skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Books to help you revel in your femininity. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is women, that does not mean that men wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.
"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Woman" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "female", why God designed her that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Manly Men list)
"The New Eve: Choosing God's Best For Your Life and Receiving God's Blessing" by Robert Lewis with Jeremy Howard. Dr. Lewis has shown thousands of men the way to "authentic manhood" through his Men's Fraternity program. Now, he takes a look at womanhood using the same stringent biblical approach. With wit and insight, he shows women the "bold moves" they need to make to become a 21st century Eve.
"The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture" by Mary A. Kassian. With this updated edition to her best selling "The Feminist Gospel", Mary Kassian follows feminism both inside and outside of the church from antiquity right into the 21st century. Where does feminism, either secular or biblical, jive with a scriptural portrait of femininity? This and other relevant issues are discussed with clarity backed up by extensive research.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Books to help men be all that they can be. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is men, that does not mean that women wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.
"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Men" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "male", why God designed him that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Feminine Mystique list)
"Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul" by John Eldredge is, of course, the standard bearer for the new masculine identity. It should be noted that I differ with Eldredge on some minor points (see notes below), but all in all, this is a book every man should read to rediscover the "wild heart" that God placed in all of us.
"No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice Instead of Good Hurts Men, Women and Children" by Paul Coughlin, and "The Samson Syndrome: What You Can Learn from the Baddest Boy in the Bible" by Mark Atteberry. I recommend these two books together as they somewhat balance each other. I disagree with Paul Coughlin on some points the same as I do with Eldredge, but the Sampson book helps balance those perspectives by showing where manliness can turn into destructive machismo.
"The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage in a World of Chaos", by Dr. Larry Crabb, Don Michael Hudson, and Al Andrews. Simply a great book. Helps to explain the fall's influence on maleness.
"Point Man: How a Man Can Lead His Family" by Steve Farrar. Simply the best guide I have ever read on manly husbandship and fatherhood.
"Every Man's Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time" by by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey (Editor). There are a great many books I have on my future reading list regarding the struggles we face as men and the strategies to conquering them. None of those books would be possible without this groundbreaking work. Simply a must read for every male over the age of 14.
Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:
xxxChurch - I know, it sounds bad. They even bill themselves as the "#1 Christian Porn Site". Trust me, it's all a "bait and switch". They are actually the #1 Christian porn recovery site. Includes a news letter, blogs, forums, and other resources. A great first stop for any man who is struggling with sexual immorality. WARNING - this is not a topic for the faint of heart. Although the site moderators keep a good control over explicit expression, the issue itself is explicit enough.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Books for understanding the mystery that is woman. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
"For Men Only: A Straightforward Guide to the Inner Lives of Women" by Jeff and Shaunti Feldhahn should be required reading for every man who is either married or is in a season of life where marriage is a possibility.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Books that help women understand the strange world of men. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
To begin with, "For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men" by Shaunti Feldhahn should be required reading for every woman who is either married or is in a season of life where marriage is a possibility.
"Married But Not Engaged: Why Men Check Out and What You Can Do to Create the Intimacy You Desire" by Paul and Sandy Coughlin. Another book by Paul Caughlin, this time joined by his wife. It is directed primarily toward women and is useful for both the married woman with a disengaged husband, and a single woman who wants to avoid ending up with a disengaged husband. It builds on many of the principles of "No More Christian Nice Guy" (see my Manly Men list).
"The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Be prepared to be challenged about everything you thought you knew (or your mother or girlfriends have told you) about having a happy relationship with your man.
"The Man Whisperer: Speaking Your Man's Language To Bring Out His Best" by Rick Johnson. Picking up where "For Women Only" leaves off, this book provides even greater insight into the inner lives of men: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It also offers great tips on how to influence (which does not necessarily mean "change") your man to be all he can be.
