In class on Monday we compared the Complimentarian and Egalitarian views of Genesis 3. It seemed that the Complimentarian view was portrayed as the wrong way to asses the meaning of this passage and the Egalitarian view as the right way. I’m not sure I am completely ready to look at it this way. I think it depends on your definition of the two ways of analyzing this passage and in what light they are expressed. Arguments made for the Complementarian view are, the serpent went to Eve because she was weaker, God addresses Adam and not Eve in questioning, and Adam blames Eve possibly as a result of having a different nature. The Egalitarian view points out that Adam does not lead when he has the opportunity, Adam does not try to assume ownership of Eve, and they both had the same rule to not eat the forbidden fruit. My main problem with the Egalitarian argument is that “Adam does not lead when he has the opportunity,” which therefore means that he is obviously not the leader in the relationship and that Adam and Eve embody the same roles equally. I think it is possible that Adam’s lack of leadership was an aspect of the fall. We can all agree that he did not stand up for what he knew was right. I feel that just because Adam did not assume the leadership role in this example does not mean that it was not his responsibility. If the dynamic between man and woman was that he was supposed to be the leader in the relationship (not in an oppressive “I am better than you” way, but in a difference in the roles of men and women) then by Adam not assuming that position, humanity fell. This is exactly what happened. Eve sinned by taking the fruit that she knew was forbidden by God and Adam sinned by not leading his wife out of temptation but by taking part in this act against God with her.
No comments:
Post a Comment