A Cry For Justice

Awakening the Evangelical Church to Domestic Violence and Abuse in its Midst

The Desire of the Woman: Rachel Miller’s Response to Susan Foh’s Interpretation

Our friend Rachel Miller recently published The Desire of the Woman: A Response to Susan Foh’s Interpretation 

We highly recommend Rachel’s article and encourage our readers to go over there and read it … and comment on it there if they wish.

I (Barb Roberts) am continually amazed at how few comments Rachel gets on her blog posts. Rachel is a dedicated and thorough researcher. Her blog posts are always careful, insightful, and (I believe) both fair and incisive. She is also one of the administrators at The Aquila Report which tracks events and developments within Presbyterian circles.

I would like to encourage all of our followers who have the space and energy to subscribe to Rachel’s blog A Daughter of the Reformation. I don’t think I have ever read a post from Rachel that I thought was not worthwhile.


If you’ve never commented on this blog before it is important to read our New Users’ Info page because it gives tips for how to guard your safety while commenting on the blog. And if you’re new to this blog we encourage you look at our FAQs. The New Users Info page and the FAQs can also be found on the top menu bar.


Other posts on this blog that deal with The Desire of the Woman in Genesis 3:16

What is the woman’s desire? How Susan Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16 fed steroids to abusers. (Pt 1 of 2)

The woman’s desire in Genesis 3:16 — let’s be consistent with the context and with actual life. (Pt 2 of 2)

The change of Genesis 3:16, ESS, the colonial code of relationship, and a call to bystanders

Toward a Better Reading: Reflections on the Permanent Changes to the Text of Genesis 3:16 in the ESV – by Wendy Alsup and Hannah Anderson

Contrary Women: Genesis 3:16b in the (now non-)Permanent ESV —by Matthew Lynch (a partial reblog)

An open letter to Dr Wayne Grudem (ERAS part 5)


  1. Thanks, Barbara

  2. Keeningforthedawn

    So, as I have read Susan Foh’s conclusions, it’s as though she is saying, “Women = Sin”. How very, very disturbing. No wonder discord, suspicion, and oppression (not to mention outright abuse) is so common among “c”hristian marriages.

    Rachel Miller’s post about Susan Foh’s philosophy is very, very well written (and excellently supported as well). I encourage my fellow Justice Criers to read it.

    • Spot on, Keening. “Women = Sin” is the kernel of Susan Foh’s interpretation.

      No small wonder that persons in the complementarian camp who heavily emphasis male authority in the church and the home, have taken it up and spread it all around. It was very convenient for them. And as Rachel Miller noted in her article, complementarianism can be quite adequately argues on the basis of passages in the New Testament. Complementarianism doesn’t need to rely on Gen 3:16 to prove its case.

      Which begs the question: Why did have so many persons in the complementarian camp grabbed hold of Foh’s idea and promoted it? The only answer that I can think of is that those persons LIKE being able to control women.

  3. Thank you Barbara

  4. Brad Mason has just published an excellent post Complementarity Without Subordination

    His post doesn’t address Susan Foh’s idea of the woman’s desire, but it does address ESS (the whacky doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son). He points to a complementarianism that does not entail subordinating women.

    Brad’s posts tend to be demanding to read. He uses theological terms and is very careful to nuance his points, so you need to put your thinking cap on when reading him. But I urge readers to go to Brad’s post and plough through the first couple of heady paragraphs even if you don’t fully understand them. Brad is a very important voice in the Cry For Justice.

    In his post, Brad talks about how ESS was fabricated to enforce the ‘equal but different’ notion of gender roles which is fundamental to the oppression of women in the toxic version of complementarianism:

    Complementarianism can in itself be a fine expression of Biblical headship, so long as it is not imbued with the false teaching of ESS and its implications; it is complementarity as grounded in ESS that produces the metaphysic of oppression. In fact, I believe the very fabrication of ESS itself was born of the need to ground a mysterious and inexplicable metaphysic in something already shrouded in mystery and yet also infinitely venerable, viz., the Trinitarian nature of God Himself.

  5. IamMyBeloved's

    Well, we know the author of abuse and tyranny is Satan. Amazing how he will subtly use someone who claims Christ, to reinforce and further his evil agenda.

    Anytime we desire someone/thing more than Christ, we give them power to rule over us in our lives. Simply said, when a woman worships her man more than God, which we see continually in the patriarchal movement and some churches, she is living under the curse. Foh makes huge error dismissing this verse as part of the curse! It’s beyond me how she separated that out when it is clearly handed down during the proclamation of the curse.

    Foh has so many things wrong, it makes it hard to even know where to begin.

Leave a comment. It's ok to use a made up name (e.g Anon37). For safety tips read 'New Users Info' (top menu). Tick the box if you want to be notified of new comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: