If Adam and Eve were equal in their roles and responsibilities in the garden prior to the fall, then Eve would have been held equally responsible as Adam in keeping the covenant, but this was not the case. It is Adam who was held responsible for breaking the covenant, not Eve, because he was the federal head (Gen. 3:17-19, cf. Hos. 6:7). Adam and Eve no longer existed in true righteousness and holiness as they did before the fall. The prior ordered relationship that already perfectly existed between Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is altered post-fall, with the husband and wife both having sinful natures.

There is a lot of debate going on currently regarding male and female roles in marriage and the church. Increasingly, some Christians are arguing that there was no authority structure in Adam and Eve’s relationship in the garden of Eden prior to their fall into sin.
According to this line of thinking, if there was no relationship order before the fall, then authoritative male headship was not God’s original design but rather part of the post-fall curse. The conclusion of those who argue this way is that husbands and wives are to equally submit to each other, and all those verses in the New Testament about wifely submission and women not being able to teach authoritatively in the church must mean something else. Is this actually true? No. Here’s why.
We learn about God’s original design for men and women in the second chapter of Genesis.
In Genesis 2 God made a conditional covenant with Adam before Eve was created:
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:15-17)
In Genesis 2 we also learn that God made Eve, an image-bearer of God, to be a helper to Adam:
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.  The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen. 2:18-24)
In these two passages we learn that God made Adam first and then made Eve from the rib of Adam for the specific purpose of being a helper to Adam. Additionally, before God created her, God gave Adam the direct command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, along with specific sanctions if Adam failed to pass the test of fidelity to his sovereign King. God also gave Adam authority to name the animals before Eve existed.
Authoritative male headship was part of God’s original design in the garden of Eden.
As Denny Burk points out in an article for The Gospel Coalition, one of the key arguments against authoritative male headship is based on an interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that denies the reality of order in marriage before the fall.[1] (See below for more on Genesis 3:16.) Yet, Adam’s headship before the fall is on display in the following circumstances:

Adam—not Eve—was given the responsibility to keep God’s command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 2:16-17, God made a conditional covenant with Adam (also known as the covenant of works) to test his fidelity to his Creator. Eve had not been created at the time God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was the covenant head who represented all of humanity, and by his disobedience he brought condemnation on himself and all his posterity. Similarly, Jesus was the covenant head who, by his fully obedient life and perfect sacrificial death, secured salvation and eternal life for all who trust in him (see Romans 5:12-21 regarding the first Adam and the last Adam).
Adam exercised authority over the animals by naming them (Gen. 2:19). Similarly he called the helper God gave to him “Woman” (Gen. 2:23). Post-fall, Adam would give his wife the name Eve, “because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20), showing his faith in God’s promise to provide a savior for mankind.
Even though Eve sinned first, God placed the fault on Adam, as he was the one who bore the responsibility to keep God’s command in Genesis 2:16-17:

And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife    and have eaten of the treeof which I commanded you,    ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you;    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;    and you shall eat the plants of the field.By the sweat of your face    you shall eat bread,till you return to the ground,    for out of it you were taken;for you are dust,    and to dust you shall return.” (Gen. 3:17-19)
Satan sought to overthrow God’s established order for the human family.
The fact that the serpent approached Eve and not Adam is an indication of Satan’s attempt to overthrow God’s design for the order of creation:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1; see also Gen. 3:2-7)
According to theologian Meredith Kline in Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview,
Various factors may have entered into the tempter’s strategy of approaching the woman rather than Adam. Certainly in maneuvering Adam out of the position of primary response Satan was defying and subverting the structure of authority God had appointed for the human family. Moreover, there would be greater contradiction of this same divine institution if Eve could be induced to lead the family head into sin than if it happened the other way around.[2]
Kline continues regarding Satan’s attack against the social structure God had ordained:
Satan’s challenge to God’s authority compelled man to choose between two masters. It was part of Satan’s falsifying of the situation that he projected for himself the image of lordly benefactor. While he was getting the woman to separate in theory between God’s interests and her own and to act in a spirit of self-interest over against the (insinuated) inconsiderateness of God, Satan managed to strike the pose of one who was himself concerned for man’s best interests. At every turn he forced onto man this choice between authorities.
Read More
Related Posts:

A subset of the French elite is taking a stand against gender ideology. In September, over fifty medical professionals, prominent academics, legal experts, doctors, philosophers, psychiatrists, judges, and psychoanalysts published a scathing open letter condemning aspects of gender ideology and gender transition in children. Published through the Observatory of Ideological Discourses on Children and Adolescents, the letter laid out their concerns.

In less than a decade, the transgender movement has taken the West by storm. Gender ideology spread swiftly from campuses to public schools; the media obediently changed their language and their ledes; the entertainment industry flung themselves enthusiastically into producing propaganda for all ages. There was a sudden rise in female rapists who looked suspiciously masculine; women were told to shut up and welcome their new penis-packing sisters into female-only spaces; religious people were informed that they were guilty of a brand-new phobia, having just gotten used to the previous ones.
But most worryingly, untold thousands of children—usually girls—became convinced that they were born into the wrong bodies. A medical industry sprang up almost overnight to remedy this, providing double mastectomies, sex change surgeries, and hormone blockers to transform their human subjects into the people they thought they were. There were dissenting voices—they were shouted down. Heads of state obediently fell into line, conditioned to snap to attention when the ever-expanding LGBT movement informed them what was next on the agenda. Suddenly, parents were faced with girls who insisted they were boys and boys insisting they were girls, and everyone was telling them to head down to the new gender clinic to get the drugs and snips their children needed.
It was staggering to see how swiftly dissent was crushed and gender ideology became a new dogma. And yet, in the last several years, there have been signs of hope—cracks in the transgender narrative. Those cracks are growing across Europe, and there is a very real chance that this horrifying civilizational medical experimentation on the young may finally be forced to face the facts.
In the United Kingdom, gender ideology spread far and fast. Even Boris Johnson transitioned, backing away last year from plans to ban sex change surgeries for minors at the behest of trans activists and, according to some Tory parliamentarians, due to influence from his millennial live-in fiancée, Carrie Symonds. Prince Harry, the Windsor wokeling, endorsed the radical transgender charity Mermaids, which promotes sex change treatments for children. Feminist critics of the transgender movement were attacked: J.K. Rowling was doxed and received death threats; philosophy professor Kathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex after a wave of harassment and intimidation from trans activists.
But while it is too early to say that the tide is turning, there are indications that the trans movement has hit the high-water mark. In 2020, the UK government announced that it was scrapping plans for “self-identification,” which would have allowed people to change their gender via a statutory declaration as opposed to attaining certification from the Gender Recognition Panel. LGBT activists decried this move as “a major blow to LGBTQ rights.” Trans activists are also warning that opinion may be turning against key elements of their cultural project, especially gender transition for children.
This aspect of the pushback bears the face of Keira Bell, who went to the Tavistock clinic’s Gender Identity Development Service in London at age 16. Bell, struggling with gender dysphoria, was promptly prescribed puberty blockers, which stop natural physical development. Trans activists claim that puberty blockers give children time to grapple with their gender identity and that they can resume puberty if they choose, but the reality is these drugs can have permanent effects. By age 20, Bell had her breasts removed and the treatments she’d taken had given her body hair, a beard, a low voice, and impacted her sexual function—and she realized that none of it had helped her.
“What was really going on was that I was a girl insecure in my body who had experienced parental abandonment, felt alienated from my peers, suffered from anxiety and depression, and struggled with my sexual orientation,” she wrote later. “As I matured, I recognized that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause.” Bell became what is known as a “de-transitioner” and once again lives as a woman. She took the Tavistock clinic to court, where her team argued that “Tavistock had failed to protect young patients who sought its services, and that—instead of careful, individualized treatment—the clinic had conducted what amounted to uncontrolled experiments on us.” Bell won a unanimous verdict.
To the horror of the trans movement, the judges ruled that children under 16 could not give consent to puberty blockers, and clinics seeking to prescribe these drugs to 16 and 17-year-olds might need to obtain permission from the courts. Mermaids called the judgment a “devastating blow;” Stonewall, a UK LGBT charity and the largest gay rights organization in Europe said it was “stunning.” Earlier this year, an appeals court overturned the judgement, and Bell is seeking leave to take her case to the supreme court. The futures of thousands of children hang in the balance.
Bell’s case broke through the monolithic discussion on gender identity, which for several years has been almost totally dominated by trans activists. The BBC and other major British media outlets have reported on Tavistock scandals, medical misdemeanours, and dozens of resignations from gender clinics. Criticisms of trans ideology that would never get published in countries like Canada now appear regularly. Slate even asked in 2019 “how transphobic discourse has become so mainstream in the UK” and called the UK “the motherland of ‘gender criticism.’”
In a little-noticed but significant event, last month Vice reported that the BBC is planning to withdraw from “Diversity Champions,” a program run by Stonewall.
Read More

