Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)


I originally planned to do this series as three posts. I now realize point 7 needs its own post. The point I try to make is that the assertion Grudem made in this point is completely unsupported, that everything under the header is a red herring. To do that, I need to quote Grudem extensively, to prove I do not leave out the significant part of his argument. Before giving the mic over to Grudem, so to speak, I will show a similar argument:

“The Derickson brothers were born to be house painters: The Derickson brothers vandalized houses of immigrants by painting swear words on them. [Newspaper quote on the Derickson brothers being caught for vandalizing houses with spray paint.] The judge sentenced them to community service. [Another newspaper’s quote on what the judge decided.] The newspaper uses the word ‘fitting’ to describe what the judge said of their punishment. Fitting means [quote from Webster’s Dictionary]. This shows us that the spray painting was a perversion of their God-given purpose to paint houses, house painting was not new to them.”

The problem in the previous paragraph, as you can see, is that not a single shred of evidence is given that the Derickson brothers were indeed born to be house painters. Plenty of evidence is given of their crimes and the sentences they got, none that house painting was their life purpose prior to the crimes. Even if every quote is accurate, it would not prove the header. With that in mind, read Grudem’s argument, or lack of it, while remembering the header of his list (“Ten Reasons Showing Male Headship in Marriage Before the Fall”), and of point seven.
Read the rest of this entry »



I heard denouncements of the song before I ever heard it:

“This is a terrible and unladylike attitude.”

It is not who God made women to be.”

The denouncements came from Christian™ ultra-conservatives. When I heard the song itself, I was surprised: If this song replaced the word “woman” with the word “Christian, and originally appeared on a Christian album1, nobody would have complained. (The writer, Helen Reddy, told that her words was divinely inspired – and I believe it.) Read the rest of this entry »

<<Continued from Part 1

4. …God named the human race “Man,” not “Woman.”… (Gen. 5:1-2):


In the Hebrew text, the word … ’ådåm… is by no means a gender-neutral term… (Genesis 2:5,7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19 (twice), 20 (twice, 22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, 17, 20, 21; 4:1, 25; 5:1)…

It does give a hint of male leadership, which God suggested in choosing this name….

Reading the same text with pink glasses

(To understand this argument, we have to know that people give meanings to words,things they understand when they hear it. An aggressive atheist, when hearing the word ‘God’, may hear: “That fictional character who is blamed for a lot of Old Testament deaths and the Crusades.” Another person, from a religious home, may think: “The One who is angry with all my sin and wants to punish me.” The problem is not the word “God”, but how people understand it.)

God named the human race “Man.” Then, the male sinfully appropriated the name for himself, calling the woman by other names. By the time Genesis was written, this sinful way of thinking about the term ’ådåm was established to such a degree that, writing in Hebrew, God used the word ’ådåm in two ways: The way God intended (for the whole race) and the meaning that sinful men gave the word: As a word for males.

On the other hand, the female was named “life causer”. (The meaning of Eve.) This gives a hint of female leadership: We die in Adam, but get life in Eve.

Stripping away the biases Read the rest of this entry »

At the start of March, I started a planned 3-piece series on the justifications Grudem uses for male headship before the fall. By now, everyone expected me to post parts 2 and 3 too.

Sadly, I am having serious computer problems, which make it impossible for me to get things done on the Internet. I got a new laptop and the thing gobbles up Internet data. I got a limited amount of data per month. Nowadays, whenever I get on the Internet, my computer eats all my data while I hardly use any of it surfing. So far, no solutions worked yet.

The Grudem articles are written, offline. But even formatting them in WordPress take time on the Internet.

I am sitting in a coffee shop with free wifi to post this.

Is the significance complementarians attach to men being here first compatible with creationism?

Note: I know, I said I am working on a three-part refutation of Grudem’s 10 reasons for seeing hierarchy before the fall. I will, DV, get back to that soon.


The belief in a literal, 6 x 24 hours, creation is common among conservative believers: first the earth, then division between light and dark, then plants, then the sun and moon, then birds and fish, and after that land animals and people.

Some of those same people also believe that it is very significant that the male was made first: From this, they conclude that men are supposed to have authority over women.

On face value, those two ideas seem very compatible: The first affirm that the order in which things were made in Genesis 1 is not only literally true, but significant. The second affirm that the order in which things were made in Genesis 2 is not only literally true, but significant. Sounds good and Bible-respecting, doesn’t it?

But there is at least two problems with that. Read the rest of this entry »

According to Wayne Grudem, male headship have been part of God’s plan from creation.

In ‘Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood’, he claims that there are 10 reasons to believe in male headship before the fall. But are those reasons really there? Or, does he read them into the text because he wants to see it? Is leadership in the Bible blue, or is he wearing blue glasses which make it look that way? Over the next three blog entries, I will discuss his 10 reasons for believing in male leadership before the fall.

I will use blue and a quotation paragraph for Grudem’s words, and pink and a quotation paragraph for words which I wrote to show a different way of (mis)using the same Bible facts. The reason for quotation marks around the pink words is to show they are not my opinion – I use them to show that the same things Grudem uses to allege male lead, or similar things, could be used in a completely opposite manner too. Hierarchy is in the eye of the beholder, not the true meaning of the text.

1. The order:

Ten Reasons Showing Male Headship in Marriage Before the Fall

1. The order: Adam was created first, then Eve (…Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:18-23)… Paul … bases his argument for different roles in the assembled New Testament church on the fact that Adam was created prior to Eve. (1 Tim. 2:12-13). According to Scripture itself, then, the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but for the relationships between men and women generally throughout time, including the church age.

Reading the same text with pink glasses

First God made non-living things like the sun and moon, then things that at least resemble God in the fact of being alive, like plants. Then fish and birds, which start to have some degree of consciousness, then higher animals, then man, then women, the crown of creation. Scripture itself shows that God often prefer younger siblings over older ones – Abel over Cain, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Judah, David over his brothers. Jesus Himself- the last Adam – is bigger than the first Adam. Scripture even testifies that the last shall be first. (Mat. 20:16) The fact that Eve was created after Adam has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but for the relationships between men and women generally throughout time, including the church age.

Stripping away the biases

Adam was made first, but that does not necessarily make him the leader. Plenty of Bible material turns first-last hierarchies on its head, These include many Old Testament stories in which the oldest brother is almost habitually not the one God chose, and the repeated message of Jesus that many of the last shall be first (Mat. 19:30; 20:16; Mark 9:35; 10:31; Luke. 13:30).

1 Tim 2:12-13’s message, in the context of the letter to Timothy, is:
“Do not worry about endless genealogies (1:4 – To permanently ban a certain group from teaching because the first member of the group was born after the first member of the other group is endlessly worrying about genealogies)… I, Paul, could be a preacher now (1:12) because I sinned while misled (1:13), and am not misled any more… I, Paul, do not currently allow a (particular?) woman to teach, or to dominate/ do violence against a (particular) man, because Adam was made first, and Eve was misled.”
Read the rest of this entry »

This blog has several articles refuting or exploring the implications of the complementarian idea that husbands represent Jesus and wives the church, and for that reason women should unilaterally submit. If you want to explore the idea, here are the links. Read the rest of this entry »

Tag Cloud