Could Men Have Prevented the Fall? Somehow I Doubt It.   5 comments

Men are not called by God to be “working at home” as women are in Titus 2:5.  The ground is not cursed for women in Genesis 3:17, but for men, whose responsibility it was to work outside of the home–and to protect women, which was the first “man fail” of all time. — Owen Strachan

I read this post because my friend told me it had really made her angry and left her thinking for a week.  If you know me, then you know that this is just the kind of incentive that gets me to explore a topic – I love heated discussions.

And this blog post, well, it got me heated.  Not just because of the complementarian view, a view that I don’t see in Scripture, but because of the line I quoted above.  This phrase just strikes me as the worst of the arrogance that often comes with sexism.

Does Mr. Strachan actually believe that if Adam (if there was a literal man named Adam, a view I’m not wiling to take as fact but not the essential point of this particular post) had just been at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have been able to stop Eve from eating the fruit and, thus, kept all of humanity from the fall?  Is that what he means by “Man Fail?”

If so, I have to say – REALLY?!

Really, you believe, Mr. Strachan, that one man could have saved all of humanity because he was simply another gender?  Really?!

Really, you believe, Mr. Strachan, that it was because Adam didn’t “protect” Eve that she took a bite of the fruit? Somehow, if he had been there, he would have been able to keep Eve from doing that which she most wanted to do – have knowledge?  Really?!

Really, you believe, Mr. Strachan, that it was Eve’s gender that caused The Fall, not something inherent in humanity, not something about how God designed humanity so that we could respond to God with free will?  Really?!  It was because Eve was a girl?

Honestly, I’ve never had to defend Eve before,  because I don’t think she was an actual person and because Eve made a choice (actual or figurative – it doesn’t really matter) that broke humanity in a way that we still causing pain out today.   But in this case, I feel compelled to defend her as I speak up for all women.  No matter what our view of gender roles – complementarian, egalitarian, non-gendered, etc. – it seems so arrogant to me that anyone would assert that if just one person intervened, and if they intervened because of their gender, that all of humanity would be whole and healthy and healed.  I just can’t accept that.

I also can’t accept that simply because Eve was a woman she was too weak to withstand temptation.  Do we really think God would create a being so flawed in an essential element of her nature that she could not be strong enough to resist?  I just won’t buy that.

So in addition to just disagreeing fundamentally with Mr. Strachan, I find him insulting and arrogant.  I’m sure this wasn’t his intention, but perhaps that is more appalling – that this kind of thinking can just slip out.

That said, please know that writing – particularly blogging regularly – often teaches us what we didn’t know we thought, and I expect this may be the case with Mr. Strachan.  I respect the courage it takes to put ideas that others might not agree with, and as I said, I love heated discussions because they often reveal flaws in my own thinking and teach me something new.

So I invite you to discuss with heat or coolness if you will.  Let’s talk.

What do you think about gender roles?  What does the Bible teach you about them? What do you think of Mr. Strachan’s statement?


5 responses to “Could Men Have Prevented the Fall? Somehow I Doubt It.

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You mis-spelled complementarianism. I know its a hard word to spell right, but when you use it as a tag and then comment on a subject as difficult and complex as this, not spelling it right doesn’t help convince anyone that you are an authority on the subject. Furthermore, equating sexism to complementarianism is a fairly kneejerk reaction, imho.

    • Derek, thank you so much for taking the time to reply and for that helpful correction to my spelling. That was a significant oversight on my part.

      I am not by any means claiming expertise on the subject, but I do read Scripture differently than Mr.Strachan.

      I also was not intending to equate complementarianisn with sexism, but this particular comment did read as sexist to me.

      I would love to hear your views on any if these ideas. Hard conversation is so important to the Body.

      Thanks again for reading.

  2. Well, I know spelling is absolutely crucial in any discussion of ideas but here’s my two cents, I think its sexist also. Maybe it is knee jerk of me but when I read that I thought this guy is only a step up from the people in Saudi Arabia that beat their women for driving. Can a biblical argument for it be made for it? Sure. Can a biblical argument be made for owning slaves? There’s an outline of how to treat them so I guess so. That doesn’t make it any less abhorrent but sure. Picking parts of the bible that agree with what you probably already believe is easy. Its also a good way to create God in your own image.

    • Thanks for weighing in, Jon. I know that most people who hold to complementarianism see a cohesive case for it in Scripture. The challenge is that many people, like me, also see a cohesive case for egalitarianism in Scripture. It’s discussions like these that helps us work through these ideas, I think.

  3. Pingback: Why I Cannot Agree with Complementarianism « Gray Hair and Acne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: