do with a visionary experience.  Daniel falls into a deep sleep and has visions in chapters 9 and 10.  Adam falls asleep and has a VISION in which he sees himself cut in two, out of which one half God builds Eve.  Eve is the SAME AS YOU, is made of the same flesh.  
  • The original audience was more concerned with the theological and basic identity implications of the creation story rather than the scientific implications.  This story is about WHO WE ARE, our IDENTITY.  We are frail, mortal beings, dust.  We are gendered pairs, ontological EQUALS, of the same essence and matter.  The Bible does not speak to biological origins.
  • This interpretation does not challenge the traditional understanding of marriage, sin, or the existence of Adam and Eve.  This also does not contradict Paul, as N.T. Wright explains in the book.

“I have suggested that one can accept the historical Adam without thereby making a decision about material human origins.  This has the advantage of separating scientific elements, material human origins, from exegetical and theological elements with the result that conflict between the claims of science and the claims of Scripture is minimized without compromise.” – Dr. John Walton


Thanks for visiting TBKW blog.  Come again!

The Beauty of Womanhood

tumblr_m6jj46ZG9n1qak0uxo1_500

Desiring God has a new post on their blog today written by Abigail Dodds on “The Beauty of Womanhood” (I am curious to know what percentage of their blog posts are on “biblical manhood and womanhood”?).  Dodds’ writing is lovely but her description of ideal womanhood is a one-dimensional picture of privilege that diminishes the beauty of women who do not fit the complementarian mold, and is also disparaging of men who practice gender equity.  Rather than celebrating the multi-faceted, diverse beauty that exists in global expressions of womankind, Dodds places middle- to upper-class 1950’s-esque Westerners on a pedestal of “blinding beauty.”  I am certain that her intent was not to be unkind or dehumanising to others, but that is essentially what occurs when fundamentalists create firm boundaries around what a woman or man may or may not do.  Those who do not conform are less-than, or in Dodds’ words, “grotesque.”

Dodds describes a woman’s influence as “found primarily in the soil of the home,” and glorious feminine beauty as being found in a woman “who presides over her domain with strong arms and resourcefulness (Proverbs 31); daughters that are corner pillars, whose strong support could only be matched by their exquisiteness (Psalm 144:12).”  Dodds suggests that it is our culture (liberalism!  feminism!  egads!) that draws women away from the home to run on a treadmill of expectations in pursuit of rewards “that don’t require diapering.”  Let’s not mention the treadmill of expectations that come with complementarianism!

 

And what does it offer in return? Women who strive against themselves, at war with the seeming redundancy of two X chromosomes, in a competition we were never made for, and in our hearts, don’t really want to win. For when a woman sets herself up alongside a man — as made for the same things and without distinction — the result is not uniformity, but rather, a reverse order. Indeed, in order for her to become like a man, he becomes less and less like one. And that’s something that most women, even the most ardent feminists, recoil at in their heart. Not because femininity is detestable, but because on a man, it is grotesque.

But wait, there is more!  Dodds says that women who “forsake our feminine glory in pursuit of the uniqueness that belongs to men…become usurpers, persistently insisting that our uterus and biology are equal to nothing, irrelevant.”  Women are meant to “make good men great.”  We mimic our Savior by submitting to another’s will (many complementarians believe in the heretical doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son.  I don’t know if that is what Dodds is referring to here, but I wonder if women are to mimic our Savior by submitting, what are men to do?).

God’s design outlined in the Scriptures is a vision for womanhood that is not just right and to be obeyed, it is experientially better than all the world has to offer. And it doesn’t just apply those who are married or mothers. Single women of any age are meant for full godly womanhood. To be a mother in the deepest sense — that is, spiritually — nurturing and growing all God’s given her.

Complementarians will often say that living a patriarchal life is the most wonderful way to live, without truly listening to non-complmentarians about their life experiences or to complementarian women who suffer in their subjugation (read this! and this!).  It is a black and white issue for them and anyone who believes differently has been influenced by “the world” and could not possibly have acceptable reverence for God’s Word which clearly subordinates women.  I do not know Abigail Dodds personally, but methinks she may not have any direct experience living outside of a complementarian context.  I would guess that she was raised in a patriarchal culture and socialized to see the world through a patriarchal lens.  It makes sense to her, she has a great marriage and a lovely faith community (with male leadership, of course), and she wants others to live as well as she does.  Staying home is financially possible for her family and she does not recognize that this is not the case for most families, that this is privilege and not biblical womanhood.  Her motivation for writing a piece like this is commendable and her heart is pure, but frankly, complementarianism’s rigid gender roles limit both men and women from exercising their full humanity and spirituality and from mutual flourishing.

