I will add my tentative thought here -- throughout Paul's epistles he connects 'Adam' to Christ, and when he suddenly moves to OT female figures like Hagar and Sarah he is thinking in a way that ties into his whole theology and eschatology. I think his switching here to Eve, talking about the 'Woman' (taken from Man, first formed) and the part she played in sin and the promise of a Saviour to her, connects with his whole 'Adam' theology. Creation points us toward new creation.
I think C. S. Lewis says that we are all feminine to His masculinity in That Hideous Strength. The Woman (in the new creation, the church) does need protection from false teaching. The second Adam does that for her. Christ's masculinity is symbolised to his church in male office bearers.
This new creation significance of 'male and female' bears on how we live out male and female especially in those arenas (marriage, church) where we are showing these realities forth.
I understand how the questions of generalisations come in, and how obvious some of them are on the face of things. There is real biological created difference, and that often factors into psychological (for lack of a better word) difference. In general, women are more tender hearted than men and emotion is easier to manipulate. (Yet I can easily think of a number of men who are more emotional than their wives.) In general women are weaker in their physical frame than men, though some women are stronger than their husbands (and some women are very strong!). We have historically been more easily abused in that weakness and tender heartedness. Because of that one -- there should be such caution about false steps here. Leaps with texts can so easily come to making us *less human*, less capable of rational thought or judgment, less allowed to form or express an opinion, etc. These verses have been used that way by Christian men toward their wives and daughters. That is fudging what God has actually said. But it is also in real lives, endangering those that in general, men should care more specially to protect.
Paul can say in Galatians that in Christ, there is no male or female -- and call us not to compete but to love. I think that when we apprehend all that we are heirs of we're able to live out the roles we are called to more lovingly because the focus is not on us, or what we're able to scrape out of this world. It's on Jesus, and maleness we all have in Him (sons and heirs) and femaleness we all are to Him (his bride) and the world to come.
I have probably said much inadequate in all this, and don't wish to become argumentative about it so I won't. Just to give a positive explanation of some of what I think Paul is getting at in calling up creation and redemptive history.
Pergy you are a beloved brother and I try to pray for you daily. I hope I didn't sound snarky above -- forgive me if so. I know you how much you value your wife as a wife and mom and also in her insights and training and ability to do highly skilled work beside you in a hard field. Many men aren't treating their wives with that kind of respect, and misinterpreted verses seem to give them a 'right' to the *pride* of being male that one is called to lay aside in Christ. Pride is a root in all of us of so much evil -- definitely in me. Though from what has been said there is much I'd disagree with in Ms. Miller's book -- I can deeply appreciate her concern for that.
The Apostle Paul says there is no bond or free in Christ and yet still tells servants to obey their masters.
Yes, I also appreciate her book. She is certainly no heretic, but a solid sister.
And yes, there are some awful men out there looking for any excuse to dominate. I see reaction and counter-reaction constantly on these issues, and the teams line up along gender lines.
In Papua we are working towards the rights of women, ironically, to go to school and to not be married off without consent and we have preached and advocated against domestic violence. I suppose I am a first wave feminist.
And yes, I believe women are more tender-hearted and relational.
Otherwise, I hold to traditional gender roles that existed for hundreds of years before these strange new labels such as Complementarian and Egalitarian sprung up.
Last edited: