Becoming an Ezer Kenegdo

You know those movies that everyone can’t help but love, the ones that someone might turn on at home and the whole family ends up on the couch by the end, drawn into the story? Little Women is one such story for me. My youngest sister and I were recently home sick and looking for a movie compromise (hard to do when I’m seventeen and she’s only nine). We finally landed on Little Women, although she assured me that she absolutely, positively would not like it. Our other siblings came home about halfway through, and my brother scoffed when we told him what we were watching. Yet sure enough, by the time the end credits rolled around, everyone, my brother included, was on the couch, fully invested in the story of the March sisters. What makes this movie, this story, so impactful?

Little Women is the endearing story of four sisters - Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy - and their gradual journeys from childhood to womanhood. Taking place during the Civil War, women were still largely regarded as second-class citizens, lacking the ability to vote or make a life for themselves without getting married. As the audience lives through each March sister and her own unique struggles, we are invited to wrestle with Jo in her frustration of not being taken seriously as an aspiring author because she is a woman. In a moving scene that brings me to tears every time I watch it, Jo reveals her inner turmoil to Marmee: “Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they've got ambition, and they've got talent, as well as just beauty. I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for. I'm so sick of it. But… I’m so lonely.”

This line has stuck with me over the years because of its raw, unfiltered honesty, but also because of the solid truth behind it. It reveals the reality that the cultural feminist narrative promises to satisfy, but it leaves us all coming up empty every time. Although this story was set in the 1860s, I think that, as women, we can all relate to Jo March in some way. We have this insatiable desire to prove ourselves, to do it all on our own without having to rely on others to do it for us. When we express a desire to get married or be a stay-at-home mom, we are blasted from all sides by cultural lies that tell us that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to “just” being a mom or wife. Why do we live in a culture that questions the God-given, innate design of a woman to want to fulfill her beautiful role of mother and helper?

Our culture continues to perpetuate this lie that says women are above men, that men are not “needed” in society, and that men and women are equal in everything. We are told that being a stay-at-home mom is a sign of weakness, that women are capable of doing anything a man can do and more, yet are surprised when we come up completely and totally unsatisfied every time. We were all designed to be in relationship with God and with others. As Jo comes to learn, relying on others does not make her weak; in fact, she flourishes because of it. As she enters into marriage with Friedrich Bhaer, the two open up a school for boys, impacting the next generation together, each relying on the respective strengths of the other. If we learn to reject the cultural lies of egalitarianism and competition between men and women, we would begin to effectively live out God’s design.

God created the first man and woman intentionally, each to be the complement of the other. When Adam and Eve fell into sin, God’s beautiful design was distorted. As sin entered the world, the first thing to be corrupted was the relationship between God and man, and the marriage between Adam and Eve. We are now living in the repercussions of the fall, its implications most evident in the broken way we look at what it truly means to be a woman, and what our relationship with men should look like. A Biblical woman, an ezer kenegdo, steps gracefully into her God-ordained role as helper, leader, and image bearer according to her biology and unique giftings. Biblical men and women are called to work together in their complementary ways in order to fulfill their joint calling of advancing God’s Kingdom.

History – How Did We Get Here?

The term “feminism” has evolved over time, making a gradual shift from a historical movement to a political, social, and almost religious ideology. To best understand this movement, we should start with Mary Wollstonecraft, arguably the first true “feminist.” The second oldest in a family of seven, Wollstonecraft was the daughter of an abusive and alcoholic farmer who gambled their family’s money away. From a young age, Mary learned to defend her mother and younger siblings, ultimately taking over much of the homemaking responsibility. She wrestled with the pressure that came from the enormous responsibility of saving her family and eventually left home at age seventeen, learning how to survive on her own. Witnessing her father’s abusive nature towards her seemingly powerless mother stoked a fire in Mary’s passion to fight for equality among men and women. It provided the push that she needed in order to fully dedicate her life to fighting and advocating for women’s rights (Bestmann).

Wollstonecraft lived in a time in which women were educated solely for submission in marriage. As a result, marriage was based on superficiality, as men looked for beautiful and submissive homemakers, and women looked for a decent man that would take care of and provide for them. Unfortunately, entering into a marriage based on shallow characteristics or even more practical reasons does not provide a good basis for a healthy relationship. Women were often taken advantage of, and men quickly tired of their wives because of their eventual loss of attraction toward them. As women were merely educated to be a “good wife,” they lacked true education, appearing “child-like,” and relying on men to take care of them, and men in turn grew bored with this responsibility. This created a vicious cycle, and Mary felt strongly that she should help try to break it. She knew that women were capable of more than just homemaking, although she highly supported marriage and family. Her goal behind reforming society was not to lessen the importance of homemaking and motherhood, but to elevate women’s view of themselves and society’s attitude towards women. Mary was for both men and women, believing whole-heartedly in family being the foundation of a healthy society. She emphasized the importance of interdependence, that men and women are mutually dependent on each other, and that it is a beautiful thing, not a hindrance. Because of her strong convictions, Mary turned to education as the primary means in which to initiate change. She advocated for educating the whole person, not just for men, but women too (“Mary Wollstonecraft: A Champion for…”).

Fast forward a few decades to the Industrial Revolution, a time in which the “religion” of feminism first began to develop and people began to move away from Wollstonecraft’s ideas. One major cultural event that took place during this time was the Sacred-Secular Split. This movement emphasized the complete separation of the sacred, “private sphere,” (focused on values) from the secular, “public sphere,” (focused on the facts). As women were traditionally in the homes more than men, they quickly became the symbol of the private sphere, and therefore came to be seen as morally “good.” Since we exist in a society that enjoys putting people into binary categories, men began to be viewed as “bad.” The home was idealized, and women were seen as its “moral guardians,” leading to their criticism of men becoming harsh and self-righteous (Pearcey).

The role of a mother was romanticized at this time, as women became known as “the angel in the house.” In other words, since the Industrial Revolution took away their “real” work of spinning thread, making clothes, and canning food, they were able to focus fully on their “labors of love,” a role that was highly sanctified. The addition and invention of machines during this time took away many of their homemaking responsibilities, allowing them to be more available to develop relationships. Interestingly enough, the depiction of angels also shifted during the Industrial Revolution. Until the 1790s, angels had always been portrayed as masculine, wearing armour and fighting in battle, lining up with Biblical accounts of angels saying: “Do not be afraid!” However, angels were now seen as soft, delicate, gentle women tending to children (Pearcey).

Stemming from these changes, women began to be seen as “morally superior” to men. This in and of itself shows a shocking change of perception: the Industrial Revolution dramatically reversed traditional roles of men and women. Before the Industrial Revolution, virtue was considered to be a masculine trait. Women were more prone to feel things (and were therefore more in tune with their bodies), which countered ancient philosophies, such as Platonism and Gnosticism, that claimed our physical bodies are evil and should be escaped if possible. Women were also believed to have insatiable lustful desires and required male authority in the home to be controlled (Pearcey).

It was the Romantic Movement, however, that put greater emphasis on emotion and paved the way for the idea of female superiority. As women had always been seen as the more “emotional” beings, men began to defer to them in matters of morality and spirituality within the home. This shift had two consequences. First, women were placed upon a “proverbial pedestal,” which goes directly against God’s design. Second, men were all of the sudden “off the hook” in moral and spiritual matters. Coupling with the severe Sacred-Secular Split, women were seen as “holy” compared to their “worldly” husbands. This was also made evident in the First and Second Great Awakenings. These movements focused less on logic and made religion more of an emotional appeal, which was especially attractive to women. As women began to far outnumber men in church attendance in the more emotionally charged environments, religion began to be seen as “feminine.” Sarah Hale, a prominent female author at the time, even wrote: “To bring about the true Christian civilization, the men must become more like women and the women more like angels” (Pearcey).

Following the Romantic Movement, other philosophies began to arise that ultimately fueled the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Although there are countless men and women whose ideas played a role in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this paper will focus primarily on those of G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. Hegel was an idealist whose beliefs heavily impacted Marx and the philosophy of Marxism. He believed that one’s self-consciousness changes over time, which is influenced by sharing ideas and interactions with others. As we interact with others and their interpretations of their own self-consciousness, we are impacted and continue to evolve over time. In other words, Hegel “saw true, full human nature as something emerging over time, as something to be realized by a historical process that would terminate at some point in the future” (Trueman 53). Hegel’s philosophy of the evolution of one’s self-consciousness over time primed society for the rapid ideological changes that ultimately led to the development of modern day feminism.

Karl Marx was a materialist, which primarily means two things: first, the physical world is all that exists, leaving no room for God, religion, or established moral order. Second, the material aspects of life (specifically the economy) are what drive relationships between people and their perception of reality. He believed that religion is a crutch for the weak and a social construction meant to oppress society, that freedom could only come after its abolishment. Naturally, under Marx’s view, everything becomes political and a “potential arena of political conflict” (Trueman 59).

Friedrich Nietzsche’s infamous statement found in his parable of the madman, “God is dead,” perfectly encapsulates his philosophy. Nietzsche argues that God has not become irrelevant over time; rather, as an Enlightened society, we have denied His existence and He is therefore no longer relevant. If we follow this conclusion to its logical end, then “the death of God is also the death of human nature” (Trueman 62). This means that there is no absolute moral standard for us as His image bearers to submit to, as we are our ultimate authority. Nietzsche’s view on morality can be summed up in this way: “Freed from the burden of being creatures of God, human beings must rise to the challenge of self-creation, of being whoever they choose to be” (63).

Sigmund Freud’s ideology directly preceded the Sexual Revolution. Following the destruction of the traditional view of morality that Marx and Nietzsche began, the question of human happiness became of utmost importance. Freud defined happiness as “seeking pleasure and avoiding pain,” believing that sex brings the most satisfaction (Trueman 73). If sex is foundational to human happiness, then we can understand humanity as primarily defined by sex and sexual pleasure. In answer to the question of why society places so many restrictions on sexual behavior, Freud claimed that “civilized man has exchanged a portion of his possibilities of happiness for a portion of security” (77). In other words, societal and cultural norms (religion and morality) have to exist in order to keep society civilized.

The rising philosophies of G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud paved the way for the Sexual Revolution and its relationship with feminism. Trueman broadly defines the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s as “challenging the very nature and legitimacy of sexual codes in themselves” (84). This was seen most drastically in the decline of the value of modesty and the “freedom” that came from the invention of the contraceptive pill, accessibility of digital pornography, and popularization of recreational sex. Suddenly, men and women were “free” to do and act in whatever way they wanted, without considering the consequence of becoming pregnant or fear of society’s disapproval.

The normalization of abortion became the symbol of women’s freedom and equality during this time (evident in our society’s mantra of “My body, my choice” today). The fleeting feeling of security that abortion promised led to a distorted view on the purpose of sex, the possibility of bringing new life into the world, and the responsibility of parenting. In other words: “The decoupling of sex from marriage and marriage from childbearing, ushered in by the [S]exual [R]evolution, unraveled a working-class culture of once-stable marital bonds that children need and both mothers and fathers once relied upon for their success at home and at work, and in all of life” (Bachiochi 13).

The rise of Liberal Christianity, combined with the newfound “freedom” from the Sexual Revolution, led to the gradual evolution of the “religion” of feminism. Our society today has migrated far from Mary Wollstonecraft’s pure ideals of male-female equality and transformed into something else entirely. The Sacred-Secular Split during the Industrial Revolution and the development of Romanticism began to emphasize the superior morality of women as the “angels of the house.” The growing philosophies of Hegel, Marx, Nietzche, and Freud led to the pursuit of happiness and reliance on self as the ultimate good, and religion as an oppressive social construct. This in turn led to the abolishment of religion (“God is dead”) and therefore the irrelevance of an absolute moral code. All of this combined and morphed into the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, which focused on questioning traditional morality in favor of a secular ethic.

The feminism prevalent in our culture today is the baby of all of these ideas. As Simone de Beauvoir, a French Philosopher whose book, The Second Sex, became the doctrine of modern feminism, wrote: “One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological, psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes on in society; it is civilization as a whole that elaborates this intermediary product between the male and the eunuch that is called feminine” (Trueman 132). This shocking statement should not surprise us when we consider the upstream philosophies that fathered it. By understanding modern feminism’s history, we are equipped to engage in conversation with the culture in an attractive and winsome way in order to lead them to the truth.

Creation – God’s Perfect Design for Men and Women

When we look to the Creation account in Genesis 1-2, we are given the original blueprint of God’s design for men and women. There was no sin, no domination, no exploitation, just beautiful harmony between God and His creation. In Genesis 1-2, we learn that men and women are equal in their shared humanity and divine calling, yet exist in a paradoxical, complementary relationship. We learn that men and women have unique roles in marriage and leadership, and that those intentionally designed roles lead to our freedom. Genesis 1:26-28 says:

Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ (NIV)

This passage tells us three things. First, both men and women were created in God’s image, the Imago Dei. Our status as a child of God should be where we look to find our identities first, and it provides the basis for our shared humanity. Second, God intentionally created humans to be male and female. This design was not a mistake. One sex is not “stronger” or “better” than another. Finally, men and women are equal in their shared dominion over the earth and joint calling to populate it. Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. sums up this relationship perfectly: “Man was created as royalty in God’s world, male and female alike bearing the divine glory equally” (Grudem and Piper 97).

This is not the end of the story, however. Yes, men and women were created equally, but there is also a beautiful paradox in their relationship, as outlined in Genesis 2:18-25. This is where we are first introduced to the ideas of biblical submission and headship, defined within the context of the marriage between Adam and Eve. At this point in the Creation story, God had created all of the animals and brought them to Adam to name them. While Adam was given dominion over all the animals, he felt like something was missing and longed for someone with whom he could have a relationship with. In verse 18, God realizes that “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” This statement comes to fruition when God presents Eve to Adam, and in verse 23, Adam says, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” Some versions of the Bible translate this passage as Adam exclaiming, “At last!” when he first saw Eve, proving his innate understanding that she was not a threat to him or his masculinity, but rather, his fulfillment (NLT, Gen. 2:23).

Here’s where the paradox comes in: “God created male and female in His image equally, but He also made the male the head and the female the helper” (Grudem and Piper 99). Yes, Adam and Eve were equal in the sense that they shared the stamped image of the Imago Dei, but they differed in their divine roles. This is the basic idea behind complementarianism. John Piper explains: “God intends for all the ‘weaknesses’ that are characteristically masculine to call forth and highlight women’s strengths. And God intends for all the ‘weaknesses’ that are characteristically feminine to call forth and highlight man’s strengths” (49). Katie McCoy says it this way: “She was of him but not him. She was both a correlation and a contrast. They each fully possess the image of God individually, yet are incapable of fully manifesting it to the world apart from each other” (McCoy 97). In other words, complementarianism honors both men and women by recognizing the beauty of our differences and focusing on using those differences to better represent Christ.

Throughout Scripture, Jesus is referred to as the Lion and the Lamb, containing the qualities of meekness and humility as well as strength and justice. In Revelation chapter 5, we read of the triumph of the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” and the honor of the Lamb that had been slain for all of humanity (NIV). Our Savior embodies these qualities perfectly, and we get the privilege of working together, as imperfect men and women combining our strengths and sharing the burden of our weaknesses, in order to show the world just a fraction of how great Christ is. It’s this idea that we are stronger together and can rely on the other sex in areas that we may not be naturally gifted in. It’s realizing that depending on other people is not a sign of weakness; in fact, it could even be considered a sign of strength.

As we’ve learned from reading Genesis 1-2, there is a “sameness” between male and female, as Eve was “bone of [Adam’s] bone, flesh of [Adam’s] flesh.” However, there is also a beautiful uniqueness to male and female, as “she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” While complementarianism honors this design, its opposite, egalitarianism, restricts men and women to this “sameness” (“The Joy and Wonder…”). As Christians, we need to be careful to not put too much emphasis on either the “sameness” or “uniqueness” to male and female because either extreme ultimately distorts God’s beautiful design.

This idea of complementarity isn’t just restricted to marriage, however. In her book, To Be a Woman, Katie McCoy, who holds a PhD in systematic theology from Southwestern Seminary, describes it this way: “It means that we - God’s masterpieces - cannot fulfill His purposes without both men and women working together in the world interdependently, and that can happen in a variety of ways. Whether married or unmarried, the meaning and purpose of our embodied lives is found and directed outside of ourselves and in relationships” (97). We live in a culture that is permeated with the age-old “girls versus boys” dilemma, in a society that is constantly putting people into categories that serve to divide us into oppressed-oppressor identities. McCoy points us back to the Creation account in Genesis with the reminder that God created us to live in a world of physical binaries: day and night, earth and sky, sun and moon, land and water, and male and female. One is not any better or less important than another, yet we need both in order to live a thriving life. Similarly, we need the unique and complementary skill sets that both men and women bring to the table in order to function well in a healthy society. If we restrict men and women to our limited “sameness,” society will suffer as a result.

The Creation account also specifically outlines God’s intentional design for men and women in marriage. The roles of headship and submission within the context of marriage have a direct correlation to God’s relationship with His bride, the church. Within that specific context, both the husband and the wife have unique giftings and skill sets to perfectly balance and complement the other, which fulfills God’s design. This directly parallels God’s relationship to His church, as Paul explains in the book of Ephesians: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (5:22-23). Note here that Paul does not say “women submit to men.” He says “wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.” This is an important distinction. As John Piper explains, biblical submission is “the divine calling [of the wife] to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts” (Grudem and Piper 53). This does not mean that men are superior to women, nor does it mean that all women must submit to all men. It does mean that women are tasked with coming alongside their husbands, supporting them as an equal, being led in love to look more and more like Christ.

In verses 26-28, Paul goes on to say: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.” In marriage, men are tasked with providing for and sacrificing their bodies for their families. This is a direct parallel to Christ’s death on the cross for His bride: His people. He sacrificed His life so that He might present His people to God as “holy and blameless.” Piper describes Biblical headship in this way: “the divine calling [of the husband] to take primary responsibility for Christlike, servant-leadership, protection and provision in the home” (Grudem and Piper 52).

Paul ends his message on Christian marriage with this: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Eph. 5:33). Isn’t that what we all innately desire, deep down? It’s why women chase after friendships and relationships, and men strive to achieve. Women desire to be known, seen, and loved, while men desire to be providers, protectors, and shown respect. God has given us a beautiful gift in marriage, to be able to meet each other’s deepest needs. This is why women are called to submit in love to their husbands, and it’s why men are called to lay their lives down in love for their wives.

So what does all this mean? God has designed the intimate relationship of one man and one woman coming together in marriage to be an earthly representation of His perfect love for His bride, the church. As Nancy Pearcy so beautifully sums up in her book, Toxic Masculinity: “...the final consummation of history is pictured in the Bible using the metaphor of a marriage – a wedding between God and his people, who are collectively referred to as his bride. In other words, the endpoint toward which all history is moving is a union with God so profound and loving that the best metaphor for it is a marriage” (29).

This leads to the unique roles women have in leadership. John Piper suggests that leadership exists on a continuum in two separate categories: ranging from personal to non-personal, and directive to non-directive. This continuum allots for the difference between a female CEO versus a wife in a marriage. If the relationship is non-personal (such as in a situation in which a woman holds a job of authority over a male), she is able to hold a very direct line of leadership. However, she is still responsible for acting in a way that honors his masculinity and allows him to honor her femininity. This could be as simple as thanking him for holding a door open for her, or even asking him to carry something heavy for her. It honors both of them within the direct, non-personal relationship they exist in (Grudem and Piper).

On the other hand, in the very real, personal relationship of marriage, Piper suggests that women should hold a more non-directive leadership. This does not mean that women should go along with everything that their husbands say, but it does mean that they should consider how they deliver their perspective (Grudem and Piper). God has given women a unique position as wives, as Peter explains: “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives” (1 Pet. 3:1-2). This means that wives do in fact have influence over their husbands. However, that influence does not come from pride but rather, from the humble way they live their lives. A great example of this can be found in 1 Samuel 25:23-35, when Abigail talks David out of killing Nabal. She tells him her opinion in a way that honors his masculinity, and David’s response to her shows the effect of her humble leadership: “May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands… [I]f you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak” (1 Sam. 25:33-34).

Ultimately, God’s design for men and women leads to our freedom. Although we may not understand or even agree with the way God made us, we can rest in the assurance that He created us intentionally on purpose, for a purpose, for the specific time that we live in. He has gifted us with unique abilities and a physical body capable of best fulfilling that purpose. As Elizabeth Elliot wrote in her book Let Me Be a Woman, a letter to her daughter, Valerie, upon getting engaged: “And as the bird easily comes to terms with the necessity of bearing wings when it finds that it is, in fact, the wings that bear the bird–up, away from the world, into the sky, into freedom–so the woman who accepts the limitations of womanhood finds in those very limitations her gifts, her special calling–wings, in fact, which bear her up into perfect freedom, into the will of God” (23, emphasis added). In other words, when we accept the way God made us and lean into His divine calling on our lives, we step into freedom. This should comfort us. Our Creator intentionally designed a body for us that is best suited for the purpose He crafted for us before the world even began (Eph. 2:10). This is a truth that we can rest in and the place that we should look to first for our identities.

Elliot goes on to remind us that “[W]e do not choose gifts, remember? We are given them by a divine Giver who knows the end from the beginning, and wants above all else to give us the gift of Himself. It is within the sphere of the circumstances He chooses for us – single, married, widowed – that we receive Him. It is there and nowhere else that He makes Himself known to us. It is there we are allowed to serve Him” (25-26). When we trust God’s plan for our lives, we can step into the freedom that He calls us to. When we die to our pride and align our desires with His, we will inevitably feel the most fulfilled. The place where our passions and unique giftings intersect with the issues closest to God’s heart places us in the position to serve His people. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul describes both the married and single life as gifts: “I wish that all of you were [single] as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that” (7:7). This hearkens back to Elliot’s statement that we do not choose our gifts. However, we do have the choice to honor God with the giftings He’s given us, or use them selfishly or resent Him for them.

God’s design for men and women is perfect. Because He created the human race by hand, He knows what is best for us, which is reflected in the loving guidelines that are found in the Bible. Men and women are equal in what matters most - their shared humanity and divine calling to advance God’s Kingdom here on earth. Yet they exist in a paradoxical, complementary relationship in which different strengths are celebrated and burdens are shared. Within the specific context of marriage, women are called to submit to their husbands in a way that parallels the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church. In a similar way, men are called to give their lives for their wives, laying them down if necessary, so as to present her without fault to the Lord one day. Men and women working together give the world a glimpse into what the Kingdom of Heaven will look like someday. When men and women come together, we are better able to represent Jesus, our Lion and our Lamb. Most importantly, though, God intentionally created each and every one of us on purpose, for a unique purpose, with the body He has given us to best fulfill it. When we lean confidently into His plan for our lives, we are finally able to step into freedom that can only be found in Christ.

The Fall – How we Have Distorted God’s Good Design

And then comes Genesis 3, the fall of mankind. The plot twist no one was expecting. The moment Eve chose to believe the lie that Satan maliciously fed her changed all of mankind. Ultimately, this moment resulted from a reversal of male headship. There’s a reason Satan approached Eve first, arguably to undermine God’s design with Adam at the head of their marriage. As Eve began to reach for the fruit, Satan whispered a lie that she should take initiative and assert herself in her marriage, that she was just as good and qualified as Adam to lead them (Grudem and Piper). And so with shaky fingers Eve offers the fruit to Adam, who takes it and eats it. Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. explains that “the lie told her that obedience is a suicidal plunge, that humility is demeaning, and that service is servility. And so Eve begins to feel the aggravation of an injustice which, in reality, does not exist” (Grudem and Piper 107). The beginnings of the modern day feminist movement started in the garden. Gone are the days of perfect intentions and living out God’s perfect design. Enter the brokenness of the world, caused by a reversal of male headship, made deadly by Adam’s passivity and deference to eating the fruit from Eve.

We learn of the implications of this moment in the Garden in Genesis 3:14-19, as God outlines the after-effects of the fall. To Eve, He says: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (3:16). This verse explains where we get the opposite of male headship, known as male domination. The line “he will rule over you” explains two different things: first, it represents the inevitable conflict we experience in marriage, a bond between one man and one woman that God divinely ordained, and therefore a relationship that Satan wants to destroy. We are now tempted to view authority as dominion and control, which is the opposite of God’s purposeful design. Second, it is a line that is so often abused and used out of context to dominate women. Many men are exploiting and taking advantage of women under the disguises of “submission” and “male headship,” which is truly an ugly distortion of God’s intention (Pearcey).

God then turns to Adam, saying: “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:17, emphasis added). First, from Adam and Eve’s unique punishments, we learn that, although work and childbirth preceded the fall, they are now made more painful as a result of our sin. These two very necessary things bring us the most fulfillment, yet are also some of the hardest and most painful experiences here on earth. Second, we learn that God holds Adam responsible for bringing sin into the world. In Romans 5:12-21 (entitled “Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ”), Paul writes: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned… Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people” (5:12,18). Because of Adam’s headship, even though Eve was technically the one that caused them to sin, Adam is held responsible for the sin of their partnership. Eve overrode Adam’s headship, and because of Adam’s passivity, they both pulled the human race down into sin and death (Grudem and Piper). However, the beautiful part about this is that Christ, the “true and better Adam” came to redeem our brokenness with His death on the cross. This hearkens back to our design in Genesis 1-2. As the relationship between men and women in marriage imperfectly mirrors the relationship between God and His bride, the Church, so Christ, our “true and better Adam,” came down into the world to restore that relationship.

The implications of the fall permeate every aspect of our lives. For example, we live in a country that was founded upon the principles of autonomy, or self-rule. When we separated ourselves from Great Britain in the late 1700s, our ancestors drafted the Declaration of Independence, declaring their freedom and desire to rule themselves. This idea of freedom is embedded in our DNA: we want to do everything on our own. As a result, we live in an autonomous society in which our culture is focused on “liberation” from responsibility and God’s good design (“The Joy and Wonder…”). When applied to the idea of feminism, our culture looks upon the female body as a hindrance to that desired freedom (think of the push for birth control, workaholism, and the rising “girl boss”).

Ultimately, these effects stem from the identity crisis that our society is going through. When we don’t find our identities in who we are in Christ, we are more susceptible to falling for the lie that extremes offer us. The transgender movement preaches that we should turn inward for direction. Ascribing to a particular political party promises to satisfy our innate longing to just belong somewhere, to some group of people. The new “trad wife” movement, in which young “traditional” wives glamorize the life of a 1950’s housewife, encourages women to spend their lives in submission to and servitude of their husbands (Searl). It’s no wonder that we are all exhausted, lost, and confused, suffering from strained and tense relationships. From transgenderism to trad wives and everything in between, the only thing all of these things have in common is the reality that none of them will ever satisfy. As Elizabeth Elliot so beautifully puts it: “In order to learn what it means to be a woman we must start with the One who made her” (Elliot).

So, What is a Woman?

As women, we are fed lie after lie about our bodies, our purpose, and our roles in marriage, the home, and the workplace. The “religion” of feminism permeates these lies, and it can be exhausting to discern what God says about us. We are preached the gospel of a “girl boss” mentality and told that “just” being a mom is wasting our potential, and that fulfilling our role as a helper is degrading. The truth is, God created each and every one of us, male and female, for a specific purpose. We were designed to complement each other biologically, spiritually, and emotionally, and in leaning into these differences and playing into each other’s strengths, we are able to better represent Jesus to a watching world.

The first time the term “woman” is mentioned in the Bible, she is called an ezer kenegdo, which translates to “a helper suitable for him [Adam]” (Gen. 2:18). Deriving from the ‘zr word group in the Hebrew language, “ezer” is the masculine noun of the verb “azar,” which means “to help” (Klassen). In our culture today, the term “helper” is viewed as demeaning, or less than. We tend to think of a woman's role as helper in the same way we think of “Mommy’s little helper,” the second rung in a hierarchy, or even a secondary assistant. As a result, God’s design gets pushed to the side as we try to elevate women above men (Glahn).

