Reformed Romantics: Fallen Sexuality, Relationships, and Genesis 3

For those who might be panicking slightly, I am not intending to give a chapter-by-chapter reflection on marriage and relationships for the whole Bible! I will be moving on more quickly if you bear with me for a little longer. A quick recap:

The creation of humanity as relational beings by God is a reflection of Trinitarian character and action. With respect to character, human beings are "like" God in that they are able to relate in within a matrix of intertwining personal similarities and differences. Relationships extend outside of Self to include Other through love. In action, Male and Female are created to be partners in the work that God has given them to do which reflects godly priorities. In Genesis 1-2 this is the stewardship of the earth and the expansion of humanity. While this work remains ongoing, it is not necessary that this remain the primary task of humanity. In fact, the context suggests that the relationships between Male and Female will necessarily adapt to new tasks emanating from the priorities of God.

Total Depravity is a theological touchstone of the Reformed tradition. As John Calvin puts it:

...all parts of the soul were possessed by sin after Adam deserted the fountain of righteousness. For not only did a lower appetite seduce him, but unspeakable impiety occupied the very citadel of his mind, and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart. (Institutes II.i.9)

It is obvious that human sexuality and gender relations must be impacted by the rebellion. The question is how far this fallenness extends. Has marriage been "ruined" by the Sin of Eden?

There is no need to read into Genesis 3 any Freudian symbolism with respect to reptiles and fruit. Corruption of interpersonal relationships, with particular pertinence for the romantic variety, is evident from Gen 3:7. Romantic dysfunction is a result, not a cause, of the Fall. Yet it appears this is not an Epic Fail scenario. While in v.16 an increase in childbirth pain is given as a curse, the woman also receives an assurance from God in that the whole process of childbirth and marriage remains a blessing. The waw at v.16b should best be read as disjunctive, implying that despite the agony the woman will retain a desire for her husband and he will retain headship over her in a marriage covenant. The NRSV gives, I believe, the best translation ("...you shall bring forth children, yet your desire..."). The NIV ignores the particle, making it unclear as to how the second half of the verse should be interpreted. The HCSB is way off the mark by ignoring this first particle and translating the second waw into a disjunctive when it is obviously meant to be a connective (Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you."), thereby rendering v.16b as a curse when it meant to be an extension of grace. Two observations can be made regarding marriage and relationships from this chapter.

First, romantic relationships between Male and Female remain blessed by God and are obviously meant to be continued in some form even given the fallen state of humanity. God did not rip Male and Female asunder in his judgment - if he did, there is no reason why the Man and Woman left Eden to continue their lives together. In bearing children they still appear to be fulfilling the work that God had given them to do. When children are finally born it is said to be with the Lord's help (Gen 4:1). At this point we cannot say that Marriage Is Doomed by sin.

Second, despite the blessings that remain with the Man and Woman, we need to take the fallen nature of sexuality and relationships seriously. I have noticed a particularly American synonym for "virginity" cropping up in Australian circles - "purity". I think it is partially due to a certain Anglo-Saxon middle-class aversion to being blunt. "I have a Purity Problem" sounds a lot more palatable than "I can't stop watching gay porn on the internet." There are two problems with the "purity" word. First, the few instances of 'agneia in the NT do not specifically refer to sexual behaviour but to a consistent pattern of godly behaviour in all matters of public conduct. A thief has as much of a "Purity Problem" as an adulterer. Second, "purity" implies the a priori existence of something pure. However, the reality is that the Chaste Virgins of Victorian Romances share the same fallen sexuality as Bangkok Lady-boys. It is not surprising, therefore, that measures designed to "safeguard" the purity of Christian youth such as Purity Rings or Abstinence Only Sex-Ed should end up being abject failures in practice. This fallen sexuality will therefore continue to manifest itself in relationships, including marriages between mature Christian persons. There is no place or context in the current age where fallen sexuality cannot undermine true love and service of either God or Neighbour.

Reformed Romantics: Helpers and Genesis 2

Much ink has already been spilt in recent times with respect to the nature of the created genders in Genesis 2. Attention has been drawn, by Ash amongst others, to the fact that the Woman is to be a "helper" (Heb: 'uzer) to the Man in his God-given tasks. Woman is to play a central role in this work. She is not Man's companion, cook, whore, go-fer, or any other demeaning functionary. Man's task would be impossible to accomplish without Woman. Tracing the use of "helper" in the Old Testament we find it applied most often to God himself. God is the Helper of Israel, the one who delivered his people from Pharaoh (Exod 18:4), protected them from their enemies (Deut 33:7), and because of his protection is the one to be praised (Ps 28:7). The fact that Woman is called a "helper" is, according to the use of the label in Jewish culture, a term of the highest honour and respect.

Two questions must therefore be answered if this passage is to serve in ongoing edification for Christians.

First: What exactly is the task that Man needs a helper for? The clear answer is to have dominion over the whole of creation by the exercise of God-shaped rule. This is to be achieved through subduing all creatures of the earth and bearing of children to be a future generation of stewards. This is a task that will continue as long as the present age. In order for humanity to continue a new generation must always be born and animals that are not continually subdued will turn feral, which would not serve either their purpose or ours. We must say that in the plans of God the ongoing institution of marriage between Man and Woman must be considered Good.

Second: Does this Imperative Of Eden remain central to humanity's place in the purposes of God? If we marry and keep a few chickens in the backyard are we then "truly human"? When the biblical narrative is taken as a whole it is clear that, in terms of human relationships, God desires more from us than simply pairing up for procreation. In fact, I am tempted to ask whether this facet of our humanity, Good as it remains, shifts from Centre to Periphery in the purposes of humanity.

As the Bible unfolds more and more is commanded of humanity by God. Our task, in other words, shifts from one of Dominion to one of Redemption following the entry of Sin in Genesis 3. If this is the case, then it is only logical to assume that the way in which Woman continues to be the helper of Man must also change. It follows that, if procreation is not the main game, then patterns of godly relationship should shift away from the Marriage, though the Goodness of such relationships as they are proscribed by God remains.

Next time: How does the marriage relationship support the shifted task of humanity once Eden is in the rear view mirror?