"In Search of the Proverbs 31 Man: The One God Approves and a Woman Wants" by Michelle Mckinney Hammond. Do you want to get past all the nice guy vs. bad guy hype - this is a great start.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Books I have read on developing strong, loving marriages. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
"Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs" and "Cracking the Communication Code: The Secret to Speaking Your Mate's Language", both by Emerson Eggerichs. These are written from a Christian perspective. Importantly, the concept of "respect" is the least understood and most dismissed concept by women in their relationships with men. The loss of this concept and attitude is the most destructive result of the emmasculization of men and derission of maleness which has occured not only in society but most disturbingly, in the church. These books are hard for women to read (my wife struggled greatly with anger and resistance when reading about respect) but that is why it is so important for women to work through this material.
A great companion to the these books is a book by secular (I presume) authors who explore the actual physiological brain differences which result in the perceptable differences discussed in the two books above. Although this is a purely secular book, it is amazing how much it corroberates the Christian perspective. I do have some reservations about the secular approach in the book, especially on it's emphasis on evolution (but...see new entry below). Anyway, the book is "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" by Allan and Barbara Pease. And yes, it is as whitty as the title suggests.
There is now a Christian equivalent to "Why Men Don't Listen..." which covers the same ground (and provides much more extensive scientific references). That book is "His Brain, Her Brain: How Divinely Designed Differences Can Strengthen Your Marriage" by Dr. Walt and Barb Larimore. This book alleviates all of the concerns I had about "Why Men Don't Listen..."
An oldy but a goody from Robert Lewis, the founder of Men's Fraternity and author of "The New Eve". In the book "Rocking the Roles: Building a Win-Win Marriage", Lewis and co-author William Hendricks take a dim view of both the traditional (i.e., patriarchal) model for marriage and the feminist driven egalitarian model. Delving deeply into the Genesis account as well as the significant volume of teaching on marriage in the New Testament, Lewis reveals anew the true godly design for marriage - one that provides equality without sacrificing gender specific roles and needs.
Just recently read two companion books: "12 Lies Husbands Tell Their Wives" and "12 Lies Wives Tell Their Husbands" by Tim and Sheila Ritter. The authors recommend that both sexes read both books, although the primary audience for each is the gender telling the lies. Very good books for understanding your spouse AND yourself.
I was browsing through the clearance books at the local Christian book store some time back and ran across a book with the curious title "Not Your Parents' Marriage". For $4.99, I figured I couldn't go wrong. I bought the book and promptly buried it deep in my "to read" stack. What I found when I finally got around to it was simply the most amazing book I have ever read on building healthy marriage relationships. The reason this book is so wonderful is not because it holds some great, deep secret within its pages. Quite to the contrary, it is the book's simple and clear presentation that makes it both charming and chock full of wisdom. I would recommend this book before any other for engaged couples and for those married couples who can't figure out why it is they can't seem to get along.
Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:
The Marriage Bed - Explores marriage, sexuality, and intimacy from a healthy Christian perspective. Contains position papers on a wide range of topics as well as a user forum. WARNING - many of the topics discussed on this site are intimate and even explicit in nature and the authors do not pull any punches. Everything is handled with as much discretion as possible but caveat lector. In general, I do not recommend the forums as they often contain "R" to "X" rated discussions.
Also see my favorite blog list for marriage blogs.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
We have explored the creation of the genders (part 1), objections to equality between the genders (part II), and the beauty and romance of the creation story (part III). As we conclude this investigation of equality vs. hierarchy in God’s marital design, we would be remiss if we did not address the writings of Paul, who spent more time commenting and invoking Genesis 2 than any other biblical author. Specifically, did Paul support an authoritarian hierarchy in marriage via his allusions to the creation account?
The last remaining objection to equality in marriage is that the woman was created to serve the man. This argument represents a misreading of the Genesis text, but its proponents claim to have further corroboration from Paul in passages of his first letters to the Corinthians and Timothy. We will dispense quickly with the Genesis textual argument, and then tackle Paul.
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. (NASB. Emphasis added)
The textual argument goes like this. Since Adam needed a helper, and since the first “helpers” presented to him were creatures he had dominion over, and since “helper” is another term for servant, the original purpose for Eve was to be subservient to Adam. It has been well documented, but deserves repeating, that the Hebrew word translated “helper” is actually a word reserved almost exclusively for God. There are plenty of other Hebrew words that could have been used if service to an authority was being suggested. Instead, a word was used that in virtually every other instance in the Old Testament refers to God as our “helper”. Unless we are to believe that we have dominion over God, there is no suggestion in the text that Eve’s “position” or “role” was to be subservient to Adam. Moreover, the Hebrew word translated “suitable” literally means “in front of” or “opposite”. In this context, the meaning is clear. Eve was a perfect compliment to Adam1; designed to be equal in value and authority but opposite in giftedness, so that combined they could effectively administer their joint dominion over creation.
