From Dust to Duo…on a Spectrum

» Forward »

I have to state upfront what this article explores. It focuses on progressive revelation and how truths about human relationships, like the concept of “help mate,” can unfold and evolve over time, consistent with God’s process of ordering progress. Specifically, what does it mean for beings made in the “image of God” to have a “help mate” in a way that transcends the animal kingdom? Should it transcend these limitations or remain “traditional” for the sake of a healthy society based on the nuclear family resulting from complementary genitals?

Acknowledging the view that the Bible offers “clear instructions” on gender roles, it’s important to factor in what the role of a metaphor is, the historical context of certain passages, and the concept of progressive revelation, which includes what is “written in Nature.” Our understanding of scripture can develop, and core ethical principles like companionship and support in a “help mate” relationship can exist in diverse forms. This aligns with the idea that God reveals truth gradually and that evolving knowledge, including science, can inform our interpretation.

I also have to acknowledge that I use, as a contrast, the Complementarian notion of “help mate,” which concludes that there is a thing called Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood. The perspective argues that complementarianism is the correct view on hierarchical gender roles in Christianity based on three main aspects:

  • Creation Order: The perspective of male headship bases its foundation on the pre-fall creation order established by God (where ‘post-fall’ means corrupted by sin). The perspective refers to Genesis 1-2 to show how the order of creation (Adam first) and the reason for creation (woman from man, for man) suggests male leadership, where women follow. Hierarchy is reinforced by the “rib” part of the story, where the adam is put to sleep and wakes up minus a rib and with new plumbing, implying that women are a subset or derivative of a male.
  • Scripture: The Bible clearly teaches male-female complementarity and the principle of male headship in the family and church. Passages from 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Ephesians, and Colossians, written 500-600 years after Genesis, are cited in support.
  • Nature: The principle of male headship aligns with what we observe in nature. Men are typically stronger and better suited for leadership, while women are better suited for nurturing. The perspective suggests that societal structures across cultures generally reflect this order.

But “help mate” started off emphasizing qualities like companionship, as seen in the Hebrew word ‘ezer. The later presumption of “roles” is an interpretation with an increasing amount of societal bias built up around it using frameworks reflecting the cultural norms of the interpreters’ own times. Patriarchal societies interpreted biblical narratives in ways that reinforced existing gender hierarchies, thus restricting the concept of “help meet” to a narrow domestic and deferential role.

The issue is that hierarchical roles is presumed to provide the structure of companionship and partnership, and ‘roles’ function best with basic simple dichotomies like male and female. The gender dichotomy offers a path of least resistance for defining companionship based on tradition and easily categorizable roles. So, I counter Complementarian arguments for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to show:

  1. Argumentation from metaphor is interpretive, with opportunities for other valid interpretations.
  2. The arguments from Genesis and Nature that imply roles of “headship” and “willing submission” are both fallacious and simplistic.
  3. The reinforcement of patriarchal roles from apostolic writings is anachronistic and self-serving.
  4. At some point, maturity means getting past “genesis” ― the beginning ― by understanding progressive revelation and the unfolding of truth.

Genesis 2:24 states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This verse underscores the unity and partnership intended in the creation narrative. The idea of “one flesh” emphasizes not just physical union but also a partnership in fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” This partnership implies a division of labor, where both partners contribute uniquely to the family unit’s success and propagation of the species as well as emphasizing the permanence of the marriage contract.

The Complementarian Danvers Statement refers to “glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives … [where] Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.” The problem is “redemption” did nothing to change the nature of humans, which makes “loving, humble leadership”, after thousands of years later, an ongoing aspiration.

“Glad” implies that this harmonious structure is fulfilling and satisfying for those involved, indicating a sense of personal happiness and emotional well-being derived from willingly adhering to these prescribed roles, each contributing uniquely to the relationship’s success and stability. This contrasts with merely functional or mechanical harmony for an operational society grounded on nuclear families, which is what we actually get.

This is not to say “roles” in and of themselves don’t make sense. There is no doubt that there is a dichotomy where female physiology is geared toward growing babies and, afterwards, toward sustaining the babies, with a mental predisposition toward nurturing children.  And someone has to tend to the kids; but mom and kids still need a roof over their heads and food to eat.  Mom can still do all these things, but having her own help mate would make things easier. 

Still, there is more to “nature” and companionship than this.

Other parts of the “glad harmony” statement ― loving, humble, supportive, fulfilling, satisfying, contributing to the relationship’s success and stability ― are the ingredients that establish the divine core of “companionship and partnership” apart from genital complementarity and child-rearing-centric roles. Forcing a society by legislation or cajoling is not a recipe for a “willing” anything.

Now, to explore all these ideas in more detail…


» TOC »

Apologies

Framing the metaphor

Some Christian apologists I have spoken to have said: God didn’t really take 6 (Earth) days to create creation — it’s metaphor. Since the Bible is not a science textbook, we aren’t meant to take these stories literally. The cool thing, and something really important for “timeless” instruction, is that metaphor provides:

  • Deeper Meanings: Figurative language can unlock deeper spiritual truths that a literal reading might miss.
  • Applicability across Cultures: Understanding figurative language allows the Bible’s message to be relevant to different cultures and times.

One of the metaphors we explore in this talking-on-the-think is, in Gen 2, it took quite a while to realize Adam (or the adam) was without a partner. One could wonder: was he male before Eve? Let’s say he wasn’t, but we could still refer to him as a ‘he’.

The more literalist apologists defend the query with: But why couldn’t we believe that Adam did have genitalia as a first step in the anticipation by an all-knowing God of a future female? That’s very “evolution” in nature. What I’m hinting at here is that the narrative is pretty loosely held together. It is painting with very broad strokes, leaving a lot open to interpretation and later refinement (or rationalization).

While many interpret the creation of Eve after Adam as indicative of a divine, hierarchical order of gender roles, this interpretation overlooks the potential for metaphorical significance in other ways. Instead of assuming that, because one came first and the other came second, men should be leaders (“headship”) and women should follow (submissive), the story might be structured to emphasize the importance of companionship and partnership, where harmony is the actual target for fulfillment. Partners who share a common purpose, utilize their unique strengths to support each other’s goals, and cultivate mutual respect can create a far richer and more meaningful companionship.

I acknowledge that some people read the creation story literally and infallibly. But we humans are fallible and ― besides law & instructions and historical accounts ― much of the bible is metaphor, allegory, poems, songs, and parables. And if you don’t delve into what the Bible is made up of, you’re likely to confuse the genres, confuse generalizations for science, and misapply cultural contexts and word meanings.

The problem with metaphors and humans

There’s a problem with resting on the idea that stories like these in the Bible are just “metaphors” to imply they are not meant to be exact and prescriptive. It turns out that metaphor also establishes the boundaries and basis for later decisions and perspectives, which become “traditions” and established order (physis).

A few years after the writing of Genesis (500-600), we see in the New Testament, mostly in the writings of the Apostle Paul, several passages that lay out distinct roles for men and women. Women are to cover their heads in church and submit to their husbands; men are to lead their families and love their wives.

Consequently, Genesis and later ancient, patriarchal writings have profoundly shaped the family structures, career paths, and spiritual lives of billions of people around the world. Century after century, the concept of a “help mate” has continuously evolved and been reinterpreted from its original portrayal in Genesis. This evolution has given rise to hermeneutic complexities, such as the idea that the order and manner of creation not only established cultural norms but also timeless directives reflecting God’s perfect design, intended to uphold divinely implied social and familial harmony.

Besides the struggle against women as second-class beings, we get “traditional marriage” (but not polygamy and selling daughters) as the only form of divinely approved “help mate” institutions. We get “sex assigned at birth” based on genitalia visible to the naked eye (ignoring science). And children are meant to carry on tradition, not “find themselves.”

We also get heterosexual sex activity as the only “natural” (based on complementary plumbing) divinely sanctioned form. What is, therefore, is a should. (The Naturalistic Fallacy: the erroneous conclusion that just because something is a certain way (what is), it ought to be that way (what should be) — also known as the Fourth Term Fallacy.)

When we look closely, it’s clear that using metaphors and symbols in the Bible to strictly define sex and gender roles isn’t a reliable approach. For example, the story of Adam originally represented all of humanity, not just a male figure.  And when the Bible talks about humans being made in the “Image of God,” it’s meant to show our special place in creation with divine characteristics as a species that other animals do not possess, not to provide exact, Science-Textbook-ish pronouncements about our physical forms or gender identities.

As we’ll see, being “made in God’s image” is what makes humans spiritual creatures first, physical creatures second. Both humans and animals were created on the Sixth Day, suggesting a shared physicality or material origin. Knowledge of things like species, physicality, and material makeup, moreover, is knowledge of nature, a form of Revelation.

With that, we begin … at the beginning.

Genesis

Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This is often taken as a divine prescription for binary gender identities, rejection of homosexual pairings, and resistance to the transgendered.

But there’s nuance to be had. In Genesis 2, God started off with just Adam. And at that point in time, Adam was in God’s Image. Without Eve. Then

  • (NIV): “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper (‘ezer kenegdo) suitable for him.’”
  • King James Version (KJV): “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”
  • New American Standard Bible (NASB): “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him’”
  • New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’”

With that in mind, let’s assume the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 are done via metaphor, which requires interpretation. And let’s take it apart a bit, starting with the Gen 1 idea of “day.”

Apparently, creation happened in a sequence of “days.” So we start with measures of time with developments happening during each measure.

  • Day 1: light and darkness
  • Day 2: sky and waters
  • Day 3: dry land, seas, vegetation
  • Day 4: sun, moon, and stars
  • Day 5: sea creatures and birds
  • Day 6: land animals and humankind
  • Day 7: the sabbath of rest (‘rest your case’ means you’ve wrapped things up. It’s not really “resting”.)

Within solar systems, celestial bodies revolve around a sun (where ‘sol’ = ‘sun’), marking days and years. So how do we interpret “light and darkness”? Since the earth is part of a larger cosmos, is “light” all cosmic light (all suns)? Or are we just focused on just the solar system that contains Earth, so “light and darkness” actually mean “morning and night,” or days?

But Day 1 created days? Let’s consider, from a theological perspective, God’s “days” of creation aren’t measured by spins of our little speck of dust around a fairly small star. One of God’s “days” most likely has a different measure, one corresponding to His vastness and to the vastness and complexity of the universe. One can interpret this metaphor of the sequence of creation days as symbolizing phases of a grand, divine plan unfolding over a larger period, like revelation, rather than literal 24-hour periods.

Likewise, we can also ask ourselves: given no land (or solid body, on Day 3), was earth a water ball with an atmosphere? There is currently no scientific theory that explains how that might be possible. Was God working outside the quantum physics rules that He established by which all things operate, because the sequence, as far as we know it, doesn’t jibe.

So, something else is in play, namely the thematic purpose ― not scientific explanation ― of the creation narratives.

Those Christians who do not discount evolutionary phases and the idea that land creatures came from the primordial swamp (or sea) see support for their nod to evolution by the fact that sea creatures and birds (Day 5) came before land creatures (Day 6), which also came before humans. Genesis 2:19: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky”; and Genesis 1:24: “Let the land produce living creatures according to its kind.” Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

The idea is that we are made of the same ground in the same way as the animals. Physicality is not what makes us in the “image of God.”

And so “evolution” (as in, a scientific theory) isn’t really so antithetical to Christianity based initially on the Creation story because it can be understood as part of the gradual unfolding of divine truth. The narrative of Genesis, with its ordered progression from chaos to cosmos, light to life, mirrors the evolutionary process of simple to complex, suggesting that God’s creative work can be seen as an ongoing, dynamic process. The high-level “sequence” metaphor should rationally challenge the reliability of using sequence to justify rigid anything really, including and especially gender hierarchies and roles.

Moreover, the phrase “male and female he created them” in Genesis 1:27 can be seen as a summary statement that encapsulates the complete act of creation, including both man and woman as the pinnacle or culmination, rather than a detailed chronological account. Then, Genesis 2 provides more depth in a sequence of narratives.

Genesis 2:19-20: Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought [then] them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

after He created animals, as we saw in Genesis 1 ?

It seems that there’s an issue with sequence. The sequence of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can be interpreted in different ways, but here’s a breakdown of the creation order based on the two accounts:

Genesis 1: the six days of cosmic creation

  1. Day 1: Light and darkness.
  2. Day 2: Sky and waters.
  3. Day 3: Dry land, seas, and vegetation.
  4. Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars.
  5. Day 5: Sea creatures and birds.
  6. Day 6: Land animals and finally, humankind (both male and female) in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27).

In this account, humans are created last, both sexes simultaneously, after all other forms of life, upon a plain reading of the text. We can also fairly assume that the gendering of all the other animals was done at the same time.

Genesis 2: the detailed creation of humans

  • Verse 7: God forms a man (the adam) from the dust of the ground and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life.
  • Verses 8-9: God plants the Garden of Eden and places the man there.
  • Verses 19-20: God forms the animals and birds from the ground and brings them to the man to name.
  • Verses 21-22: God creates a woman (Eve) from the man’s rib to be a suitable helper for him.

In this account, the man (the adam) appears before the animals, as the animals are created after the man is placed in the Garden of Eden and before the creation of the woman from the man’s rib.

Reconciliation of the Accounts

  • In Genesis 1, humankind is created last, indicating the completion of creation with humans as the pinnacle.
  • In Genesis 2, the focus is on the detailed process of creating humans and their immediate environment, with the man created before the animals and the woman (sexes) created after.

The different sequences in these chapters reflect varying thematic focuses rather than a strict chronological order. Genesis 1 presents a cosmic creation order, while Genesis 2 provides a more anthropocentric account centered on human relationships and roles. Further, the non-literal interpretation sees the Gen 1 narrative as focusing on the categories of creation (light, water, animals) rather than a precise order within each category. Similarly, Genesis 2’s account highlights the development of human relationships and societal roles, using symbolic language to emphasize the interconnectedness and equality of men and women.

So, what sequence takes precedence? The differences between the two accounts can be interpreted symbolically rather than literally, suggesting that the focus should be on the relational and complementary aspects of human beings rather than a strict hierarchy based on creation order.

The Complementarians based their perspective on Gen 2, the detailed account of the creation of animals and humankind. So I’ll proceed with that.

What was Adam?

Originally, “Adam” was not the name of a male person. There was no Eve, or female, so ‘male’ was irrelevant. In Genesis, Adam is created from the dust of the ground (which can be translated as ‘red clay’), and the name “Adam” is etymologically related to “adamah,” meaning ground or earth. The use of “Adam” to mean mankind or human is consistent with the idea that, initially, Adam represented humanity as a whole rather than a specifically male individual…and created in God’s image.

In the language of Genesis, adam (אָדָם) can mean “man,” “mankind,” “human,” or “humanity.” In Genesis 1, “adam” is used to refer to humanity in a general sense: “So God created mankind in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). In Genesis 2, we see “the man” which is a translation of ha-adam (הָאָדָם). The addition of the definite article “ha” makes it “the adam”: “the man” or “the human.”

Genesis 2:19-20: Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought [then] them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for adam, no suitable helper was found.

Once created, the image-of-God Adam had responsibilities and duties, including the task of naming animals ― lots and lots of animals ― before Eve’s absence was noticed...for a while! Naming animals takes time and familiarity with the creatures being named.

So, we gotta ask: The text doesn’t explicitly say the clay human was gendered. But if the human had male genitalia before there was even a female, wouldn’t that be weird? And the text makes it sound like Eve was an afterthought upon noticing the status of a solitary clay figure after a potentially very long period of time, like one of God’s “days” sort of long.

Next, that last sentence, “But for adam no suitable helper was found,” might seem, on the surface, to be non-sequitur. It requires some serious interpretation to make sense of:

  • Authority and Stewardship: Naming in ancient cultures often implied authority and understanding, signifying Adam’s role in ordering and managing the world around him. By naming the animals, Adam exercises authority and stewardship, reflecting his role (dominion) in God’s creation. However, this task also makes it evident that the animals, while part of creation, do not fulfill Adam’s need for companionship. Yet, one wonders: are we super-imposing the modern concept of “need” onto this story?
  • Recognition of Needs: The process of naming each animal likely involved observation and interaction, through which Adam recognized the distinct nature of each creature and ultimately the absence of a being that corresponded to him.
    For one thing, the other animals had mates (Gen 1:21-22). That would certainly set Adam apart.
  • Foreshadowing Eve: The statement sets up the necessity for Eve’s creation, highlighting that true companionship and partnership could only be found in another image-of-God being. It prepares the reader for the next part of the story, where God creates Eve from Adam’s rib, fulfilling the need for a “helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18), according to humankind‘s kind (Genesis 1:24-25).

Once the garden and animals were created, God needed a steward. The steward needed to be superior to all other animals with unique cognitive abilities. The steward had some chores to do. But ongoing stewardship over the entire planet’s worth of animals couldn’t be done by a solitary clay figure, so propagation was added “according to its kind” so man could fulfill taking dominion.

We have to realize that “male” did not precede “female” in Gen 2. God put the adam to sleep, and when the adam woke up, he was an Adam with new plumbing and missing a rib. In fact, in both Gen 1 and Gen 2, the human sexes arrived at the same time.

