1

CREATION TO CORRUPTION

As our country prepared to enter a new decade, the cover of the December 4, 1989, issue of TIME magazine declared, “Women Face the ’90s: In the ’80s they tried to have it all. Now they’ve just plain had it. Is there a future for feminism?” In the cover article, the writer, Claudia Wallis, asked, “Is the feminist movement—one of the great social revolutions of contemporary history—truly dead? Or is it merely stalled and in need of a little consciousness raising?”1 Wallis claimed it wasn’t dead, just in transition.

When faced with a myriad of setbacks in the 1980s, including the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, the more radical elements of the women’s movement lost their voice, and others were forced to moderate their position. Even Betty Friedan, the movement’s leading advocate, was pressured to declare herself in favor of the nuclear family.

While the extremists of the movement and their more outlandish positions—such as the abolition of marriage and the exaltation of lesbianism—no longer command the attention they once did, the damage to our society has been done and continues to be felt today. George Gilder, author of Men and Marriage, wrote:

Though rejecting feminist politics and lesbian posturing, American culture has absorbed the underlying ideology like a sponge. The principle tenets of sexual liberation or sexual liberalism—the obsolescence of masculinity and femininity, of sex roles, and of heterosexual monogamy as the moral norm—have diffused through the system and become part of America’s conventional wisdom.

Taught in most of the nation’s schools and colleges and proclaimed insistently in the media, sexual liberalism prevails even where feminism—at least in its anti-male rhetoric—seems increasingly irrelevant.2

Unfortunately, the church is in the process of soaking up some of the same ideology. More and more undiscerning believers are falling prey to the feminist agenda. I am amazed at how many evangelical churches, schools, and even seminaries are jettisoning doctrines they once defended as biblical truths. Within evangelical Christianity there is an organizational counterpart to the feminist movement called Christians for Biblical Equality that opposes any unique leadership role for men in the family and the church. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, in the introduction of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, described the supporters of this organization:

These authors differ from secular feminists because they do not reject the Bible’s authority or truthfulness, but rather give new interpretations of the Bible to support their claims. We may call them “evangelical feminists” because by personal commitment to Jesus Christ and by profession of belief in the total truthfulness of Scripture they still identify themselves very clearly with evangelicalism. Their arguments have been detailed, earnest, and persuasive to many Christians.

What has been the result? Great uncertainty among evangelicals. Men and women simply are not sure what their roles should be.…

The controversy shows signs of intensifying, not subsiding. Before the struggle ends, probably no Christian family and no evangelical church will remain untouched.3

While many in our culture are still attempting to remove feminist ideals from the mainstream of society, the church has allowed access to those same ideals within her hallowed walls. But we shouldn’t be surprised, because the feminist attack on the people of God is as old as man. Feminism began in the garden when Eve, who we could call the first feminist, listened to Satan’s lies, stepped out from under Adam’s authority, acted independently, and led the human race into sin.

Satan’s goal from the start has been to overthrow God’s design for His elect. That’s why it’s so tragic when the church is duped into helping him carry out his assault on God. What ought to be the strongest bastion of the truth of God is falling fast to the march of the feminist army. Those of us who hold to the integrity of God’s Word cannot let it fall victim to the warped society around us.

Scripture is very clear about the place God has designed for men and women in society, in the family, and in the church. And it is to Scripture we must turn to reaffirm the wonders of God’s design.

God’s Perfect Design

Any examination of the role of men and women in God’s design must begin with an understanding of Genesis 1—3. The key verses in those chapters provide a foundation for the texts we will examine in future chapters.

God’s Image-Bearers as Coregents

Genesis 1:27–28 gives the account of the creation of man and woman:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Notice two important things in that account. First, God created both man and woman in His image. Not just man, but woman also was made in God’s image. Like God, each has a rational personality. Men and women alike possess intellect, emotion, and will, by which they are able to think, feel, and choose. Humanity was not, however, created in God’s image as perfectly holy and unable to sin. Nor were man and woman created in His image essentially. They have never possessed His supernatural attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, or omnipresence. People are only human, not at all divine.

Author J. David Pawson reminded us that the male-female equality of creation in God’s image also “does not mean interchangeability. A cylinder head and a crankcase may be of the same material, size, weight, and cost—but they cannot be exchanged.”4

Second, God blessed them as man and woman in verse 28: “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply … fill the earth … subdue it; and rule.’” The man and woman were coregents: God gave both Adam and Eve the task to rule together over the lower creation.