But What About Paul?
Paul refers to Genesis 2 and 3 a great deal, more than any other biblical writer. In particular, he alludes to2 the creation of Eve documented in Genesis 2:18-23 in two letters.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off ; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (NASB Emphasis added)
1 Timothy 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (NASB Emphasis added)
So, do these statements referring to the creation of Eve and her relationship to Adam support an authoritarian hierarchy within marriage? One might come to that conclusion if the broader passages in which these statements were made were actually about marriage, but they are not! These passages deal with church governance; in particular, conduct in worship services. Although there is much debate over the meaning and application of these passages in current day church proceedings3, they have absolutely no applicability to the marriage relationship.
Marriage and Church are two distinct institutions, each with their own distinct set of godly rules and parameters. You can not simply superimpose a condition meant for one onto the other just because the underlying biblical text may have implications for both. The bible abounds with passages that have multiple and varied applicability. Paul's invocation of Genesis 2 to address certain aspects of church governance has no bearing on the same passage's implications for marital relationships.
We now come to the end of this particular journey. We have explored the creation narrative in depth and found it to, in turn, have great depth. The creation of two perfectly complimentary and equal partners who then rejoin and become one again in the God ordained and blessed covenant of marriage is truly one of the great wonders of the bible and of our human experience. Although there are some who object to this picture of equality within marriage, their arguments are rooted in human culture and history, not godly wisdom and teaching. I pray God would bless all of our marriages and help us see past our selfish fleshly tendancies so that we can truly and selflessly serve each other as we in turn serve He who joined us together.
____________________________________________________
1 Please do not interpret this as me taking a complimentarian theological stance. I do not use the term "compliment" to suggest that men and women have different biblically defined roles in marriage or that there is an inherent authoritarian hierarchy between the genders. Space does not allow a complete discussion of my views on complimentarian theology but my posts to date and in the future should make clear where (and how quickly) I depart from that camp. Never-the-less, men and women are clearly designed differently and have different strengths and weaknesses inherent in those designs. I do believe God designed each gender to "fill the holes" in the other gender. I will be writing more on this differentiation in the future, but suffice it to say I do not believe "different" or "complimentary" means "unequal" any more than I believe "equal" means "identical".
2 I have seen a growing body of commentary that proposes that the reference to Genesis 2 and the creation order is actually Paul quoting his audience from their prior inquires in order to refute their wrong thinking. Although I present the Genesis 2 references in this post as Paul's own words, and deal with the situation in that context, I personally find this "quotes" argument compelling and am strongly leaning toward it as the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 as well as other passages. It certainly makes the text seem more sensible, with 1 Corinthians 11:11 being the beginning of Paul's corrective commentary.
3 I have intentionally not engaged in this debate here as it is off topic for this post and category. Although I certainly may write in the future about church governance, and at that time revisit this passage in its proper context, my focus currently is on marriage. Please note that my comments should not be taken as a position statement one way or another on the "women in church" debate. For a more in depth look at that debate, and in particular, some great work on 1 Corinthians 11, I suggest a visit to the blog Women in Minstry.
"I need to know if she really thinks that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." Matt Damon
I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
(Matt should stick to what he knows best)
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.
Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:
All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society
These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.
It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.
As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.
Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.
But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.
I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger-happiness.
...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
Part I of this series explored the equality of the genders in the Genesis 1 creation account. Part II dispelled some arguments supporting an unequal relationship (an authoritarian hierarchy) within marriage. Now we move on to the more detailed creation account in Genesis 2. We will see that the shared and equal partnership which was alluded to briefly in the prior chapter now comes alive as God gives us the “rest of the story” of how and why “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
Genesis 2 occupies only 25 verses. Yet within those few verses we have the quintessential “boy meets girl” story. The Genesis 2 account is full of intrigue, mystery, miracle, and romance. Most of all, it adds the necessary details regarding how mankind was to go about completing the God given tasks of filling and subduing the earth. We will approach this text in the way all great literature is approached (both documentary and fiction), by looking at setting, circumstances, characters, and plot.
Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then 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. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought {them} to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So 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. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NASB)
The Setting
The story unfolds at the end of God’s creative “week”. The earth is divided into two regions: the vast majority is harsh and barren; and then there is this little pocket of perfect peace and sustenance, hidden deep within the wilderness, which God calls Eden. Genesis 2 takes place almost exclusively in Eden. But it is important that we know about the outside, for that is where the first family is exiled to in the sequel.
The Circumstances
Even with a perfect home, something is still rotten in Eden. Throughout the entire creation account, everything has been pronounced “good” by the Creator. But all of a sudden, “it is not good…” proclaims the voice of God. What can be done to fix this conundrum?
The Characters
Lonely Adam, a mysterious stranger, and “lions and tigers and bears, oh my”; and of course, God. The only thing missing is a really great villain. You’ll have to wait for the sequel for that as well.
The Plot
Adam comes to life in a barren and hostile wilderness. We don’t know how long he was there, probably only seconds, but he at least gets a glimpse of what lies outside of the home God has prepared for him. Once whisked into that new home, Adam finds it to be a relaxing, peaceful, and easy to manage environment. There is really only one rule, and the omnipresence of his creator makes for delightful conversation and provides for sufficient guidance in his work and behavior. But Adam has a yearning that he really can’t explain. Somehow, he feels that he is not complete. It isn’t that the work is hard or that he lacks for companionship, but still, something is missing. Little does he know that God already has seen his need and has a little surprise for him.
Just so Adam fully understands and appreciates his need and the gift yet to come that will fulfill it, God gives him a small task. Adam is instructed to name all of the animals he is contact with within his tranquil home. In getting to know each animal’s makeup (in order to find an appropriate name), Adam sees that none of them, regardless of their wonderful design, really turns his crank. Possibly a little frustrated and confused, Adam’s yearning grows even stronger. Maybe a good night’s sleep will refresh his spirit and bring clarity to his problem.
When Adam wakes up, he notices that something is “amiss”, namely part of his insides. Even while he is examining his perfectly healed surgery site, he hears a rustling in the bushes. Suddenly, another of his “kind” appears, guided by the easily recognizable presence of his friend and maker. But this new ‘adam (Hebrew for human) is different, and exciting, and…well…different. More than anything, Adam instantly knows from his expertise learned in evaluating the other animals that this is the perfect compliment that he has been looking for. God fills him in on the conclusion of His creation work and, overjoyed, Adam cries out: “At last! This is finally one of my own kind; another just like me made from my flesh and bones. This is the perfect compliment I have been looking for. I will call her ‘ishshah (woman), because she was formed from ‘iysh (man).”
Immediately, a new and unique relationship is formed between just these two that neither of them will share with any other (and they know there will be others because that was part of God’s instruction to them). To this day, we call this God ordained covenant “marriage” and set it aside as different and better than any other human relationship because it is the only way in which a man and a woman can restore the one flesh that makes up these two equal but complimentary humans. And Adam and his wife walked off into the sunset to go consummate their marriage relationship. The end.
Whether or not you read the text straight from the bible (any bible), or read a romanticized version as above, there is one distinct truth that can’t be missed. Who is the boss in this new relationship? Is there any evidence that either the man or the woman “wears the pants”? Or is God indeed the real authority working in and through this new couple? As long as the couple stays in communion with God, is there any way in which they can screw up regardless of how their dominion responsibilities are distributed and regardless of who decides what as they go about their work of subduing and multiplying? Frankly, I envision Adam and Eve way too much in love and too appreciative of the contributions of the other to ever question whether or not the other should be making those contributions. I envision them being completely content and compatible partners as they fulfill their purpose. Certainly, that is the message of Genesis 2. Neither can make it alone, but there is nothing they can’t accomplish if they work in tandem with God as their only and ultimate authority.