However, the term “ezer” is used twenty-two times in the Bible, and most of its appearances describe God as our divine help. This should tell us, then, that the role of helper is not an inferior one. For example, in 1 Samuel 7, the Lord intercedes on the Israelites’ behalf by defending them against the Philistines. Afterwards, “Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen. He named it Ebenezer, saying, ‘Thus far the Lord has helped us’” (1 Sam. 7:12). The term ebenezer literally translates to a “stone of help” (“Ebenezer”). If God Himself is described as our helper, how can we accurately claim that the role of women as helper is an inferior one? We constantly cry out to the Lord for help, yet we don’t typically pray with the assumption that God is subordinate to us when we ask for His help. When we ask for help, we are the ones in a weak or vulnerable position reaching out to someone who is able to meet those needs. Randy Klassen states that “the ‘help’ that is provided is regularly active, effective, and divinely empowered. Thus, the word ‘help, helper’ should only be used if it can provide a similar nuance of meaning and avoid the idea of subordination, of being an add-on” (Klassen).

The word “kenegdo” translates to “like opposite him,” pointing back to this idea of complementarity, or finding beauty in our differences. Together, ezer kenegdo comes to mean “a helper as his partner,” “a fitting helper for him,” or “a helper matching him.” These definitions should empower women. We are not merely restricted to the role of a companion, responsible for meeting man’s every need. We are instead given the active role of a helper, the difference being the reality that a companion is, while a helper does. As women, we are divinely called to complement men in opposite yet equal ways to fulfill what they lack (and vice versa). Klassen puts it this way: “As God moves to fulfill his purposes on earth, he mobilizes the 'ëzer, the weaker one, the smaller one, yet the unexpectedly wise, resourceful, compassionate one, to defy the strong of this world.” In other words, woman fills a void that man cannot fill on his own, but she comes alongside and supports him. She doesn’t take over, nor is she superior or inferior to him, just equal in a unique, complementary way according to God’s beautiful design. She is a “sustainer beside him” (Klassen).

The female biology also displays God’s design. As Abigail Favale puts it, a woman can be defined as “the kind of human being whose body is organized around the potential to gestate new life” (McCoy 69). This is the basic idea of essentialism, or the reality that male and female are fundamentally different. All women all share an inherent characteristic that makes them distinctly female - their potential to create new life. This brings up an important point: just because a woman is unable to conceive and bear a child does not mean that she is not a woman. Unfortunately, this is a result of the fall, or the inevitable effects that sin has in the world and on the human body. However, women were intentionally created by God to bring new life into the world, and their bodies reflect that design (McCoy).

This is evident from as early as the womb. The first seven weeks of embryonic development are the same for male and female, but in the eighth week, males receive a flood of testosterone, or a “prenatal puberty” while females do not (McCoy 80). This singular distinction shapes their brains in completely different ways. As McCoy puts it, girl babies “enter the world hardwired for communication, connection, and empathy” (81). This is proven by the fact that baby girls prefer to look at people while baby boys prefer looking at mechanical objects within a few days of birth (81). Baby girls also experience an “infantile puberty” at 24 months, during which their bodies are flooded with estrogen in which their brains are “marinated” (82).

McCoy states that “down to the muscle fibers, the female body is structured and organized around sustaining new life” (89). This is evident in the many physical differences between men and women. For example, women have longer torsos than men, which allows for more room for their reproductive organs. Women also have a longer and wider pelvis than men, which was designed to soften and accommodate pregnancy. Furthermore, women are usually made up of 30-35% muscle, while men are biologically able to build more (around 40-50%). Women have around 40% less upper body and 33% less lower body strength than most men. Their bodies are made up of 18-20% body fat compared to 10-15% in men. This higher fat-to-muscle ratio is intentional because it allows women to effectively sustain and nourish new life. Our bodies naturally stock up their own fat reserves in anticipation of future pregnancies (88). Women’s muscles have 27-35% more slow-twitch fibers than men, which allows them to sustain force over a long period of time (but not a significant amount of force). As McCoy cleverly quips: “Basically, her muscles probably can’t pull a car by a rope, but they can endure sustained contractions without quitting” (89).

There are biological differences between men and women that back up God’s intentional design for women in His world, and we would be foolish to deny them. God created women to be more nurturing than men; her body was made to create and sustain new life. God created men to be protectors and providers; they are physically taller and able to build more muscle than most women. God designed men and women to beautifully complement each other in their strengths, weaknesses, desires, and calling. This is why one man and one woman coming together in marriage is so fulfilling. They each fill what the other innately feels to be lacking. Women want to be seen, loved, and protected, and men want to be respected, provide for, and protect their families. They balance and keep each other in check, and together, they are better able to represent and advance God’s Kingdom.