The Perfect Relationship

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man in greater detail: “The LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This verse is vital to our discussion, because it states that God created man first and in a significantly different manner than woman.

Genesis 2:18–23 expands on 1:27–28, adding some pertinent details in the process. After placing man in the garden of Eden and commanding him to cultivate it and not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:15–17), God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (v. 18). So He created Eve to assist Adam in ruling an undefiled world: “The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man” (vv. 21–22).

Upon meeting his wife, awestruck Adam declared, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (v. 23). Immediately Adam recognized her as his perfect companion. He saw no blemishes or shortcomings in her, because both her character and his attitude were pure. There was nothing to criticize in Eve, and there was no critical spirit in Adam.

The chapter concludes, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (vv. 24–25). They were unashamed because no evil, impure, or perverse thoughts could exist in their perfect state.

Since man was created first, he was given headship over the woman and creation. The fact that Adam named Eve—a privilege bestowed on those who had authority in the Old Testament—manifested his authority over her. But their original relationship was so pure and perfect that his headship over her was a manifestation of his consuming love for her, and her submission to him was a manifestation of her consuming love for him. No selfishness or self-will marred their relationship. Each lived for the other in perfect fulfillment of their created purpose and under God’s perfect provision and care.

Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., former professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, explained succinctly the paradox of these two accounts:

Was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and … “suitable for him.” But she was not his equal in that she was his “helper.” God did not create man and woman in an undifferentiated way, and their mere maleness and femaleness identify their respective roles. A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God.5

How do evangelical feminists fix Genesis 2 to accommodate their prejudice? Specifically, how do they deal with the phrase “helper suitable for him”? Aída Besançon Spencer, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church, claimed that the Hebrew word neged, which could be translated “in front of” or “in sight of,” seems to suggest superiority or equality.6 Ortlund, on the other hand, said that neged is accurately paraphrased as “a helper corresponding to him,” hence the translation “suitable.”7 Spencer boldly concluded that “God created woman to be ‘in front of’ or ‘visible’ to Adam, which would symbolize equality (if not superiority!) in all respects. Even more, one can argue that the female is the helper who rules over the one she helps!”8

God did not create Eve to be superior to Adam; neither did He design her to be his slave. He gave them a perfect relationship: man as the head willingly providing for her, and she willingly submitting to him. Adam saw Eve as one with him in every respect; that was God’s design for a perfectly glorious union.

Sin and the Curse

But something terrible happened to God’s beautiful design. Genesis 3:1–7 describes the first sin:

The serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Bypassing the leadership of the man, the serpent went after the woman, who was by design the follower. He promised Eve that if she ate the forbidden fruit she would not die as God had warned, but that, in fact, she would become a god herself (vv. 4–5). He succeeded in enticing her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. She in turn persuaded Adam to commit the same sin, thereby making Satan’s attack on Adam’s headship a success.

Eve sinned not only by disobeying God’s specific command but also by acting independently of her husband by failing to consult him about the serpent’s temptation. Adam sinned not only by disobeying God’s command but also by succumbing to Eve’s usurpation of his leadership, thus failing to exercise his God-given authority. Both the man and the woman twisted God’s plan for their relationship, reversing their roles—and marriage has not been the same since.

Ortlund made a perceptive observation: “Isn’t it striking that we fell upon an occasion of sex role reversal? Are we to institutionalize it in evangelicalism in the name of the God who condemned it in the beginning?”9

Elements of the Curse

Adam and Eve’s sin precipitated a curse that affects the most basic elements of life:

• Death (Gen. 2:17): God warned Adam, “In the day that you eat from [the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil] you will surely die.”

• Pain in childbearing (3:16): The wonderful reality and joy of having a child would be somewhat overshadowed by the anguish of childbirth.

• Strenuous work (3:17–19): Man was cursed with hard work, trouble, and frustration in eking out a living to provide for his family.

• Strife in marriage (3:16): As a consequence of Eve’s disobedience and her failure to consult Adam about the serpent’s temptation, God told her, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” I believe that aspect of the curse predicts marital strife brought on by a husband’s oppressive rule over his wife and a wife’s desire to dominate and lead their relationship (an interpretation suggested by Susan Foh in Women and the Word of God).10

The Hebrew word translated “rule” means “to reign.” In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word used means “to elevate to an official position.” It’s as if God were saying to the woman, “You were once coregents, wonderfully ruling together as a team, but from now on the man is installed over you.” That was not in God’s original plan for man’s headship. Although Scripture doesn’t give us enough information to be dogmatic about what that rule means, the implication is that it represented a new, despotic authoritarianism.

The word desire in “your desire will be for your husband” is difficult to translate. It couldn’t be sexual or psychological—both characterize Adam’s desire for Eve before the fall. It is the same desire spoken of in the next chapter, however, where the identical Hebrew word is used. The term comes from an Arabic root that means “to compel,” “to impel,” “to urge,” or “to seek control over.” In Genesis 4:7 God essentially warned Cain, “Sin desires to control you, but you must master it.” Sin wanted to master Cain, but God commanded Cain to master sin. Based on linguistic and thematic parallels between this verse and Genesis 3:16, the latter may be translated, “Your desire will be to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” The curse on Eve was that woman’s desire would henceforth be to usurp man’s headship, yet he would resist that desire and subdue it through brutish means.

Effects of the Curse

With the fall and its curse came the distortion of woman’s proper submissiveness and of man’s proper authority. That is where the battle of the sexes began and where women’s liberation movements and male chauvinism were born. Women have a sinful inclination to usurp man’s authority, and men have a sinful inclination to put women under their feet. The divine decree that man would rule over woman in this way was part of God’s curse on humanity. The unredeemed nature of both men and women is self-preoccupied and self-serving—characteristics that can only destroy rather than support harmonious relationships. Only a manifestation of grace in Christ through the filling of the Holy Spirit can restore the created order and harmony of proper submission in a relationship corrupted by sin.

Throughout history the most dominant distortion of relationships has occurred on the man’s side. In most cultures of the ancient world, women were treated as little more than servants, and that practice is reflected in many parts of the world still today. Marcus Cato, the famous Roman statesman of the second century BC, wrote, “If you catch your wife in adultery, you can kill her with impunity; she, however, cannot dare to lay a finger on you if you commit adultery, nor is it the law.”11 That reflects the extreme of male ruthlessness resulting from the curse and exhibits the perversion of roles and responsibilities God intends for husbands and wives.

Even in supposedly liberated societies, women are frequently viewed primarily as sex objects who exist for the sensual pleasures of men. Because modern man is inclined to see himself as merely a higher form of animal—with no divine origin, purpose, or accountability—he is even more disposed to treat other people simply as things to be used for his own pleasure and advantage.

On the other hand, in today’s society, it is feminine aggression that is taking its place as the dominant expression of the curse. Modern feminists are beginning to assert their rebellion against the divine order by mimicking the very worst traits of fallen males—brutality, cruelty, love of power, and a swaggering, macho arrogance.

While Satan’s initial attack on God’s supreme creation corrupted the family, sin also ushered in widespread alien, divisive influences. The book of Genesis catalogs fratricide (4:8), polygamy (4:19, 23), evil sexual thoughts and words (9:22), adultery (16:1–4), homosexuality (19:4–11), fornication and rape (34:1–2), incest (38:13–18), prostitution (38:24), and seduction (39:7–12)—each of which directly attacks the sanctity and harmony of marriage and the family.

Satan knows by experience that when the home is weakened, all of society is weakened, because the heart of all human relationships is the family. The curse hits humanity at the core of its most-needed human relationship: the need for men and women to help each other live productive, meaningful, and happy lives. But the rebellion against the divine order has promoted serving and indulging self as the key to finding meaning and happiness in life. Our culture encourages men and women to feel free to express sexual desire however they want—through promiscuity, unfaithfulness in marriage, partner swapping, homosexuality, bestiality, or whatever. When they take that deceptive bait, they join Satan in undermining and destroying every meaningful and truly satisfying relationship in their lives, receiving destruction and disease as the duly God-ordained consequence of such sins.

The Feminization of the Church

While Satan’s attack on God’s design for men and women is clear, another form is subtle and less obvious. Throughout history Satan has developed religious systems that counterfeit God’s plan. Not surprisingly, some of them overturn God’s pattern for the roles of men and women. One heresy in particular, Gnosticism, has had a profound influence not only on secular feminism but evangelical feminism as well.

The Ancient Roots of Feminism

The current agenda is nothing more than a repackaging and reincarnation of ancient Gnosticism. Peter Jones, professor of practical theology for Westminster Theological Seminary and to whom I am indebted for the following material, explains that Gnosticism is a broad term describing a false anti-God religion developed “as the meeting of the mysticism of ancient Eastern religions with the rational culture of the Greek West.”12 Gnosticism took the intuitive, esoteric experiences of mystics and said it was a form of secret knowledge unknown to the uninitiated but superior to biblical truth. The Bible, it claimed, is mundane, earthy, and incomplete.

Gnostic religion today comes under the term New Age, but there’s nothing new about it. At the heart of ancient Gnosticism was a central myth: The physical universe was never intended to exist. Instead, we were meant to float around in the mystical free world of spirit life, unencumbered by physical definition and confinement. That’s nothing more than the heresy of philosophical dualism—the assumption that matter is evil and spirit is good.

But the physical universe did come into being because, the ancient Gnostics claim, the foolish creator God of the Bible made a mistake and created it. To make their system work, Gnostics attempted to discredit the Creator by claiming He was an impostor, masquerading as the true, unknowable God. To make themselves more than just accidental protoplasm, the Gnostics said that when He created the universe, somehow He also accidentally infused into humanity a spark of divine life. Believing conveniently that they were divine yet imprisoned in evil matter, Gnostics had to release the divine within them through attaining intellectual and spiritual enlightenment. The way to accomplish this liberation was to rid themselves of the strictures of the Old Testament.

Ancient Gnosticism not only blasphemed God and rejected biblical truth, but it also perverted the role of women—claiming, for example, that Eve was a spirit-endowed woman who saved Adam. Convoluting the account of the creation and the fall, Gnostic texts say that Dame Wisdom was the Heavenly Eve—that she entered the snake in the garden and taught both Adam and Eve the true way of salvation. Thus, the snake is not the tempter; he is the instructor. He is also the redeemer—the true Christ, the true reflection of God.

Everything in Gnostic literature displays a total reversal of redemptive history: The creator God of Scripture is evil, the serpent in the garden is the true Christ, and the Christ of the New Testament, as the reflection of God, is equally evil. Gnostics also claimed that since the true Christ never died, there was no resurrection. Thus, redemption is not a gracious, miraculous transformation of a person through the sacrifice of Christ. Instead, only self-understanding and self-realization can effect true redemption. Jones wrote:

Gnostic believers are “saved” when they realize who they are—a part of the divine; possessing within themselves the kingdom; capable of anything; and untrammeled by human traditions, creational structures, or divine laws. It follows that part of self-redemption is the rejection of biblical ethical norms and the promotion of the distortion of biblical sexuality.13

In the Gnostic system, sexual roles are totally altered. In one ancient text the “divine revealer” says, “I am androgynous. I am both mother and father.” Androgyny is the wiping out of all sexual distinction, a satanic goal from the beginning. Jungian analyst and avowed feminist June Singer said, “Androgyny refers to a specific way of joining the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ aspects of a single human being.”14 In her chapter on Gnosticism, notice how she linked androgyny to the goal of Gnosticism: “Androgyny is the act of becoming more conscious and therefore more whole—because only by discovering and rediscovering ourselves in all of our many aspects, do we increase the range and quality of our consciousness.”15 The ideal for the Gnostic is to become sexless—a radical refusal of sexual differentiation and a complete confusion of sexual identity in God’s intended role.

The heart of Gnosticism and the New Age movement is that female power is the key to salvation, hence the current New Age emphasis on goddess power. Shirley MacLaine dedicated her book Going Within to “Sachi, Mother, Kathleen, and Bella and all the other women and men who seek the spiritual feminine in themselves.”16 Male is the equivalent of matter and evil, whereas female is equated with spirit and good.

