What is the "Order of Creation"?
That term has been used to describe a variety of doctrines. Before the 20th century, authors including John Calvin used this term to describe natural systems such as seasons and societal systems such as government and family life. Since World War II, this phrase has taken on new meaning. Some people have come to view the "Order of Creation" as a chain of authority implicit in certain stages of God's creation. Specifically, they view the creation of 'adam as being the creation of a male being, from whom woman was formed, to be an explicit order of authority for marriage, and often all male-female relationships.

There are several problems with this understanding, however. First, while Adam can be a proper noun or male human being, the word literally means "groundling" or "earthling", which includes all human beings. The Bible specifically explains this concept to us in Genesis 1:27, which reads, "So God created humankind ('adam) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." The specific word for a male human being is 'ish, while for a female human being is 'ishshah. Through out chapter 1 and 2:7-23.

Additionally, commentators who present "Order of Creation" gender doctrines do not consistently apply this equation of "first created" with priority of authority. Animals were created before human beings, yet no one claims animals have authority or leadership over human beings. In fact, if such a priority of creation were valid, God Himself violated the rule--He gave humans authority over the animals. God violated this "rule" many times throughout the Bible. The earth does not have authority over stars or light. Joseph was the youngest son, yet he came to have authority over his brothers. David was the youngest, but he ruled over his brothers. Leah was the oldest sister, but Rachel had more power in the relationship.

Finally, often claims are made to the "plain reading of the text" to support such "creation order" teachings. Unfortunately, when we make those types of claims, we are required to limit ourselves to the text (which, I prefer). This means the Bible must state the principle we claim is the "plain reading". For instance we know God loved us to the point of sending Jesus. How do we know this is "plain reading of the text"? Because John 3:16 specifically gives us this information. In dealing with a "creation order", we find just the opposite. Not once does the Bible state "first made, first priority". Nor does the Bible state that Adam had dominion over Eve in the creation. The only reference to dominion or authority in the creation story is the authority given human beings over "the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." Should we truly limit ourselves to the text, we will immediately discover the "point" of Genesis chapter 2 (a point both Jesus and Paul re-stated). This entire account leads to one point, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

But woman was made from man's rib. Doesn't that mean she is inferior?
The word translated "rib" in Gen 2:21-22 is "tsela`" . In every other usage in the Bible (and elsewhere), the word means "side". The concept of rib was introduced in rabbinical teachings which sought to explain women's inferiority.

Paul wrote that woman was created "for man", doesn't that mean she is supposed to do what he wants?
Paul does write, "Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels." Clearly, woman's creation benefited man in some way. Or we could rephrase the concept--man needed woman. To discover exactly what she was created to do for the sake of man, we need to look in Genesis 2:18. "Then the LORD God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper has his partner." 'Adam was alone. God brought the animals before 'adam. "The man gave name to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper as his partner" (2:19). The creatures over which 'adam has been given dominion were brought before 'adam, yet none could be his partner, none could alleviate his loneliness. Therefore God made woman. We should also note that instead of just providing woman, God gave 'Adam time to realize his own loneliness. God allowed Adam to understand the need of a partner before forming that partner.

Helpers are subordinate, aren't they?
Not necessarily, in fact, not at all in the biblical usage of the word. The nuance of "helper" in English varies according to region. Where I live, there is no indication of subordination, however where a friend of mine lives, helper always means "subordinate". That said, the Bible wasn't written in English, not even the good old KJ English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew (then later translated into Greek). The Hebrew word translated here as "helper" is 'ezer. 'Ezer is used 21 times in the Hebrew Bible. Nineteen times it is used to describe God. I believe we would agree God is not subordinate to us, even though He is our helper. Yet, the comparison of that usage can not be taken too far. Woman is not God, and is no more in God's image than man. 'Ezer is modified by the Hebrew word 'kenegdo". 'kenegdo limits the type of helper Woman would be. Did it make her inferior or less authoritative? No. kenegdo limits her to an 'ezer "corresponding to" 'adam. Eve was like Adam. Adam himself identities this "likeness". "Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishshah), for out of Man (ish) this one was taken'" (Genesis 2:23). Again, no reference to subordination, inferiority or even authority can be derived from the word.

Eve was deceived, doesn't that show women are not supposed to lead men?
No, it doesn't. Paul wrote, "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived , but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Timothy 2:11-14). Before we look further, re-read these verses. You should notice "something" does not make sense. Have you found it? Eve was deceived; Adam was not deceived. Eve sinned because she was deceived; Adam sinned knowingly. As Christians, we know that sinning with full knowledge is open rebellion, which compounds the sin. Can Paul's message truly be that someone knowingly committing sin against his God is a better teacher than someone who is deceived into sin? Clearly, that isn't Paul's message.

Next we have to face the "meaning" problem of this passage. For instance, several words in this passage are unclear. Even in English we can discern a few of the these problems. Woman is not to teach, but what is the object and who is the indirect object? Is she not to teach baseball? Spiritual issues? Who is she not to teach? The church? Men? Women? Children? Each of these options is discredited in other sections of the Bible. Could it be an issue of "what" is taught? Perhaps. Baseball had not been invented yet, but....Seriously, we can eliminate spiritual issues from the list of possibilities. Colossians 3:16 specifically tells us, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual song to God." Some might suggest women were simply unable to give "authoritative" teaching (though that kenned is supposed to mean is anyone's guess). If "authoritative teaching" means to teach from acquired knowledge compared with "Spirit gifted" known, then we know this is not what Paul meant. Hebrews 5:11-14 says "About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil." The author of Hebrews assumed Christians would learn, then become teachers. Also the case of Huldah would exclude the "authoritative teaching" assumption. Huldah instructed a king on the Scriptures. If we change our focus to the "who" instead of the "what" we still face several challenges.

For instance, 1 Corinthians 14:26 specifically tells us, "What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." This specifically refers to a "church" service, when believers "come together". At one time, researchers assumed men and woman worshipped separately. Archaeological evidence has disproved this notion. "Coming together" would include both men and women (as the Bible itself suggests). Further, Paul expected women to prophesy ("But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as shaving her head" 1 Corinthians 11:5). Prophesying is teaching as 1 Corinthians 14:31 advises, "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged." More, while prophesying is a gift of the spirit, it is still under the control of the prophet ("And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets" 1 Corinthians 14:32). This means those prophesying are not in some sort of trance, with their minds disengaged. Finally, we also know the indirect object of the command can not be men for Acts 18:26 explains, "He [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately." (While some of claimed Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos home before instructing him, the Bible does not support such a claim.) We are also advised that Timothy's mother and grandmother instructed him, though at what age this ends we are not told (2 Timothy 1:5, 3:15). Mothers are instructed to teach their children in the OT (Deuteronomy 6:4-7; Deuteronomy 11:19).

Recent work on the Greek language may offer a better understanding of what Paul was really saying in this passage. First, we might look at the "where" of this passage. Many commentators have assumed must be an "in church" situation. Nothing in the passage itself suggests this (as J.M. Holmes pointed out in Text in a Whirlwind), more such an assumption assumes a separate of sacred and secular from modern society can be applied to ancient Ephesus. That said, we should consider whether this is an instruction that applies to all circumstances. If this is the case, and we assume the traditional interpretation of the passage, we find the Bible contradicts itself. Next, we need to notice how the passage begins. "A woman should learn" is the literal translation. Women should be learning, which as we have seen the author assumes will lead to teaching. She is to be quiet and in full submission as she learns. Being quiet while learning was (and is) typical. A woman was also to be in "full submission" while she learned. Because the sentence in Greek does not have an object, the submission must be to what is taught not to anyone else (Holmes 2000, p. 76). Then Paul says he does not allow a woman to teach--he does not say what or who--and he does not allow them to have some sort of authority over a man (incidentally, even if one did take a more traditional view, this could not prevent a woman leading a congregation or group. She is not to have authority over a man--singular). The word used for authority can have a range of meanings from simply (and positive) authority to domineering to false authority, even to murder. What is not reflected in most translations, however, is the "aspect" of Paul's word choice. Both the words for teaching and the word for authority (whether positive or negative) are continuous. This means he is saying, "I do not permit a woman to continually teach nor continually have authority (whether positive or negative) of a man" (J.M. Holmes 2000, p. 92). In other words, Paul doesn't let a woman be bossy; just as men weren't to be bossy either.

Aren't you just ignoring the "plain" reading of the text?
No. Very rarely is there a "plain" meaning to a Biblical text. We wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to guide us if the Bible was "plain". We are finite beings striving to know an infinite God. If even Peter said he had difficulty understanding what Paul wrote, can we truthfully claim to know more than he? Second, most of us are studying books written in either Hebrew or Koine ("everyday" ) Ancient Greek in English translation. This means, the original text is being filtered through another human being's understanding and judgment. Many of bible translators are good Spirit-led people, yet I know of none who would claim infallibility. Nor do I know anyone who can completely step outside their own experience and understanding to convey the message of God without error. David was a good Spirit-led man, but sometimes he misunderstood God's message. Also, the Bible shows us, that many times when we have a message from the Lord, we subtilely alter it when we repeat it. For those of us who can read Hebrew and Greek, the fact these are ancient languages poses a problem. The Hebrew spoken in Israel today is not the Hebrew of the Old Testament, neither is the Greek of modern Greece the language of the New Testament. For example, what does "bible" mean? What is a "biheeste"?These are an examples of early English. "Bible" meant book, while "biheeste" is a promise. You read English, did you understand? Certainly scholars strive to study the language of the period, yet unlike spoken modern languages we no longer have "native speakers". We can't run to someone and say, "I know a boulder is a rock, but is it a big rock, a small rock or a piece of sand?" Bible translators and scholars spend years considering, debating, arguing over the meaning of single words. In fact, if you are using a good Bible complete with footnotes you will discover how many words have alternate translations or unknown meanings.

But your base all this on one verse, Galatians 3:28. Are you ignoring the rest of the Bible?
Many people who share my views do base their understanding on Galatians 3:28; however, I do not. My understanding is primarily based on knowing the Father, being lead by His Spirit and wanting to be like Jesus. You see, because I have climbed into my Father's lap for a hug, I know my Father's heart. He does not see me as inferior, whether that is ontologically or functionally. Because I am lead by His Spirit, I see that God is Light. If someone tells me something is from God, and it hurts people, then I know there is no darkness in my God, and what they say is wrong. Because I want to be like Jesus, I study the Bible, the whole Bible. I know that God doesn't show partiality. I know that I am a "son of God", given all the rights and privileges thereof. I know I have been conformed to the image of Christ. I know I am one with my brothers and sisters. I know I am a royal priest, who is directly guided by the Spirit (no middlemen need apply!).

More the Bible, gives me this information:
Authority in marriage: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his body, but the wife does" (1 Cor. 7:4)

Decision making in marriage: "Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control" (1 Cor. 7:5)

Ministry and gifting in the church: "But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ's gift....The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work ministry, for building up he body of Christ until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ" (Ephesians 4:7, 11-13)

But isn't the husband the spiritual "covering" of the wife?
No. Some of the newer paraphrases or single translator translations can lead to this misunderstanding. The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:4-10, and the problem verse is 10. The literal translation from the Greek would be "But for this reason a woman ought to have authority on her head." This "excousia" is her authority on her own head. As in every other usage of this sentence construction, this would mean the woman possesses the authority. Unless, as some commentator do, we assume head is a reference to the man, which case she would have authority over man. However, the passage is about what to wear and not wear on the head while praying and prophesying, which would hint that head here is her own head. However, many modern translations have added to the text, specifically that she would have a "sign of her husband's authority" on her head. Unfortunately, from this addition has developed a teaching even further from the text. Apparently, according to this "covering teaching", a woman's ministry is under the authority of her husband. Of course, this passage (nor any other) does not include such a concept. Authority to minister always comes directly from Jesus, not through a middleman.

This "covering" concept has, somehow, even been extended beyond marriage. In many churches, the "sub" ministries of the church are considered to be "under the covering" of the pastor. In other words, the authority to minister rests in the pastor, not in the Spirit who gifts individuals for the ministry. Such teaches are not in accordance with the Bible, which stresses that we are to be Spirit-led, not human lead.

Yes, but the wife is told to submit to her husband.
Yes, she is. However, we need to be careful on two issues. One, in Christian submission, our yielding is not based on the one to whom we submit having authority over us. Christian submission is based on our relationship with Christ; more it is based on His authority over us, which enables us to submit. All Christians are called to submit to all Christians. ("Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ", Ephesians 5:21; "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your won interests, but to the interests of others", Philippians 2:2.) In fact, Jesus showed us how to submit when He knelt before the disciples and washed their feet. The disciples held no authority over our Savior, yet Jesus still submitted to them. To understand the impact of that story, we need to remember that this was the chore of a slave. Second, we need to be careful not to take the instructions to wives out of context. Each passage includes the mutual giving of believers or instructions on how to live as Christians in non-Christian societies.

In fact, despite what many imagine, egalitarians do not have a problem with submission. If we truly want to be like Christ we have to submit to our brothers and sisters in the Lord. More, if we are truly Christians, we have been given the freedom to submit. Christian submission is a result of liberty not of bondage or legalism. Jesus gave up being like God to come to us. Instead of being our ruler, He chose to come as a peasant, who associated with the lowest classes of society. He even said we were no longer servants but friends. He gave up authority, He didn't use His authority over us. More, the One who had all authority, yielded to the authority of humans. He allowed the man made authority of human governments and religious organizations to judge Him. He allows us to judge whether we will receive Him or not. To submit is to be Christ-like (and not a doormat).

But aren't most of the women in the Bible home-makers who obeyed their husbands?
No. In fact, we don't even know if some of the women in the Bible were married. Was Miriam married? Did she have children? What about the Queen of Sheba? What about the slave girl who helped David? Was Mary Magdalene married? Did she have children? Did any of these women work in the home? Did Mary or Martha ever marry and have children? Joanna was married, but she spent her time following Jesus around the country.

What about the obedience part? Well, Sarah obeyed Abraham, at least sometimes; at others she commanded him. More God said, "Whatever Sarah says to you, do as he tells you" (Genesis 21:12b). Abigail did not obey Nabal (1 Samuel 25). Rachel did not obey Jacob. Rebekah taught her son how to trick her husband.

The Bible gives us a wide range of women role-models. Just like the men of the Bible, the women reflected a myriad of personalities and ministries. Anyone claiming the women of the Bible were "this or that" has not read the Bible.

But this is all some feminist agenda, right?
In a way, yes. At its core feminism is about giving women opportunities and dignity .The same thing Jesus calls us to do. Yet in another way, it is not feminism. Feminism is a late 19th century movement. However, calls for equality in the church have been voiced since the 13th century--and before! More feminism began inside the church. Quaker and evangelical men and women lead the feminist movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Finally, some Christians have rejected "dangerous feminism" because Western society in general has begun to support women. If we applied the same reasoning to, say, charity, we would have to decide not to give to the needy. After all, non-Christian society also gives to the needy, which means philanthropy is now a secular activity.

But won't this lead to homosexuality, abortion and the degradation of society?
Ah, no. Calm down, don't panic.

First, we need to remember that we do not have to be afraid. Too often we respond from fear, when we are supposed to be children of peace. We do not have to be afraid to follow God's instructions.

Next, homosexual behavior is sinful. The Bible specifically labels such actions, just as it labels sex before marriage sin, adultery sin, lying sin, drunkenness sin. Yet, behavior is not a person. Our Master loves people who have sex before marriage, He loves people who commit adultery, He loves people who lie, He loves people who get drunk and He loves people who do homosexual acts----and what our Master does, we must do also. Love does not mean "oh, do what you wish" nor does it mean condemning people.

Abortion is wrong. We can feel for the women driven to this point, and will help them recover from the experience. It is a "women's issue", but not a "pro choice issue". Our society should be educating and protecting women and protecting children-whether born or unborn.

Our societies are products of the Fall--they will never be "redeemed" institutions until the Lord comes back. The great perils our societies face today have been problems in society since the Fall. Rape, abortion, dysfunctional families, murder....they have always been a part of society, a fact we can see in the Bible. Instead of looking for some halcyon time that has never existed, we need to stop condemning the world for being the world, and start spreading the Good News.