87640share

I myself fit Dodds’ description of “blinding beauty” for most of my life.  Complementarianism is all that I ever knew and I believed it 100%.   Six years ago, while I was still complementarian, God spoke to me clear as day, calling me to pastoral ministry.  I was blown away.  I knew without a doubt that I had heard directly from God but his call directly contradicted my patriarchal world-view.  That day, the chapel dean from my college days posted a link to “How I Changed My Mind About Women in Ministry” on Facebook, so I ordered it and began my journey to egalitarianism.  For six years, I have been reading on a nearly daily basis from scholarly works defending egalitarianism (e.g. this one or this one) and articles depicting the plight of women living in patriarchal cultures (like this one).  I post what I am reading to The Beautiful Kingdom Warriors FB page. Listening, listening, listening.  Learning to pay attention to the least of these, who have no privilege and power, describe the consequences of patriarchy in their life.  An article like Dodds’ seems benign until you consider it in the larger context of the suffering of women and girls around the world.  President Jimmy Carter’s book, “A Call to Action,” is an excellent place to begin acknowledging the plight of disenfranchised and powerless women.  In my review of his book, I said,

President Carter’s book is a “call to action” to reverse the widespread gender violence that is a result of patriarchal systems that devalue women, an epidemic touching every nation.  He makes a case that denying women equal rights has a devastating effect on economic prosperity and causes unconscionable human suffering that affects us all.

The world’s discrimination and violence against women and girls is the most serious, pervasive, and ignored violation of basic human rights…Women are deprived of equal opportunity in wealthier nations and “owned” by men in others, forced to suffer servitude, child marriage, and genital cutting.  The most vulnerable, along with their children, are trapped in war and violence…A Call to Action addresses the suffering inflicted upon women by a false interpretation of carefully selected religious texts and a growing tolerance of violence and warfare.  Key verses are often omitted or quoted out of context by male religious leaders to exalt the status of men and exclude women.  And in nations that accept or even glorify violence, this perceived inequality becomes the basis for abuse. [dust-jacket description]

So what do I believe is beautiful about women?  The Imago Dei in them.  By that alone they are astoundingly, blindingly beautiful.  Is it grotesque when my husband diapers the children or supports my work and ministry life?  Not at all.  His love for me and our family is astoundingly, blindingly beautiful.  Our mutual love and submission to each other is what I would wish for other marriages.

You know what I think is grotesque?  Pharisaical, prescribed gender roles.


Thanks for visiting TBKW!  “Like” us on FB if you’d like to read similar articles from around the web!

Egalitarians on Twitter using #CBMW16

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood just wrapped up their T4G (Together 4 the Gospel) conference yesterday.  The conference was headlined by prominent Evangelical pastors and there was a separate women’s conference headlined by prominent complementarian women.  The theme was “The Beauty of Complementarity” and sessions included “God’s Design for Women,” “Bound for Life: Following Your Husband Through Life’s Challenges,” “Raising Godly Sons,” “Fitted for Flourishing: How the Bible Creates a Happy Home,” “Workers at Home: The Temptation to be ‘Mom Plus,'” etc.  According to CBMW, their hashtag #CBMW16 was used 2.4 million times throughout the conference, as attendees live-tweeted quotes and reflections…

…and as egalitarians responded with challenges to complementarian theology.  I am sure it was frustrating to the CBMW that they could not control the Twitter-sphere the way they could control the mic at their patriarchal conference.  Here are some of my favorite egalitarian tweets:

https://twitter.com/April_Kelsey/status/719873845402935296

https://twitter.com/sarahbessey/status/719892676200411137

 

https://twitter.com/tim_fall/status/720010543205974017


Thanks for visiting TBKW blog!  “Like” us on Facebook and on Twitter if you’d like to see more articles from around the web on gender issues in the Church and world.