The interpretation of Eve as a derivative of Adam because she was formed from his rib, so she is lesser, is also challenging. Eve’s being created from Adam’s rib signifies that men and women share the same essence, an interpretation rooted in the biblical text itself, a “plain reading.” The interpretation that the sexes appeared simultaneously, as a transition from a non-sexed to a sexed state of human beings, reflects a move from singularity to a duality that encompasses both companionship and the capacity for reproduction. This interpretation aligns with the concept of ‘ezer kenegdo (discussed next), indicating a partnership of equals rather than a hierarchy based on sequence or physical derivation.

The fact of coming first in a sequence implying a “leadership” role and rank is already questionable logic. And the fact that the sexes were created at the same time underscores that companionship should be understood as complementary rather than hierarchical. The creation narrative emphasizes relational harmony and mutual dependence with possible, not essential roles, corresponding to propagation.

So, what is companion and partner, and is that relationship only possible with the opposite sex?

What was Eve?

Genesis 2:19-20: Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

“But for Adam, no suitable helper was found.” Enter Eve. Understanding “helper” or “help mate” or “help meet” or “strength” is fundamental to understanding how it set, or should have set, the standards for a help mate.

“Helper” is translated from the Hebrew ‘ezer kenegdo and literally means “helper corresponding to him” or “a strength corresponding to him.”

  1. ‘Ezer: The Hebrew word ‘ezer is derived from the root that means “to help” or “to aid.” The word appears several times across the Old Testament, often in contexts describing a form of assistance or support. Notably, it is used to describe God’s relationship to Israel, where God is often referred to as an ‘ezer, a helper or protector. The sequence of creation is irrelevant.
  2. Kenegdo: This word combines “ke” (as, like, according to) and “neged” (in front of, opposite, counterpart). The term suggests a form of help that is corresponding to, suitable for, or matching the one being helped. It also begs the question: helped how?

In Hebrew, “adam” is a grammatically masculine noun, which influences how it is used in sentences and what pronouns are applied to it. The suffix “-o” in “kenegdo” indicates that the phrase is referring to a masculine entity (the adam in this context), but it does not specify the gender of the ‘ezer (helper). The construction of the phrase indicates that the helper is suitable or corresponding to the man (the adam), without defining the helper’s gender.

So, the concept alone also does not implicitly emphasize the complementarity of sexual organs or other physical differences.

Rather, the phrase ‘ezer kenegdo suggests a helper who is a match for Adam in his image-of-Godness — neither subordinate nor superior but a corresponding partner. One could understand the phrase as meaning: the helper that complements one’s needs and strengths. It emphasizes compatibility rather than hierarchy or merely support. Eve being created as an ‘ezer kenegdo indicates that her role was not as a subordinate aide but as an essential partner matching Adam in status and function to carry on the tasks set before humankind in a model of relational harmony and mutual respect.

Obviously, sex has a pretty clear biological purpose: to support the “go forth” and “take dominion” over the planet, not to make individuals complete or to establish roles. It is, indeed, a type of relation, but not the all-defining relation. The “image of God” didn’t get fractured when genders arrived, casting shade on a lesser of God’s Image, but remains whole without needing male-female pairing. The need to breed is not a necessity to be in God’s Image nor even to approach the Throne just because the plumbing is there.

The Apostle Paul advocates for celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, suggesting that individuals are complete without pairing off. Similarly, Jesus acknowledges those who live celibate lives for the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 19:10-12, and Isaiah 56:3-5 assures eunuchs of their honored place in God’s temple, demonstrating that procreation is not required for spiritual fulfillment or establishing “biblical manhood or womanhood.”

However, Galatians 3:28 emphasizes equality in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Some scholars argue that the apostles’ other, restrictive statements on gender roles were context-specific, addressing particular issues in early Christian communities, rather than being universal mandates. The Galatians 3:28 revelation, with its seeming contradiction about the more restrictive roles for women outlined in some of the apostolic letters, should prompt ongoing theological reflection and discussion with the intention to mature.

Complementarians could argue that “willfully and gladly supporting” the divinely ordained “head” involves participating in all righteous plans and directions set by the leader, extending far beyond babies and domestic chores. This broader support role is theoretically rich and diverse. But while the ideal is that the support role encompasses more than just rearing children and managing the household, this remains largely unfulfilled after thousands of years.

In reality, historical and societal norms have often confined women to domestic spheres, limited their agency, and kept them powerless, reflecting societal structures that have traditionally defined the female role in restrictive terms. This historical context makes Galatians 3:28’s message of equality all the more important.

The sequential creation of Eve signifies the expansion of human companionship and relationality, with the option of procreation and without specifying a societal structure. Galatians 3:28 calls for a radical rethinking of traditional gender roles and highlights the inherent equality of all people, not just those “redeemed.” This implies a broader interpretation of companionship and partnership, extending beyond the traditional gender-based ‘ezer kenegdo s.

Even non-procreating individuals need companionship “corresponding to him/her” based on the entire spectrum of human relationships.

How “helpmate” is corrupted

This discussion does not present “hermeneutical oddities* devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts” as the Danvers Statement, which summarizes the need for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), would claim. In fact, Complementarian rationalizations based on anachronistic prescriptions by the apostles are themselves “hermeneutical oddities” designed to impose and reinforce Mosaic Law, which was deeply embedded in the patriarchal society of ancient Israel. And the reasoning presented above also suggests that the use of the word “complementary” to imply gender purity is a fallacy and selective reading.

* » Principles and Techniques in Hermeneutics »

Hermeneutics involves several principles and techniques to interpret and explain the meaning of texts, especially biblical and philosophical writings. Here are some key principles and techniques used in hermeneutics:

Principles of Hermeneutics

  • Historical Context:
    • Understanding the Time and Place: Consider the historical, cultural, and social context in which the text was written. This helps in understanding the circumstances and issues addressed by the text.
    • Authorial Intent: Attempt to discern the author’s purpose and intended meaning by considering the historical situation and audience.
  • Literary Context:
    • Genre Analysis: Recognize the genre of the text (e.g., poetry, narrative, prophecy) as different genres follow different rules and conventions.
    • Contextual Reading: Read verses or passages in the context of the surrounding text to avoid misinterpretation by isolating phrases.
  • Canonical Context:
    • Scripture Interprets Scripture: Use clearer parts of the text to interpret more obscure parts, assuming a coherence in the canonical context (for religious texts like the Bible).
    • Harmony of Texts: Seek consistency with the overall message and theology of the entire scripture.
  • Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis:
    • Original Languages: Study the original language of the text (e.g., Hebrew, Greek) to grasp nuances lost in translation.
    • Grammar and Syntax: Pay attention to the grammatical structure and syntax, which can affect meaning.
  • Theological Context:
    • Doctrinal Consistency: Interpret texts in a way that is consistent with established doctrines and theological principles.
    • Spiritual Insight: Consider the spiritual or moral lessons conveyed by the text, especially in religious hermeneutics.
  • Philosophical and Logical Coherence:
    • Rational Analysis: Ensure interpretations are logically coherent and do not contradict themselves.
    • Philosophical Context: Recognize the philosophical underpinnings that might influence the text and its interpretation.

Techniques in Hermeneutics

  • Exegesis:
    • Detailed Analysis: Conduct a thorough analysis of the text, breaking it down into its constituent parts to understand its meaning and significance.
    • Verse-by-Verse Study: Examine each verse in detail, considering its immediate and broader context.
  • Hermeneutical Circle:
    • Part-Whole Relationship: Interpret the parts of the text in light of the whole and vice versa. This iterative process helps in understanding the text more fully.
  • Textual Criticism:
    • Manuscript Comparison: Compare different manuscripts and versions of the text to identify and understand variations and their implications for interpretation.
  • Sociological and Anthropological Insights:
    • Cultural Analysis: Use insights from sociology and anthropology to understand the cultural practices and social structures referenced in the text.
  • Interdisciplinary Approach:
    • Integration of Disciplines: Combine insights from various disciplines such as history, linguistics, theology, and philosophy to enrich the understanding of the text.
  • Reader-Response Criticism:
    • Role of the Reader: Consider how the reader’s own context, experiences, and perspective influence their interpretation of the text.

Application to the Paragraph on “Hermeneutical Oddities

In the paragraph above, the principles of historical context, literary context, and theological context are particularly relevant:

  • Historical Context: Understanding the cultural and social norms of ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman world helps in recognizing why certain gender roles were prescribed.
  • Literary Context: Analyzing the texts within the broader narrative of the Bible helps to see if gender roles are consistent with the overall message of scripture.
  • Theological Context: Examining the doctrines and theological principles that have emerged over time can reveal whether certain interpretations are aligned with or deviate from the core teachings of the faith.

By applying these principles, one can critique the Complementarian interpretations and assess whether they genuinely reflect the intent and spirit of the biblical texts or if they are “hermeneutical oddities” designed to uphold outdated societal norms.