But there is one final objection that is raised from Genesis 2. It comes not so much from the text itself but from another writer who makes some observations about this first couple. In the final segment, we will handle that last argument against equality, when we address the question: “but what about Paul?”
...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
In part I we saw three aspects of human creation found in Genesis 1 which are equally distributed between males and females. Not only are both genders endowed equally with God's image (1:26-27), but God blessed them equally and delegated to them equally the task of exercising dominion over the rest of creation (1:28). Now we will turn our attention to Genesis 2 and the more detailed narrative of human creation.
To begin, I would like to dispel some of the arguments that have been made through history to claim that the marriage relationship is not equal (or in particular, that the female is less than and subservient to the male). There have been 3 such arguments which traditionally were (and still are in some circles) doctrinal positions subordinating women.
First in Line
The first argument is that because the man was created first, he has priority in the relationship (and therefore is superior to the woman). There is no actual biblical proclamation that first created means first in authority so instead, supporters of this view rely on the dubious, ambiguous, and inconsistent cultural deference to the first born. This is flawed on multiple levels, a few of which I will highlight.
Remaining in Genesis, it is clear in fact that humans were not the first created. If first created means first in authority, then fish and birds would rule over land animals and all of them would rule over humans. In fact, the very opposite is true of creation. Humans, being created last, are the “crown” of creation. Logically, then, if one wants to go down this road, females, being created last within humanity, would be the “crown” of the human species. I suggest we don’t go there.
The next big flaw in this argument is it relies on cultural practices instead of biblical principles to make the case. The truth is, outside of culture, being born first means nothing. If it were an inherent and universal fact that being born first makes you superior to your other siblings, then you wouldn’t be able to sell that position or have it stolen from you (Genesis 25:31-33; 27:6-28), or have it redistributed to others (1 Chronicles 5:1). If this were the case, God would have never allowed Joseph to reign over his family and certainly would never have chosen David, the youngest of Jesse’s boys, to be King. Being first does not in any way give you godly preference or dominion.
If the testimony of the Old Testament didn’t make this clear enough, Jesus settles the argument once and for all. When his disciples were questioning him about the failure of the rich man to grasp salvation, he said plainly: “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first” (Matthew 19:23-30). Jesus repeats this statement in Matthew 20:16 when he finishes with the parable of the generous employer who treated both the first hired and last hired equally. (See also the prodigal son story - Luke 15:11-32.) A little later in the same chapter, when James’ and John’s mother was lobbying to get them priority in the kingdom, Jesus advises the 12 that “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (vs. 26b-27). Hardly the superior position envisioned by those who see the female as subservient to the male.
Finally, this argument ignores the omniscience and sovereignty of God. Do we really believe that the female was some after thought, created only because God didn’t realize how much the male would need her? I hardly think God is that short sighted. The reality is that both the male and female were equally and simultaneously created in the mind of God before the actual physical order of creation took place. Why God needed to leave the man on his own for a while so he would realize his need for a partner to complete him is fodder for plenty of jokes, but really outside of our knowledge base. But that by no means indicates that the woman was a stop-gap, and it certainly does not diminish her equal status with the man.
“Your Delta Tau Chi name is…”
In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning?
First of all, it is again, man made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed – part of his on the job training. Moreover, as we have already discussed, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them.
In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it say anywhere that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. That is a cultural standard, not a biblical teaching. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God.
Adam’s Rib
The third argument is that the female is somewhat less of a human being because she was made from a part of the male rather than being constructed “from the ground up”, as it were, like the male. This is contradicted both in the description of the two human creation events and in Adam’s exclamation when presented with Eve.
Four different verbs are used in Genesis when discussing creation. Three of them (bara’ – to create, ‘asah – to make, yatsar – to form) are used somewhat interchangeably, applying to animals and humans (including male and female separately) and just about everything else in creation. The fourth word, banah, is only used once in the entire creation narrative and that is for the creation of Eve. banah means to construct, as in a house. In fact, it is the word that is used in the Hebrew idiom “to build a house”, meaning to have a family. Although it is certainly a common Hebrew word, it is only used this once in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:22). Interestingly, in terms of what is being constructed, banah suggest the most detailed and complex kind of work amongst the 4 verbs. That isn’t to suggest that, say, the universe isn’t detailed and complex. But it seems to be no coincidence that the particular way Eve was brought into existence is unique.
