Response to "Was the Headship of Men Over Their Wives Inbuilt in Creation?"

        I must admit I was excited to read and reply to this post. The reason is that, ironically, a large portion of Lori's posts don't discuss and engage with what the Bible teaches. It's still worth rebutting those other posts, but my main desire in countering Lori's teachings is to set the record straight and show that the Bible actually is not sexist, as Lori believes. This is one of the more rare posts that gives me a chance to do so. 

       The first half of the blog is all about a story she read about a man and his wife who never set out to have a patriarchal marriage, but in the end felt that their marriage had naturally settled into an arrangement in which he was the "head" of his wife. She spends quite a bit of time on this, which is odd, since all it proves is that for this particular couple, the husband was a more natural leader. This is not unusual; I can think of many couples like this, as well as many for which the wife is a more natural leader. Each couple can do marriage however they like. She can't possibly think that one example of a couple in which the husband naturally took the lead is any sort of evidence for the universality of her views. Then again, she actually may believe that!

       The second half of the blog is more interesting. She follows up the story with this mess of a paragraph: 

  Was the headship of a husband over his husband inbuilt in the Creation? Children know their fathers are the head of the family even if their wives don’t acknowledge this. How do I know? If a child has a godly father, the chances of the children growing up to be believers is extremely high. If a child has a godly mother only, the chances of the children growing up to be believers is low.

No, the headship of the husband was not inbuilt in creation, and we'll get into more on that later. For now, it proves nothing if children "know" their fathers are the "head of the family. Of course, she has no basis to even make that statement in the first place (has she really conducted a survey, or is she just assuming whatever she wants). But it's no mystery that a child of parents who have this belief (or at least the husband has this belief) would notice. Children are very perceptive. But this in no way proves it to be innate. Things would look exactly the same if it were culturally based - which it is. 

       She then makes the claim (it's not the first time) that a child with only a godly father has much more chances of growing up to be a Christian over a child with only a godly mother. I find it interesting that she could think such a thing while simultaneously believing that women should primarily be responsible for the religious teaching of the children and that a father who is almost entirely uninvolved besides going to work is the ideal. But, let's not slip past the fact that, as usual, she provides no evidence or sources. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and tried to find a study or article, anything to support that claim. I couldn't find anything. On the other hand, I did find these three articles (two of them Christian sources) saying that mothers have more spiritual influence on kids than fathers: 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/its-the-moms-who-get-kids-to-church/505310/

https://www.barna.com/research/moms-christians-households/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/mothers-contribute-more-kids-spiritual-growth-than-fathers-barna-study.html

Maybe someone who doesn't mind spending their time on pointless activities should send these to Lori! I should mention, of course, that this doesn't mean fathers can't have similar influence, or shouldn't. However, I suspect that the primitive gender roles that Lori pushes are a major factor contributing to this! 

      Anyway, back to the blog:

Children can see that their fathers are generally bigger, stronger, and with louder, deeper voices than their mothers. This is inbuilt from Creation.

She's made this point before, and it's rather disturbing. How does having a louder, deeper voice qualify one to be a leader? It has nothing to do with it, so it's an absurd point. And if a woman came along with a loud, deep voice, I certainly doubt Lori would suggest she should be in charge. And the fact that she thinks being stronger and bigger is concerning. A good leader does not lead by coercion, and therefore muscle ought to have nothing to do with it. A good leader leads by example, by motivating others to action and recognizing their strengths so they can encourage them in the best direction. Lori's idea of a leader sounds more like a bully or control freak. What a surprise! 

Yes, women will effectively deny all of this because they have been taught that authority by their husbands is oppression, yet they trot off to work each day to be under authority of their bosses, and they obey the speed limit since they are under the authority of the government, yet forget being under the authority of the one they chose to love all of their days.

See how crafty she is? She attempts to frame it as if women deny biological facts, which is blatantly dishonest. Nobody denies that men (generally) have lower voices; what they deny is that voice pitch is a qualification for being a leader! The same goes for other attributes such as size or strength. 

       Going to work and being under the authority of a boss is entirely different, because it is voluntary, it is limited in scope (a boss doesn't have control of every aspect of his/her employee's life), and it is based on the fact that the boss has earned that position (rather than a husband getting to be leader without needing to prove anything except that he is male). Obeying speed limits is, similarly, entirely different. We all choose to do this for the safety of ourselves and other drivers. This is very different from elevating the will of one flawed human being to the level of the will of God Himself. And the authority of the government is based on the will of the people, ultimately; Lori's view of a husband's authority much more closely resembles a monarchy from biblical times, or perhaps the dictatorships of more recent times. 

Satan convinced Eve that authority to God was evil, and he went to her instead of to Adam for a good reason. This is how he was able to deceive her and have her eat the forbidden fruit.

Yes, Lori believes there was actually a fruit and a talking snake. I don't mean to criticize Christians who believe this, as there are many, though I myself feel it makes much more sense (based on the literary genre and writing styles of the time) that it was a metaphor, and I think it has a much deeper and richer meaning that way than if it were taken literally. One problem with reading it as a historical account is that some people get hung up over the fact that the snake went to Eve first, assuming this must have some deep meaning regarding the ability of women to resist temptation. If the story didn't literally happen, that point is moot. But let's assume for a moment that it did: does this imply a weakness of women, or the authority of men? Hardly. Notice how the snake had to craftily trick Eve into eating the fruit, whereas all it took for Adam was for her to hand it to him. He didn't resist at all. Thus, if the story is taken literally, it seems to paint women in a superior light! 

Yes, the headship of husbands over their wives was inbuilt from Creation since the purpose for God creating Eve was to be a help meet to her husband. This is God-ordained and it is good. For those who want to argue that being a helpmeet didn’t mean that Adam was in authority, oh yes, it did. In 1 Timothy 2:13, was are told that one of the reasons that women are not to usurp authority over men nor teach them was because Adam was created first. God made him first and had Adam name all of the animals.

Notice her snotty tone? I suppose we must give Lori credit for actually attempting to engage with the arguments of her critics. That doesn't mean she does it well, however. Taking her points in order: the Hebrew term for help meet, "ezer kenegdo", did not mean a servant or subordinate of any kind. Most of the times it was used in the Old Testament were to refer to God when He came to the rescue of the armies of Israel. Using Lori's sort of logic, it would not be difficult to argue that women must be the leaders of men, since the same word that is used for God is used to describe women! Of course, those of us on this side of the argument know better, but it shows how simplistic Lori's reasoning is. 

       Next, we must point out that there is simply no indication in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve implying male authority. This idea must be assumed prior to reading Genesis at all, and then shoved in awkwardly. Needless to say, this method could be used to prove just about anything has biblical support. 

       She presents 1 Timothy 2:13 as her proof, where it says "For Adam was formed first, then Eve", as if that settles everything. But we must be aware that Paul wrote to Timothy primarily to correct false teaching spreading around the early church, and Timothy was combating the ideas of a cult that elevated women above men (which is as much of a problem as elevating men above women). This cult taught that Eve was created first in the story, so Paul was correcting them. He could not have been presenting this as a reason that men rule over women, because Adam being formed first is not a reason for this! If it were, the animals would be the ruler over Adam, because they were created even earlier! This is the laziest sort of attempt at biblical interpretation, and one that is certain to "just happen" to confirm what the reader already believes. 

Adam was in authority over her, and this is why women are to “learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Timothy 2:11) in the churches. It hearkens all the way back to Creation and has nothing to do with cultural norms.

It's no use. No matter what, Lori stubbornly clings to her preferred interpretation that the command to the women to be quiet was not cultural, but for all women for all time. So I'll leave it up to you: between the following: 

Option 1: One women thousands of years ago chose to eat a fruit she was not supposed to eat, and therefore all subsequent women are stained and therefore forbidden from holding positions of leadership, teaching men, or even speaking in a church setting. This stain is so great, not even Jesus' redemptive power can overcome it. 

Or, 

Option 2: The women in the 1st century generally were not allowed to engage in public meetings and did not know how to act in public. Therefore, Paul instructed them not to have conversations during the church service (which is why among the 30 or so Greek words that mean to speak, he chose the one that simply means "talk" or "converse"). This verse has nothing to do with forbidding women to speak because they're women, but about order in the church service. Men would also be forbidding from having conversations during the church service, but they simply did not need to be told because they already knew how to act in public due to their greater freedom in that culture. 

Which of these sounds more plausible to you? 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/was-the-headship-of-men-over-their-wives-inbuilt-in-creation/