Thanks Jeremy, I appreciate your thoughts – they were clear and gracious. I apologize for any previous statement that may have sounded ungracious to the BC position in my posts from a year ago. The Lord has done a lot in me over the last year, so hopefully I can dialogue on this topic more graciously.

I’ll give it a go here:

First, let me justify my use of the word “patriarchy.” Russ Moore, Biblical Complementarian and professor at SBTS said in this article, that the word patriarchy is not negative, but should be embraced by Biblical Complementarians. He says, “If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, Moore said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.”

Thus, as I noted in one of the previous threads – I use it how he uses it. I do not intend to be pejorative in my employment of the word – I simply have scholarly support, from the BC side which justifies my use of the word.

Moore, it seems, would like to revive the word: “Moore pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.”

Which leads me into my second point….

In the same article (and I assume Moore represents the majority opinion – not least of all b/c no scholar from the BC camp came out against him that I’m aware of) Moore says that male headship/patriarchy is not merely about teaching and having authority. Rather, he says it extends to decision making – decision making which should not involve the “process of negotiation or mutual submission.” For that, he says, is what our forefathers would have called “feminism.”

Next, I fully understand and respect that BC’s say that women are equal to men in nature, but have different roles. Indeed, as I said in this post, there are certainly ways in which God has gifted people differently, to fulfill different roles. A difference of roles does not necessarily imply inferiority.

However, I fear that it often works out that way in practice within male/female relationships. I fear that often that kind of rhetoric is just an underhanded way of reinforcing traditional gender roles – which often dehumanizes the wife by taking her voice out of the equation….as Moore even said, it is feminism to negotiate!

Finally, as I said in post #2, I don’t think women are restricted from teaching and authority. I take that passage quite differently. But I would note that I’m not necessarily attempting to tear down BC arguments (though some of that is there). Rather I’m attempting to demonstrate that Egalitarians can also have legitimate readings of those same texts – indeed, in one post I even cited NT Wright who was saying something similar to my argument.

All that said, if you don’t agree with Moore, that’s your prerogative. But I think his use of patriarchy and his practical application of the BC position is a scholarly and undisputed (at least as far as I can tell from those scholars who agree with the BC position)….then again, I’m Southern Baptist, so maybe I give to much credence to his voice in the larger evangelical world. If so, I apologize….sincerely.

Now, on to your analysis of Genesis 2:

First, let me say that I’ve not looked at Genesis 2 in a while, so I may be a bit rusty. After all, it’s been a year since that post and this one is about Genesis 1. Consequently, I observed that none of your criticisms came from my analysis of Genesis 1 in this post – should I take that as you agree with my exegesis?

Second, I agree that the woman was created ‘for’ man according to Genesis 2. But what does that ‘for’ mean? What was she created ‘for’ him for? Contextually she was created to be his ‘helper.’ As I argued in that previous post, I do not believe that ‘helper’ implies submission or male-headship. One Jewish scholar I spoke with even translated the word ‘adversary’ – implying that she was created to keep the man in check – to constructively criticize him. That may be too far, but I just wanted to point out that submission or headship is not implied in her being created ‘for’ him, and there are ways of rendering the word which moves away from our submission-laden understanding of ‘helper.’

Next, in Genesis 3 I agree that God comes to the man, first. That is observationally evident. Did he do so because the buck stopped with the man? I don’t think so, I think he came to the man first precisely b/c when the original command was given, the woman hadn’t been created yet.

However, surely you must concede that it is not inherent within the text to suggest that the man was the one ultimately held responsible. For everyone faced punishment! God was no respecter of persons or genders! In other words, what I see is equal punishment – though varying based on the person. There is no necessarily implied gender based hierarchy of accountability. To be gracious – I do understand why BC’s see a gender based responsibility, but I think they see it b/c of their previous assumptions about male-headship and not what is explicitly there in the text.  Indeed, I think you concede the point on some level when you say, “It is as if…..” But I could be reading too much into that statement.

Finally, brother, let me just say that though I do not agree with the BC position, I hope I have been more gracious in my response to it then I was a year ago. I truly believe that BC theology leads to a silencing of women’s voices (in the home and church) and thus I truly believe it is hurtful. At the same time, I want to be gracious and loving in my discussions with fellow brothers and sisters – for there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong about all of this. I hope I have responded to you in a way that is respectful and gracious.

Anticipating your thoughts,

Tom