Hannah, Good catch. It was the first glaring error I caught among tons of them. I mean, there is so much to mine here this could be a 1000 comment thread.

But my favorite is that the author is obviously not taking her own advice! She is giving advice to male pastors? Perhaps her husband stood over her with his “covering” (whatever that is)?

In my nearly sixty years on this plant, the vast majority spent married to the same woman, I have NEVER observed a healthy marriage that wasn’t egalitarian.

Could it be that in some circles “gospel” is code for “approved behavior”? Of course, nothing could be farther from the true meaning of the word.

The Mahaney sisters highlight what I think is the bane of American evangelical worship services – man centeredness. Of course when it’s cloaked in “gospel humility”, we dare not call it what it is.

But hey, what do I know, I’m just one of those lost egalitarians.

I’ve never been pregnant, nor particularly wanted children myself.

Some Christians are “Child Free,” by the way – they deliberately choose not to have children. They are another huge under-represented group in American Christianity.

I was not dead set on having kids (if I got married), but I was not all baby-crazy, ‘I just gotta have one,’ either.

From the original post:

Women today still struggle with the desire to usurp their husband’s leadership.

Actually, no, it’s the opposite with many women.

The Bible was saying in Genesis that women would desire their husbands, as in, many women would look to a husband to play a “Savior” role and to meet all her needs, and to provide for and protect her, instead of looking to God for guidance/ protection/ provision/ salvation.

This is called codependency (or “fear of man” in the Bible).

A result of the Fall is that many women voluntarily give up their decision making, power, and control to a man, if the man will control them, provide for them, take on all or most responsibility, etc.

The Bible says this is bad or unhealthy for people.

The Bible teaches personal responsibility and accountability for all individuals, regardless of gender. Each person answers to God alone for his/her choices and actions.

But gender complementarians ironically hold this model up of a woman giving up all or most of her power/ control, etc, to a husband, or some other man.

Christ is the only mediator between humanity and God, but some factions of complementarians teach a wife has to go through a husband, that the male is the “priest of the home” etc. The Bible teaches the absolute opposite of that.

The Bible warns against codependency and in favor of personal accountability for each person, but your gender complementarians teach the exact, direct opposite, and teach it as a virtue to be emulated and upheld, and the solution for all of society’s problems.

@ Clay Crouch:

So true! They do understand how to point people to “man centeredness” don’t they?

I think although the ground and the serpent were cursed, Adam and Eve still had to take consequences/punishment for their actions. But although I don’t have a knowledge of the original Hebrew, I think the interpretation of “Your desire will be for your husband” as “your desire will be to rule over your husband/usurp his authority” is stretching it a bit. Isn’t it rather that the female’s desire would henceforth be for her husband but that he would “rule over her”, ie the relationship would be less than the ideal originally conceived by God.

But I stand open to correction if anyone can elucidate the passage better.

I’m so very unsettled.

“Please Pastor, remind us lowly women how cursed we are! Don’t ever let us forget it! Rub it in our faces, and make us say thank you!”

Am I the only one that detects a wee hint of misogony there? And self-loathing?

The Gender Gospel is gross.

I prefer the Gospel of freedom in Christ, not the gospel of “Women are still cursed and you should remind them all the time, just in case we aren’t reminding ourselves enough!”

I like the pastor at my church, but I can’t imagine thinking he was the center of my world and my conduit to God. Pastors can be wonderful examples, but what if they turn out to be someone, like, I don’t know…CJ Mahaney?

This is really my problem with this brand of complementarianism in general. If you’re going to be living a life of integrity, I don’t see how it can ever make sense to be always shifting responsibility to another human being, whether husband or pastor. People who make a habit of suspending their own judgment to always defer to others let their consciences atrophy. Take all these authority figures away and what kind of person are you? Isn’t that what matters?

@ lilyrosemary:
But secretly I just want to usurp authority, I guess! I must have easily deceived myself!

@ Anon 1:
Men have something that covers something, unless is was removed. Women do not have that. So maybe that is the “covering” being referred to. In some Jewish communities, that “covering”, after it is removed, is preserved as a momento for the young man as he matures!

To me, Gen 3:16 has nothing whatever to do with who is to rule over whom between husbands and wives – it’s all about sex and its consequences.

“ I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children”

Well then, a woman can avoid this consequence by simply not having sex, but God says that’s not going to happen because

“yet your desire shall be for your husband,”

So a woman is going to want to have sex with her husband despite the consequences. And here’s the problem, where the next line is popularly translated as:

“ and he shall rule over you.”

There are alternative translations that have been offered. One is to translate it as “and he will predominate” in the sense that his desire for sex and children will overcome his wife’s reluctance. Another translation is that “and he do likewise” in the sense that the husband will also desire to have sex with his wife. In either case, it’s all about making sure that the ‘curse’ regarding childbearing is not avoided.

I know these are minority views but they make so much more sense to me because the consequences to Adam and Eve are all about toil and how hard life is going to be, yet, in the middle of all this there’s a phrase regarding husband’s ruling over wives? It just doesn’t seem to fit.

Check out the book Discovering Eve : Ancient Israelite Women in Context by Carol Meyers, and this short discussion at http://prodigalthought.net/2010/06/24/the-role-of-women-genesis-316/

Lynn wrote:

Must be pledge week at PBS.
Here in NC we have this tonight.
Unleash the Power of the Female Brain With Dr. Daniel Amen
Apparently there are 5 steps.

Taught by a man, I see. “He addresses the issues women ask about the most including fertility, pregnancy, menopause, weight, stress, anxiety, insomnia, and relationships.” Apparently that’s all women have on their mind.

The constant use of ‘your women’ in that post is just odious. I don’t belong to a man – husband or preacher or father – and the exclusive use of ownership terms when discussing what women need to be told is simply insulting.

@ JeffT:

More like that’s what MEN have on their minds concerning how well women will be able to serve men. All those issues could be limiting you know! Best get the little ladies healthy so they can serve the men!

You know, as a Catholic, I’ve heard very few homilies that have dealt with marriage and/or children. Maybe because we have a three year cycle of readings it helps. The Ephasians 5 reading comes up every few years but I heard one homily about how each spouse was to help the other get to Heaven, not lord it over one spouse. The most recent involved how a wife was to open herself to being loved by her husband and that struck me especially in today’s world where many women are abused, don’t receive love, are taught love is something to give but not receive. So here was a man saying that it was alright, even good, that a woman should be loved and feel that love from a man, not just God.

Yet there are many Catholic women who try and force these heretical ideas about women being inferior and being submissive to their husbands on other Catholic women with the idea if they don’t comply they are bad wives, mothers, Catholics, etc. and going to Hell. But it isn’t Catholic teaching. This has all seeped in from the fringe evangelicals, very fringe Catholics, and a whole lot of fear.

So it pisses me off when women try and force other women into believing this garbage through the use of shame tactics along with appeals to “the Gospel™”. This isn’t code it’s regurgitated lies and garbage except that now people are seeing what it really is. There is nothing biblical about bullying. Apparently, they don’t realize passing this garbage off as the Bread of Life that will get you Heaven is a terrible idea and that few people are going to buy into it.

So Nancy, Mahany, 9Marks, et al.: SHUT UP! We are mad as Hell and we’re not going to take this garbage any more. As you can read at TWW, we’re on to you and we will not be silent.

Now I’m embarassed. Getting off my soapbox now to quietly hide and beat myself up over my comment.

Dee:

I think Gen 3:16 is only thinking in terms of the marriage relationship here and single adults having sex is not in the picture. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant that God imposed pain in childbirth as a consequence on Eve, which Eve could avoid by simply not having sex with her husband – no sex, no childbirth, no pain. But God established a mutual desire between the two so that they they would want to have sex with the result being childbirth. In that sense I meant it’s all about not being able to avoid sex and it’s consequences (painful childbirth), and it’s got nothing to do with husbands ruling over wives or wives wanting to rule over husbands.

Am I making sense yet? Sometimes I’m not sure – I get pretty wound up on this topic because my wife is a minister and has to deal with this comp nonsense and I go off on rant without being real clear.

I’m frankly stunned by the assertion that the preacher’s sermon is the most important event in anyone’s week. This sentence: “The preaching event, being addressed by God through the reading and proclamation of His Word, is the most important event in the life of this church every week.” just blows my mind. Jesus urged His followers to practice the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist until He returns. He said nothing about preaching or pastors or Sunday meetings. All those are manmade traditions….nothing wrong with them but NOT a mandate from Christ Himself. No wonder these preachers and their churches are in such serious trouble.

