Annotated Bibliography for Gender-Related Articles in 2006
Oren Martin and Barak Tjader
In this issue of the journal we profile some of the most significant gender-related articles from 2006. Here is a brief reminder about the categories we are using and our intent in using them. Complementarian designates an author who recognizes the full personal equality of the sexes, coupled with an acknowledgment of role distinctions in the home and church. Egalitarian classifies evangelicals who see undifferentiated equality (i.e., they see no scriptural warrant for affirming male headship in the home or the church). Under the Non-Evangelical heading, we have classified important secular works and books that address the subject of biblical gender issues from a religious, albeit, non-evangelical point of view. This category also serves as our classification for liberal scholars wanting to retain some sort of Christian identity. Finally, under the Undeclared heading, we have listed those books that do not give sufficient indication of their fundamental stance for us to classify them more specifically.
Complementarian Authors/Articles
Cowan, Christopher W. "The Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel: Johannine Subordination Revisited." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 1 (2006): 115-35.
Cowan examines a tension in the Gospel of John which has come under fire in recent scholarship. The majority of Johannine scholarship in the historical tradition has recognized the equality of divine nature between the Father and Son to be in tension with the hierarchical relationship between the two. Yet some recent scholars have contested the idea that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father in John's Gospel. Cowan demonstrates the existence of the Son's subordination to the Father as a theme throughout John by examining (1) the Son as "sent" by the Father; (2) the Son's apparent unilateral dependence on and obedience to the Father; and (3) John's recurrent use of "Father" and "Son" terminology for God and Jesus. Lastly, he demonstrates that this relationship is firmly set in the context of perfect divine love between the Father and Son, which makes possible the Father sending and the Son perfectly obeying the will of his Father.
Ennis, Patricia A. "Practicing Biblical Hospitality." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 2 (2006): 116-27.
Ennis notes that while hostesses often focus on decorations and table settings, the Bible is much more concerned with the attitude of hospitality that one displays. In this article Ennis looks at various biblical examples and exhortations to practice hospitality. She suggests that the home should be a place of refuge, a center for evangelism, and a place for showing compassion to those in need.
Farrar, Mary. "Equal, Yet So Very Different: Understanding a Man's Sexuality and His Inherent Struggle." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 2 (2006): 85-106.
Farrar examines some of the intrinsic differences between men and women concerning sexuality. Writing to women who may have difficulty understanding the sexual struggles that men face, Farrar attempts to explain the natural, visual, and sometimes secretive ways in which men battle against sexual temptation. Farrar suggests that women first understand the differences in sexuality between men and women and then assist men by being an "agent for accountability and change" instead of an "enabler" of sin.
Huttar, David K., "Causal Gar in 1 Timohty 2:13: A Response to Linda L. Belleville" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 1 (2006): 30-33.
Huttar offers a brief refutation of a point made by egalitarian scholar Linda L. Belleville in her book Women Leaders in the Church (Baker, 2000). Belleville claims that the postpositive conjunction gar ("for") in 1 Tim 2:13 cannot be taken in a causal sense. However, Huttar demonstrates that, in making her argument, Belleville has misused the Greek grammar text (BDF) that she cites and has failed to argue adequately against any normative idea present in vv. 13-14.
Jones, Rebecca. "Women Against Public Blasphemy." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 2 (2006): 8-18.
Jones explores the ways in which improperly ordered gender roles blaspheme God, subvert the authority of the Bible, and stand in contrast to the gospel. Jones argues that because Paul points to the husband-wife relationship as a type of the love that Christ has for the church, the very witness of the gospel is at stake in the ordering of Christian homes.
McCulley, Carolyn. "When You Don't Have a Better Half: Encouraging Biblical Roles as a Single Woman." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 2 (2006) 69-75.
In this article, McCulley recounts her conversion and the impact that it had on her view of gender. Although drawn to the biblical ideal of manhood and womanhood, she found that many of the fundamental aspects of biblical femininity had to do with how a woman relates to her husband and children and, consequently, can be difficult for a single adult to cultivate. McCulley, therefore, offers practical advice for single women in their desire to apply biblical femininity in non-romantic relationships.
Merkle, Benjamin L. "Paul's Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3 (2006): 527-48.
Merkle analyzes 1 Cor 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:13-14, in which Paul grounds his arguments in the order of creation, and shows that it is not inconsistent to reject the need for women to wear head coverings while still affirming that women are not to teach or have authority over men. The reason for this, Merkle argues, is that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul only indirectly uses the argument from creation to affirm head coverings for women in order to demonstrate that creation affirms gender and role distinctions between men and women. The result is that in the Corinthian context this distinction was to be upheld through head coverings. In 1 Timothy 2, however, Paul directly uses the argument from creation to demonstrate that women cannot teach or have authority over men, thus making this command transcultural.
Mohler, Mary K. "Motherhood Matters." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 2 (2006): 48-55.
Mohler's article extols the God-given glories of motherhood in a culture largely hostile to the idea. While advocating that mothers stay at home with their children, Mohler provides some guidelines for thinking about motherhood and employment. She then offers seven suggestions for how one can strive for excellence in motherhood.
Moore, Russell D. "After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning The Gender Debate." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3 (2006): 569-76.
Moore argues that egalitarians are winning the gender debate because many evangelicals, although professing complementarian ideas, are not practicing a comprehensive vision of biblical patriarchy that is rooted in the gospel. Moore insightfully shows how cultural influences and secular therapeutic "insights," which often pass in many churches as Christian counseling, have worked their way into the church and have resulted in a "servant leadership" that often emphasizes passivity rather than a loving headship. He rightly presents a vision of patriarchy that is firmly grounded in the fatherhood of God, a particular fatherhood that is seen not only in his relation to the patriarchs of the Old Testament, but supremely and eternally in the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Riddle, Jeffrey T. "Are the Daughters of Philip Among the Prophets of Acts?" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 1 (2006): 20-29.
Riddle addresses himself to the question of whether or not the daughters of Philip in Acts 21:9 were among the prophets of Acts. After surveying three views on the daughters of Philip, Riddle makes the exegetical case that women may prophesy in the church, which is a fulfillment of Acts 2:17-18. However, they do not fill the role or office of prophet within the early church since this role requires the authoritative teaching and regulation of doctrine. In this respect, Luke is in agreement with Paul who sees prophesying as an activity that may be done by both men and women as they are led by the Holy Spirit, but limits the role or office of prophet to men.
Schreiner, Thomas R. "A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality." Themelios 31, no. 3 (2006): 62-75.
Schreiner provides a convincing case exegetically that homosexuality is prohibited throughout the biblical canon. Although focusing primarily on the NT, Schreiner rightly situates the NT teaching regarding homosexuality in its biblical context, demonstrating that Jesus and the NT authors interpreted the Jewish tradition correctly. Beginning with Gen 1:26-27, and the fuller account in 2:18-25, he argues that Jesus, in his teaching on marriage and divorce in the Gospels, and Paul, in Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:10, correctly interpret from Genesis 1-2 that marriage is intended by God to be between one man and one woman, and that violation of this goes against their created nature. He then concludes with wise pastoral application calling believers in Jesus Christ to rely upon the grace of God as they live in the "already not yet" tension between being new creations in Christ yet awaiting final redemption and freedom from sin.
Walton, Mark David. "Relationships and Roles in the New Creation." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 1 (2006): 4-19.
In an earlier article (JBMW 9, no. 1 (2004): 17-28) Walton argued that gender distinctives shall remain even in the new creation. In this article he follows up by examining whether or not resurrected saints will have gender-specific roles. Upon surveying the flawed egalitarian assumptions about the new creation, Walton makes the exegetical and theological case that the functional distinctions established in God's "very good" creation will remain in the new creation.
Wolters, Albert. "A Semantic Study of αύθέντης and Its Derivatives." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 11, no. 1 (2006): 46-65.Wolters conducts a study of the word αύθέντης and its usages in ancient Greek until the year A.D. 312. Used only once in the New Testament, in 1 Tim 2:12, this word has been rendered "murderer," "master," and "doer" in extra-biblical sources. Wolters shows how the latter two understandings of αύθέντης actually belong to the same semantic family, with the "doer" of something being someone who has "mastered" that thing. Furthermore, Wolters argues that the connotations of "murder" and "master" in ancient Greek for αύθέντης are clearly distinct, with the former fading away while "master" became the predominant usage of the word. Wolters concludes from this study that αύθεντέω in 1 Tim 2:12 should be rendered "have authority over." Significantly, Wolters notes that this word carries no pejorative connotation. Thus, Paul does not tell Timothy that women should not lead in a domineering manner, but he instructs Timothy that a woman is not to have authority over men in the church regardless of the manner in which she leads.
Egalitarian Authors/Articles
Anderson, Loraine Cleaves. "The Legacy of Pain: An Analysis of Genesis 3:16a." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 2 (2006): 11-15.
Anderson examines the term "pain" in Gen 3:16a in light of linguistic and lexical research and concludes that its meaning cannot be limited to physical pain in childrearing. Rather, she argues that the inspired author has in view that pain encompasses the entire scope of suffering experienced by women as a result of their sexuality. In other words, pain extends far beyond physical discomfort in childbirth because it is grounded in woman's gender specificity in general. The result is that pain affects her in all spheres of life, which includes relationships with men. Anderson is correct in seeing the universal effects of sin on the human race, including broken and distorted relationships between men and women; but what Anderson fails to see is that role distinctions are not a result of the fall. Rather, they are distorted by the fall but are restored in Christ, which results in Christians being enabled by the working of the Holy Spirit to live out Christ-like leadership and submission, respectively, for the glory of God.
Cary, Phillip. "The New Evangelical Subordinationism: Reading Inequality Into the Trinity." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 42-45.
After commending Kevin Giles's Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006), Cary examines Nicene formulations of the Trinity in light of current gender debates. Like Giles, Cary confuses the debate by refusing to clearly differentiate between the ancient subordinationist heresy and those who hold to the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Cary also co-opts the entirety of church history in purporting that this doctrine is a late twentieth-century development in "an overarching strategy to keep women subordinate to men who can no longer use the old weapons of thoughtless prejudice." Furthermore, Cary suggests that those who affirm the orthodoxy of the eternal functional subordination of the Son are guilty of "historical ignorance" stemming from "fundamentalist separatism" cut off from scholarship and the church. He goes on to warn that this unorthodoxy will sever evangelicals from the historic church, consigning them to "a new sect in the characteristically American mode of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses."
Dufield, Sandra. "Chivalry Is Not Dead: Protecting and Defending Beauty in the Church." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 1 (2006): 28-29.
Dufield argues that a new kind of chivalry is being practiced by men who defend full and equal participation of women in ministry alongside men. These "protectors and defenders of beauty" include men such as Richard Foster, John Ortberg, Billy Graham, J. Lee Grady, Gilbert Bilezikian, and Gordon Fee. What emerges from Dufield's presentation, however, is her failure to see that complementarians do not "endorse the idea that women are inferior to men or that the spiritual gifts and callings of the Holy Spirit are conferred only upon males." Egalitarians, such as Dufield, often think that complementarians are following "deviant teachings of the world that have found their way into the church," instead of seeing the dual emphases in Scripture that men and women are equal in value and personhood yet different with respect to their God-given roles.
Giles, Kevin. "Post-1970s Evangelical Responses to the Emancipation of Women." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 46-52.
In this article, Giles briefly details the twentieth-century women's liberation movement and then offers an overview of evangelical understandings of gender over the past three decades, listing six problems with complementarianism and providing a defense of the egalitarian position. Giles suggests that twentieth-century feminism confronted Christians with the fact that women were not inferior to men as they had "uniformly presumed for countless centuries." Thus, he contends that both the complementarian and egalitarian positions on gender are novel in that they reflect an understanding of women's equal ontological status never before recognized in the history of Christianity. While Giles asserts that evangelical gender debates center on hermeneutics rather than the authority of Scripture, he dismisses Paul's arguments from the creation narratives in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 as "off the cuff" reasoning that "virtually no one considers binding today." One cannot help but wonder the sense in which the apostle Paul's interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is authoritative if it simply is an "off the cuff" argument that has no binding meaning. Once again, Giles's reasoning demonstrates that, at least in this area, egalitarians are simply not being faithful to the authority and meaning of the Bible.
Haddad, Mimi. "Egalitarian Pioneers: Betty Friedan or Catherine Booth?" Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 53-59.
Haddad traces egalitarian roots to "first wave" feminists of the nineteenth century. Haddad argues that these feminists challenged the view that men were ontologically superior to women which, she asserts, was the position of the church for the first eighteen hundred years. Haddad then seeks to show that rather than succumbing to the agenda of secular feminists, egalitarians stand in the line of earlier feminists who did not completely sever their arguments from Scripture.
Heath, Elaine A. "Prophetic Women and the People of God." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 1 (2006): 25-27.
Heath explores Walter Brueggemann's concept of prophetic imagination specifically in relationship to women in leadership in evangelical churches. According to Brueggemann, prophetic ministry addresses public crises where domination and marginalization occur. Heath contends that to be a Christian woman in leadership is to be a prophet because the world is overwhelmingly patriarchal. First, she calls women to prophetic leadership by being true to their calling and to themselves. Women must repent from cooperating with the ungodliness of the dominant culture and embrace the freedom of their God-given identity. Second, women in prophetic leadership must no longer "live in Egypt" and participate in the violence of male hierarchies which, she says, models dysfunctional and abusive families. When women do this they will receive from God their "new name" promised in Rev 2:17. The underlying problem with Heath's argument rests on poor methods of interpretation and application of biblical texts. For example, Christians should primarily be concerned with how Scripture defines the role of prophets, not with Brueggemann's concept. Also, the redemption of the Israelites from the Egyptians foreshadows a greater, more perfect redemption from sin brought about through the person and work of Christ, not oppression from male hierarchies. Finally, her (mis)assumption that freedom comes from escaping a patriarchal world misses the important biblical truth that ultimate freedom comes from submitting to Christ and God's wise design for men and women.
Heath, Elaine A. "Head Over Heels: A Theology of Leadership in Christian Marriage." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 17-20.
Heath suggests that the only "headship" in marriage is the "head over heels" love that God has for everyone. Heath then develops a model of mutual hospitality and self-giving in marriage that altogether removes the leadership from Christ's example of "servant leadership." Significantly, Heath does not even address any New Testament passages that deal with male headship, mentioning merely in passing that objections to her "head over heels" model of headship are relegated to "a particular interpretation of a few texts in the epistles."
Hestenes, Roberta. "Christian Women and Leadership." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 31-35.
This article addresses leadership issues with a focus on women. Hestenes details several symptoms of the "leadership crisis within American Christianity and culture." Hestenes then defines leadership and provides four criteria for effectiveness in leadership. Interestingly, Hestenes suggests that the servant leadership "model and mandate" in the New Testament "is not a call to weak or passive leadership." While Hestenes is incisive in diagnosing the problem of anemic leadership, she fails to acknowledge the biblical parameters for who should lead in the home and church.
Instone-Brewer, David. "The Scandal of Equality in Jesus' Ethical Teaching." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 2 (2006): 17-22.
Instone-Brewer looks at three ethical issues in Matthew 19, in which Jesus could have taken an egalitarian or complementarian stance—polygamy, divorce, and singleness. He argues that Jesus came to what can be regarded as an egalitarian conclusion, but Instone-Brewer does not stop here. He goes further and asks why Jesus came to this conclusion. His answer is that since Jesus' teaching went against the majority in the areas of polygamy, divorce, and singleness, then this placed him on the side of egalitarianism. It should be noted that Instone-Brewer thinks it unlikely that Jesus taught in order to promote an egalitarian agenda, since this would be anachronistic, but that his interpretation of Scripture directed him to "conclusions and actions that today we label ‘egalitarian.'"