From the Complementarian perspective, distinct gender roles and hierarchy supply the primary and necessary mechanism for “companionship and partnership” and are imposed to create a forced “harmony.” They argue that, if we had “the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives,” we’d have a healthy, secure society as God planned it. But they also worry about the negative impact of societal changes on the church’s ability to function and spread its message. (Maybe there is an opportunity for development that they are missing?)

Submission, when required, means there is no option but to comply. Willingness does not negate the requirement (although it might reduce the intensity). Therefore, submission under a requirement, regardless of willingness, can be considered forced.

One might argue that willingness could imply a harmonious alignment with the requirement, suggesting a form of consensual submission, like submitting to the advice of your doctor. In other contexts, the “requirement” for submission might come from a source of respect or trust, making the submission feel less forced. However, the initial imposition of the requirement still stands, making the consent a secondary factor rather than the primary driver.

Furthermore, the Complementarian notion of roles for their “companions and partners” has some history. In fact, many modern scholars argue that apostolic texts reflect the cultural and social contexts of the time rather than immutable divine mandates. They suggest that the New Testament’s teachings on gender roles should be understood as culturally conditioned rather than prescriptive for all times and places.

For example, in the Greco-Roman context in which the New Testament was written patriarchal structures were deeply entrenched. Men held primary authority in public and private spheres, and women were generally expected to fulfill supportive roles within the family and community, as God or the gods intended.

Moreover, ancient marriage laws treated women as the property of their fathers or husbands. For instance, the laws about dowries (Exodus 22:16-17) and bride prices (Genesis 34:12) illustrate this transactional view of women in marriage. Polygamy was permitted, and laws about concubines and multiple wives (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) reflect the secondary status of women in family structures.

The same contextual considerations that influenced New Testament teachings on gender roles also explain why slavery was not outright condemned but rather regulated with exhortations to treat slaves with respect (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1; Philemon). The apostles accommodated their culture.

In other words, New Testament pronouncements on gender roles were capitulations to previous interpretations and traditions, which became increasingly more pronounced in their corruption of ‘ezer kenegdo. By the time we get to the Apostles, it had been ingrained into them that the physis, or established order of things, saw women as support vessels. The modern idea of “equality” of women, with abilities in leadership and being the “head” of anything was not present in the structure and biases of ancient societies.

The principle of progressive revelation implies that God’s communication with humanity is not confined to a specific historical period but continues to unfold. Recognizing that revelations are often understood through the lens of the recipient’s cultural context helps us appreciate why certain interpretations have evolved over time. This awareness challenges us to distinguish between timeless truths and culturally specific applications and to remain open to new understandings and insights.

When all the culturally specific applications are sifted out, it leaves partnerships based on other-compatibility types and mutual support rather than strictly defined and required gender roles. The theological concept of being “made in the image of God” emphasizes spiritual and relational qualities over physical characteristics. This perspective supports the idea that relationships fulfilling the qualities of mutual support and intimacy reflect divine intent, regardless of gender. So in fact, “help mate” transcends complementary physical plumbing.

To understand how “hermeneutical oddities” have taken root, we need to look into a characteristic of God to layer what He wants to be revealed.

Divine learning

God seems to like pattern-making with sequences: pattern of the week, pattern in progressive creation. And, the sequence that seems invisible to us is the pattern in the gradual unfolding of truth. In fact, one could argue that, since education never ends, we are still in some phase of some sequence.

This metaphorical reading is supported by the principle of progressive revelation, where divine truth unfolds gradually over time. By “reading backwards,” theologians and believers can interpret early biblical texts through the lens of later revelations, deepening their understanding and connecting ancient narratives with contemporary insights (aka, hermeneutics). This approach highlights the continuity and development within the scriptures, suggesting that the initial creation story in Genesis sets the stage for evolving interpretations of human relationships and roles.

» Reading backwards and progressive revelation »

“Reading backwards” is a hermeneutical approach where later texts or understandings are used to interpret earlier texts. This method can be particularly insightful in theological contexts, where the progressive revelation of religious truths unfolds over time. Here’s how reading backwards can support the notion of progressive revelation and enhance clarity and learning:

1. Deepening Understanding of Earlier Texts

  • Contextualization: Reading earlier texts with the knowledge of later developments can provide new insights and deepen understanding. For example, Christians often read the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) through the lens of New Testament revelations, seeing types, shadows, and prophecies about Jesus Christ that might not be apparent from a purely historical reading of these texts.
  • Narrative Continuity: This approach can highlight continuity in the overarching narrative or theological themes of the scriptures, illustrating how early events or teachings develop and find fulfillment in later ones.

2. Progressive Revelation

  • Gradual Unfolding of Truth: The concept of progressive revelation holds that divine truth is not given all at once but is gradually revealed over time. Reading backwards allows interpreters to see how foundational ideas evolve and become more fully explained or realized in later texts. This is seen in how the New Testament writers interpret Old Testament laws and prophecies in light of Christ’s teachings and the establishment of the early Church.
  • Clarity and Culmination: Later texts often provide clarity and resolution to themes or questions introduced in earlier writings. For instance, the sacrificial system in the Old Testament is understood in the New Testament as prefiguring Christ’s ultimate sacrifice, providing a theological explanation that clarifies earlier practices.

3. Integration of Theological Concepts

  • Holistic View: By reading earlier scriptures with an awareness of later developments, readers can integrate theological concepts across the texts, creating a more coherent and unified understanding of their faith’s teachings.
  • Theological Maturation: This approach reflects a maturation in theological thinking, where later insights illuminate earlier ones, helping believers to grow in their understanding and interpretation of their sacred texts.

4. Addressing Apparent Contradictions

  • Reconciliation of Texts: Apparent contradictions or difficult passages in earlier texts can often be addressed or reconciled through themes or revelations presented in later texts. This can help maintain the integrity of the scriptural canon and support a more harmonious theological framework.
  • Enhanced Moral and Ethical Understanding: Ethical teachings that evolve over the course of the scriptural narrative (e.g., views on justice, the role of women, or the nature of salvation) can be understood in a progressive ethical framework that mirrors human moral development.

5. Challenges and Limitations

  • Risk of Anachronism: While reading backwards can provide valuable insights, there’s a risk of imposing later ideas onto earlier texts in ways that they were never originally meant to support. This can lead to misinterpretations or anachronistic readings.
  • Balancing Historical and Theological Interpretations: It’s important to balance this method with historical-critical approaches that consider the original context and intended audience of the texts to avoid reading solely through the lens of later developments.

Reading backwards, when used judiciously, can significantly enhance the understanding of religious texts by placing them within a fuller narrative of progressive revelation. This approach supports a dynamic engagement with scriptures, encouraging believers to see their sacred texts as living documents that offer ongoing revelation and deeper insights into divine truths as their understanding and historical contexts evolve.

Let’s hit that last point a bit harder.

Genesis means “the beginning”. And what “beginnings” do you know that lock you into a state of being and establish hard and fast rules forever? The nature of a “beginning” suggests an initial stage of a process that is open to development and change. Beginnings are foundational but not fixed; they set the stage for evolution and elaboration over time. Here are a few real-world, simple examples of how we learn, starting from rudimentary knowledge and maturing over time:

  1. Learning a Musical Instrument: When someone begins learning an instrument, they start with basic notes and simple scales. Over time, as they practice, they learn more complex pieces, understand music theory, and can improvise or create their own music. The initial simplicity isn’t a limitation but a necessary foundation for building skills.
  2. Academic Education: In education, children start by learning the alphabet, which is the beginning of literacy. As they grow, they progress to words, sentences, paragraphs, and eventually complex texts. This development in understanding and skill is not predetermined by their initial lessons but expands as they gain more exposure and knowledge.
  3. Cooking Skills: A beginner cook might start with simple recipes that involve few ingredients and basic cooking techniques. As they gain confidence and experience, they start experimenting with more diverse and sophisticated recipes, combining flavors, and using advanced techniques. The initial basics serve as stepping stones, not permanent boundaries.

In each of these examples, the beginning stages are crucial for grounding and guiding further development, but they are not confining. Individuals learn and adapt beyond their first impressions or basic skills, reflecting the dynamic nature of growth and understanding. This is akin to how theological and scriptural interpretations can evolve, reflecting deeper and more nuanced understandings over time. (Like seeing more details of the Throne as you near it.)

The gradual unfolding of divine truth through progressive revelation reflects God’s intentional approach to human learning. This method of revelation demonstrates divine wisdom in providing truth in ways that align with our capacity to understand and apply it at different stages of human development.

In the Bible, this interpretation — learning and maturing — is taught, and not as a mere recommendation. Hebrews 5:13-14 expresses the same sentiment of getting past the beginning by underscoring the importance of discernment in spiritual maturity, comparing basic teachings to milk and deeper understanding to solid food. Ephesians 4:13-15 highlights that maturity involves growing in faith and knowledge, resulting in stability and resilience against false teachings.

Earlier, I said, “By ‘reading backwards,’ theologians and believers can interpret early biblical texts through the lens of later revelations, deepening their understanding and connecting ancient narratives with contemporary insights.” But the risk of reading the Genesis account too prescriptively includes imposing later cultural norms back onto ancient texts, potentially leading to misinterpretations or anachronistic readings.

Instead, recognizing the narrative as metaphorical, not prescriptive, allows for a more nuanced understanding of the texts, emphasizing ethical principles and relational dynamics over prescriptive gender roles. It encourages viewing biblical metaphors, not as immutable blueprints for narrowing the concept of “help mate” and subjugating females but as part of a broader, evolving dialogue about human nature and divine intentions.

Just like with other progressive Divine actions, “the beginning” is also not the end. We can see that harmony does not depend on hierarchical, class structures; and that “companion and partner” mean more than what traditional interpretations have made them out to be.

It seems self-evident that learning does not stop because there is no end to the depth below the surface of what we think we know now. What there is to know is like Matryoshka dolls, where when you open one, it reveals another one inside. Revelation does not stop. Understanding our relationship to the rest of creation does not stop. Understanding ourselves does not stop.

It is dogma, not knowledge, when revelation stops in Genesis and the New Testament to support what a helpmate should be. This approach involves leaps in logic that are cemented by the patriarchal views of New and Old Testament societies. It presumes that their understanding should limit our growth in knowledge of creation and how it informs our faith, regardless of how revelation continues to occur.

As far as we know

The purpose of revelation, whether through scripture, nature, or personal insight, is to guide our understanding and behavior. Progressive revelation serves this purpose by providing truths in ways that align with our evolving capacity to comprehend and apply them.

As our knowledge and understanding grow, so does our capacity to interpret and comprehend deeper revelations. This evolving human capability aligns with progressive revelation, allowing us to grasp more complex truths over time.

Consider that there are three forms of Revelation: The Word, Nature, and what is written on the hearts of humans. Singling out Nature here, we know nature via science. If you ignore what Nature reveals (as a revelation), you are deliberately kicking away one leg of a 3-legged stool. So, how solid can your discernment be?

Support for the three forms of Revelation »»

The statement that there are three forms of revelation—The Word, Nature, and what is written on the hearts of humans—finds support in various biblical texts. These texts highlight different ways in which God communicates with humanity and reveals His character and will. Here is how each form of revelation is supported biblically:

1. The Word (Scripture)

The concept of the Bible as a form of divine revelation is central to Christian theology. The Bible is considered God’s written Word, communicated through human authors under divine inspiration.

  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
  • 2 Peter 1:20-21: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

These passages indicate that the scriptures are not merely human words but are inspired by God and serve as a primary method of divine communication.

2. Nature (Creation)

The idea that nature or creation reveals God’s attributes is expressed in the Psalms and the letters of Paul, suggesting that the natural world reflects the creator’s power and divinity.

  • Psalm 19:1-4: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.”
  • Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

These verses suggest that nature itself is a form of God’s revelation, displaying His power and divinity so that people can perceive His existence and attributes through the observation of the world around them.

3. What is Written on the Hearts of Humans

The concept of God’s law or moral truths being inscribed on human hearts appears in both the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing an innate knowledge of God’s moral expectations.

  • Romans 2:14-15: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”
  • Jeremiah 31:33: “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

These passages support the idea that God has imparted a sense of moral law or truth directly into the human heart, enabling individuals to discern right from wrong even without explicit instruction from external sources.

By recognizing revelation in The Word, Nature, and human hearts, we acknowledge that God communicates truth through diverse channels, not limited to scripture alone. This multifaceted approach to revelation enriches our understanding of God’s creation and our place in it. We can literally triangulate on truth. In this way, God meets and accommodates the diverse ways in which we understand, learn, and progress.

Referring to Nature is always a hot topic. But one thing is for sure: our lives and society depend on Nature. And when the ancient texts were written, not as much was known about it as we know today. Yet, knowledge of “nature” (the physical-world sort, the “established order” sort, and the “that’s the way God made him” sort) ― as far as the ancients’ knowledge extended ― was the basis for the perspectives they wrote about.

The “immaculate conception” is an interesting example. At the time of the early Christian church and even before, during the writing of various biblical texts, the understanding of human reproduction was limited and heavily influenced by philosophical theories and the absence of detailed biological knowledge like about eggs, sperm, and DNA. Theories were generally speculative and not grounded in what we would now consider scientific evidence. The religious beliefs surrounding Mary’s Immaculate Conception of Jesus was thus framed within a context that accepted divine action and mystery in human events, independent of the biological understanding of reproduction.

Knowledge of the world and how we fit into it is knowledge of Nature, no matter how rudimentary or modern. With this knowledge, we understand relationships and deeper meaning between relationships.

The nature of Nature

One argument often used by Complementarians is the appeal to “nature” to justify specific gender roles and hierarchies. For instance, men are stronger than females. But what do we really mean by “nature”? The ancient Greeks had a concept that can help us explore this idea: physis.

Physis, often translated as “nature,” refers to the inherent qualities or the essence of a thing — its natural state. Even God has a physis. It also referred to the established order, or the way things are.

The related verb, physein, means “to be by nature.” These terms encompass the idea of an inborn constitution, including fundamental characteristics and tendencies. This Greek philosophical context is essential for understanding how ancient and modern interpretations of “nature” can diverge.

Historian John Boswell argued that physis could refer to one’s inherent constitution, including sexuality. In ancient Greek thought, this extended to the idea that some individuals were naturally inclined towards same-sex relationships, which was considered their “nature.” This contrasts with behaviors that were culturally or ritually prescribed but not inherent to one’s constitution.

When we turn to Paul’s writings in the New Testament, particularly in Romans, the focus shifts to behavior rather than inherent nature. Paul’s condemnation of certain sexual practices, often cited by complementarians, needs to be understood in its historical context. Some scholars argue that Paul was addressing specific actions linked to idolatrous rituals and temple prostitution, rather than condemning innate same-sex attraction or help-mate relationships.

This distinction is crucial:

  • Physis/Physein emphasizes innate qualities. Even God is referred to as having these.
  • Behavioral Condemnation in Paul’s context focuses on actions that violate societal and religious norms.
» Some mentions of physis in the Bible »

The term “physis” (Greek: φύσις), meaning “nature” or “the inherent characteristics of something,” appears in various contexts in the New Testament, often referring to God’s nature or human nature. Here are some biblical passages that refer to the concept of nature or “physis”:

  • Romans 1:20:
    • “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
    • This passage highlights that God’s nature (physis) is evident in creation, revealing His eternal power and divine characteristics.
  • 2 Peter 1:4:
    • “Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
    • This verse speaks about believers partaking in the divine nature (physis) through God’s promises, indicating a transformation and sharing in God’s attributes.
  • Ephesians 2:3:
    • “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”
    • Here, “by nature” (physis) refers to the inherent sinful state of humanity before transformation through Christ.
  • Galatians 2:15:
    • “We who are Jews by nature and not sinful Gentiles…”
    • This passage uses “by nature” (physis) to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles, referring to their natural, inherent identities.
  • Romans 2:14:
    • “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.”
    • This verse refers to the inherent ability (physis) of Gentiles to follow God’s law, suggesting an intrinsic moral understanding.

These passages illustrate how the concept of nature or “physis” is used in the New Testament to describe both divine and human characteristics. The divine nature refers to God’s inherent qualities, while human nature often refers to the inherent moral and ethical tendencies within people. The use of “physis” underscores the inherent qualities that define both God and humanity in their respective contexts.

In the Hebrew context, the idea of nature or essence was less philosophically nuanced but still present. The term “teva” (טבע) captures the essence of the natural order, the intrinsic qualities of beings and objects. In Genesis, the verb “bara” (ברא), meaning “to create,” suggests bringing forth something with a specific nature or essence. These Hebrew concepts were foundational to the biblical understanding of creation and existence.

As we process these ideas, it’s essential to recognize that the early Christian church, with its Greek-speaking writers, often used Greek philosophical terms to articulate Jewish theological concepts. This blending of thought forms the backbone of much of Christian theology today. Further, faithful interpretation of scripture requires us to adjust our dogmas with what is revealed in the next level down of the matryoshka dolls.

Understanding nuances helps us see that ancient texts were engaging with the complexities of human behavior and inherent nature in ways that might differ from modern interpretations with more information. As we interpret these scriptures today, it’s essential to consider how evolving knowledge about human nature and behavior fits into our understanding of divine intent and moral guidance.

What’s written in Nature

Keep in mind that the argument for a divine prescription for helpmate based on physiological complementarity is an argument from Nature. So now that we have an actual biblical understanding of Nature, let’s address the perception of “nature” to begin an exploration what Nature is and what it tells us as we uncover more of it.

First, it is important to note that the ancient Hebrews were well aware of Nature and incorporated it into their lives and beliefs. Besides Wisdom literature, such as the Book of Proverbs reflecting observations about human nature and the natural world, they got into astronomy, medicine, sustainable agricultural practices, etc. For example, the regular cycles of nature were seen as evidence of God’s order and faithfulness. The Psalms frequently celebrate God’s creation, depicting nature as a testament to His power and wisdom (e.g., Psalm 19:1-4; Psalm 104).

Knowledge of animal behavior and breeding was crucial. The Bible contains numerous references to livestock, which were essential to their economy and daily life. For example, Jacob’s breeding practices in Genesis 30:37-43 demonstrate an understanding of selective breeding and animal husbandry techniques.

Ancient societies not only observed but also interpreted animal behaviors to draw parallels and contrasts with human behavior, often using these observations to justify societal norms and moral teachings. For example, they praised the diligence of ants and the bravery of lions, while condemning bestiality and deceitful predatory behaviors like those of wolves. Observations and interpretations of Nature helped shape moral and ethical frameworks that influenced cultural and religious practices.

But knowledge progresses, with the expectation that our moral and ethical frameworks might mature.

More recently, current research estimates that over 1,500 animal species exhibit same-sex sexual behavior, a significant increase from earlier counts​ (National Wildlife Federation)​. This increase is partly due to a greater acceptance and interest in studying such behaviors within the scientific community, as well as advancements in observing and documenting animal behavior more accurately​ (Mongabay)​.

The natural diversity of animal behaviors challenges the prescription of binary gender roles and suggests a broader spectrum of natural, helpmate relationships. This broader understanding indicates that such behaviors may have various functions, including social bonding, conflict resolution, and even population control, demonstrating the complex and multifaceted nature of creature social interactions.

The diversity in nature itself — part of God’s creation — incorporates a wide spectrum of relationships and interactions, prompting a reevaluation of how strictly binary models are applied in theological contexts if complementarity were an ordained divine order for help mates. The alignment of scientific discoveries with spiritual truths suggests that revelation through nature and scripture are complementary, not contradictory or in competition. This harmony invites us to embrace both faith and reason in our quest for understanding.

Biological determinism?

To the Complementarian, Nature tells them that women are the “weaker” companion, which must mean that the stronger partner is automatically the “head” and “leader”. It’s an “apparently plain” natural fact.

Really?

More realistically ― based on human nature ― the presumption of “leader” from “strength” is a stereotype to support a system of male superiority.

In nature, there are numerous examples in the animal kingdom where females are stronger and more dominant than their male counterparts: Hyenas, anglerfish, raptors, black widows, elephants, bonobos, deep-sea octopuses, to name a few. So “female” alone does not equate to the “weaker sex.” While it is not always apt to make direct equivalent animal-to-human comparisons, the “female as weaker sex, ” worthy of only following, is questionable from several interpretations.

What we know is that the concept of strength varies widely. As I mentioned, in nature, female animals like lions and hyenas are often stronger and more dominant. Similarly, human females, while not possessing the raw strength of males, are excelling in various fields, including sports, science, leadership, and more, showcasing their strengths and capabilities beyond traditional measures of raw physical strength. They also have a higher tolerance for pain and a better resistance to certain diseases.

Equating physical strength with leadership is oversimplified and fallacious thinking. Effective leadership requires a balance of various attributes, many of which have nothing to do with physical capabilities. The naturalistic fallacy, appeal to physical strength, appeal to tradition, and false-cause fallacies lead to a distorted understanding of what makes a good leader, failing to consider the full range of human qualities that contribute to effective governance and influence.

» The fallacies involved … »

When we assume that raw physical strength equates to “headship” and “leadership,” we are committing multiple fallacies:

False Cause: This occurs when one assumes that because two things occur together, one must cause the other. Someone might be strong and also a good leader, but that does not mean their strength caused their leadership ability. Correlation does not imply causation.

Appeal to Nature (Naturalistic Fallacy): This occurs when one argues that because something is a certain way in nature, it ought to be that way in human society. The assumption that males, being physically stronger, should naturally assume leadership roles falls into this category. It overlooks the complexity of human societies and the multifaceted qualities required for effective leadership, such as emotional intelligence, empathy, wisdom, and collaboration.

Appeal to Physical Strength (Argumentum ad Baculum): This fallacy assumes that because someone has a certain physical attribute, like strength, they are automatically qualified for a leadership position. However, effective leaders need a variety of skills including communication, decision-making, strategic thinking, and the ability to inspire and motivate others. Physical strength might be helpful in some situations, but it is not the most important quality. Moreover, what constitutes “strength” can vary depending on the context, making it a subjective measure.

Appeal to Tradition: This fallacy occurs when one argues that something should continue to be done a certain way simply because it has been done that way in the past. Just because physically strong individuals have historically held leadership positions does not mean this approach is the best or most effective today. Society evolves, and so do our understanding and expectations of leadership qualities.

We know all these things, yet traditional gender roles and stereotypes obscure them for the sake of “faithfulness” to religion and maintaining a measure of social order and cohesion.

Nature teaches us even more about roles and human gender: The idea of a singular “maternal instinct” is being challenged by recent science. Here’s what we know:

  • Brain chemistry changes in all caregivers: Studies show that hormones like oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine increase in both mothers and fathers during the transition to parenthood, regardless of birth parent status. This suggests these hormonal changes are linked to caregiving behaviors, not just childbirth.
  • Men can be just as skilled at responding to infant cues: Research indicates fathers are equally adept at identifying their babies’ cries.
  • Focus on bonding and experience: The activation of these brain chemicals seems to be triggered by bonding experiences with the child, not solely by biological sex.

So, while there might be biological predispositions to nurturing behavior, it’s not exclusive to females.  Overall, the concept of a pre-programmed “maternal instinct” is being replaced by the understanding that caregiving behaviors are influenced by a complex interplay of biology, experience, and social factors.

So, we’re looking under the surface and seeing nuance in Nature; pulling off another matryoshka doll and seeing finer detail within.

The unfolding truth of help mate

Today, we use scientific knowledge to create “heartbeat” laws and to decide when a human is a human. But we cherry-pick knowledge to support philosophical theories and religious beliefs, like the folks in the ancient days. This selective use of ancient knowledge and modern scientific understanding to enforce or challenge moral and legal norms illustrates a complex interaction between evolving scientific knowledge and enduring religious and ethical frameworks (aka, tradition). In such debates, science and religion often find themselves intertwined in ways that challenge the purity of both in making unbiased decisions about human life and rights.

Another thing Nature reveals, by way of example, is that modern science recognizes gender and sexuality as spectrums rather than strictly binary categories. Things aren’t merely black & white, male & female. Genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors all contribute to the development of a person’s cognitive wiring, gender identity, and sexual orientation, supporting the idea that these traits are complex, varied, and fundamental to our personal “natures” (how we’re made up, or the “configuration” as I refer to it).

Ignoring this information ― this writing in Nature ― is a type of willful blindness. Why would you shun God’s truth as He crafted it for us to learn, preferring milk to meat? Why would you deliberately ignore it to align with tribal creeds and religious dogma or only to conserve a “healthy society” or “social stability” insofar as you can imagine it? This is the evil in cherry-picking.

When you know better, do better

Still, the black/white perspective is a natural place to start…until we know better. Adjusting our positions is a sign of maturity: as we learn more about creation through the Word, our hearts, and scientific discoveries, we gain a more complete understanding. It’s a literal triangulation on truth.

Maturity is a Biblical concept involving a multifaceted process involving character development, knowledge growth, taking responsibility, and actively pursuing transformation through spiritual disciplines. It’s a lilfetime journey of becoming more like Christ, displaying His character in the world, and learning more about the God one professes to worship by appreciating His layers of wonder.

» Forms of maturing »

Here is a non-exhaustive list of examples that support the idea that learning and maturing are expected goals with their respective processes. Most of these are transformational in nature, meaning that one is expected to re-pattern the mind.

  • Increased Knowledge and Understanding:
    • Moving from basic teachings to deeper doctrinal understanding (Hebrews 5:12-14).
    • Embracing more complex and nuanced understandings of faith and righteousness (Colossians 1:28).
  • Stability and Discernment:
    • Not being swayed by false teachings but growing in steadfastness and truth (Ephesians 4:13-15).
    • Developing the ability to discern right from wrong and handle deeper spiritual concepts (Hebrews 5:13-14).
  • Christ-like Character:
    • Exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit and growing in love, humility, and righteousness (Galatians 5:22-23).
    • Putting off sinful behaviors and embracing Christ-like qualities (Colossians 3:9-10).
  • Active Pursuit of Holiness:
    • Continuously striving for holiness and godliness in one’s life (Philippians 3:12-15).
    • Presenting oneself to God and renewing one’s mind (Romans 12:1-2).
    • Putting away childish behaviors as a sign of maturity (1 Corinthians 13:11).