Conclusion

When we look to the beginning of time, we see that God’s design for the uniqueness of male and female was intentional, as it preceded the fall. We were created to be in relationship with God and with others, which is often (if not always) the place Satan attacks first. Why else would we be so divided, with the “religion” of feminism pitted against masculinity? As Christians, we have a high calling on our lives to live up to a better standard - God’s standard. We have to stop buying into the lies that saturate our society. We need to look a little less like us and a whole lot more like Jesus. This happens when we work together, as men and women, to advance the Kingdom of Heaven. As we see in the case of Jo March, only when she was partnered with Friedrich Bhaer was she able to achieve her dream of opening up a school for boys out of her home. Together, they impacted the next generation with the combination of their unique strengths as man and woman, husband and wife.

Living the feminist lie will never satisfy. Though it may be tempting to prove we can do it all on our own or better than a man, we will come up empty every time. When we suppress our innate, God-given desires in favor of the “girl boss” mentality, we become hardened to our divine calling as ezer kenegdo. When we look upon our bodies as limitations to our “freedom,” we become more enslaved. God knows each of us intricately. He formed us in our mother’s womb and knows everything about us. He gave us an earthly body to best fulfill the purpose He divinely ordained for us before the world even began. As women, our bodies were designed to create new life. In marriage, our calling is to come alongside and support a husband in our unique, complementary ways. God Himself is both a Creator and our divine Help, proving that these roles are not inferior. We are image bearers of our Heavenly Father - why should we be ashamed of sharing (and imperfectly reflecting) some of His holy attributes? By stepping gracefully into the divine calling of helper, we are able to fully embrace our identity as an ezer kenegdo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Bachiochi, Erika. The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision. Notre Dame, Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 2021.

Bestmann, Rosa. “Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797).” Towards Emancipation? UNC-Chapel Hill, 2018, https://hist259.web.unc.edu/marywollstonecraft/.

“Best of Strong Women: Men and Women Working Together for the Kingdom With John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle.” The Strong Women Podcast, Colson Center, 9 Aug. 2023.

“Best of Strong Women: The Shocking Dorothy Sayers With Crystal Downing.” The Strong Women Podcast, Colson Center, 31 Jul. 2024.

“Challenging Myths About Motherhood with Elizabeth Schlueter.” The Strong Women Podcast. Colson Center, 8 May 2024.

“Ebenezer.” Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ebenezer.

Elliot, Elizabeth. Let Me Be A Woman: Notes to My Daughter on the Meaning of Womanhood. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1976.

Glahn, Sandra. “What Does it Mean That Woman is ‘Helper’ (Ezer)?” Bible.org Blogs, 22 Oct. 2024, https://blogs.bible.org/what-does-it-mean-that-woman-is-helper-ezer/.

Grudem, Wayne, and John Piper. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 1991.

Holy Bible. New Living Translation, Carol Stream, Illinois, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2015.

Klassen, Randy. “ ‘Ezer and Exodus.” Direction: A Mennonite Brethren Forum, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 18-32, 2006, https://directionjournal.org/35/1/ezer-and-exodus.html.

Laughlin, Bryan, and Doug Ponder. “Complementarians and the Rise of Second-Wave Feminism.” Sola Ecclesia, 26 Feb. 2024, https://solaecclesia.org/articles/complementarians-and-the-rise- of-second-wave-evangelical-feminism/.

Little Women. Directed by Greta Gerwig, performances by Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, and Timothée Chalamet, Columbia Pictures, 2019.

“Mary Wollstonecraft: A Champion For Women’s Rights With Erika Bachiochi.” The Strong Women Podcast, Colson Center, 1 Feb. 2023.

McCoy, Katie J. To Be a Woman: The Confusion Over Female Identity and How Christians Can Respond. Brentwood, Tennessee, B&H Publishing Group, 2023.

Pearcey, Nancy R. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 2023.

Sayers, Dorothy L. Are Women Human? Astute and witty essays on the role of women in society. Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.

Searl, Alicia. “How Should Christians View the ‘Tradwife’ Trend?” Crosswalk, 9 May 2024, https:// www.crosswalk.com/headlines/contributors/guest-commentary/how-should-christians- view-the-trad-wife-trend.html.

The Bible. The New International Version, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2016.

“The Joy and Wonder of Male and Female With Abigail Favale.” The Strong Women Podcast, Colson Center, 3 Jan. 2024.

Trueman, Carl R. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway, 2022.

Unsung Hero. Directed by Richard L. Ramsey and Joel Smallbone, Kingdom Story Company, 2024.

West, Christopher. Our Bodies Tell God’s Story: Discovering the Divine Plan for Love, Sex, and Gender. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Brazos Press, 2020.

What Is a Woman? Directed by Justin Folk, performances by Matt Walsh, Gert Comfrey, and Marci Bowers, The Daily Wire, 2022.