Another aspect of the unique construction of Eve is that she was the only living creature that was not created from earthly elements. She alone is constructed out of material from another living thing. All other created creatures were formed by God from the ground or “spawned” by the sea (Genesis 1:20, 24; 2:7, 19).
The significance of this unique construction should not be over looked. Those who want to diminish the creation of Eve seem to take a “size matters” approach. To them, a “rib”, being a small part of the male, yields a less than human result. Maybe the focus should instead be that Adam became less complete in giving up his “rib”. (In reality, he was incomplete to begin with, hence the need for a partner). God took that portion and carefully constructed a new equally endowed “helper” who perfectly complimented him in every way (although she too is incomplete without him). There is nothing “less than” about Eve. Adam recognized this instantly, exclaiming “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). His statement is all encompassing. It recognizes the fully autonomous and equal human partner, not just some spare part which has been modified to help him out around the garden.
The picture of two complimentary equals who never-the-less need each other to become “whole” again is completed in Genesis 2:24. That rejoining of the two into “one flesh” is what we will celebrate in part III.
This is another in a series of entries I will be making regarding godly marriage. Previously, I posted on the Genesis 2 definition of marriage, and how God's original design is unalterably monogamous and heterosexual. ("What is 'Marriage'" part I, part II) I would like to spend a little more time in Genesis 2 (and a brief look back at Genesis 1) exploring God's purpose for marriage and how that purpose is realized in the actual marital relationship. Specifically, I will be arguing that the original design for marriage provided for total equality between the two partners.
To understand both the purpose and the relationship of marriage, we first must go back to Genesis 1 and the overview of creation. For clarity, I will take the NASB translation but de-genderize the Hebrew word 'adam when it is referring to humans and humanity in general (indicated in blue text). Here is the overview of the creation of "man" (i.e. the human species).
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make [hu]man[kind] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created [The hu]man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 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."... 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The Hebrew word 'adam has no plural form. It can, however, refer to multiple humans as a group, just as the singular word "mankind" or the singular phrase "the human race" does in English. 'adam can also be presented with or without the definite article (ancient Hebrew has no indefinite article). With these variations, it is sometimes difficult to tell if 'adam is referring to a generic human, a specific human, some humans, all humans, or someone named Adam. This is certainly true for Genesis 1. Luckily, context often provides the proper clues.
The first mention of humans is in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make 'adam in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over..." The existence of 'adam without the definite article prefix means it could mean either "a human" or refer to the group "humankind" or "the human race". The use of the third person plural pronoun immediately following in the verse - "and let them rule" - gives us the clue we need to know this refers to the group and not a generic individual. Therefore, Genesis 1:26 refers to the entire human race. All humans are endowed with the image of God, regardless of age, gender, race, or any other segregating characteristic.
But the creation narrative does not end with this general truth. In fact, the point is emphasized further in the subsequent verses. Starting with verse 27, we get a brief glimpse of the story which will be played out in full detail in Genesis 2. Here, the form of the word ‘adam is changed in that it is prefixed with the Hebrew definite article. Now, using the definite article in Hebrew, especially with this word, does not necessarily mean an individual is being spoken of. Many of the occurrences of “the ‘adam” in the Old Testament are still correctly translated as “the people”, or “man[kind]”, or some other reference to multiples. The difference between verse 26 and 27 could indeed be the difference between saying “humankind” (verse 26) and “the human race” or “each and every human” (verse 27). Thankfully, the text rescues us again. As opposed to verse 26, the third person masculine singular pronoun is now used – “in the image of God He created him”. That coupled with the striking parallel to the full human creation account in Genesis 2 confirms that verse 27a refers to a specific ‘adam, the first ‘adam, namely – Adam1.
