In Eve’s Fall We Sinned All?
Monica Migliorino Miller’s cover story on “The Authority of Women” (June 1996) is a painful read. She is to be commended for her willingness to go the distance in her apology for the Church’s patristic writings. Treading the mine field carefully, she searches, and stretches, thin fragments of texts to support her thesis.
Miller clearly loves our Church Fathers. So ought all of us, for their legacy is inestimable. Augustine’s City of God, a text I shall never be done with, is always by my bedside. His Confessions and treatise On Christian Doctrine are priceless gifts.
But, reverence for the Church’s patristic legacy hardly demands that we discard discernment. The Fathers were not infallible. On occasion, they were also poor readers of scriptural texts.
Augustine’s reading of Genesis 16 is a case in point. Quoting the Pauline text of 1 Corinthians 7:4 on spousal authority over the other’s body — a verse that Miller glosses at length — Augustine praises Abraham as “a man able to use women as a man should” and absolves him of any responsibility in fathering Ishmael.
He quite overlooks the affliction of twice-oppressed Hagar, which God does not overlook. God names her unborn child, whom he declares Hagar’s child, not Sarai’s. The divine restitution amounts to a righting of the wrongs of slavery (City of God, xvi 25), a lesson too long unmentioned and unlearned. Hagar, in turn, names God “the God of vision.” God’s plan for Ishmael confers upon Hagar matriarchal honors, closely paralleling Abraham’s patriarchy.
Our venerable Father Augustine taught us that “wherever a Christian finds truth, it is the Lord’s,” but he himself found not truth in God’s dealings of charity with the slave woman Hagar.
Women today, all too often on the run for their own lives and the lives of their children, may not find much comfort in patristic writings but can look up to God’s dealings with Hagar and her response. Cast out without a crust of bread for her son, Hagar nevertheless raised Ishmael to honor his father: Ishmael joins his brother Isaac in giving burial honors to Abraham (Gen. 25:9).
The Fathers are not alone in their occasional myopia. Miller herself would profit from a close reading of Genesis. “Eve’s disobedience was the source of man’s damnation,” she states. I heard that canard also, during my formative years.
We ought to beware of reading into Scripture what it does not say. If we insist on the literal meaning of Genesis, Adam received God’s Law, not Eve, who was not yet made when God instructed him. There is no basis, in Genesis, to suppose that Eve had heard God’s voice before the Fall. She could only know of the Law from Adam’s lips.
Had Adam taken God’s Law to heart, communicated its importance to Eve, taken pains to preserve her and himself from breaking it? Hardly. He was by Eve’s side even as she plucked the forbidden fruit, relates Genesis. A sin of omission, just before the sin of commission?
When God confronted our first parents, Eve blamed the serpent for tricking her, thus confessing herself reckless and vulnerable to seduction. Adam, on the other hand, blamed both Eve and God himself: “The woman you put here with me-she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”
God was now the reckless one, and Eve was suddenly a stumbling block and cause of Adam’s downfall. It is a stance that every abused wife recognizes. Called to account, Adam repudiated the one he had called “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
Paul’s teaching that the husband is the intended head of the wife is indeed supported by Genesis 3:17, where God reminds Adam that he ate “from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat.” God addresses no such reproof to Eve. She was to learn from, and be guided by, Adam. He was made first and was given the Law before he was given a wife. How well did he do?
It would be refreshing to hear from Dr. Miller on the implications of Adam’s conspiratorial silence as he watched Eve falling and, by her fall, condemning all her children to death. Of course, all her children would be his children too!
On the day that this lesson is fully learned, abortion clinics will be out of business. And more.
Maria J. Cirurgião
Endicott, New York
Monica Migliorino Miller replies: I thank Maria J. Cirurgião for her very thoughtful and intelligently written letter.
First, I agree that the Fathers of the Church are not infallible. Indeed my article clearly recognized that there is often an anti-woman bias in the Fathers’ viewpoint. When I look to the Fathers to discover the nature of feminine authority, this is a process of discernment.
Influenced by Neo-Platonism, not everything that the Fathers wrote or said is consistent with the faith of the Church. Augustine’s exegesis of the Hagar/Abraham relationship may be a case in point. It is only when the Fathers base their teachings on the revelation of Christ that, as I said in the article, a “view of women begins to emerge which recognizes their essential role in the fulfillment of the world’s redemption in Christ.”