This heresy has influenced many who have some sort of Christian heritage. “I found God in myself and I loved her fiercely,” said Roman Catholic theologian Carol Christ.17 Former vice president Al Gore, a Southern Baptist, expressed “his belief in the connectedness of all things, in the great value of all religious faiths, and in his hope that ancient pagan goddess worship will help bring us planetary and personal salvation.”18

Peter Jones explained well the goal of New Age theology when he wrote, “The road to [the] perfect androgynous balance involves the destruction of the traditional male-female differentiation via sexual alternatives and New Age feminism.” He offered as an example New Age author Charlene Spretnak’s book The Politics of Women’s Spirituality. The book calls for an end to “Judeo-Christian religion by a feminist movement nourished on goddess-worship paganism, and witchcraft that succeeds in overthrowing the global rule of men.”19

In The Feminization of America, authors Elinor Lenz and Barbara Myerhoff celebrated this search for a new spirituality:

Feminine spirituality is a modern mystical journey, a quest for self-definition and integration with the powers of the universe.… Its authority resides within the individual, and since it recognizes no division between body and spirit, it blends sensual, earthy, erotic elements with spiritual reverence and personal mastery.

As a religion of process and synthesis, it is a faith for our time, for this dynamic, pluralistic, interdependent era when people need to find meaning and coherence within the human community rather than in some supernatural, all-powerful father god-figure. As the old gods die off and the new spirituality replaces them, we can look forward to a “third coming” that will help us achieve more fulfilling personal lives through a spiritual connection with others sharing our common humanity, with the divine mystery of creation, and with the natural world.20

Sadly, undiscerning Christians are falling victim to these hellish heresies, and the church, instead of restraining this destructive force, is actually jumping on the bandwagon. David J. Ayers, professor of sociology at Grove City College, explained, “Such a celebration of the feminine as a new spiritual force is not simply part of the backwaters of feminism. It has found a respected place within the mainstream feminist social agenda and is strongly evident as a growing movement within Christianity, including evangelicalism.”21

For the past several hundred years, Western society has been bombarded with the humanistic, egalitarian, sexless, classless philosophy that was the dominant force behind the French Revolution. Satan continues to mastermind the blurring and even total removal of all human distinctions with the goal of undermining legitimate, God-ordained authority in every realm of human activity—in government, the family, the school, and even the church. We find ourselves continually victimized by the godless, atheistic concepts of humanity’s supreme independence from every external law and any divine authority. The philosophy is self-destructive, because no group of people can live in orderliness and productivity if they reject God’s Word and if each person is bent on doing his or her own will.

Much of the church, unfortunately, has fallen prey to this humanistic philosophy and is now willing to recognize the agenda of feminism and homosexuality in the ordination of women and homosexuals. It is usually argued that the biblical texts that are contrary to modern egalitarianism were uninspired or inserted by biased editors, scribes, prophets, or apostles. Bible interpreters function on the basis of a hermeneutic that is guided by contemporary humanistic philosophy rather than the absolute authority of Scripture as God’s inerrant Word. The church is reaping the whirlwind of confusion, disorder, immorality, and apostasy that such denial of God’s Word always spawns. We shouldn’t expect anything less. After all, the apostle Peter warned,

False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words. (2 Peter 2:1–3)

The apostle Paul encountered the same heresies in the first century. In the remaining chapters we will examine how he confronted the false teaching of his day and what he taught about God’s design for men and women.

Notes

1 Claudia Wallis, “Onward, Women!” TIME, December 4, 1989, 81.

2 George Gilder, Men and Marriage (Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1986), viii.

3 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), xiii.

4 J. David Pawson, Leadership Is Male (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 25.

5 Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., as quoted in Piper and Grudem, Recovering, 102.

6 Aída Besançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 24.

7 Ortlund Jr., as quoted in Piper and Grudem, Recovering, 103.

8 Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 25.

9 Ortlund Jr., as quoted in Piper and Grudem, Recovering, 107.

10 Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1979), 68–69.

11 Marcus Cato, as quoted in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, 10.23, 200 AD.

12 Peter Jones, The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), 15; Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1963), 23.

13 Jones, Gnostic Empire, 26.

14 June Singer, Androgyny (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976), 22.

15 Ibid., 134–35.

16 Shirley MacLaine, Going Within (New York: Bantam, 1990), v.

17 Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow, Womanspirit Rising (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), 277.

18 Cynthia G. Wagner, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 258–60.

19 Jones, Gnostic Empire, 61.

20 Elinor Lenz and Barbara Myerhoff, The Feminization of America (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., 1985), 155–56.

21 David J. Ayers, as quoted in Piper and Grudem, Recovering, 322. See also, Patricia Aburdene and John Naisbitt, eds., Megatrends for Women (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1992), 267–88, for a detailed analysis of the goddess movement as the spiritual arm of modern feminism.