Ancient Greek philosophers made many attempts to figure out the mystery of life - how we are formed in the womb, and what role a woman and man have in the creation of new life. Without microscopes and other modern devices, they had to resort to guessing in more than one instance.
Eva Cantarella, author of Pandora's Daughters, explains Aristotle's view of the male and female roles in procreation:
Though indispensable, the female contribution is one of matter, with which woman is identified. And the contribution of the woman-matter is passive by nature, while the male contribution, man being form and spirit, is active and creative. In essence the male in reproduction, "converts" female matter with his sperm. Passivity in reproduction is one of the factors that Aristotle uses to justify the social and legal inferiority of woman. (Eva Cantarella, Pandora’s
Daughters: The Role & Status of Women in Greek & Roman Antiquity [MD:
The John Hopkins University press, 1987] p 60)
Because the woman's ability to give life has all the potential to make the woman more valuable than the man, Aristotle used motherhood as the source of the woman's subjection: because the woman is considered passive in the act of creating life instead of active, she is less valuable than the man, who is viewed as the one who actually gives life to the child.
Because hierarchical theology has the same root as patriarchy, we find a similar thought in hierarchical theology. Bruce
A. Ware is the author of a lengthy article on the compatibility of our
equality as humans created in the Image of God and hierarchical theology
in which the man has authority over the woman because of his prior
creation.
(Read the article at, http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-1/Male-and-Female-Complementarity-and-the-Image-of-God.
In
the weird world of Mr. Ware, all things are not as they seem. What
looks right at first becomes quickly left, as he guides us through a
maze of incoherent thoughts.
The
first part of the introduction explores what being created in the Image
of God actually means. Mr. Ware concludes this exploration with the
noble thought that both men and women are created in the image of God
and are therefore equal as human beings. But because equality and
inequality are like oil and water, and Mr. Ware wants to prove the
existence of the latter rather than the former, he tells us that the woman derives the Image of God from the man.
Man
is a human being made in the image of God first; woman becomes a human
being bearing the image of God only through the man. While both are
fully and equally the image of God, there is a built-in priority given
to the male that reflects God's design of male-headship in the created
order.
What
then about the rest of us? How do we become the Image of God since we
are born of women, and not perpetually created from a man’s side?
Mr. Ware is of the opinion that both parents contribute, “So,
it appears that those born become the image of God because they are born
through those who are the image of God.” But because it would create a
contradiction in his theology to affirm that only Eve derived the Image
from a man, he adds his opinion that Genesis 5 teaches that only the father transfers the Image of God to the child.
What
is true in both texts, of Seth's and the woman's formation
respectively, is that they derive their human natures, as Scripture
specifically indicates, through the man. Another parallel is clear and is significant: both Seth and Eve are fully and equally
the image of God when compared to Adam, who is image of God. So, the
present discussion reaffirms and reinforces our earlier declaration that
all human beings, women as well as men, children as well as
parents, are fully and equally the image of God. But having said this,
Scripture indicates in addition to this important point another: God's
design regarding how the woman and how a child become the
image of God seems to involve inextricably and intentionally the role of
the man's prior existence as the image of God.
But
if both Seth and Eve derived the Image of God from Adam, how was it
possible for Seth, but not for Eve, to transfer the Image to his own
children? Could it be that Eve is not mentioned in Genesis 5 because the
chapter is “the written account of Adam's line” and the whole point is
to show which father goes with which son, the mother being well known to
all? In other words, maybe Eve had a bit more to do with Seth being in
the Image of God than Mr. Ware would have us acknowledge.
Despite
the obvious flaw in his thinking, Mr. Ware continues undeterred. To
provide further evidence for his theology, and to remove the possibility
that the man’s prior creation could be “nothing more than a sort of
tossing of a divine coin,” Mr. Ware informs us that God formed the woman
from the man in order to make her dependent of the man.
But God wanted to convey two theological truths (not just one) in the formation of the woman from the rib of Adam: since the woman was taken out of the man, 1) she is fully and equally human
since she has come from his bones and his flesh, and 2) her very human
nature is constituted, not in parallel fashion to his with both formed
from the same earth, but as derived from his own nature so showing a God-chosen dependence upon him for her origination.
In other words, the woman must be the man’s subject and dependent of him or Genesis 2 speaks only of equality.