Jeff T,, that is one of the problems with the bad translation of “desire”. Another bad one was “appetite”. It made it out to be sexual when it was relational.

Eve chose badly. Just as we choose badly if we look to our husbands as a sort of Priest/Prophet figure instead of partner. (Ezer Kegnado is also badly translated as help meet when we know that God is referred to as an Ezer)

“My *favorite* quote on the “usurping” topic is from Kevin DeYoung describing the fall: “Have you ever noticed that after Eve sins by taking a bite of the fruit, who does God first address? Adam. He was to be responsible. And yet he abdicated the very authority that he was supposed to lovingly exercise. And Eve, contrary to design, usurped her husband’s authority”

McArthur says that Adam was in sin for listening to his wife. As if Adam was some dumb jock or something. In fact, McArthur teaches that Adam was not even there when Eve did it. She had to go and seek Adam out and entice him to eat it with her purring voice, I suppose. McArthur went on and on about the voice.

Cheryl Schatz has a ton of the bad teaching quotes on her DVD series Women in Ministry, Silenced or Set Free. I recommend it.

Here is what they often leave out. Eve ADMITTED to being deceived. Adam blamed God and Eve. For me, that is the real problem because Adam sinned knowingly and lied. He was “keeper” of the garden which some point out is also a “guarding” position. He WAS working before the fall. And we know evil existed then because there is a tree called “knowledge of good and evil”.

Here’s how by Carol Meyers describes her interpretation of Gen 3:16 in Discovering Eve : Ancient Israelite Women in Context :

It is against this background of the mortal risks involved in childbearing that the oracle of Genesis 3:16 must be seen. How does a woman overcome an understandable reluctance to have many children? The natural sexual and emotional desire that she experiences toward her mate is the answer. And this is accompanied by the male’s response to her, which the last line of the oracle proclaims.

The words of line 4 are perhaps the most problematic in all the Hebrew Bible from a feminist perspective. They seem to establish an absolute and hierarchical dominance of males over females. . . . Thus, modern exegetes along with the ancient expositors have understood the last line of the oracle as divine approval of the social conditions of patriarchal control.

I believe Satan has a special reserved hate for women because of the childbearing:

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

I fear that all who teach that Gen 3 is saying that women want to rule over men are actually helping Satan.

Anon 1 wrote:

(Ezer Kegnado is also badly translated as help meet when we know that God is referred to as an Ezer)

You are so right. The ezer issue in Gen 2:18 is one of the biggest frauds committed by comps for just that reason. In Gen 2:18 ezer comps say ‘helper’ is a subordinate role, while as you noted, there are scores of places where God is a ‘helper’ (ezer) to humans, so does that mean God has a subordinate role to man? I think a number of celebrity preachers think that’s God’s role with respect to them.

I actually usurp and repeat on a routine basis.

OK, people, very interesting conversation and most of you made good points but anyone that argues that we women are cursed up to the present time because of those or any other cited verses are FULL OF SHIT!!

Why?

So simple a mere woman can articulate the reason because JESUS BROKE the (any and all) CURSE at the CROSS and the consequence of any curse was placed upon Jesus and we are now under GRACE and to say anything to the contrary dishonors what Jesus did for us!

But, if you insist, your presumption is flawed because the original word estev that is rendered writhing agonizing horrific pain for childbearing women is rendered hard work for men farming. Sweat of the brow and all.

I had eight children without pain meds and it was managable with the help of a skilled midwife.

If a woman needs pain relief, we have medicine for that just like we have tractors and other farming equipment.

The rest of it (desire for our husbands and the ruling over) is an observation not an endorsement of the practice.

The very last thing on this earth I am going to take seriously is some patriarchal windbag spewing more anti-woman swill as though he must to compensate for his own shortcomings.

Daisy wrote:

Pacbox

The explanation I posted above from Carol Myers at 10:02 says it better than I did here. Having a large family back then was necessary for survival back then in the harsh environment of Israel and Gen 3:16 is really just the Bible’s explanation for why women still went ahead and had many children at that time despite the fact that they litterally risked their lives every time they got pregnant.

Anon 1 wrote:

McArthur went on and on about the voice.

This is a tiny bit off topic and only a little related, but it reminds me.

Over the years when I’ve heard preachers (who are male) or male Christian book authors or TV hosts discuss Adam and Eve, they almost always mention that Eve must have been very physically attractive. They go on and on about how she must have had a great body, looked like a super model, etc.

One or two of them I saw on television even apologized to any Christian ladies in ear shot during their discussion of Eve’s hotness, as if to say, “sorry ladies, but you are all dogs compared to the hotness that was Eve.”

1. I don’t recall the text saying anything about what Eve looked like,
2. I notice the male Christians like this never comment on Adam’s supposed buff body or sexiness, and
3. that they do focus on Eve’s looks

I do not know why some Christian males are so obsessed with female physical appearance and Eve’s in particular.

dee wrote:

JeffT

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure I buy that the curse is related to childbirth.  I believe that the curse in Genesis was aimed at all men and women and that it goes way beyond childbirth. I think it has to do with the fact that everything would now change. Everything. They would not walk in the Garden; there would be grief, anger and strife between all the generations and with one another, wars, illness, pain and suffering. 

I actually agree – it took me a few posts to finally say what I meant (a bit on the thick side tonight). I shouldn’t have used the word “curse” at all, but you just get used to using because so many do. The real lesson is that life is hard, with both men and women having to work very hard in order to survive, the risks of pregnancy and childbirth being just one part of what made life so hard.

Daisy wrote:

pent stake = tent stake

Too bad for Sisera. The poor old sod never saw it coming. Tyrants never have a good death.

dee wrote:

Sadly, the post at 9 Marks was written by a woman.@ Debra Baker:

Not just any woman…an Elder’s wife. Bari is married to Andrew who was an elder at the time I was a member there. She has the special privilege of being able to tell women what to think because of her husband’s position in the church and also because she is married…in that order. And what she thinks is most likely what her husband thinks. And if she thought any differently, I doubt that 9 Marks would have approved that post. This is a prime example of what privilege in the church looks like. You can scour 9 Marks site and you won’t find many posts by women, but definitely not from single women, widows, women in various stages of life. Even divorced women. Bari is the perfect spokeswoman. She represents what they idolize and worship all too much.

There is nothing more convincing than to have the elders wives address the women and tell them how to think. And this post is directed towards women, soecifically, because most of the material 9 Marks posts is really directed towards men. It is understood that men are their audience.

Bari is confused. She needs to have a seat. Or two.

@ Daisy:
I see your point. Probably a product, in part, of the comp obsession with sex…and you know she was running around naked, so of course she had to be hot. It would probably give them a heart attack if someone starting talking about Adam that way…..might make them feel disrespected and insecure….bleh….

@ Eagle:

I enjoyed these:

Kinect Star Wars “I’m Han Solo” Dancing

NASA Johnson Style (Gangnam Style Parody)

I hear ya, Jeff T! I don’t have a strong opinion on the meaning of Gen 3:16 except that it isn’t a warning to men about their wives being control freaks who want to usurp their authority and rule over them. God said it to the woman. God said other stuff to the man.

There are some strong points in support of your theory of this feminine “desire” including a sexual component.

1. Before the Fall, they were eternal beings so if they had children they would not need to have many of them–> “I will greatly increase your conception”-God to Eve (NOT a curse but redemptive in a situation where the first couple just lost their immortality.)

2. Nearly ALL animals only mate seasonally. Among animals (besides humans) a female “desire” for the male does not generally exist outside the season of fertility. Why are humans different when a rare “season” like animals would work fine for fulfilling “be fruitful and multiply”? For redemptive purposes IMO.

3. In the immediate context of the “desire” in question in Gen 3:16, conception, then childbirth mentioned. King context says the desire is related to the conception and childbirth…

4. This one is anecdotal, but my mother always referred to menstruation as “the curse” and it does come with such unpleasantries as PMS and menopause so I rather think it was not part of Eve’s garden experience

5. Gen 3:16 indicates that Adam would now “rule over her”. Testosterone is the hormone which drives male aggression. So, perhaps just as Eve had a huge hormonal change upon the Fall, so did Adam.

“Eve, contrary to design, usurped her husband’s authority” – Kevin DeYoung

“Women today still struggle with the desire to usurp their husband’s leadership.” – Bari Nichols

As Anon 1 has said, these people truly do teach sin as virtue.

Ha ha … Since Genesis 3:23 says that God drove the MAN out and banished HIM from the Garden, Eve did an amazing job of exhibiting her desire to “usurp her husband’s leadership/authority” by meekly following him out 🙂

So much good commentary here!