Genesis 1:27 doesn’t end with the creation of the first human. In a bold pronouncement it extends the image of God to both of the humans in the creation story, and, quite visibly, to both of the genders in the human race – “…male and female He created them”. Verse 28 continues with the blessing and commission of God being pronounced over BOTH the male and female of the species – "God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;'" (emphasis added). Not only is the image of God equally distributed to all humans, and especially, to each gender, but the entire assignment for the human race – filling the earth and subduing it - is equally delegated to both males and females. Men and women are to work together in God’s image, and have equal responsibility through God’s blessing, to carry out the task for which God created us and placed us here on earth.
Part II of this analysis will address some of the arguments against equality, i.e. in favor of God ordained male dominion, in the marriage relationship. Part III will show how Genesis 2 now expands and adds rich detail to this summary to show how this equality and cooperation is both profoundly required and beautifully expressed in godly marriage. And finally, part IV will address the final argument against equality which is (presumably) supported by a writer from a different time and perspective.
____________________________________________________
1There are some who argue that the interchange in number in the pronouns is a poetic device which is paralleled in the pronouns for God in the same verses. As such, they interpret Genesis 1:27 to also mean mankind or the human race. This could be true; I am no expert on ancient Hebrew poetic forms. But, considering how the human creation account in chapter 1 is identical to the pattern displayed in chapter 2, and considering the fact that Genesis 1:26 quotes God while verse 27 is a narrative of God's actions (i.e. they are not parallel semantically), I am inclined to reject that argument. In the long run, it matters little to this discussion. The main point is that the image of God, and the blessing and charge from God, are given equally to "male and female".
I knew she was tough - she is the governor of the last American frontier after all; I knew she was unflappable - the female governor of that "man's man" wild western state; I knew she was gifted - a basketball star and beauty queen; but I never knew she was also just like you and me and the rest of us regular citizens. America (and the world) met Sarah Palin last night, and what was the first impression? Wow! She is both extraordinary and very ordinary, a rare combination which we haven't seen since...dare I say it...Ronald Reagan. Of course, time and the election will tell whether or not she reaches the heights Reagan did. But just like Reagan, I hardly think it matters much to her because her objective is not to win an election but to serve if called upon. If not, then she will be perfectly content with her wonderful, flawed, loving family. Just like you and me.
Her speech last night has been given the typical "homerun" review. But I find such a description a significant understatement. Her speech was definitely not your typical "homerun".
Major league statistics reveal that major league baseball consistently averages over 2 home runs per game. Almost all of them are only mildly consequential. Occasionally a home run, like the "walk off homerun", will be emotionally stirring. But only very rarely is a homerun a monumental, earth shattering, life changing, Best Damn Sports Show “Top ‘whatever’” worthy, phenomenon. Gov. Palin’s speech last night was that kind of homerun. It was a Carlton Fisk wavin’ it fair homerun; a gimpy Kurt Gibson two out, bottom of the ninth, only at bat of the series homerun; a Kirby Puckett "Jump on my back boys", "We'll…see…you…tomorrow night” homerun. The next nine weeks is the Republican Party’s game seven and we’ll wait to see if John McCain can lay it out there and pitch like Jack Morris in that great ’91 series that Puckett extended. Sarah Palin played her part, like Puckett, putting the Republican Party on her back and carrying them into the final stretch. The first inning of a new classic battle begins tonight, ironically, right across the river from that past fall classic.
Of course, the temptation is to write about the weekend and the media's vetting of Gov. Palin. But I think most of that will blow over. The real "rub" of Sen. McCain's choice to me is what a risk it is; typical for John McCain, but somewhat unsettling for the Republican party. Will this turn out to be the greatest political coup of all time, or the most monumental blunder? Time will tell. Some questions it brings to my mind:
Although certain to encourage the general conservative base, how will it impact conservative Christians who harbor patriarchal qualms about females in leadership?
How will this play to Clinton feminists, given the stark divergence of Gov. Palin's anti-abortion stance with the desire feminists have for a female leader and their anger over the primary?
Does Gov. Palin's relatively meager political experience, even though it is as an executive, actually play against the experience mantra that has come out from the McCain campaign up until now?
These questions and certainly many, many, more will be the real test (as opposed to the silly diversions being pursued currently by the media) of perhaps the riskiest political decision ever made.
Posts
