Tags

, , , , ,

The thick complementemtarian argument seems to go like this:

The Garden of Eden was God’s ideal plan for humanity. Adam named Eve just like he named the animals. This shows Adam was an authority figure over his wife just like he had authority over the animals. Some would say Adam ruled Eve like he ruled the animals.

Therefore men are designed to be leaders over their wife and women are designed to be submissive to their husbands – ontologically. This, they argue, is rooted in creation. It’s not an outcome of the fall. It’s not just a role we play. It’s an integral part of our gendered identity.

And since it is in our design, this interaction between men and women is not limited to marriage. Men were designed for leadership. Women were designed for submission. When we acknowledge this, culture comes closer to the pre-fall state. When a woman has authority over man in any area, including the work place, it is against nature’s design and things tend to go wrong.

One only has to glance at the definitions of manhood and womanhood on the Center For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website to see this is a basic premise upon which they build most of their beliefs about gender. Men are leaders. Women are submitters.

I do believe the pre-fall Garden of Eden shows us God’s ideal design. I’m also not an Egalitarian. Yet, I believe these Complementariams are in error. First, I’ll allow them their premise and explore whether their argument follows logically. Then I’ll give my argument as to why naming doesn’t necessarily mean authority at all.

First, Adam named his wife *after* the fall. God said a consequence of sin would be that the husband would rule over the wife. *After* this consequence, Adam named his wife Eve. If naming denotes authority, this only proves Adam had authority after the consequences of Genesis 3. It does not prove his authority was the ideal in the pre-fall paradise or that it reflects a design rooted in creation.

Some would argue that Adam names his wife as soon as she was brought to him. In fact, many believe Adam named woman-kind and therefore there’s a certain deference women must give to men that men are not expected to give to women – in general. That women may never have authority or even be an equal with a man in any circumstance. The scripture they are referring to and is a poem in Genesis 2, where God presented Eve to Adam.

Genesis 2:23:

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and aflesh of my flesh: she shall be called bWoman, for she was taken out of man.”

I don’t believe this poem is showing men’s authority over women.

Adam’s whole poem is about how Eve is the same as he is. She’s not just another animal brought to him. She’s actually bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. She’s the same species. She’s a female man (female member of mankind).

Imagine a scientist sees a large, maned cat for the first time. He exclaims, “It shall be called lion!” His assistant then sees a female lion walk by. The assistant exclaims, “In that case, this shall be called lion-ess!”

Did the assistant actually name the female lion? Or did he put a feminine declension on an animal that had already been named?

I believe Adam, in his excitement, simply declined “man”. She shall be ish-ha (woman), for she was taken out of ish (man). In other words, finally! A female version of me! I am no longer alone. I believe this poem is about unity, not hierarchy.

And who gave Adam his name?

In Genesis 5: 2 we read, “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man[a]”

So God named *both* Adam and Eve “man”, or as many translations say, “mankind”, and in his excitement, Adam declined wo-man, or “female member of mankind”.

Adam named Eve specifically, not women generally. It’s ok for a woman to accept a promotion at work. The Bible says a wife is submissive to her *own* husband. And even that naming was done after sin entered. So we still haven’t proven it’s the ideal.

Why is this important to me? It is important because many complementarians are reading hierarchy and authority into passages where the main focus is actually mutuality. Genesis is not the only passage where they do this. They take an idea, authority and submission, one God only mentions a few times, and make it into the main theme for which men and women should interact. They then downplay the main theme ( mutuality and co-laboring in our service to Christ).

They prioritize differently than God does in the Bible and it has implications for how they counsel husbands and wives.

John Piper was once asked about how a wife should submit to a harsh, cruel husband. He answered, “If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night.”

But is lack of submission really the thing causing the problem in that marriage? Piper’s comment is extreme, but the spirit of it is common. The problem with this group is they tend to prioritize very differently than how God prioritizes. They seem to think authority and submission is the main component of a healthy male and female relationship. Therefore, enforcing it is a main solution to most problems. They seem to read this assumption into every passage that talks about male and female relationships.

What if Piper’s main concern was unity? Co-laboring as one in Christ? Sharing the gospel in word and deed?

Would his focus be on encouraging the woman to submit to injustice? Or would he be more concerned about how the man’s actions hinder their service to God together as one?

God compares a married couple to oxen yoked together tilling a field. This is an analogy for serving together in God’s kingdom. If one ox is attacking the other ox, is telling the victimized ox to quietly submit the best way to get the field tilled?

Piper, along with many complementarians tend to down play God’s focus on unity and over emphasis hierarchy.

They swat at flies while swallowing camels. It is important to follow God’s truths. It’s also important to prioritize the things God gives weight to.

The ideal goal in marriage is a mutual working together as one in a common goal to glorify God. Im Genesis, the man was to *cling* to the wife. The wife was to be an ezer, a strong helper, for the man. Both were commanded to take dominion, to rule over creation, as image bearers.

What I’m saying is I fear there’s a certain identity-politic agenda that skews the way many Complementarians read passages like this.

So, in summary, I believe Adam named his wife after the fall, therefore even if naming is authority, this cannot be used as a proof text that man’s authority is part of our original, ideal design.

Some may argue that from Paul’s letters the authority was originally there. At best, I think they must admit pointing out any authority before the fall didn’t seem to be a priority for Moses when he wrote the narrative. Mutuality was. It’s possible to be a head without hierarchy in a sinless world. This option does not come up much, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t. And when Paul refers to the Genesis narrative he always seems to give *two* reasons for wifely submission- creation order *and* Eve’s sin. I do wonder why the first wouldn’t be sufficient.

I’ve allowed for the Complementarian assumption that naming shows authority. Even with that assumption, they do not prove their point. But does naming mean authority?

The reason they believe this is that Adam named the animals and was to rule over them. We also know many mothers in the Bible named their sons. Their authority was temporary, but the name permanent. Hagar named God. Lost in the desert, she heard God’s voice and said, “You are the God who sees.” Moses says she named God. So we know some namings, at least, do not show authority. But there is a common denominator to all these namings. They are all descriptive. Adam describes the animals and his wife (life giver). Mothers and fathers describe their children, what they hope for their children, or the experiences during the child’s birth. And Hagar describes God. In most of these cases, authority is temporary or non existent. So why are we assuming naming means authority?

I’ve given reasons as to why I disagree with the complementarian view, but why did Adam name Eve? My speculation – Adam was foreshadowing Christ giving the name “Christian” to His bride, the church. Not as a show of dominance – after all, He has dominion over everyone already. But as a show of acceptance, communion and love.

On a human level, Adam could have named his wife “death giver”. Her name could have heartened back to “he will rule over you.” Yet he chose to name her “life giver”. Rather than identify her by her sin, he chose to identify her by the promise that her Seed would make all things right. When Adam and Eve both sinned, Adam quickly threw Eve under the bus, “the woman you gave me gave to me and I did eat.” But after the fall he clings to her. He gives her a name honoring her. Almost as if dominance wasn’t his goal. Maybe a mutual working together was his focus.

It’s funny, complementarians rarely point these sorts of things out when pointing to male female relationships. If you are putting proof texts together to prove the feminists are wrong and it’s mostly about hierarchy, verses like these serve no purpose. Unless you make them about hierarchy.