I, too, got a huge belly laugh out of the “girls” stating that the preaching of a sermon is the most important event of a Christian’s week, bwahahahahahahaha.

What. A. Load.

Over on the Survivors site, many former SGMers are discussing the fact that sermons were getting recycled/plagarized routinely and verbatim, and by several pastors!

Just like you can order a Big Mac anywhere in the U.S. and get the same product, you could attend any SGM church and get the same sermon, right down to the supposedly “personal” anecdotes!

As another poster pointed out, isn’t the partaking of Communion supposed to be the most important part of the week?!

To repeat: what a load of hooey.

Anon 1 wrote:

Turning to man instead of Christ is wrong. They teach sin as a virtue for women and it is insidious.

Bingo.

“Eve, contrary to design, usurped her husband’s authority” – Kevin DeYoung

Translation: “Eve made a single decision for herself that had nothing to do with her husband, without consulting him first.” Oh, the horror! Does that even make any sense, assuming for a moment that Adam really was given this imaginary “authority”? And “contrary to design”? Such an insulting and dangerous line of thinking concerning Eve’s identity as a human being. Concerning every woman’s, and every man’s, for that matter.

It’s incredible, what passes for Christianity. Over here I have Mark Driscoll echoing horrible messages from abuse in my childhood about the sex toy status of women. (And the abuse was part of a “good” design of God?) Over there I have Todd Friel confirming to me in an e-mail that God does, in fact, have no affection (love) for me, because I am but a worm and probably belong “TO THE DEVIL!!!!” It seems I have no reason to live unless I get married, because my entire identity was intended to be wrapped up in a man, and I cannot or at least should not think for myself or make any of my own decisions in life. Just a few lessons in Christianity…

(I am pretty sick right now and might not be making much sense…)

I’m contending with being sick and having insomnia … so when I read comments about how complementarians think Eve must have been super-hot my only guess for why that would be is because they’re thinking about how Eve wouldn’t have access to soap, shampoo, razors or perfumes or deoderants. She wouldn’t have shaved any hair off any part of her, she probably probably only trimmed her nails by biting or peeling, she wouldn’t have brushed or flossed her teeth … and yet somehow still inspired Adam to sing a song about her. Now if that’s what complementarians mean by Eve being beautiful, well, okay.

dee wrote:

JeffT

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure I buy that the curse is related to childbirth.  I believe that the curse in Genesis was aimed at all men and women and that it goes way beyond childbirth. I think it has to do with the fact that everything would now change. Everything. They would not walk in the Garden; there would be grief, anger and strife between all the generations and with one another, wars, illness, pain and suffering. 

This makes a whole let of sense. It is immediately AFTER the Fall that the woman is named Eve, the mother of all living. I believe this makes it clear that when God talks about the woman’s children He is speaking of the human race.

MM wrote:

Ha ha … Since Genesis 3:23 says that God drove the MAN out and banished HIM from the Garden, Eve did an amazing job of exhibiting her desire to “usurp her husband’s leadership/authority” by meekly following him out

This is exactly right. Cheryl Schatz does an excellent job of exegeting this on her DVD series. It is amazing how much is read INTO Genesis and how much is ignored.

Eve “turned” to Adam instead of God.

dee wrote:

The reason I have had trouble with the childbirth curse is that science/medicine can find ways to overcome the problems. So, the curse would only be in effect until good medicine came on the scene?

This is my problem with it, too. Men now “toil” in air conditioned offices, too.
It is dangerous to get this mindset that the pain is good and not something we should not seek to alleviate. This is where the anti intellectualism comes from. Christians should be seeking to cure cancer.

These things were consequences to the fall. The curses were on land and animals. Not the humans. A consequence is also that we physically die. Which automatically makes me think of our Blessed Savior!

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

no matter how much they may present this as an attempt to gospel them with the gospel gospel.

I am immediately transported back to the seminal film of my early 20s, “Swingers” featuring a (very!)young Vince Vaughn who used the noun “money” as a superlative:

“You are so money, baby!”

Nick, all I can say is you are SO gospel, baby! 🙂

Dee, It was not until the 20th Century women were really emancipated. My grandmother a lovely believer who graduated from college and went on to study at Moody in the early part of the Century, lobbied for the vote. So did my grandfather. And she grew up in America, the land of the free!

Scooter’s Mom wrote:

Another question, why does this crowd insist on putting a divide between the sexes? What sinful pride they must have to want to look at another creation of God, being woman, as beneath them.

THIS. x1000. The narrative of scripture is one of reconciliation. Complementarianism, in my opinion, perpetuates the animosity between men and women instead of pointing towards reconciliation. First, all they do is continue to blame the woman. Then, it is like 2 siblings who can’t get along so they think the solution is to draw a line down the middle of the room and stay on their side of the line. Or it is like doing a group project in school where you don’t really work together, you just divide up the work and throw it together in the end, hoping it works.

True “complementarianism” would acknowledge there is strength in the reconciliation of men and women truly partnering together. This means BOTH men and women in leadership, teaching, caring for children, etc…each offering their strengths as men and women.

Kristin, Your comment brought this question to mind… Is the Southern Baptist Convention better off after going down the complementarian rabbit trail (BFM 2000)? What has happened in the last dozen years to the SBC?

Dee,

It was definitely 20 minutes… The church substituted another “Cravings and Conflicts” message for that one on its website. It certainly appeared to me that CJ gets more excited about sports than the gospel.

Since Chad and a son-in-law were with him, I wonder if the idea of Mahaney Sports Talk was conjured up that weekend. I was gonna say ‘birthed that weekend’ but that description might upset these manly men.

It seems to me that relational health was broken by the Fall and the curses merely spelled out what that meant.

Women were going to be subject to abuse, rape and the endless degrading process of submission simply because they were the smaller and physically weaker human. In the cold harsh fallen world, the stronger/bigger would run things. The vulnerability was only increased because they were the childbearers, which childbirth pain further accentuated. So they would constantly have to keep an eye on the males.

Implied in the curse is the immense vulnerability of children in the new nasty relational structure where the biggest wins.

That’s how I see it. But the thing that makes me laugh is that Reformational stance also covers working in creation to redeem and mitigate the consequences of the Fall. That is one of the reasons it is named “reformed”—remake, reconstitute, restore, reconcile, etc. So to use the obvious results of the Fall as the raison d’etre for current living is essentially to deny the work of Christ, who broke the power of evil.

Female Mahaney: “As my dad likes to say to our church on Sunday morning: “The preaching event, being addressed by God through the reading and proclamation of His Word, is the most important event in the life of this church every week.””

For me, the worst implication in this statement is that the sermon is an “address by God”. Jist like them/thar Catholic priests back in the day. Oh noes!!! It’s another good example of fallenness still worming itself through our lives.

“So to use the obvious results of the Fall as the raison d’etre for current living is essentially to deny the work of Christ, who broke the power of evil.”

Very good point to bring out. We are to be the Kingdom right now. Which is one of the powers over evil. We are not stuck contemplating our sin at the cross being Justified over and over. We are to get on with caring, loving, helping people around us in our corner of the world.

Salvation is not just about going to church and then heaven. It is about being the kingdom right now, here on earth.

Sista Dee,

Is this article featured in the "Right Now" section over at The Gospel Coalition a response to your post?

http://www.fabsharford.com/a-painful-plea-to-women-of-the-church/

Doug Wilson is another name in the long line of self-described ‘Christians’ who have driven more people to atheism and agnosticism than Hitchens or Dawkins could ever have hoped to. What a sick mind.

Rafiki, as I read more and more from the Calvinistas, I keep thinking that they do nothing but go places the scriptures do not go.

dee wrote:

JeffT
I understand what you are saying but I am not sure I buy that the curse is related to childbirth.  I believe that the curse in Genesis was aimed at all men and women and that it goes way beyond childbirth.

Increased conception is no “curse”.

As Hannah noted in the 3rd comment, the text does not refer to any curse upon the man or the woman. Only the ground and the serpent are “cursed”

This is from Don Johnson:

QUOTE: There are 5 things told the woman and it turns out that not all of them are bad. Some translations scramble things but look at an interlinear.

For example, an increase in conception is not bad, this is good.

Teshuqah is derived from the idea of a stream running to the sea, the water “desires” to flow downward to the sea. We see that this “desire” of water is part of God’s plan of Creation. So we should not think of it as negative a priori. SOS uses it in the good way, Gen 4 uses it in a bad way. What are we to make of its use in Gen 3?

After just being told that she will have kids with pain, she is told she will “want to flow towards” her husband. ENDQUOTE

Desire for one’s husband need not be taken as a “curse”. It could be a redemptive consolation from God post broken Garden intimacy with Him.

@ dee:
dee wrote:

The reason I have had trouble with the childbirth curse is that science/medicine can find ways to overcome the problems. So, the curse would only be in effect until good medicine came on the scene?

Again, increased conception is not a “curse”. It was a redemptive consequence.

The first couple were no longer immortal. Increased desire and increased conception served to propogate humanity.

@ Charis:

But the word is not “desire”. It changes the whole meaning to use “desire” and that has been the big problem for over 1000 years. We have it ingrained.

1. The “hotness of Eve” thing is just stupid. ‘Nuff said.

2. I suppose I’m like one of the commenters above who said they have no idea what it means except that the “desire to usurp/rule over” interpretation seems way off. Didn’t even a complementarian female blogger call this interpretation out as an innovation (dating from around the 70s/80s) a few months back? Might have been Wendy Alsup?

Overall, on a “dumb layman” surface-level reading, I don’t see much patriarchy predating the Fall in Genesis. The only comp argument that gives me any pause is the Adam-names-Eve thing, but even that always seemed kinda shaky.

Charis wrote:
<blockquote
Again, increased conception is not a “curse”. It was a redemptive consequence.

The first couple were no longer immortal. Increased desire and increased conception served to propogate humanity.

With all due respect, I totally disagree. I find nothing redemptive or positive in the consequences of Adam and Eve leaving the garden. They are all negative consequences.

Anon 1 wrote:

I agree the idiom is about water. It is about water running “to and fro” which lends to “turning” as in turning from God to Adam.

The pain is not redemptive. Giving birth to Messiah is, however. And that was the implication in that passage.

Desire…the whole sexual position on this gets us away from the real message of Messiah and redemption and makes it man focused, once again.

Agreed!

And the word translated “pain” for Eve is the same translated “toil” for Adam. However we choose to translate it, it’s similar for both. The best interpretation imo is sorrow.

From H6087; worrisomeness, that is, labor or pain: – sorrow, toil.

Here is something to keep in mind when reading the OT a lot of which is Hebrew Poetry and as we all know, you cannot put poetry into a computer program and get a declarative meaning. And within that are all sorts of idioms, etc so we must look to the larger meaning and not get too caught up. That is why “desire” just had me stumped for years until I did a lot of research. Turning makes the entire meaning come alive for thousands of years!

Concerning Genesis:

But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.

So, when we go down the “desire” path making it sexual in nature, we miss the larger meaning!

First, remember your sisters’ curse. In the garden, God placed a curse on Eve’s calling: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16).

This verse was quoted and recited against the use of painkillers on women in labor. It wasn’t until Queen Victoria ordered painkillers during her giving birth (and publicized it in the British media) that the Guardians of Biblical Morality finally relented.

This can change one’s understanding of the text. For example, the use of ‘toil’ instead might not insinuate God is making childbirth painful. Maybe bringing children into this life and raising them up will all be difficult compared to what it was like in Eden. It is just another example of all parts of life being harder because of the original sin.

Don’t forget the sorrow over the fact that every womb empties into a grave eventually.

These relationships are at the heart of the woman’s work in the home. Women today still struggle with the desire to usurp their husband’s leadership.

More accurate to say that man-and-woman became Power Struggle instead of One Flesh. (And the comps are only concerned with making sure THEY win the Power Struggle — better to wear the boots doing the face-stamping than be the face getting stamped on.)

Robin wrote:

Dee, what is wrong with these people? (Wilson followers?) They are basically telling a large minority in America, who are humans created in the image of God, that their desire to be treated equal in the civil realm is sinful??? What??????

Are you talking about women or blacks?

Because Wilson is also well-known for Scriptural(TM) defense of a certain Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property.

“Don’t forget the sorrow over the fact that every womb empties into a grave eventually.”

Exactly HUG. We miss the consequences of sin was DEATH. That is why I have started to call original sin, original death. After the fall Women would give birth to a human who was physically dying even though they lived pretty long for a while back then. Except for the coming Birth of Messiah! Hard to wrap our heads around because we cannot comprehend what it would be like to understand any sort of life without the coming physical death.

Thanks to our precious Savior we now have eternal life.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

I think we should consume some gospel chocolate, with our gospelly appetite, and then gospelfully proclaim how a great and loving God has provided both the gospel and the chocolate.

Trina wrote:

dee wrote:

Sadly, the post at 9 Marks was written by a woman.@ Debra Baker:

Not just any woman…an Elder’s wife. Bari is married to Andrew who was an elder at the time I was a member there. She has the special privilege of being able to tell women what to think because of her husband’s position in the church and also because she is married…in that order.

Two words: QUEEN BEE.

Daisy wrote:

I do not know why some Christian males are so obsessed with female physical appearance and Eve’s in particular.

Years ago, a friend told me about how in his reading he had come across Goddess cults in history which were all-male and Male Supremacist to the level of the Taliban. The rationale behind this seemed to be a Cosmic version of Perfect Porn Star Syndrome — the Goddess embodied PERFECT femininity, compared to which RL mortal women were rancid piles of dung (and should be treated as such). The Perfect Porn Star as a religion.

I wonder if the Hawtness of Eve is a Christian-compatible version of this Goddess Cult dynamic, much like Divine Right of Kings was a Christian-compatible version of the God-King.

Charis, Just to think this through, I think there are some assumptions read in that need not be.

Yes, increased conception was needed because humans now die and eventually Messiah would come through woman. Eve even thought it might be her who gives birth to the One Who would crush his head.

But there is an assumption that Eve had to be forced to “sexually desire” Adam when it is obvious she was turning to him anyway! She did meekly follow him out of the garden. And that was NOT a good thing for her and all woman thereafter. She banked on Adam for everything instead of her relationship with God.

The passage is descriptive not prescriptive.

None of that means there was no sexual desire between them. Good heavens we see sexual desire was defintely not a problem soon after from others besides Adam and Eve!

@ Deb:
Given her heroes include Grudem and Piper, I think FAB is not a place I will ever go again.

56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC wrote:

I think we should consume some gospel chocolate, with our gospelly appetite, and then gospelfully proclaim how a great and loving God has provided both the gospel and the chocolate.

Good call. Perhaps we should also make “chocolate” a verb. As in, if you see any visitors in the meeting, go over and chocolate them.

@ Hester: Trying to make a story into some kind of crazy doctrines… I mean, there is a talking animal as well.

From what I’ve been reading, there were Mesopotamian “talking animal” stories from roughly the same time period.

There was also the Enuma Elish, the Mesopotamian account of creation, which is – among other things – exceedingly violent.

My current understanding of the creation accounts in Genesis is that they were, in large part, a response to the Enuma Elish and similar Mesopotamian accounts of the earliest days of the human race.

When we read a much later conception of Satan (one that Judaism does not share) into/onto the serpent, we’re (probably) missing the point.

OK, I realize that this comment is not going to sit well with some readers, but I’m trying to better understand the whole literary aspects of these accounts in a cultural context – in other words, why would what’s in Gene. 1-3 be so different than what was produced by other cultures in the same region?

What, overall, does Gen. 1-3 say about God?

I just can’t imagine that the things that the crazier comps think is there is there, in any way, shape or form.

Not seeing the different literary genres in the Bible for what they are has caused endless confusion and strife over many, many centuries.

@ numo: If these folks (crazier comps) were at all consistent, they would take that little geography/social studies passage (about rivers and where certain commodities come from) in the 1st creation account literally; they would take ancient Near Eastern cosmology literally (the sky is a dome which keeps the waters of chaos that are above the earth from destroying it); they would take all the stories about “So-and-so was the first to create musical instruments” (etc. etc. etc.) literally… and so on.

But they don’t.

There is NO logic to their approach.

@ numo: Sorry, 2nd creation account (Gen 2: 10-14).

JeffT wrote:

No kidding! I swear some of these guys are preaching from their Johnson, like Driscoll and his “Bible as Kama Sutra” theology.

Don’t forget Schaapf the Shaft-Polisher. Talk about “blatant”…

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

No believer, male or female, is authorised to plant, penetrate and conquer others, no matter how much they may present this as an attempt to gospel them with the gospel gospel.

So “gospel” has become the new “smurf” or “Marclar”?

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

I’m pretty sure “both.” Serve would include service.

@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:

I checked out her site and discovered her heroes as well. No surprise there.

Beakerj wrote:

Sorry, too busy running hither & thither usurping all the men I know to participate in this conversation. Back when they’re all thoroughly usurped.

Hee Hee. Love it.

Sergius Martin-George wrote:

Anybody up for a Usurping Women 2013 Conference

Can we usurp you to have one? Usurpers have to have a usurpee.

The “usurpee” is the person being usurped which, officially, can only be a male. Females cannot usurp other females (except in the corporate world where Piper has no experience and would simply call that a cat fight)

We could make the slurpee our offical drink. Except I always get that frozen headache thing.

How does the church “help” Christ?

@ dee:

When Eve was created, God did not command Adam to rule over her and watch her like a hawk. From my perspective, she was a free agent and had full moral agency

And don’t forget, Eve was total smoking hot sexiness. That is the entire crux of the Creation and fall account, Eve’s physical appearance. *rolls eyes*

It’s not that I’ve heard Eve’s appearance talked about tons and tons over the years, I hope I didn’t give that impression, but I’ve watched lots of Christian television programming, and every once in awhile, it has been mentioned. (I’ve also seen it brought up in a book or two by male Christian authors.)

@ Deb:

I saw that post too Dee and I immediately thought about Wartburg Watch. You’re making waves!

There is a book in the old testament that talks about women’s empowerment. It says something to the affect that women can do anything. That is Proverbs 31.
Her husband is sitting at the gates.
Is there anyone who has a more thorough understanding of this chapter?

@ Deb:

I skimmed over that page. It was kind of odd.

Over and over the author pleaded with (Christian) women to stop criticizing the bride (church).

But the New Testament supports Christians examining and critiquing other Christians, or teachings being presented as Christian, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:11-12

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

Jesus Christ chews out the bride here:

So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
(Rev 3:16,17)

Patrice wrote:

Therefore, “increased conception” that might be implied in the passage needs to seen as the direct result of the entrance of death. Death would require more humans for continuance, yes? It’s terribly sad and it’s what was required.

I’m also uncomfortable with undue emphasis being placed on pro-creation/ marriage.

Some of us Christianladies never marry and/or have children.

Christ taught that His kingdom would be increased through spiritual children (preaching the gospel to the un-converted), not through believers marrying and making babies.

Your brothers and sisters in Christ are to take on the same priority as your flesh and blood family. (Matthew 10:37, Luke 14:26, John 19:26, Matt 12:46 – 50)

ANE (ancient near east) culture placed lots of emphasis on family lines, making babies, carrying on the family name, and women back then were left destitute or had to go into prostitution for financial support if they weren’t married or had no sons to care for them.

Christ changed all that. The Church was instructed to provide for widowed Christians, etc.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

(Like Carolyn Mahaney servicing The Humble One while puking her guts from morning sickness…)

Didn’t Mark Driscoll advise Christian wives that even when they are sick or menstruating (often the same thing for a lot of women, btw), that they should still perform sexually? He advised and recommended different sexual acts.

That this man thinks he cannot live for more than 3 – 10 days without sex repels me so much.

I was holding out for marriage to have sex, but, as I’ve told you before, I’m still waiting at 40+. Anyone who acts as though they can’t endure or hold on without sex for 3- 10 days as he does gets no sympathy or respect from me.

I know I use Driscoll a lot as an example, but it’s not just him. I’ve seen other male Christian pastors with the same attitude.

They are very reluctant to concede limits on sexual activity for any reason at all at any time for any time, even if their wife just got an arm bit off by a shark, is bleeding to death, is in the middle of a heart attack, and has cancer.

@ Daisy:
Daisy: I agree. That (western) women have obtained general free agency is a great re-storation, a re-forming back to God’s original intentions. To think that it is the sinful result of secularized culture is to be upside down and backwards. In fact, I’d like to hang upside down and backwards (for a day or two) any who insist otherwise, every time they say so. hah

Back in early days, kids were needed. Now we’re far beyond “filling the earth”. If I was say, pope(ss) of US Christianity, I’d tell women to stop with the birthing already and adopt. Very self-centered, in my opinion, to think you must have little “yous” running around all over when there are already so many hungry and/or untended children.

But there are any number who disagree with me. Inconceivable! 🙂

Just an aside–the advice to “just adopt” is not realistic. Many of those needy/untended children will never be legally free for adoption. That really stings when infertile couples are told “just adopt.” Often they have been trying for years and years and no available child has been offered them.

As to male leadership: ok, assuming the guys are to lead (big assumption but let’s grant it for a moment) they need to remember they are to lead, not be drovers.

Jesus led with the basin and towel. I suggest the next man wanting to lead his family be the first to jump up to change a poopy diaper, to wipe up the throw up from the toddler, and to clean the new puppy’s boo boos on the carpet.

Lead, fellas, and then maybe we uppity women will listen.

@ Daisy:

“Based on reading I’ve done over the years, I learned that women were treated like 2nd class citizens in Jesus’ day, even in some regards in Judaism. Women were physically separated at religious services, readings, etc. … But Jesus did all that. He elevated their status, but some aspects of Christianity today want to kick women right back down, and in to the same limited roles they lived by pre-Jesus.”

Heck, I’ve seen some really hardline comps/patriarchs say that since the women sat separately from the men in Judaism, then they must have sat separately from them in early Christian services; therefore since the epistles were addressed to the “brethren,” they must have been read in the men’s section and therefore the epistles were written only to the men – or something closely along those lines. What this does, I think, in their minds, is get rid of the apparent contradiction with women talking in church…? I read the article a really long time ago.

An article linked to that one told a story about a woman who complained that the male leadership wasn’t listening to her because she was a woman, and their response was basically, “Sorry, honey, but according to the Bible we don’t have to.”

Hester wrote:

An article linked to that one told a story about a woman who complained that the male leadership wasn’t listening to her because she was a woman, and their response was basically, “Sorry, honey, but according to the Bible we don’t have to.”

And that is totally contradictory in spirit and attitude toward what the Bible teaches. You’re supposed to show respect to every one.

If Christ taught that a little child can, or is, the most valued member of the kingdom, you would think that would clue those people into the fact that Jesus would not be okay with them thinking the Bible teaches they ‘don’t have to listen to a woman.’

As to your comments about some of them mentioning Jewish women sitting separately during religious ceremonies 2,000 years ago… they should not be holding that up as something for Christians to emulate,if they were.

In Paul’s day, some of the early Jewish believers were telling Gentile believers in Jesus they had to get circumcised to be accepted by Christ, and Paul had to correct that misperception right away.

That goes to show that not all customs or attitudes among ancient Jews were accepted by God, and should not be put into practice by Christians today, or defended by them.

@ Anon 1:
I have passed stones twice. One at 60 yo, with two African (not AA) pastors in my home, who began praying for me, one in English and the other in his native tongue. More painful than a broken bone or displaced joint, closer to surgery w/o anesthesia. The second occurred six months later while I was driving cross country and actually completed the passing in the men’s room while stopped for breakfast.

@ Sergius Martin-George:
Organizational or conference/sermon titles:
United Usurpers
Surviving life with a Usurper
Usurpation: Victim or Victimization

56, Your stone experiences almost moved me to tears. What pain in a car, no less! Wanna talk labor? (just kidding, Dee!)

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

So “gospel” has become the new “smurf” or “Marclar”?

In a limited manner of speaking, it seems that it already has. It’s used as a catch-all synonym for “validly christian”. I’d just like to see it recognised as a noun, an adjective and both a transitive and an intransitive verb.

(Meanwhile, back at the ranch…)

Daisy wrote:

Was Jael in the Old Testament being all gentle and quiet when she drove a pent stake through the head of a napping Israeli enemy?

As I understand it this was OK for her to do, but had she been a black belt in karate then she should have stepped back and let the man do it.

Am I getting the hang of this complementarian thing?

@ Anon 1:

Looks like Knight and Ware are two peas in a pod 🙂

linda wrote:

Just an aside–the advice to “just adopt” is not realistic. Many of those needy/untended children will never be legally free for adoption. That really stings when infertile couples are told “just adopt.” Often they have been trying for years and years and no available child has been offered them.

Does that apply to older and / or non-white children, or children with physical / psychological issues?

I’ve often read that many Americans who seek adoption quite often insist on adopting an infant/ baby and/or caucasian, and/or one that has no health / emotional problems.

I remember an episode of Christian show 700 Club where Robertson actually told people watching to not adopt certain kinds of kids because those kids may have all sorts of hangups.