What happened in the RCA? In the words of one former RCA pastor, the RCA had gangrene in their right foot but amputated their left hand. “What would have made more sense is the progressives to go to the PCUSA or UCC if they were willing to leave,” said Bremer. “They were in the minority and had places to go. But they made it clear that this is not what they were going to do.” “The General Synod has repeatedly made statements that are more traditional in orientation about sexuality, but those are just statements,” said David Komline, associate professor of church history at Western Theological Seminary. “There are no mechanisms in place to hold people accountable to these statements.” “Our polity did not allow us to hold others accountable who were living in sin,” according to Gerbers, who was a delegate to General Synod in 2013, 2016, 2019 and 2021. Currently, the RCA website’s Statements of General Synod paint a picture of the RCA slowly and conflictedly coming into line with the revisionists’ position on sexuality. 

LGBTQ ideology has divided one church after another: Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), Mennonite Church USA, United Methodist Church, Church of the Brethren, Reformed Church in America.
In this series, we will look at some of their stories. Each one shows how legitimizing alternative sexualities in the church is a mix of oil and water. It simply does not work. Another case in point: The Reformed Church in America
Of all the denominations that would have lessons for the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC), the Reformed Church in America (RCA) would be at the top of the list. They have the same statements of faith and the same Dutch heritage. While sharing many similarities, they have distinct histories. The RCA has a long history of trying to maintain unity despite differences, reaching across doctrinal differences to cooperate with churches outside the Reformed tradition. The CRC has a long history of seeking biblical and confessional fidelity, careful selection of ecumenical partners. 
RCA and CRC Ancient History 
The RCA is one of the oldest denominations in America, officially beginning in 1628 in New York. They became independent from the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk (NHK) in 1792. Then, in 1834 the NHK went through a split called the Afscheiding. The government-run NHK was rampant with German rationalism and French skepticism. Modernism reigned in the universities and most pulpits. The Three Forms of Unity were official but were often denied or derided. Ministers only needed to agree with “insofar as” they agreed with God’s Word. Most sermons were moral essays, urging the good life without mentioning human sinfulness, necessity of new birth, conversion, atonement through Christ, justification by faith, or sanctification. The Afscheiding left the state church and began to meet on their own. Fines on gatherings were imposed and immigrants poured into the United States. The Afscheiding band following Albertus Van Raalte was accepted into the RCA in 1850. Some among the Van Raalte group were disappointed in that union as they were afraid that the RCA was much like the corrupt NHK in the Netherlands.1
In 1857, a small handful left the RCA and the CRC was born. At first, the CRC consisted of only four churches and one minister. Meanwhile, the Van Raalte immigrants were not on board with membership in the Masonic lodge. The Masons required an oath of secrecy and especially in the Netherlands were viewed as something of a cult. The RCAs in the eastern USA did allow its members to belong to Masonic lodges.2 In 1870, the RCA General Synod declared that Masonic membership was not a good practice but that it should not be forbidden by church law. 
The Masonic lodge controversy would come to a head in 1880. Four memorials (i.e. overtures) from the western RCAs asked that Masonic membership be banned by church law. Trying to take a middle road between the Masonic-affirming east and the anti-Masonic west, the RCA General Synod gave a similar conclusion to that of 1870. A mass exodus from the RCA ensued. The CRC ranks mushroomed. The Afscheiding churches in the Netherlands withdrew their endorsement of the RCA and thereafter encouraged immigrants to join the CRC. The CRC would gain entire congregations, families and key ministers from the RCA. By 1895, CRC membership surpassed the RCA’s Midwest sector. 
Thus, the RCA in the west (Michigan, Iowa, etc.) being settled by predominantly Afscheiding refugees has had a different character than the RCA in the east (New York, New Jersey). 
The RCA would continue to grow and its membership peaked in 1967 with 384,751 members. Thereafter it began a slow decline, primarily in the east. In the 2000s, the RCA west would also begin a decline but the RCA east was by this time far smaller than it had once been. By 2011, Zeeland Classis in Michigan had over 15,400 total members and averaged 8,888 worshipers. Whereas the entire Regional Synod of Albany (made up of six classes in New York) had nearly the same amount of total members with 15,700, and only worshiped at 6,451.3 Yet, at General Synod, Albany had six classes worth of votes and Zeeland only had one. The RCA east was overrepresented when it came to voting on pivotal matters. 
Enter Topic of Homosexuality
The first time the RCA made any statements on LGBT matters was its June 12-16, 1978 General Synod meeting at Columbia University. There delegates approved a paper titled, “Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal” (Minutes of General Synod 1978: pp.233-239). The paper presented a clear biblical rejection of homosexual acts but also affirmed the dignity of homosexual persons.
Some of the paper’s statements include the following:

