That said, has anyone read the blog post I linked? What are your thoughts on it? Does it make sense, or does it still somehow cast the sexes as unequal? Does it seem in line with what Jesus taught?
I feel it is a bit of a trite answer to a complex question. It seems a bit cherry-picked. That said, I think that Christianity in general suffers an image problem of women as submissive to men, and that part of that is self-inflicted, and part of it is a culture of arrogant agnostics who know just enough about the Bible to be authoritatively ignorant. I don't believe that God's law assigns women to subservience, although I think it has been interpreted and enforced that way for millennia, and there are plenty of instances in the Bible where is stated outright (especially the legal books of the Old Testament). However, I think it is important to read those things in context, which is to consider the author, the time, the place, and the purpose of the writing. There's plenty in the Bible that doesn't square with history, but before we throw it away, I do feel we owe it a thorough look into why.
To the article more specifically: I admit I don't meditate much on Adam and Eve as human beings. For one, I believe they are a literary device to communicate a truth about humanity, not literal historical persons. But the second reason I don't meditate on them is that I don't connect with them as characters. I often ponder (heretically) whether I believe in Original Sin. I think I have plenty of sin as it is, and I'm not sure Original Sin squares with my understanding of the world. So this article challenged me to re-view some ideas about Adam and Eve as human characters.
If Adam is the first man, then he also experienced the first human emotions, including loneliness. That God is Trinitarian, but also all knowing, He would have anticipated Adam's need for a companion. Eve would have been the perfect complement to Adam - which also means Eve needs Adam (i.e. he is also a help for her). It was never supposed to be a hierarchy. I even think it is significant that Eve is made from the side of Adam - not from his head or feet. The side. Parallel. Equal.
The author of this article is obviously versed in the languages of the Bible, and has a clear linguistic grasp I lack. Perhaps because of this, I should not be so quick to dismiss his answer as 'trite' but I'm much more won over by the completeness of Adam and Eve as a couple, partnership, etc, as indicative of God's view of the role of women and men, than I am by the use of a military-style term in the creation of woman. On the other hand, the Bible is an incredibly dense and complex piece of literature, and I do believe that one reason for the great deal of repetition in stories, but by different authors, is that people will find meaning in different ways. Perhaps the use of this particular word for Eve, and also for military occasions, is intentional, or at least, intentional enough to inspire the linguistically-minded believer.
Below is not really about the article, but my thoughts on motherhood-as-strength from my own opinion.
I'm a recent return to the Catholic Church, which is perceived (fairly) as a heavily patriarchal religion. It reserves almost all authority for men, and only men may enter ecclesiastical roles. However, I would make the case that as an institution, in its best and most proper form, the Catholic Church is also (rightly) the most feminine Christian denomination. The Church is called the Bride of Christ and I think that is not an insignificant name.
This plays on many traditional feminine characteristics: nurturing, communication, patience, deference. But there is space here also for power and authority and strength.
I had very traditional parents, but I never saw my father as the 'one in charge' and my mother as some sort of secondary power. Certainly they were always a team in parenting my siblings and I. But they were also definitely a team with roles. My mother was more emotional, and responding to our emotional sufferings, and even our physical injuries in a very comforting way. But it wasn't coddling - it was strong. It was the "you can bear this, and go forward" model, as opposed to my father's more masculine and sang-froid style of "no blood, don't count." And we needed both styles!
Catholics often take flak from other Christian denominations for the emphasis we place on a different mother in the Bible - Mary, the Mother of Jesus. There is perhaps no more beautiful sculpture in the world, to my eyes, than that of Michelangelo's Pieta:
I am not a mother, and I haven't any children, but I do believe that the Marian story is in every mother's life. Suddenly you are called upon to bring this incredible being of complexity beyond your understanding into the world - suddenly all of the potential and all of the suffering of this new person is your duty; it's going to be so overwhelmingly important and challenging you will sacrifice much of your own person for this. And you have to realize that the world is a difficult place, full of pain, full of loss, full of suffering, and indeed, full of evil. But still you say yes to this request. And then you do your damn best, and even that results in suffering for this child! And maybe all of that weight is like Mary holding her murdered son's body, maybe all of that fear is cast in marble in that statue.
I can't begin to imagine the fortitude and strength that would take.