In religious thought, particularly in Christianity, the concept of progressive revelation suggests that God reveals truth gradually over time. This can be through scripture, the life of Jesus, ongoing personal and communal discernment, and science. This concept supports the idea that understanding and development are ongoing processes…like the 6 consecutive days of creation. It aligns with observable human intellectual and moral progress. As our collective understanding grows, we’re better equipped to grasp and implement more advanced spiritual and ethical concepts.

Embracing scientific discoveries about human nature can be seen as part of understanding divine revelation through nature. The diversity in biological and psychological human configurations indicates that spiritual identity and the capacity for religious experience are not limited to specific black-and-white prescriptions. This broader perspective enriches traditional interpretations and supports a more nuanced understanding of what it means to be human and made in God’s image.

The concept of help-mates being on a spectrum aligns with this idea of diversity and progression in our biological makeup. Just as creation wasn’t limited to a single form or type, human relationships and identities also exhibit a range of configurations, reflecting the complexity and richness of God’s design. Your help-mate is your “helper corresponding to” you.

“God created them male and female” is a critical relationship for the propagation of the species, but beyond this mechanical framework, there are many variations. Quantum physics teaches us that nothing is simply black and white: there is always something under the surface of what we know at this moment. Revelation is progressive; knowledge and understanding are progressive.

Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.
~ Maya Angelou

3 thoughts on “From Dust to Duo…on a Spectrum

  1. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/april/complementarianism-term-survive-treweek.html

    The article discusses the current state and future viability of complementarianism as a movement within Christianity. Complementarianism, which posits specific, divinely ordained roles for men and women in the church and home, is seen by the author as grounded in biblical scripture, reflecting a belief in both the equality and distinct roles of men and women.

    However, the term “complementarianism” and the movement itself have faced increasing criticism and rejection in recent years. The author differentiates between healthy, constructive criticism, which they welcome as an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding, and cancellation, which outright denies the legitimacy or acceptability of complementarian views. The author expresses concern that the latter approach has become more prevalent, with many critics condemning complementarianism as inherently abusive and intolerable under any circumstances.

    This extreme stance has led to significant challenges for those like the author, who identify as complementarian but also advocate for respect and equality within that framework. Despite holding a doctorate in theology and having substantial experience in ministry leadership, the author finds their views and experiences dismissed by critics who insist that complementarianism cannot be positive or uplifting for women.

    The author laments the misuse of complementarian theology by some of its proponents, which has contributed to its negative perception and calls for a return to what they see as the true, biblically faithful teachings of complementarity. They express a desire for repentance from the abuses and a recommitment to the principles they believe are at the core of complementarianism.

    In essence, the article raises questions about whether complementarianism as a labeled movement can survive the intense scrutiny and opposition it faces, and whether there remains a place within the contemporary church for those who identify with and wish to uphold these beliefs in a respectful and biblically consistent manner.

  2. https://cbmw.org/2020/08/10/why-i-am-a-complementarian/

    This article to justify complementarianism is, first and foremost, ethoncentric. Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. This term encapsulates the idea of evaluating historical or by-gone cultures based on modern or contemporary cultural norms and values, often leading to a biased interpretation of historical events, practices, and societal norms.

    Next, it is rife with cherry-picking, fourth-term, and a host of other fallacies. So many that addressing them would result in a full dissertation on Christian rationalization.

    Some sophmoric examples are found in paragraphs like this:

    Why these differences? God could have made man and woman at the same time and in the exact same way. But the different, complementary way in which God makes the man and woman is meant to teach us something already from the beginning about male and female peculiarity. We see something similar in how God created the universe. Instead of creating everything instantaneously, God created in six days and rested on the seventh. He did so for a purpose, in order to establish the pattern of the week (see Exod. 20:11). In a similar vein, the very way God created man and woman is meant to teach us about the pattern of male-female equality and difference. Genesis 1–2 are meant, in part, to prepare the people of God to receive special instructions from the Scriptures about what male-female difference means for their lives.

    Let’s assume the sequence of creation of animals before man’s creation. Were there male and female? Certainly the gender split didn’t happen to all of animal creation when Eve came about. Assuming the notion of “patterns” (that this author uses as the foundation of most of his arguments), it seems “reasonable” (as he claims as the one of the pillars of his conviction) to expect that, with the notion of sequence, mankind, being another animal in form and substance, was probably already destined to have a gender. “God created man and woman is meant to teach us about the pattern of male-female equality and difference” seems like pretty sloppy “reasoning”.

    While the Genesis account does describe the creation of humans in a particular order, claiming this sequence is meant to establish a permanent pattern of gender roles extends beyond what the text directly says — it’s over-extrapolation. The text does not explicitly state that the creation order was intended to set forth specific social roles, only that humans were made in God’s image and given dominion over the earth together.

    This interpretation may be reading later theological developments and doctrinal positions back into the Genesis text, which could be seen as anachronistic. While such readings can enrich understanding, they risk asserting more than the text can definitively support.

    And with so many holes in this myth/story of Adam and Eve, the purpose was to encode a story from a patriarchal perspective.

    And “God created in six days and rested on the seventh. He did so for a purpose, in order to establish the pattern of the week“?

    So, some of the more egrigous violations here:

    Complementarianism is most often defined generally by the theological position articulated in the Danvers Statement. At root, complementarians believe men and women are equal yet different by divine design, and that God’s design makes a difference in how we ought to live as male and female.

    From this author, the argument made commits the Naturalistic, or Fourth Term, Fallacy: the erroneous conclusion that just because something is a certain way (what is), it ought to be that way (what should be).

    We see male-female equality reinforced in this verse as both male and female are addressed by this divine command: God “said to them.” But the command cannot be carried out apart from complementary difference; the male and female have different obligations in carrying it out. The act of procreation requires male-female difference working together — itself a reflection of bodily complementarity. Moreover, some interpreters have recognized that the command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill” plays more to feminine attributes, and the command to “subdue” and “have dominion” more to masculine attributes. While each domain of activity is given to both the man and the woman in ways fitting with their bodily uniqueness, how this activity is carried out will necessarily be inflected through the gendered reality of God’s crowning creation.

    He goes from IS to OBLIGATION. He is also trapped in the anachorism of a patriarchal society, who defined “nature” according to that perspective.

    The Naturalistic Fallacy, as originally articulated by philosopher G.E. Moore, refers to the error of equating what is natural with what is morally right or good. It is the confusion of descriptive statements (what is) with normative or prescriptive statements (what ought to be). In the context of the passage quoted above, the potential for the Naturalistic Fallacy arises when theological and scriptural descriptions are used to justify certain normative social structures or ethical norms.

    The assertion is made that “Scripture clearly teaches male-female complementarity and the principle of male headship,” and this principle is said to be “grounded in the pre-fall creation order and nature.” (I’ll get into the “pre-fall order” problem later.) Here’s how the Naturalistic Fallacy shakes out:

    1. Equating Creation Order with Ethical Prescription: The passage implies that because a certain structure (male headship) existed in the creation order (as interpreted by the speaker), it should naturally continue as the ideal or divinely sanctioned structure. This is an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy if it assumes that just because something is a certain way (descriptively), it ought to be that way (prescriptively).
    2. From Is to Ought: The argument moves from a descriptive claim about the biblical narrative (men and women are created with distinct roles) to a normative claim (these roles should define gender relations permanently). The leap from describing how gender roles are portrayed in certain biblical texts to prescribing these roles as inherently moral or right can embody the Naturalistic Fallacy, as it does not sufficiently justify why these descriptions should dictate modern ethical norms.
    3. Moral Imperatives Based on Nature: The passage also suggests that because male headship is part of “nature” (as understood in a patriarchal sense), it is inherently correct or desirable. This direct connection from “natural” order to moral imperative overlooks cultural, historical, and contextual factors that might influence how we interpret “natural” roles, and it fails to engage with counterarguments about equality and mutual servitude that are also biblically supported.

    Counterpoints

    1. Cultural and Historical Context: One might argue that biblical descriptions of gender roles are contingent on cultural and historical contexts that differ significantly from today’s settings. What was practical or understood as normative in one cultural and historical context might not be applicable in another.
    2. Broader Biblical Principles: Other biblical principles, such as mutual love, respect, and the inherent equality of all humans before God, might suggest a more egalitarian (not “male headship”) approach to gender roles. Focusing only on passages that support traditional roles without balancing them with these broader themes can lead to a selective and potentially misleading application of scripture.
    3. Evolution of Understanding: Ethical and theological understandings evolve as humans gain more insight into the biological, psychological, and social complexities of gender. What was once assumed to be “natural” in a patriarchal society might be understood in new ways that challenge old interpretations as though they were set in divine cement and discounting progressive revelation.

    Further, the overarching narrative of the Bible moves towards inclusivity and equality (Galatians 3:28). One might argue that the principle of male headship does not align with the broader biblical push towards dismantling societal and cultural barriers.

