What Does Creation Teach Us About Women's Role?

That was the topic I tackled last Sunday. In my opinion, Genesis is foundational to the whole question of women's role in the church. Many are tempted to skip over the Old Testament stuff and jump straight into the New Testament. That's a mistake. How we understand the creation account of the Old Testament has significant bearing on how we understand the so-called "restrictive passages" of the New Testament. Therefore, we dedicated a lot of time to Genesis 1-3 last week asking this question: "Does creation establish male headship or does it point to gender equality?" I won't try to repeat the entire 35 minute lesson, but here's my conclusion.

Looking at Genesis as a stand alone text, I find the egalitarian arguments [gender equality] very compelling. I don’t think there’s anything in the text that suggests male headship and female submission prior to the Fall. Both genders are created in the image of God and both are told to rule over the earth. The imagery of the "helpmate" and the "two becoming one" do not point to subordination but rather partnership and equality. The only thing that would hint at male headship is the fact that Adam was created first. Of course, to someone reading the Bible from a Western culture and mindset (like me) that means very little.

I'm the firstborn in my family but that doesn't give me any more authority or superiority over my siblings. We're all seen as equal. No one looks to me as the leader simply because of our birth order. However, that was not the case in ancient Eastern culture. The birth order meant something, and thus, it's logical that the created order meant something too. Perhaps a Jewish audience would have understood the creation accounts differently and seen a distinction between genders from the very outset.

Which brings me over to the complementarian side [male headship]. The "created order" points to differences between male and female and those differences existed prior to the Fall. They certainly didn’t look like what they look like now. Instead they existed in harmony and partnership. Male and female complemented each other without the power struggles and abuses we see in a fallen world, but the differences still existed. So ultimately I line up with the complementarians and say that male headship is a Biblical principle. That's not necessarily because of my interpretation of Genesis.

From the text alone I would not conclude that man was over woman simply based on the order of creation. However, that is exactly how the apostle Paul understood it (1st Cor 11:8-9, 1st Tim 2:13) and thus, how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. In which case, I yield to the New Testament and Paul's understanding of Genesis as the correct interpretation. For one, the Bible has to be understood and interpreted in its entirety. Two, Paul's inspired and I'm not.

However, I would add that men have abused and misapplied the principle of headship in the past. We have not always exhibited Christ-like leadership as taught in Ephesians 4. Christ's authority was not used for power and domination, but sacrifice and service. I would also add that we've extended the principle of headship into areas that we shouldn't and we've denied certain freedoms to women that are not denied them in Scripture. We'll start looking at those in the next couple of weeks as we explore the role of women in the life of Israel, the ministry of Jesus and the early church.