In an effort to find his “derivation” theology already in Genesis 1, Mr. Ware points out that the Hebrew word ‘adam,
found in Genesis 1.26, is a masculine word and therefore it teaches us
“that woman possesses her common human nature only through the prior
nature of the man.” Mr. Ware seems strangely unaware of the fact that
the gender of a word is an artificial linguistic tool, not a theological
statement; for example, spirit is a feminine word in Hebrew but neuter
in Greek. Mr. Ware adds to the confusion when he writes, “Since this is
so, we should resist the movement today in Bible translation that would
customarily render instances of áa„d£a„m with the fully non-gender
specific term ‘human being'. This misses the God-intended implication
conveyed by the masculine generic ‘man,' viz., that woman possesses her
common human nature only through the prior nature of the man.” How
strange then that the creators of the Greek Septuagint (250 BCE)
translated ‘adam with anthropos, a non-gender specific Greek term for “human being.” Perhaps the dictionary has it right, and ‘adam is a non-gender specific word for “human being” in Hebrew.
As
long as Mr. Ware’s focus was on the first humans, his theology was able
to survive, albeit full of holes. But when he begins to apply it to
singles, the boat sinks before it even has had a change to float. Mr.
Ware writes that a marriage is only a shadow of the union between Christ
and the church, wherefore “no believing single will miss out on the reality of marriage even if God calls him or her to live without the shadow.”
So far so good. But when the question of the man’s authority is brought
up, Mr. Ware suddenly writes that the man's prior creation
“does not entail the authority of all men over all women,” for
the man’s authority should be extended only to Christian husbands and
the elders of the church. All single people should therefore be members
of a church “where they may be involved in the authority structure of
that church,” for “qualified male elders are responsible for the
spiritual welfare of their membership, and so single women, in
particular, may find a source of spiritual counsel and guidance from
these male elders in the absence of a husband who might otherwise offer
such help.” If only married women are subject to their husbands, why
does Mr. Ware nevertheless insist that Christian single women offer
deference to Christian single men?
Second,
the temporal priority of the male in the image of God means that in
general, within male-female relationships among singles, there should be
a deference offered to the men by the women of the group, which
acknowledges the woman's reception of her human nature in the image of
God through the man, but which also stops short of a full and general
submission of women to men. Deference, respect, and honor should be
showed to men, but never should there be an expectation that all the
women must submit to the men's wishes. And for single men, there should
be a gentle and respectful leadership exerted within a mixed group,
while this also falls short of the special authority that husbands and
fathers have in their homes, or that elders have in the assembly.
Because all are in the image of God, and because women generally are
image of God through the man, some expression of this male-headship
principle ought to be exhibited generally among women and men, while
reserving the particular full relationships of authority to those
specified in Scripture, viz. in the home and the believing community.
Although
Mr. Ware has an explanation to the subjection of women and children, he
doesn’t provide an explanation how a man can have authority over another man. Since all men are directly in the image of
God and therefore equal, Mr. Ware lacks the means to make a man
subject to another man, wherefore he lacks a foundation for the authority of the elders in the church.
To conclude, Mr. Ware's "derivation" theology has several serious flaws:
1. Why do men not derive the Image of God from women although they are born of women?
2.
How do men transfer the Image of God to their children if also Seth
derived the Image of God from Adam in the likeness of his mother Eve?
3.
If husbands have authority over their wives because Eve was created
from Adam, what is the foundation of a man's authority over another man?
4. If all men do not have authority over all women, why must single Christian women offer deference to single Christian men?
We know today that the woman has a far more active role in procreation than Aristotle thought. In addition, since Aristotle's fall from grace, the woman has been released from her inferior position in society and has advanced to near equality with the man. It is an unspeakable tragedy that hierarchical theology has become the new torch bearer for the idea that the woman has a lesser role in the creation of new life, wherefore she must be the man's subject - all in the name of God.
Lately hierarchical Christians have been complaining that their people are far more egalitarian than they should, and egalitarian Christians have been complaining that their churches are far more hierarchical than their confession spells out. The question is, why?
The first thing we must note is that on the hierarchical Christians side, it is the leadership that is complaining; on the egalitarian side it is the laity that is complaining. In other words, hierarchical laity has a hard time putting their beliefs into practice, while egalitarian leadership isn't always willing to put their beliefs into practice.
This reveals two things to us:
1) People are naturally egalitarian, but power corrupts.
2) Love leads to equality, but power kills love.