Paul’s rejection of homosexual activity is beyond question.
When Paul rejects homosexual acts on the grounds that they are “against nature” he expresses and reaffirms the clear sense of Scripture: Human sexuality was created for heterosexual expression…When the subject of homosexuality is raised, the majority of modern opinion still seems to be: “People weren’t made to be that way.” If such opinion is expressed with fear, loathing or recrimination, as is often the case, it must be pitied and resisted. When the same statement is made in humility and with compassion, it may be considered biblical.
Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God for human sexuality.
The homosexual invert [one who does not decide to become homosexual, but for whom genetic, hormonal, or psychosocial factors have influenced his or her sexual orientation] is no more to be blamed for his/her condition than a [child who is cognitively impaired]. It follows, then, that the church’s ministry to the invert may best begin with the attempt to lift a burden of guilt that need not be carried. Inverts may not idealize their orientation as a legitimate alternative, but neither should they blame themselves for their sexual orientation.
While we cannot affirm homosexual behavior, at the same time we are convinced that the denial of human and civil rights to homosexuals is inconsistent with the biblical witness and Reformed theology. 

While avoiding simplistic and obnoxious social crusades, the church must affirm through its preaching and pastoral ministry that homosexuality is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. God’s gracious intent for human sexual fulfillment is the permanent bond of heterosexual love. This redemptive word must be spoken, with sensitivity, caring, and clarity to any person who would make a perverted sexual choice, and to society as a whole.
It is one matter to affirm that self-chosen homosexual acts are sinful. It is quite another to reject, defame, and excoriate the humanity of the person who performs them. This distinction has often been missed. It is possible and necessary on biblical grounds to identify homosexuality as a departure from God’s intent. However…there are no theological grounds on which a homosexual may be singled out for a greater measure of judgment. All persons bear within them the marks of the fall.