I combed the writings of the Fathers to show that, despite their Neo-Platonism, they often assert the equality of men and women when they are informed by the tradition.
I spoke of Eve’s disobedience as the source of man’s damnation within the context of discussing Irenaeus’s New Eve theology. Irenaeus is making a very important theological point: Eve brought man’s Fall, Mary brings salvation. In other words, though a woman is capable of the greatest evil, a woman is capable of the greatest good. Thus, even for a Church Father the female sex is not a barrier to this.
I never meant to imply that men, through Adam, are not responsible for the Fall. Certain theological fundamentals must be accepted: Both disobey, both fall from grace, both endure punishment, however this may be worked out exegetically. Actually, Cirurgião’s explanation of Adam’s complicity is a good one. What must be kept in mind is that the Adam and Eve relation is a one-flesh unity. The Fall is the fall of a couple.
Also, I do not deny that the husband, like Adam to Eve, is the head of his wife. However, headship is something terribly misunderstood. Cirurgião states that Eve “was to learn from, and be guided by, Adam.” This implies that authority is a one-way street, that only men have it.
The most important step in solving the thorny subject of authority in the Church is to realize that authority, if it is authentic, is only exercised covenantally. Its prime reality exists in the one-flesh unity, thus nuptial unity, between Christ and the Church, the head and the body. Headship is not power, not dominance, not force. Authority resides in being a source of life. Headship is synonymous with being the origin of life and thus being in possession of the right and responsibility to see that what one has brought to life is led to its fulfillment.
Adam is the head of Eve because she is from him, and I think Cirurgião makes a good point that the instructions from God regarding the Tree of Knowledge are given to Adam who then instructs Eve, thus he is in a position to guide her and teach her. But true authority is not exercised monistically, as despots, as well as feminists, believe. Eve, in relation to Adam, also has authority. She is his body, meaning she completes him; she is called by God to complete him as a man. She teaches him his role and identity. She, in a true sense, rescues him from his solitude and brings him into human community wherein the male can take up his own responsibilities to life. The woman is a source-mother of all the living, thus she is the center of human community and moral life.
Once we stray from a covenantally-based authority, we are right back in to monistically-exercised power, a concept which is antithetical to a Church that rests upon the free, differentially based Eucharistic love of Christ and his Bride.
[Editor’s note: Covenantally-based male/female authority is discussed thoroughly in Miller’s book Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church, Scranton University Press. Available through Associated University Presses, 440 Foregate Dr., Cranbury, New Jersey 08512 ($46.50 ). Miller also discusses it in another book coming out in early 1997, The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church, Crisis Books, 714 Hesburgh Library, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 ($13.95).]
From a “Funnymentalist”
I read “An Interactive Detective Story” (July/August 1996) and have some comments:
1. You asked, “When did the church get started? Who are its founders? But you really didn’t answer the questions. The church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The foundation for the Church is answered in Ephesians 2:20 It is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone.” The builder is Jesus Christ! “I will build my church.” It is his Church! (I assume you agree.)
2. You asked: “How old is the oldest known church or house of worship for your faith?” The Church is people! not wood, brick, and stones. We can have our names written down on the membership rolls of every organization that calls itself Christian, but if it is not written down in the Christ’s “Book of Life” we are in big trouble (Rev. 20:15). The One who is building his Church, Jesus (not men, Acts 2:47) adds people who believe in him, and their names are accordingly added to his Book of Life.
3. Mary was the recipient of grace according to the text. The RC Jerusalem Bible has come around to the KJV type of interpretation as has the RC New American Bible: “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter!” (NAB); “Rejoice, so highly favored!” (JB).
The blessed mother of our Lord was highly favored (the recipient of grace) according to Luke 1:28. Paul wrote to the church at Colossae: “He (Jesus Christ) is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first born from the dead; so that he himself might come to have first place in everything” (Col. 1:18). So if us funnymentalists seek to give Jesus Christ the preeminence [first place] in all things and don’t give the mother of Jesus first place in anything, you can say we are attacking her if you want. But we will let Jesus be the Judge (John 5:22-23).
Charlie Gillespie
via the Internet
Not Good Enough
Unfortunately, the argument in “An Interactive Detective Story” is full of pitfalls. I don’t think the fact that God commanded the use of statues in a few instances can be used as a defense of the use of religious objects in general.
The Protestant response would be, “This just goes to show how seriously we must take the prohibitions of Exodus 20:4-5. Only in those areas in which God has commanded the use of religious objects can they be properly used. Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, constantly condemns all other religious objects. So, in the absence of an explicit divine command, all such objects are forbidden.”
Quite frankly, I don’t know how to explain the justification for religious objects, unless one rests in the infallible magisterium. The argument referred to above, however, is easily refuted and should not be used.
Richard P. Edelman
Ithaca, New York
Tony Kovach replies: Thanks to Charlie Gillespie for sharing your thoughts.
The article was intended to entertain, while explaining the following points: Jesus established his Church (Matt. 16:18), and today there are some 28,000 different denominations, with new ones appearing at the rate of five per week.
Was this our Lord’s intent? Clearly not (cf. John 17:21-22), although he often predicted divisions and false teaching (cf. Matt. 24:4-14) as well as eventual unity (cf. John 10:16). If we are objective in seeking the truth, then, history, reason, and Scripture will all supply clear evidence to let us see, “which church is his Church.”
For instance, it is useful to see what the early writers believed. Since Christian teachings are almost 2,000 years old, if a modern theory such as “once saved, always saved” can’t be traced historically back through the centuries to the time of the early Church, how can it be authentic?
Catholics agree that Jesus is the founder and cornerstone of the True Church, which had its “birth” on Pentecost. Apart from Jesus, we can do nothing! Jesus chose to establish an enduring Church and gave its earthly leaders authority to bind, loose, and make decisions (Matt. 16:18; 18:18). Jesus told his apostles that listening to their teaching was listening to him (Luke 10:16).
We see in Acts and Paul’s letters how that authority (Acts 1:15-26, 6:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; Titus 1:5) and true teachings (2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6) were handed on to other worthy men, who were ordained and set apart by the laying on of hands.
The point of referring to the age of church buildings is that the True Church should have older structures than churches that have been started by men. The age of a church’s buildings is a simple test to indicate how old a denomination and its beliefs are, and it is suggested by Galatians 1:6-8 and Matt. 16:18, 28:20.
If we are seeking God’s will, Mary should be a source of Christian unity, not division. Catholics believe Jesus is the head, and no official Church document deifies or encourages worship of Mary. Catholics fulfill the prophecy of Luke 1:48. Does your church?
Catholics correctly see the honor which God bestowed on Mary (see Rev. 12:1-2). Since Jesus is “the new Adam,” who but Mary could be “the new Eve”? When tested, Eve followed her own will. By contrast, Mary’s “Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) responds to God’s graces in order to do his will.
That faithful response is why Jesus told his disciple (and by inference, us) to take Mary into our home (John 19:27). We are mindful that the saints in heaven pray with us to God (Rev. 5:8), and we know that Jesus listened to his Mother’s prayer at Cana.
Regarding differences between translations, let’s briefly point out that a single word in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic can have multiple meanings when translated into English. That is but one reason why Scripture needs an official interpreter, as 2Peter 1:20 and 3:16 indicates, and that interpreter is clearly his Church, which can make decisions (Matt. 18:18), bind and loose (Matt. 16:18).
Scripturally, what is the pillar and foundation of truth? First Timothy 3:15 supplies the answer! If we want to be sure that we are living according to his truth, we should seek to be one with his Church!
Thanks to Richard Edelman for his comment on the statues argument.
We have two types of biblical examples for the use of statues and religious objects: those wrongly used in idol worship (in violation of Exod. 20:4-5) and those that are used in a proper fashion, as is exemplified by Exodus 25:18, Numbers 21:8 and Joshua 3:14. First Kings 6:29-35 is particularly useful, since it cites the use of statues in the Temple, a close parallel to the use of statues in churches today.
Besides the Catholic and Orthodox use of religious images, many other churches use stained glass windows, pictures, and figures as ways of recalling Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, or saintly heroes and heroines of faith. Thus the vast majority of Christians follow the “Catholic” approach in the proper use of religious objects. People who object to the use of religious images typically do so thinking the images are being “worshiped.”
But Catholics aren’t taught to “bow and worship” statues, an operative clause in properly understanding Exodus 20: 4-5. So why do they think God’s will is being violated?
These same objectors often carry photos of their friends or family in their purses and wallets; they adorn their desks, shelves and walls with pictures too. Is that “worshiping” those images? They’d answer “No!” and rightly so! People carry images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others on their coins and bills, but don’t worship them or consider that idolatrous.
Our God-given common sense tells us: we can love, honor and respect a person, and be reminded of them by an image, without worshiping them or the image. Thus there is no violation of Exodus 20:4-5. Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Hebrews 11:1-12:1 reminds us that we are surrounded by “saintly” neighbors! Catholic images are reminders of positive role-models of Christian living.
[Editor’s note: Tony Kovach invites comments and may be reach by e-mail at L.A.Tony_Kovach@Juno.com.]
Mormon Temple
I WOULD like to thank you for Isaiah Bennett’s relatively accurate and sensitive description of our temple activities (“Attending a Mormon Temple,” March 1996). You presented the facts fairly.
I must point out, though, that the purpose of the Celestial Room is not for self-aggrandizement, but rather for introspection and goal setting. You make it sound like the Temple attender enters a luxury hotel to displace Deity.
This could not be further from the truth; all those that I know would stand soundly against such doctrine. Knowing the honesty and integrity that we all hold so dear, you know that that cannot deny the truth. Therefore, by our integrity, I can say that the purpose of the temple is to lift and teach-not to make proud.
You compare the temples to your cathedrals and places of worship. That’s not exactly an accurate comparison: Does one compare a school to a chapel? Certainly, they are both places of learning, but the comparison halts there. A better comparison would be our chapels to your chapels, our stake centers to your stake centers. All the things that you state that go on there (welcoming the sinner, exhorting proper behavior, pulpit preaching) are found in our chapels (wards and stakes).
The reason that the temples are so restrictive (please note that the recommend interviews ask the holders if they feel that they are worthy in every way-the individual determines worthiness) is due the temple’s nature. The truths therein are spiritual, hence one has to be spiritually tuned to understand the truths.
A person who is laden with sin is not spiritually tuned and will not appreciate the temple experience. These work with the priesthood leadership to reach temple activity. Please note that none are denied entrance-we invite all to come and partake of the rich blessings being one with God.
Some may say that our proxy work is displacing Christ and that the ordinances we perform defocus the Trinity -that cannot be further from the truth. While Christ sojourned here, he entrusted the Seventy to preach and to baptize: Did these supplant Christ’s role? No. Yet he was not doing the healing, preaching, repentance, or baptizing.
Still, it was valid, because he sent them. The work in the temples is a trust-he has called those who have received the ordinances to perform proxy work.
Laboring to reach our brothers and sisters (in this life and those who have passed on) is one of our callings, perhaps the most important.
Sean Walton
via the Internet
Isaiah Bennett responds: Mormon prophets and apostles have frequently taught the members that they are “the best people God has on earth” and “the only friends God has” (Journal of Discourses, which is part of official Mormon Scriptures). The temples are restricted to these great ones only.
It is not quite correct to compare Mass with the meetings that take place in public Mormon chapels. The worship in these ward and stake houses consists mainly in talks, prepared by members, dealing with topics as diverse as genealogy work, food storage, citizenship, Joseph Smith, or the Resurrection.
There is usually no reading from Scripture, only four prayers, two of which are formally offered over the bread and water, and some hymns. The main intent seems to be to encourage the participants to remain loyal to the Mormon Church and its leaders. This is not to say that the goals and methods of such services are not useful.
But the comparison of the Catholic Mass with Mormon temple work stands. Each is represented as the point of highest devotion and closest contact with the Lord. The differences are weighty. At Mass, saints and sinners mingle. All hear the same Word preached and offer the same perfect Sacrifice. All are exhorted and helped to believe and live in a way so as to one day be with God.
Only Mormons deemed worthy by their leaders may enter the temple and receive the special information and instructions necessary for salvation. While a good deal of the temple presentation may be pieced together from various public Mormon writings, the sacred names, handc.asps, and arm gestures taught in the temple cannot.
Without these, no one may return to God the Father. But with the knowledge obtained in the temple, the Mormon is expected to believe and live in a way so as to one day be a God.