Love leads to equality because those who love treat others naturally with respect and consideration. Power kills love because in our quest for power we must treat others with disrespect and without consideration, and having secured power we must hold on to it, wherefore we cannot treat others the way we want them to treat us; we cannot love them the way we love ourselves.
Hence we find that hierarchical Christians who love, naturally revert to equality, and egalitarians who seek power, naturally revert to hierarchy.
And this tells us that the question is really about our willingness to serve one another in love. Do we, or don't we?
By now everyone has read John Piper's ideas about figure skating and
hierarchical theology that he tweeted earlier this week, but a thought that just doesn't leave me is that Piper
unwittingly makes a case for egalitarian theology.
You see, in ice-skating the coach can be either a man or a woman, and the
coach has the final say, just as God has the final say in the life of a
Christian.
In an article that appears on Piper's website, "Desiring God," John Ensor tries to make the case for a leading male skater and a
supporting female skater:
"Sochi is helping me be a better husband. And the Olympics are freshly
making my wife to delight in her role as well. The surprising lesson is on
display in figure skating pairs.
At its best, this event displays the strength and beauty of unity: how two
different people become one. The gold goes to that couple which has most
mastered the skill of male leadership and female support making one glorious
whole."
(Read the whole article at http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/an-olympic-lesson-for-husbands-and-wives)
But how can the man lead when it's up to the coach what moves the couple
makes? The man doesn't command his partner to follow his preferences, nor does
the woman submit to the man's decisions. The final decisions have been already
been made by the coach in partnership with the dancers, taking into account
their strengths and weaknesses; a good coach does not ask the dancers perform
moves they can't. Hence, Ensor's analogy makes the coach the leader, and in
more than one case that leader is a woman. And because the leader can be either
a man or woman, the leadership model that figure skating provides is one in
which the most competent dancers become leaders, leaders that help other
dancers excel. This is an egalitarian model, not a hierarchical model.
If figure skating requires competent leaders, who have acquired their competence from
years of training, why doesn't the church?
I love being a woman.
I love everything about it. Not just my ability to give life, but the more frivolous things, such as wearing make up, and skirts; being allowed to cry in public, and exhibit emotions in general.
But I don't like it when I'm told by you, my dear brother, that because I'm a woman I must somehow be emotionally incontinent; that I must somehow not be a serious person because I wear pink, and that it's my fault if I make myself too pretty, and you can't handle it.
I don't like it when you tell me that I need someone to tell me what to do "for my own good"; that I cannot/shouldn't make decisions for myself, because I'm a woman.
I don't like it when you say I'm not capable of logic because I'm a woman and tell me to be silent, only to turn around and use my silence as proof that women aren't capable of logical thought
I don't like it when you say I'm the weaker sex because I'm a woman, and ignore the pain of having twenty of your bones being crushed simultaneously, the pain I endured in childbirth.
I don't like it when you squeeze me into any mold that you need me to be in; if it's wartime I must be brave, if it's not, I must let a man be brave for me; if there is too much work to be done, then I must work; if not enough, I must stay home. Whatever mold puts you at the top, that's what you will use to prevent me from becoming your equal.
Why is that, my dear brother?
Why can't you see me as your equal? What scares you so much that you must use God's words to prevent from me from becoming who you are, a human with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that humanity.
The first woman was created from the man; what he was, she was. All I ask is that you see me the way the first man saw the first woman, with the same joy, instead of the fear that came with the fall that keeps us, your sisters, from ever becoming what we were created to be.
All I ask is for you to let me be a woman - a real woman.
Stewart makes the following bold claim on his website jesus-is-savior.com:
"The Bible commands wives to OBEY their own husband [sic] (1st Peter 3:1-5). To teach anything else is rebellion against
the Scriptures. Dr. Curtis Hutson and Dr. Rice are 100% correct. Ephesians
5:24 plainly states that a wife is to be subject (Greek, hupotasso,
meaning, TO OBEY, to put in subjection under) to her own husband,
just as she would to Jesus Christ." (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/everything.htm)
Let's consider what this phrase "just as she would to Jesus Christ" actually means.
Why do we as Christians obey Jesus? Because he is our Lord, or because he is the truth?
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6, NIV).
We obey Jesus because he is the truth, because the truth sets us free from error and sin.
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? (Gal 5:7, NIV)
Those who refuse to follow the truth will receive a just judgment according to what they have done.
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger (Rom 2:5-8, NIV).
