Do not hear what I am not saying - The Fall

Going back to Genesis in my reading has been revelatory. I have been circling the scriptures and trying to reconcile in my heart and mind why the concept of male headship makes no sense to me, despite listening to articulate folk explain the complementarian view. 

Then God said. "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:26-29).

Adam and Eve were both made in Gods image and God did not pronounce humanity was 'good' until after Eve had been created. In Gen 1:31 God surveyed all he had created, including Adam and Eve and declared it was 'good'. When the creation of humanity is examined in greater detail in chapter two, God states "It is NOT good for the man to be alone". Humankind were both made in Gods image, declared good and commanded to rule over the land and all the living creatures. Together.

In a fascinating statement completely counter culture to the prevailing narrative of the times when the Bible was written, Adam is recorded to have said "That is why a man leaves his mother and father and is united to his wife and they become one flesh". Women in those times were considered property; bought and sold in marriage. The woman would in fact ordinarily and historically (arguably the same tradition persists today) leave HER family to be united to her new husbands family, ownership of the woman effectively being transferred to her husband and his family. By saying that the man shall leave HIS family is therefore a radical statement breaking down preconceptions of ownership in marriage and points to an equality in the partnership. 

It is not until after the fall in chapter 3 that this beautiful partnership is ruined. Both man and woman suffer the consequences of their disobedience and frustration is introduced into the relationship. This is of course a root divergence of egalitarians and complementarians. Comps read much into the sequence of events, assuming authority through chronology. My reading of the scripture leads me to hear "do not hear what I am not saying". What I do hear is this: God creates and affirms joint rule, reminds the culture of the time that women are not property and declares that this is all good.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Day Three 16 days - Exploited

Exploitation: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work" The exploitation of women and girls represents the ultimate outcome of multiple layers of inequality. Women and girls are more likely to be in poverty, less likely to have an education, more likely to have suffered abuse at the hands of family members. Girls who have no access to school but need to work end up with no autonomy over workplace so are more vulnerable to being exploited by 'recruiters'. They are therefore disproportionately represented in modern slavery - 99% of victims of sexual exploitation are women and girls. One of the reasons modern slavery continues to proliferate is the gendered power imbalance which is upheld by patriarchal structures globally. Culture, some religious beliefs, laws, societal norms and gender roles all contribute to this power imbalance and this is clearly demonstrated in human trafficking where women are dehumanised to the extent t...
Read more

Thoughts on Elders - pronouns and tradition

Let me first start by saying that the only skin I have in this particular game is that I love to pick away at threads where I feel that patriarchal systems have sought to supress and 'keep women in their place' through an interpretation of the scriptures. I don't personally want to be an elder, nor do I think I necessarily fulfil all the requirements regardless. I do however believe that the church family and wider church is poorer for this prohibition and that is my motivation for this whole blog really.  That off my chest, for this post I wanted to put down in writing some of my thoughts on this so far. Also, they are just that, my thoughts so far and for this post I've landed on 'pronouns' and 'tradition'. I've come on a journey from a complementarian stance to a mutualist/egalitarian stance and I hope I am still learning and developing all the time. I've talked to MANY people about this and funnily enough it was a recent discussion about the ...
Read more

Thoughts on Elders - "For Adam was formed first, then Eve"

I'm back with more (personal!) thoughts on Elders. This time about 1 Tim 2:13 "For Adam was formed first, then Eve". See my previous post here focusing on 'Pronouns and Traditions'  based on 1 Tim 3:1-12. I think for some who have a complementarian stance, the linguistics of the passage in 1 Tim 3:1-12 are not so relevant an argument, it's more about what they see as the original principles of male headship, ergo male only elders. So if you truly believe that male headship is correct, then of course the linguistics of chapter 3 are irrelevant because you'd only see the explicit language as confirming the male bias. So headship. First up two things, I think it's interesting that male headship is not mentioned until Ephesians 5:23 (when Paul first used the term 'kephale'). I also think it's interesting that Jesus didn't mention headship at all and when he did talk about marriage, he said it in the context of the Eden blueprint of a husban...
Read more