Johnson, Alan F. "A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of ‘Head' (Kephalē) in Paul's Writings." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 21-29.
Johnson's article surveys the most important contributions in the debate over Paul's usage of kephalē since the middle of the twentieth century. Johnson summarizes the arguments for those arguing that kephalē means "authority over," "source," and, more recently, "preeminent" or "representative." After this overview, Johnson concludes that kephalē in 1 Cor 11 should be taken to mean "prominent" of the male-female relationship and that Eph 5 designates "authority over." Johnson, however, argues that Paul is capitulating to a cultural understanding of gender to serve a missiological purpose and that this passage should not be applied the same way in a predominantly egalitarian society.
Knowles, Charles O. "God's Reign is the Reign of Right Relationships." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 37-41.
Knowles argues that God's restoration of "right relationship" in Christ is typified in the Great Commandment as well as the paradigm of Jesus' teaching and actions. In driving the money changers from the temple and the splitting of the temple veil at the crucifixion, Knowles reasons, Jesus removes the hierarchical barriers that separate humanity and demonstrates the self-giving love that should characterize human relationships. This, of course, begs the question as Knowles fails to show that the loving headship of men over their homes as well as the church is antithetical to the "right relationships" prescribed in Scripture.
Kroeger, Catherine Clark, "Toward an Understanding of Ancient Conceptions of ‘Head.'" Priscilla Papers 20, no. 3 (2006): 4-8.
Kroeger draws from ancient extrabiblical poetry and theological arguments to support her contention that kephalē should be understood to mean "source" in some instances of New Testament Greek. Citing Chrysostom, Kroeger asserts that kephalē, in 1 Cor 11:2, must be taken as a metaphor concerned with the origin of life rather than authority structures. She charges that the traditional reading of 1 Corinthians 11 succumbs to the subordinationist heresy combated by the church fathers. In discussing the Father's being the "head" of the Son and the man's being "head" of the woman, however, Kroeger never differentiates between ontological and relational equality.
Morse, Mary Kate. "Gender Wars: Biology Offers Insights to a Biblical Problem." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 1 (2006): 3-8.
Morse synthesizes recent biological discoveries on maleness and femaleness in an effort to understand more clearly God's intention both in the creation account in Genesis 1-2 and the fall of mankind into sin in Genesis 3. She rightly argues that the "gender war" problem is theological, not secular, and that every person interprets Genesis 1-3 with certain presuppositions. She argues biologically that maleness and femaleness are distinctive and that shared distinctiveness creates a mutual strength. Thus, "male" and "female" possess tendencies toward differences, but those tendencies are not determinative. In the end, because (1) both men and women are created in God's image, and (2) God is in a Trinitarian relationship, to be truly human is to experience both male and female tendencies. But, according to Morse, shared equality must be maintained so as to avoid either a hierarchical or an egalitarian culture. In her estimation, differences must be equally valued so that equal authority and honor will be given to both men and women. It becomes clear in her argument, however, that she interprets Genesis 1-3 through her biological findings, which reveal her presuppositions. A better, more biblical approach would be to interpret Genesis 1-3 on its own terms and then follow how the NT interprets the creation account. This will yield a proper interpretation which, along with Morse, celebrates the differences of men and women who are created in God's image, but will also give special attention to the complementary roles which God has designed for them.
Omelianchuk, Adam. "The ‘Difference' Between ‘A and Not-A': An Analysis of Alleged ‘Word Tricks' and Obfuscations." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 1 (2006): 9-12.
Omelianchuk examines "Egalitarian Claim 10:6" in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Multnomah, 2004) by Wayne Grudem. Omelianchuk first defines and examines key terms used in the gender role debate (i.e., authority, leadership, submission, etc.) by using reference books such as a dictionary and thesaurus. He then critiques the "hierarchicalist" position and concludes that they, not egalitarians, use word tricks and obfuscate language to conceal the incoherence of their view. However, Omelianchuk's fundamental error is the assertion that differences in function necessarily implies inferiority in being, which is a common mistake to make when words and concepts are defined by resources other than the Bible. His logic fails because he, like other egalitarians, cannot grasp the simultaneous biblical concepts of equality in personhood and difference in function. He also fails to see that male headship is not harsh headship. As God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man (1 Cor 11:3), so men are to lovingly and sacrificially lead like Christ, who did not come "to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Lastly, he fails to see that male leadership is not due to women being "unfit" to lead. Rather, it is God's wise design for his creation which points to greater realities, namely, Christ's leadership of the church and the Triune God himself, who as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are equal in essence yet different in function.
Payne, Philip B. "Wild Hair and Gender Equality in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 3 (2006): 9-18.
The main thrust of Payne's article is to argue that Paul was advocating gender-appropriate hairstyles rather than head coverings such as shawls in 1 Corinthians 11. Although this understanding of Paul's admonition lies within the bounds of complementarianism, Payne then offers fourteen reasons why "head" in this passage should be interpreted as "source" rather than "authority."
Reasoner, Mark. "Chapter 16 in Paul's letter to the Romans: Dispensable Tagalong or Valuable Envelope?" Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 11-16.
Reasoner exegetes and examines the significance of Romans 16. Looking at Phoebe, Junia, and other significant women mentioned in this concluding passage, Reasoner concludes that Paul provides concrete examples of women occupying leadership positions in their local churches and that churches in the modern context should emulate this practice. While complementarians affirm the vital part of women in the work of the church, Reasoner stretches these leadership positions to the breaking point by understanding Junia to be an apostle as well as suggesting that this passage advocates women serving in teaching/ruling functions of the church.
Wright, N. T. "The Biblical Basis for Women's Service in the Church." Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (2006): 5-10.
In this article, Wright laments that Christians have "seriously misread" passages in the New Testament concerning gender and service in the church. Wright provides a sound exegesis and explanation of Gal 3:28 in which he argues that Paul's full inclusion of both men and women in the body of Christ in no way eradicates the differences in men and women. Then, after giving examples of the prominent place of women in the Gospels and Acts, Wright offers explanations of gender issues in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2. Far from providing a biblical basis for women in pastoral roles, in each case Wright simply changes the unambiguous wording of Paul to conform to a preconceived notion of gender roles in the church.
Non-Evangelical Authors/Articles
Claassens, L. Juliana M. "And the Moon Spoke Up: Genesis 1 and Feminist Theology." Review and Expositor 103, no. 2 (2006): 325-42.
Claassens attempts to deconstruct "binary oppositions" in Genesis 1 in order to break down hierarchical sociological divisions. Claassens sees a series of dualistic relationships such as male/female, sun/moon, light/dark, and land/sea in Genesis 1 that propagate the idea of dominance and superiority of one entity over the other. Appealing to Hebrew midrash and a story about the moon's inferiority to the sun, Claassens offers an "imaginative interpretation" that rethinks all of the dualistic relationships of Genesis 1, most significantly that between male and female. This reasoning, however, is diametrically opposed to the most basic tenets of Christianity—that God created and ordered the cosmos, declaring it all to be good.
deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. "It Is Not Good for the Human to Be Alone." Review and Expositor 103, no. 2 (2006): 343-58.
In this retelling of the creation narrative, deClaissé-Walford contends that the creation of the woman in Genesis 2 primarily suggests human community in general as opposed to the marriage relationship in particular. Therefore, the woman is seen as a "strong helper equal to" the human rather than a "helper fit for" the man.
Nyengele, M. Fulgence. "Gender Injustice and Pastoral Care in an African Context: Perichoresis as a Transformative Theological Resource." Journal of Theology (Summer 2006) 45-55.
Nyengele suggests that pastors adopt a model of pastoral care informed by the perichoretic relational community of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Nyengele, this example of mutual indwelling and self-giving, without "superiority and subordination, command and obedience," should be reflected in all human relationships and can serve to liberate oppressed females.