As Christians, we have the truth within us, but we aren't the truth. And because we aren't the truth, sometimes we take a trip to the dark side and sin.
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8-9, NIV).
Now, if we obey Jesus because he is the truth, and none of us is the truth, how can a married woman obey her husband the way the church obeys Jesus?
She cannot.
To make the impossibility of the situation even more clear: can we worship a created being the way we worship God?
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen (Rom 1:25, NIV).
If the church worships Jesus and therefore serves Jesus, should a wife worship her husband? According to some, the answer is a startling yes.
Sarah Grimke, the 19th-century American author, abolitionist, and suffragist wrote the following:
If man is constituted the governor of woman, he
must be her God; and the sentiment expressed to me lately, by a married man, is
perfectly correct: ‘In my opinion,’ said he, ‘the greatest excellence to which
married woman can attain, is to worship her husband.’ He was a professor of religion – his wife a
lovely and intelligent woman. He spoke out what thousands think and act. Women
are indebted to Milton
for giving to this false notion, ‘confirmation strong as proof of holy writ.’
His Eve is embellished with every personal grace, to gratify the eye of her
admiring husband; but he seems to have furnished the mother of mankind with
just enough intelligence enough to comprehend her supposed inferiority to Adam, and to yield unresisting submission to her lord and master. Milton puts into Eve’s
mouth the following address to Adam: “My author and disposer, what thou bidst,
unargued I obey; so God ordains – God is thy law; thou mine: to know no more,
is woman’s happiest knowledge and her praise.”
This much admired sentimental nonsense is fraught with absurdity and
wickedness. If it were true, the commandment of Jehovah should have run thus:
Mans hall have no other gods before ME, and woman shall have no other gods
before MAN.”
If a wife must obey her husband the way the church obeys Jesus, the husband must by necessity by a god whom the wife must also worship, for it would be rather strange to say that the church should obey Jesus, but not worship him. So, where do we draw the line?
While it is true that we must see Jesus in others and therefore serve others the way we serve Jesus (Matt 25:40), nowhere does the Bible encourage humans to worship other humans the way they worship God. In fact, we are expressly forbidden from having other gods and forming idols (Ex 20:2-4). The reason we as Christians serve others is because we love them, not because they have authority over us.
In fact, a husband who commands his wife to obey him is asking his wife to violate God's commandments in favor of a man-made commandment he himself has created. Jesus had a few choice words on this subject:
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
(Mark 7:9-13, NIV)
If a married woman is not allowed to follow her own conscience, she cannot worship and obey God (Rom 14:23). Instead, she is forever doomed to be an idolater, worshiping and obeying her idol, her husband. How well does this sit with Stewart's other exhortations to avoid idolatry?
Sarah Grimke, “Letter XIII, Relation of Husband and
Wife,” Letters on the Equality of the
Sexes and the Condition of Woman, ” 1837.
It is irresistibly charming when people just say what they think instead of hiding behind eloquent words that mean nothing. On the "Christian Family Page" (presumably) David Stewart's wife writes the following:
"Wives are to submit to their husband's requests. The only exception is
when a woman is told to do evil, remember Ananias and Sapphira."
( http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/family.htm)
It sounds great until you begin to think what this advice really entails. If wives should submit to their husbands' request, we are creating godly wives and ungodly husbands, for love doesn't seek its own (1 Cor 13:5), nor does love demand others follow our every preference, for love is easily entreated, and looks also to the interests of others (Phil 2:1-5).
On another page, Stewart responds to a letter sent to him:
"She argued that a wife doesn't have to obey her
husband if he's wrong. In fact, she is wrong. We're talking
about obedience here. Some people beat around the bush and allege that
being "subject" or being "submissive" is not the same as being "obedient";
HOWEVER, the Bible eliminates all such speculation by associating a wife's
obedience with that of the Church obeying Jesus Christ. It would be
absurd for anyone to say that the church should be subject to Christ, and
submit to Christ, but does not have to necessarily obey Christ ("http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/everything.htm).
So which one is it, Mr Stewart? Do married women have to obey their husbands in EVERYTHING, even when the husband is wrong, or is there an exception, such as when a woman is told to do evil?
Jesus would never ask us to sin, but husbands do sometimes ask their wives to sin. Should married women obey God, or their husbands in such cases?
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!
(Acts 5:27-29, NIV).