Pat Robertson’s Advice: Don’t Adopt Children (video)

(I did not choose this headline, this was composed by them):
Old Monster Pat Robertson Warns People Against Adopting Children

Quite right, too. And likewise, if you’re a mega-church pastor and someone questions your exegesis, you’ll naturally lead by example: forgive the critic and confess not only your sin that caused them to question you, but your bitterness in desiring to justify yourself.

By the same token, if (say) a young man in your church cheats on his fiancee, you must lovingly reflect that there are no perfect Christians and even if you did find one, you wouldn’t let him join your church because you’d spoil him. You are not to discipline the young man in question, but instead you must yourself confess whatever sins and shortcomings in your teaching led him to have an affair.

Daisy, there is something that sticks with me today that happened 16 years ago and makes me furious when I recall it. A woman I know was in a horribly abusive marriage. She was raped and beaten so bad it took 6 operations to repair her body. She divorced went through a horrible custody battle, broke and beat down. All this time she is in a mega church that would not life ONE finger to help her even though she begged some elders. She was young and not wise enough to leave the church as we all know how that goes.

Years later, she met a great guy and they were set to marry. the mega had a rule you had to counsel there first so they went. right in front of her fiance, the mega church pastor said he could not marry her until she confessed her sin for divorcing the first husband and her part in the problem of the abuse. (The pastor knew of the horrible abuse as she told him)

Her finance refused to go along with this and they married in his Catholic church, ironically.

BUT…a few years later this same pastor was horribly beaten up on a trip up North when his car broke down. He did not handle it well at all. In fact, he was so angry at the injustice the elders kept him off stage for a while.

Do you think he ever mapped his experience to an abuse victim? No. He still preaches and counsels the same ideas.

He is a mega church pastor today. And people listen to him and think he is great. They know the stage persona. Not the man.

@ Anon 1:

That is such a terrible thing 🙁

I’m glad your friend at least got out of the abusive marriage.

I’ve had to learn the hard way since my mother died not to open up too quickly to people in face to face/ real life encounters, even Christians, about any hardship I’m under going, because some of them do have this attitude that you must be partially to blame for what happened to you, even if you weren’t.

It’s victimizing the wounded person all over again.

I have another post for you, a reply, but it’s sitting in moderation, probably because it contains 3 or 4 links.

@ Patrice:

I tried to watch the video. Lasted about 2 minutes. With the weepy ‘Oh no, Sweden!’ guy and the extreme racist insane conspiracy theory comments below the video, it’s just too much. I don’t want to destroy my brain cells with all the banging my head against the wall I’d be doing if I watched the rest of it.

Wow, I’m getting an education! I’ve simply not thought complementarianism through. I know I tried to live a submissive wife-style, but it proved to be utterly frustrating. It wasn’t that my husband demanded anything of me, or that he wasn’t supportive of my development and pursuits; it was that I found myself sitting back and w-a-i-t-i-n-g for my husband to “lead.” I somehow picked up that my husband was supposed to speak first in a conversation, or come up with the next idea we needed, or initiate Bible study or prayer, etc…

I found myself slipping from a vibrant thinking individual into a mentally and spiritually lazy state; after all, my husband was the one who was accountable and I was bored w-a-i-t-i-n-g for him.

A few years ago, I looked around and realized that many of the Christian women in Evangelicalism that I knew were frequently complaining about their husbands. Apparently, we were all waiting around for our husbands to lead. But what was it exactly that we expected of them? Where did it spell out “leading” in the Bible? Most women would say the men needed to start a weekly family night, a daily family devotion, and then the list would trail off into ideas that sounded more like the men had to read our minds and then get in front of us and lead us there.

So why weren’t the men leading? It couldn’t be that all the men were not being obedient to God? Maybe because it doesn’t make sense?

I also noticed that the more “submissive” a woman seemed to be the more manipulative she also seemed to be behind the scenes. So instead of a woman openly discussing with her husband what needed to be done, she would finnegal behind the scene to make things happen. Seemed pretty deceitful to me. Seemed the men were being treated like they are idiots instead of in a respectful manner.

Now, I am embarrassed to realize that I still have much of the complementarian influence in me and I didn’t even realize it. I need to go back to the drawing board and see what can I know from Scripture and what has just been made up?

@ Katie:
Yes, it leaves the woman with only passive-aggressive options, which is just plain ugly.

You needn’t feel embarrassed. It’s like treacle, covering everything over, sticking everything together until one can’t think clearly anymore.

Katie, You just described the women in the large mega church women’s ministry programs I witnessed for years.

I really think that is why they turned into basically social groups who were into cooking and decorating with lots of the comp interpreted passages thrown in for good measure. It was like a Martha Stewart competition.

The shallowness was stifling. A spiritual wasteland. But guess what? They would never realize that unless they got away from it. And even then it can take a long time to process the indoctrination and what has become ingrained type thinking.

Daisy wrote:

Here’s a correction on my Power Puff girls link:
Power Puff Girls
They’re little girls who attend kingergarten and fight crime and bad guys in their spare time.

Ah, yes. Power Puff Girls. One thing to keep in mind is that no matter how weird or cartoony it gets, it makes its own weird sense. (Including supervillain downtimes and Kaiju trashing the town for bragging rights on Monster Island.)

@ Patrice:

I’m so sorry you were abused.

I was engaged several years ago. There was no physical abuse, but the guy took financial advantage of me and was very self absorbed. He didn’t show any interest in me. It was all about him and what he wanted.

He also made some cruel comments about a few things and showed no understanding. I broke up with him.

I went to the video page you linked me to. It’s still downloading.

I saw this comment by a visitor below the video (in regards to Christians/Muslims having kids):

“The future belongs to Christianity and Islam”

I’m not saying that Christians are going to stop getting married and having kids altogether, but…

Unwanted, prolonged singleness has become such an obvious problem now among Christians in the United States (most of us believe in marriage before having kids, hence no marriage = no children), that some Christians have noticed it, and that’s why they’re publishing blogs and books encouraging Christian teens to get married and pro-create pronto.

People are just not marrying as young as they used to, if at all. It’s also an issue among Non- Christians in the USA.

There are a lot of Christian and Non Christian women ages 25 and up who want to get married, but they cannot find a partner.

There have been articles about it off and on in the past several years, like this:
Why Are So Many Professional Millennial Women Unable To Find Dateable Men?

I think it’s even more upsetting for Christian women. I, like a lot of Christian girls, was told by Christians (parents, preachers, in books) if I was a nice, good, girl and prayed for a spouse, that God would send me one in due time.

Okay, I was a nice Christian girl and still am, and I prayed and even tried dating sites and going to church. So where’s my spouse?

It makes me want to barf, though, that many Christians, such as Mohler, only care about getting the young ‘uns of today married.

If you are over 30 years of age, they either ignore you or blame you for being single, like
this:
30 and Single? It’s Your Own Fault [Say Some Christians]

It looks to me that since marriages are being delayed or not happening, you’re simply not going to see Christian women having a lot of kids, and for most of us, we did not plan for this.

But we get blamed for it by preachers, as though our prolonged singleness was intentional, though it was not.

Katie wrote:

I also noticed that the more “submissive” a woman seemed to be the more manipulative she also seemed to be behind the scenes. So instead of a woman openly discussing with her husband what needed to be done, she would finnegal behind the scene to make things happen.

1) I have long suspected a lot of Patriarchs’ wives were the real Power Behind the Pulpit/Throne, carrying their Hubby’s testicles in their purses and riding him like a Voudun loa riding their horse.

2) I came out of a family upbringing where passive-aggressive manipulation was a fine art. I am sure my “baby” brother is a serious NPD case if not a full-honk sociopath. If anything would cause me to get physically violent and abusive towards a woman, it would be discovering she had been manipulating me. My hindbrain would get stuck on “NEVER AGAIN!”

Daisy wrote:

Some of the Patriarchy groups have been documented as believing that America can be re-won for God if they have a lot of kids. Some of their groups discourage their kids from marrying outside the group. They do not encourage witnessing to un-saved people.

This is a variant of Outbreed the Heathen called “Bedroom Evangelism”.

Penetrate, Conquer, Plant…
Penetrate, Conquer, Plant…
Penetrate, Conquer, Plant…

Anon 1 wrote:

On another note, some aquaintances of mine recently had a baby born dead. Their patriarchal church which is part of Acts 29 immediately started promoting international adoption to them. I thought that was a bit inappropriate so soon to suggest that.

Sounds like either “One Size Fits All” obsession or “When all you have is a Hammer, Everything looks like a nail.”

Katie wrote:

I also noticed that the more “submissive” a woman seemed to be the more manipulative she also seemed to be behind the scenes. So instead of a woman openly discussing with her husband what needed to be done, she would finnegal behind the scene to make things happen

I think I discussed this in this thread or the last one the other day. It’s known as “codependency.”

It’s not just Christianity, though, American secular culture also socializes females to be passive, repress anger, don’t directly express needs, etc.

This is discussed from a Christian perspective in the book “No More Christian Nice Girl” by J. Degler and Paul Coughlin.

Christianity tends to make the situation worse by telling Christian women that all this being hyper- submissive / passive/ nice stuff is what God expects or demands of them, when God wants to free them from this.

Anon 1 wrote:

The shallowness was stifling. A spiritual wasteland. But guess what? They would never realize that unless they got away from it.

Thinking about what you said here. I’m still in an Evangelical church and though the complementarianism is never talked about and seems on the light side, I’ve been paying close attention and realize the undercurrents may still be much stronger than I realized.

I remember as a child in a denomination outside of Evangelicalism, that women seemed to be free to be normal, for lack of a better term. As a result, we went in search of some denom churches to see what we could see. At an Anglican church we found a completely different attitude with and about women. It felt freeing! I figured if I could pick up on that much of a difference just visiting one time, then something is far more wrong with my complementation-light church than I ever realized.

I can see a great need for me to get out of this bubble, even if it’s not as bad as others.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Katie wrote:
2) I came out of a family upbringing where passive-aggressive manipulation was a fine art.

Unicorn, I am outspoken so while my husband and I were dealing with things up front, I was blind to what the other women were doing for a long time. Finally, a close friend got married at 40 and she turned into the most manipulative, conniving woman that I was shocked! All the while she was smiling and saying, “Yes, dear.” I begged her to be honest and up front with him, but she kept saying I just didn’t understand southern men and that he had to be the leader and she could not be forthright with him. She just wouldn’t acknowledge all the “leading” she was doing with her underhanded, deceitful ways.

It really made me stop and take a serious look to see if any of that was in my own life. It’s just dishonest.

Women have been abused in their marital relationships.

What?

Men in our society are not really any different from those who came before?

huh?

Women are suppressed, their spirits crushed, making them into cheap blow-up sex toyz.
can’t see da results in the proliferation of porn, and  posh advertising serving up women as tantalizing tiny tasty tidbits of sexual pleasurable ful-fill-ment, with ‘no’ other apparent function?

Is this what God intended for the woman? For the man, for that matter?

More than likely… far, far, far…less, I’m afraid.

(Sadface)

Is there a moral imperative here? 

Is it not the presence of self-governing reason nestled within the breast of each and every person, that offers decisive grounds for viewing each person as in possession of equal worth and therefore deserving of equal respect?

Have women (in their frequent oppressive encounters with men)  –have they  just simply sought to sanely ‘override’ the confining bounds of this proverbially proscribed hell hole?

(is dat a 44DD straitjacket, your wearing?) 

hmmm…

I wonder why?

They talk about God-given design?

Yet they say these things:

“We can’t expect anything different because that’s the legacy of sin?”

What kinda cr@p is dat?

 It doesn’t have to be that way?

hmmm…

Odd.

That it is entirely possible to have a thriving and vibrant marriage relationship where the wife is cared for, lifted up, exalted, and allowed to be all that God intended her to be; where the husband knows how to devote his life, lovingly providing; allowing God to help him be all that God intended him to be?

hmmm…

What nonsense now replaces the plan that God originally intended?

Is it time ta punch da clock?

Sopy

—

I keep having this feeling I should just throw in the term “undifferentiated ego mass” as another thing that may be going on in families trying to follow the neo-Cal model. It seems like it could overlap with the concept of codependency.

The manipulation I saw women use in comp marriages made me crazy. I called it the “daddy/husband” syndrome because it reminded me of the tactics a teen girl would use to get daddy to buy them something. Or the fake ego stroking was ridiculous. I cannot believe the men were so stupid to fall for it.

yes, it is deceitful and not worthy of a believer. But somehow they had to make it his idea so he could “lead” and she gets what she wants or needs. Of course, it cannot be two adults who are partners having a discussion and coming to an agreement! Heaven forbid!

Disgusting.

@ Pam:
U surp pee. Too funny. (you slurp pee?)

While I don’t comment much, I do read, and want to say how much how much I feel this is family. Especially, here where i have much common ground with Daisy and HUG. While I’ve never heard anything about Eve’s physical appearance, I know that in many conversations about sexual restraint, I’ve been told “You just don’t understand just how hard it is ”

When the “Usurping Women” conference is ready, let me know the date(s) and I will be there.

As I said earlier, I need to reexamine what Scripture says about women’s roles/place/relationship with husband. As we were looking up Scriptures last night, we both concluded we need help with reexamining the usual proof texts. Does anyone have some good recommendations of books or resources to help me in my quest?

Katie –

You could go to this site http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ for a start. They have articles and recommendations. Jon Zens has a book called “What’s with Paul and Women?” (I think.) Wade Burelson also wrote some articles which can be found at his blog site. You might need to do a little hunting.

@ Katie:
Search on the Web for Christians for Biblical Equality. They have many resources, including an academic journal, a magazine, and a bookstore, as well as conferences. It is an organization with an evangelical statement of faith that advocates not feminism but equality as they see the Bible supporting.

Thanks so much, Bridget, Anna & 56 yrs!

I appreciate all the help I can get.

Katie wrote:

As I said earlier, I need to reexamine what Scripture says about women’s roles/place/relationship with husband. As we were looking up Scriptures last night, we both concluded we need help with reexamining the usual proof texts. Does anyone have some good recommendations of books or resources to help me in my quest?

Katie – if I may… the trouble with proof texts, of course, is that by definition they are small fragments of scripture taken out of the full context of the bible (which has 1180 chapters and 0,000’s of verses). This is why one can prove pretty much whatever one wants from the Bible, at the same time accusing one’s opponents of either being deceived or of willfully distorting the scriptures to satisfy their sinful and rebellious desires. And so on.

In my humble opinion, Katie, by far the most important resource you and your husband could possibly get your hands on is a twofold one: your own conscience, since you have to live with whatever conclusions you come to, and the Holy Spirit himself whose presence is promised to all believers and who seals the “personal relationship with God” that evangelists the world over preach about. The question (which I have absolutely no business answering on your behalf) then becomes: what can we state, such that we can honestly say of it, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”, like the early church?

@ Katie:
It gives me the heebie-jeebies just reading about your “counseling” experience. Just as the secular world, the religious world, Boy Scouts, and others are reexamining their response to child sexual abuse, I suspect, years from now, believers will heave a collective shudder at the “gospelly” beliefs being promoted now. I’m glad Dee and Deb have provided this platform for these issues to be discussed and examined. Unfortunately, a lot of people have been hurt by these beliefs.

Katie wrote:

As I said earlier, I need to reexamine what Scripture says about women’s roles/place/relationship with husband. As we were looking up Scriptures last night, we both concluded we need help with reexamining the usual proof texts. Does anyone have some good recommendations of books or resources to help me in my quest?

Hi Katie,

I highly recommend Philip Payne as an excellent resource:

http://www.pbpayne.com/

@ linda: Being the parent of a special needs child (*any* kind of special need) is extremely challenging, and not just because things are often difficult at home – it’s dealing with schools and so very much more.

People who have special-needs kids need all the support they can get, and then some…

Re: BTDT,

What is so amazing is that we were attending a Bible Church and this was decades ago. It wasn’t connected to IFB, CC’s, Driscoll, SGM’s, or CC’s where I see these offenses most often. Yet, some of the people brought with them this influence into the church, a new plant.

The existence of such inequalities were not visible because they were so subtle. It wasn’t until I had a marriage issue that I discovered my counselor woman had such notions, and then another woman I was told to spend time with exhibited the same. (Her husband would not allow her to put any decorations on any wall anywhere in their home and then she was not allowed to spend time with me for fear my marriage issue would influence her to leave her husband. &%$#!)

Is this in all evangelical churches, if you include the subtle forms?

Katie wrote:

As I said earlier, I need to reexamine what Scripture says about women’s roles/place/relationship with husband. As we were looking up Scriptures last night, we both concluded we need help with reexamining the usual proof texts. Does anyone have some good recommendations of books or resources to help me in my quest?

Scripture should always be used to interpret Scripture. So, if you suspect that a specific passage is being used as a proof-text, examine it in light of the overal context of the book in which it is found, as well as in light of what Scripture as a whole teaches. One really helpful exercise is to examine how the entire NT describes and explains women’s roles in the church, and then to compare that broad portrayal to the tiny, commonly-cited passages in 1 Timothy 2-3, 1 Corinthians 14, Galatians 3, etc.

Two guys who advocate a contextual approach to these proof-texts are Ben Witherington and Tom Wright. They generally argue that the prohibitions against women leading/speaking/teaching are temporary prohibitions given in a very specific situation. Here are two good places to start if you’re interested in their views.

Ben Witherington:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5VQe_nuNJg

Tom Wright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwj287xr0uQ

Daisy wrote:

…so these entitled preachers such as Driscoll who don’t even attempt to practice self control and who demand sex from their wives whenever, where ever, and treat their wives like performing circus seals…

That’s not a relationship.
That’s a Caveman-style rapist situation or a prostie servicing a John on demand.

Anon 1 wrote:

The manipulation I saw women use in comp marriages made me crazy. I called it the “daddy/husband” syndrome because it reminded me of the tactics a teen girl would use to get daddy to buy them something. Or the fake ego stroking was ridiculous. I cannot believe the men were so stupid to fall for it.

Besides deceitful, it also has this creepy vibe of Incest. But then, any guy who wants his wife to service him on demand yet remain a perpetual child in all other ways has this creepy Pedo vibe.

@ Katie:
I’ve spent the last two decades in what many would consider a fringe group. I haven’t kept up with mainstream evangelicalism until now. Like you, I’m trying to sort through this and get my bearings. I’m hesitant, yet, to say that all evangelistic churches are patriarchal/comp or authoritarian. But, I am concerned that the fringe elements are seeping into the mainstream when I read comments such as this:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/03/15/tim-challies-and-the-gospel-coalition-some-bloggers-are-gospel-deficient/#comment-88206
I do not want to go from one abusive group to another. Right now I’m content to read my Bible, pray, and follow a few blogs to try and heal from what I’ve been through. I’ve received wonderful book recommendations from people here on other issues I asked for help on. I feel safe here. I hope you, too, find the answers you’re looking for.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

.My own opinion is that each individual is unique, and each couple is unique. A comp form may be suited to some couple’s personalities, and not so much for others. I think it’s wrong to assert that comp is the “Christian” or “gospel” form for a marriage. (Or a church, or a community)

Yes! I don’t understand the view that all human beings need to torture themselves and contort themselves to fit into these rigid and often ill-fitting roles, especially when they are of such dubious origin (not exactly handed down by God from Mt. Sinai–and even in that case, look what Jesus said about the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath). You bring up an important point that strict comp teaching is not fair to men either. And it’s not healthy for relationships. Don’t people need to work with each other as they actually are, as individuals, instead of holding each other to these externally enforced ideas about how they both “should” be? How on earth is mutual acceptance, openness, and love not “gospel” enough?

“It leaves no room for love to weave its way to unite a couple into the unique arrangement that God intended it to be” – a beautiful idea beautifully stated.

BTDT,

I thought I was safe going into a Calvary Chapel, assuming they were more progressive in general. But it was more restrictive than some of what I experienced in the IFB. It really surprised me when I finally figured it out. The women were definitely treated like they were less valuable than the men. So many married couple reported the same issue, that the pastor would side with the husband even if he committed adultery. The women were forced to accept their unfaithful husbands back into their beds immediately out of submission. It was sick.

One man walked out on 7 kids and his 3rd wife, but was still welcome to participate in ministry. The woman was maligned for being mad. (see head banging against brick wall!)

I understand your reticence to get back into the game.

@ Val: In the eAst, anyway. Horses changed things tremendously for Plains peoples.

@ numo:
The first nations that grew food in the NE (I am not as familiar with US First Nations, but that was the Herons north of the great lakes), did grow maize, and seasonal veggies, but did not solely sustain themselves by farming. Very few North American first nations could quit the nomadic lifestyle to exclusively farm (Tuscon area Navajo could, I believe), and the farther north you go the less farming they did. People have been seasonally farming for millennia (20,000 years in the Old World) but always forced to be nomadic and never perfect their farming until only 10,000 years ago in the Old World and only about 2,000 – 3,000 years in the New World (and limited in the New World to the warmer climates).

Notice the First Nations did not herd animals (well, they rounded up buffalo, but they had to follow the herds in order to round them up), corn is not a sustaining diet on it’s own, and other New World foods – peppers, tomatoes, for example, could not be preserved, so they could farm in the summer, but had to go hunt/fish from the fall – spring. The Old World had wheat (grew wild on the Asian steps), and that was an easy crop to develop for agriculture, it allowed them to move on to other grains, and they developed legumes – protein- sooner, as it was more widely available in those regions. They also herded animals and so they could eat the meat. This was not universally true of the New World. Yes, Peru was similar to the Old World: guinea pigs, lamas, quinoia, etc. but, for whatever reason, that skill did not widely disseminate to the rest of the Americas. This left the North American first nations a lot less time to move on from basic agriculture (corn in it’s wild form is so far removed from it’s edible form it took the New World thousands of years to develop it into an edible food – an amazing feat, but something that slowed them down in agriculture), to development – crop diversity, permanent settlements, metal extraction and use, diversity of labour.

The first nations used next to no metal in their tools or weapons, putting them at a huge disadvantage to the Europeans. They did use easily extractable metals (gold, silver (?) and copper pre-contact) but all of these metals are quite malleable, great for making jewellery, bad for making tools or weapons. They didn’t get much farther because they were way behind the Old World in agriculture. It is to agriculture that we owe all our building and crafting abilities, without the time gained by freeing people from food production/gathering and ability to accumulate possessions (impossible in a nomadic culture) – and no large taxation system, nor writing. In nomadic and semi-nomadic societies, the time and ability to build, craft and create does not exist. Nor is there any incentive to work towards making heavy objects, if you can’t take it with you, why bother to make it at all? Now, if the Europeans had just come and left a few horses and chickens (native to Nepal/India), and goats and lentil seeds and gone away again, the first nations would be well on there way to European-like society in no time, but they were not at all like the European settlers because they had no means to settle permanently. They were either full-time or part-time Nomads (Wanderers is what Genesis calls there lifestyle).

@Val

So when Owen Strachan (head of CBMW, and Piper and Mohler’s crony) tells us men need to go work outside of the home (as they are cursed to do the work) and women must stay home (since they would be taking the man’s responsibility, as he is the one cursed to work)

Technically, if they want to be precise, men need to toil the ground and allow it to grow thorns and thistles; i.e. they must make farming/agriculture their career.

lol

Katie wrote:

Thinking about what you said here. I’m still in an Evangelical church and though the complementarianism is never talked about and seems on the light side, I’ve been paying close attention and realize the undercurrents may still be much stronger than I realized.

I call it “pop complementarianism.” They don’t really preach gender roles but there is an undercurrent of what men and women are supposed to be like in order to fit in.

My husband asked, “Are women cursed three times?”

1. Pain in childbirth
2. Ruled over by a sinful man
3. Has to work too. (Many outside jobs are easier with defined work hours than homemaking and raising kids.)

@ Val: Pueblo and Navajo people her animals and farm.

Even the northern Plains tribes herded animals (mostly horses).

Midwestern and more southern Plains farmed, too, though not exclusively.

*Southern* peoples farmed a good deal, though not in a European manner.

@ Val: Have you read anything about the Mound Builder groups and what they did?

Also, per agriculture, complex social systems, cities, *very* non-portable architecture and sculpture (much of it monumental), etc. etc. etc. – see Mexico and points south.

Two things have occurred to me in my search for answers on these issues. The first one is that Jesus came to break the “curse” and to restore us to our original relationship with God the Father. So did Jesus break the “curse” or not? and if He did why continue to bring it up today? The second thing is the word usurp. After looking into the meaning of it I am a bit confused. Most of the way it is translated is in the way of using force to take control over something ( like a kingdom )usually with violence. In that light how many women beat the pastor over the head, pushed him off the stage and then proceeded to preach?

Last fall we visited the pueblos in New Mexico. Extensive built up communities that preceded the Spanish conquest. Also appears that some of the war-like plains tribes traded and raided some of the pueblos. The “sky city” pueblo on top of a mesa with high steep sides, is particularly worth the trip, about an hour west of Albuquerque, as are others scattered in New Mexico.

@ Arce: Thanks for your posts!

I would love to visit some of the pueblos and mound-builder sites… maybe someday.

To clarify, I am convinced increased sexual desire is a component of the woman’s increased desire for her husband.

There is also a propensity since Gen 3:16 to make husband an idol and follow him instead of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira for example).

@ dee: Will do!

I’d love to go out there someday.