    And the argument from Nature asserting men are really the “natural” leaders … gads, where to begin?

    The author posits there are inherently different roles for men and women based on their biological and presumed psychological differences. This type of argument can be critiqued from several angles, both logically and scientifically.

    Logical and Scientific perspective:

    1. Essentialism and Biological Determinism:
    • Faulty Essentialism: The author implies that biological differences between men and women inherently dictate specific social roles and behaviors (e.g., men as leaders and protectors, women as nurturers). This is a form of essentialism, which reduces the complex nature of human behaviors and roles to biological determinants. Modern psychology and sociology suggest that while biological differences exist, the translation of these differences into social roles is heavily mediated by cultural, environmental, and personal factors.
    • Biological Determinism: The argument leans on biological determinism, suggesting that because certain physical traits are more common in one sex, they necessarily result in specific roles or behaviors. This view overlooks the significant overlap between male and female capabilities and the plasticity of human behavior, which is not rigidly determined by biology.
    1. Variability Within Sexes:
    • Inter- and Intra-sex Variability: The biological and psychological variability within each sex is often greater than the differences between the sexes. Many women may be physically stronger than many men, and many men may have stronger nurturing instincts than many women. The complementarian argument does not account for such overlaps and exceptions, which are common and significant.
    1. Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology:
    • Evolutionary Roles: While evolutionary biology shows that certain traits may have been advantageous in ancestral environments (e.g., physical strength for hunting), modern society’s roles are not strictly analogous to ancient conditions. Furthermore, human evolution is marked by adaptability and change, not by rigid adherence to ancient patterns.
    • Cultural Variation: Anthropological evidence indicates that gender roles vary significantly across cultures and history, challenging the notion that there is a single “natural” way for genders to interact. Some societies are matriarchal, some are patriarchal, and many are mixed in their gender norms.
    1. Misuse of Naturalistic Fallacy:
    • Is vs. Ought: The argument from nature is a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy, which confuses “what is” with “what ought to be.” Just because a particular gender pattern may appear in nature does not mean it prescribes an ethical norm. Nature includes both cooperation and conflict, altruism and aggression, and does not inherently prescribe moral guidelines.
    1. Contradictory Evidence in Nature:
    • Non-Human Examples: In the animal kingdom, there are numerous examples that contradict strict gender roles. For example, in many species, such as certain birds and fish, roles in parenting or leadership are fluid or reversed.
    • Human Neuroplasticity: Neuroscience shows that human brains are highly adaptable and that social experiences significantly shape cognitive and emotional development. Thus, the biological capacities for things like empathy, aggression, leadership, and caregiving are not fixed by sex.

    The argument from nature employed to support complementarian views of gender roles oversimplifies the complex interplay of biology, environment, and individual choice in human behavior. It also relies on debatable premises about the fixed nature of gender roles and overlooks the broad variability and adaptability inherent in human societies and individuals. These logical and empirical weaknesses suggest that the argument from nature for complementarianism is not as sound as proponents might claim, and it should be critically examined and challenged.

    And now, “pre-fall order of creation” …

    The author of the article uses the “pre-fall” order of creation to support complementarianism by arguing that the roles and relationships established between men and women before the fall into sin are the divinely intended, natural, and ideal structure for human relationships. Here’s how the author constructs this argument:

    1. Biblical Reference to Creation Order

    The author cites the creation narratives in Genesis, particularly the sequence and manner in which Adam and Eve were created, to argue that God established a specific order and roles for men and women from the beginning. The fact that Adam was created first, followed by Eve—who was created as a “helper fit for him”—is interpreted to mean that there is a divinely ordained hierarchy and differentiation in roles between the sexes.

    2. Male Headship Rooted in Creation

    The author links the concept of male headship directly to the order of creation, suggesting that because Adam was formed first, this establishes a pattern for male leadership in both the family and the church. This interpretation is further supported by New Testament scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2:12-13, where Paul references the creation order (“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”) as part of his argument restricting women from teaching or having authority over men in the church, and continuing the support for a patriarchal structure in society for all facets of life.

    3. Moral and Theological Implications of the Pre-Fall State

    The author posits that the pre-fall creation order represents God’s original and perfect design for humanity, untainted by sin. Therefore, this order reflects God’s ultimate intentions for gender roles and relations. The implication is that adhering to this divinely established order ensures alignment with God’s will and promotes flourishing according to God’s original design for human relationships.

    So when the fall did happen, and God issued his many curses (Genesis 3:16), women ended up with painful childbirth and further degradation in relationship dynamics; and men were relegated to hard labor and toil on cursed ground.

    4. Contrasting Pre-Fall and Post-Fall Realities

    By emphasizing the pre-fall creation order, the author argues against cultural or societal constructions that might deviate from this biblical blueprint. The contrast between the pre-fall and post-fall conditions serves to underscore the notion that deviations from this order are a result of human sinfulness and societal degradation rather than progress or enlightenment.

    5. Theological Consistency Across Scripture

    The author appeals to the consistency of this creation order theme across both Old and New Testaments, arguing that it underpins not only the Genesis narrative but also the teachings of Jesus and the epistles. This cross-referencing is used to strengthen the claim that male headship is not a cultural or temporal artifact but a perpetual, divinely ordained principle.

    So, in using the “pre-fall” order of creation to support complementarianism, the author is asserting that the relationships and roles as they existed in their original, sin-free state are prescriptive for all time. This use of Scripture aims to provide a theological foundation that justifies specific gender roles as being rooted in God’s perfect design, rather than human cultural development.

    This religion is deplorable.

  3. The concept of patriarchy and male headship, as discussed in various societies, has deep historical roots and has been manifested in numerous ways. Here’s a breakdown of how patriarchy appears, why it endures, and possible alternatives, in addition to addressing the implications of the article’s stance on biblical gender roles. Manifestations of Patriarchy in Society

    1. Legal and Political Systems: Historically, many societies have barred women from participating fully in the political process, owning property, or inheriting wealth. Laws and regulations often favored men in marriage, divorce, and child custody.
    2. Economic Structures: Patriarchy is evident in wage gaps and disparities in job opportunities. Traditionally male-dominated fields are often valued higher economically, and women may be restricted to certain roles or face significant barriers to entry in more lucrative fields.
    3. Cultural Norms and Media: Media and culture frequently reinforce gender roles that place men in positions of authority and power. Stereotypical portrayals can perpetuate expectations about gender behaviors, influencing everything from educational aspirations to professional development.
    4. Religious and Social Norms: Many religions and cultures explicitly place men in leadership roles within both the family and the community. These roles are often reinforced through religious texts, rituals, and the socialization processes from a young age.

    Endurance of Male Headship

    1. Historical Momentum: Patriarchal systems have a long history, and such deeply ingrained structures can be resistant to change. Once established, these systems perpetuate themselves through legal, social, and cultural mechanisms.
    2. Social Cohesion Argument: Some argue that clear, distinct roles for genders can provide societal stability and predictability. In times of crisis or social change, traditional roles might be clung to as a stabilizing force.
    3. Economic and Power Dynamics: Those benefiting from the current structures (typically men in patriarchal societies) often have the resources and influence to maintain the status quo, which serves their interests.

    Alternatives to Patriarchy

    1. Egalitarian Systems: These advocate for equal rights and responsibilities for individuals of all genders. Legal reforms, equitable education opportunities, and active encouragement of diverse family models can support this system.
    2. Shared Leadership in Families and Communities: Models that promote shared decision-making between genders in homes and in community leadership can challenge traditional patriarchal norms.
    3. Education and Empowerment: Educating both boys and girls about gender equality, alongside empowering women through economic opportunities and political representation, can gradually dismantle patriarchal structures.

    Implications of the complementarian article

    The article seems to imply that adhering to “biblical manhood and womanhood” is the correct way for all of humankind, suggesting that these roles are divinely ordained and beneficial for society. This stance assumes a universal applicability of specific biblical interpretations across diverse cultural and temporal contexts.

    1. Universal Truth Claim: By grounding the argument in Scripture and nature, the author suggests that these gender roles are not only applicable but also ideal for all of humanity.
    2. Exclusivity: The emphasis on a specific interpretation of biblical roles can exclude other cultural, religious, and personal understandings of gender and society, potentially alienating those who do not fit or accept these roles.
    3. Potential for Conflict: Insisting on one “right way” can lead to conflict and division within diverse societies that have different traditions, beliefs, and values regarding gender roles.

    Conclusion

    While the Complementarian article champions a complementarian view based on biblical interpretations, this is one of many approaches to understanding gender roles in society. Alternative models that promote equality and shared leadership might better address the complexities and challenges of modern, diverse societies. The debate between complementarian and egalitarian views reflects broader dialogues about tradition, change, and the interpretation of religious texts in contemporary life.

Leave a comment