Of course, Stewart doesn't think women should live for God, but for men, and that is where his error comes from. (See http://recoveringfrombiblical.blogspot.com/2014/02/david-j-stewart-enigma.html)
But if Christians should not sin, every Christian is responsible for her own conduct, and this requires free will. If women were created to obey their husbands, they were created without free will, and if that is the case, women aren't human. Which, of course, shouldn't surprise us for Stewart thinks feminism, this radical idea that women are human too, is evil.
David J. Stewart
has a fascinating website called jesus-is-lord, in which he gives a lot of
advice to people about Christianity. It is a curious page to say the least, for
Stewart himself admits he is not a Christian.
(For more information,
see http://davidjstewartexposed.blogspot.com/)
Why would a
non-Christian give “Christian” advice? Perhaps because he feels that religion
is a good way to spread his views about how things should be, for people rarely
question religious advice—which is exactly why we should question everything.
Even a cursory
glance at his website leads us to the conclusion that this is about a specific
lifestyle, one that is not necessarily found in the Bible, but in history books;
a lifestyle of rugged individualism, working the land, raising large families.
It all sounds rather good, until you start piecing it all together.
The author dislikes
a lot of things. The television is a big one, and resurfaces continuously. The Catholic
Church gets an earful, as do most, if not all other religions and spiritual
groups. Science is evil, as is higher education. Basically, we should all go
back to our homes that we built with our bare hands, and live happily
ever after.
But consider if we all
did just that. The wheel was invented by someone, and the same is true of penicillin.
Pasteurization didn’t appear from nowhere, nor did we learn how to avoid toxic
materials, such as cyanide and lead, without someone’s research. It is really
tempting to just go home and close the door on the rest of the world, but if we
all did just that, our lives would become drastically shorter. Our lifespans are
so much longer now than they were before because some of us took the time to do
something to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Besides a heavy dose
of nostalgia, it seems that the author has some rather patriarchal view
about women in general, and it is his writings about women that show most
clearly his inconsistent and poor knowledge of the Bible.
Let’s take a look
at some of the comments made on his website about the “proper role” for women.
“Today, many, many
women are entering pulpits, ruling churches, and speaking during the church
services (giving announcements, etc.)--this is wrong. Women are to keep silence
in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak (reference I
Corinthians 14:34). No woman should be
called pastor, reverend, Adult Sunday School teacher, etc. Even if they have a
question, they are to ask their husbands at home for it is a shame for
women to speak in the church (reference I Corinthians 14:35). And yet we also learn from the scriptures
that daughters are to serve the Lord
(there are a diversity of gifts, all to be used decently and in order.).”
(http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/)
If daughters are to serve the Lord, why does
Stewart write the following in another article:
“Carefully notice that God did NOT create Eve
to do anything for God!!! Rather, Eve's sole purpose in creation was to
help her husband.”
(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/everything.htm )
And…
“Those that are still stuck to the first
Adam, may wish to visit our How to Get to
Heaven article. Today's false gospel offers a god that will help you
with YOUR plans instead of the true God Who requires that you SERVE HIM with
your spirit in the gospel of His Son. …”
(http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/family.htm)
If God didn’t create Eve to do anything for
him, why does God require that women serve him?
And how does Stewart think women help men? By bearing children, and guiding the house:
“I am confident many modern women would have a
problem with Paul's letters to his sons in the faith concerning the normal and
appropriate goals a woman ought to have (I Timothy 5:14, Titus 2:4, 5)
Marriage, bearing children, and guiding the house are still lofty and noble
goals for a young woman; calling on them to prepare in practical ways for these
duties learning to cook, sew, care for children, etc. Those women whose goals are
careers, love affairs, business, and freedom from what they call household
"drudgery" are seeking fulfillment at the temporal flesh-pots of
Egypt.”
(http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/famcontr.htm)
But
if this is the case, the woman was created without a reason for her
existence. For if she wasn’t created to serve God, neither was
she created to serve the man, for there was no home to guide in the
garden. Stewart's attempt to subject the woman to the man erases the
woman from the creation account entirely, for if she has no purpose to
her existence why was she created? It's a very good question indeed, one
that the Scholastic Scholar Thomas Aquinas had to answer in the 13th
century. Thomas found his answer in the writings of the Greek
philosopher Aristotle, but since I very much doubt Stewart reads, or
even approves, of Aristotle, Stewart has no answer to give us. Theology
can be tricky, especially when we try to add things to the Bible that
doesn't belong there.