This position would be reaffirmed the next year in 1979, again in 1990 and also 1994.
The 1990 General Synod voted to adopt an official position on the issue of same-sex relationships, as some classes felt there was confusion within the church as to the status of the 1978 report. It was decided “To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the practicing homosexual lifestyle is contrary to scripture, while at the same time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings” (Minutes of General Synod 1990: p461).
The 1994 General Synod adopted a resolution of humble repentance for insensitivity to those of a homosexual orientation who sought “self-acceptance and dignity” among other failings. Nevertheless, the prior orthodox statements were reaffirmed. General Synod “recognizes and confesses that the Reformed Church in America has failed to live up to its own statements regarding homosexuality.” General Synod “seeks to obey the whole of Scripture, demonstrating in its own life the same obedience it asks from others.” They called on the RCA to enter “a process of repentance, prayer, learning, and growth in ministry. This process will be guided by the basic biblical-theological framework presented in the previous statements of the General Synod” (Minutes of General Synod 1994: p375-376).
In 1997, General Synod did not discuss homosexuality, but did enter a “Formula of Agreement” with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), and the United Church of Christ (UCC). The RCA was thereafter in “full communion” with denominations farther to the left on the theological spectrum on a host of topics, including sexuality. For example, the UCC ordained its first openly gay person into ministry already in 1972. By 1985, the UCC General Synod declared itself “open and affirming” to LGBTQ persons by a 95% majority. The ELCA would open all ministerial offices to practicing LGBT people in 2009 and the PCUSA would do the same in 2011. 
In 2004, RCA General Synod affirmed “that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” The Commission on Church Order was asked to consider an amendment to the Book of Church Order that added the affirmation into the RCA’s church order (Minutes of General Synod 2004, pp. 332-333).
In 2005, the commission reported that it had considered an amendment to the Book of Church Order but did not feel it was appropriate, and gave six reasons why (Minutes of General Synod 2005, pp. 90-91). In its report, they said the 2004 statement on monogamous heterosexual marriage “does not carry the weight of definitive church teaching. The General Synod does not have among its powers the determination of what, finally, is the ‘teaching of the church.’” Additionally, they were “reluctant to use the church order as a means of addressing social issues currently before society and the church. The commission seriously questions whether the insertion of such a definition would, as proponents of the overture claim, ‘allow the Reformed Church to avoid the difficult and public schism being played out on the world scene.’ The placement of the definition within the church order would do little to reduce the heat of controversy across the church.” 
More pivotal, on June 17, 2005, General Synod deposed Norman Kansfield, the dismissed president of New Brunswick Theological Seminary, for presiding at his daughter’s lesbian wedding. “The church of Jesus Christ needs to be as inclusive as the arms of our Lord himself,” Kansfield said to delegates. This action would trigger the formation of the RCA’s LGBTQ lobby group, Room for All (RFA). Their website credited this event as the galvanizing force for RFA: 
Though, in the end, Norm was found guilty of violating the peace, unity and purity of the church, a period of “don’t ask, don’t tell” had ended. Through these events and others, the need was made clear for a voice of full inclusion, that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach will not ultimately serve the church in communicating God’s love for all people. A small group continued to meet over the summer of 2005 to discern how best to move forward. In the fall a non-profit was incorporated in the state of New York under the name Room for All, in order to support, educate and advocate for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the RCA. 
The push for full affirmation of LGBTQ sexualities in the RCA would be continuous thereafter. 
In 2009, General Synod voted to “affirm the value of continued dialogue and discernment on the topic of homosexuality within the church, to state that our dialogical and discerning work is not done, and that legislative and judicial steps are not a preferred course of action at this time.” In the meantime, they recommended that “officeholders and ministers avoid actions in violation of the policies of the earlier statements of General Synod on ordination and relevant state laws on marriage, with sensitivity to the pastoral needs of all involved.”
The 2009 General Synod also voted for the Belhar Confession to be a full confession in the RCA, but two thirds of the classes would still have to approve it and the next General Synod would have to ratify the decision. On April 5, 2010, RCA announced that two-thirds of its classes concurred with the General Synod 2009 to approve the Belhar Confession. As an indication of events to come, the same month of the two-thirds majority, the Belhar Confession’s main author Allan Boesak spoke at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, saying Belhar’s “demand for inclusivity goes well beyond the issue of race” to include “women, people with disabilities and those whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual.” Still, the 2010 General Synod made its first order of business to officially adopt the Belhar Confession. 
Read More
Related Posts: