Egalitarian Resources on Ephesians 5:21-33

I confess, I was both bothered by and loved Ephesians 5. Specifically, I was bothered by the seeming patriarchal undertones of Paul's language in v22-24, but loved how the husband was told to act in a way that seemed to defy his own interests. In other words, even when I thought this text enforced a patriarchal model for marriage (and this is different from the issue of women's ordination -- and I'm a firm supporter of both mutual submission and the ordination of women), in the applicative side of the equation, the man's 'headship' looked like he got the short end of the deal. I mean, the husband is told to give his life for his wife, where all she has to do is submit to ... letting him die for her.

Granted, my former interpretation was silly and once I examined the passage a bit more closely I changed my mind, but the point was still immensely interesting. The man is told to act in a way that a wife was expected to act. Paul, in my own opinion, is telling the husband to submit, though he does not use the specific word.

Anyway. Just a bit of back story on my thoughts. On to the real reason why you clicked the link.

Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ tackles the text in his usual masterful manner. While the chapter on Ephesians 5 is shorter and less in-depth than his treatment of other texts (though you can't really complain given that he spent more than 100 pages on 1 Cor. 11!), it is still meaty and offers several key exegetical observations such as the appositional phrasing of v23 and his treatment of that obnoxious word kephale. For a meta-study of kephale, see Alan F. Johnson's helpful (and up to date until 2009) article found in the Ashland Theological Journal.

I. Howard Marshall's contribution to Discovering Biblical Equality is surpassed by Payne, but Marshall offers several interesting theological and hermeneutical observations regarding trajectories and the issue of slavery.

Gordon Fee's Priscilla Paper's article is still a gold mine of historical insight, and I commend it to you. Its free, so that should help. The same should be said of Lisa Baumert's wonderful article as well, where she investigates the nature of biblical interpretation. Quite good!

As for commentaries, there are some. Walter Liefeld's IVPNT commentary is helpful. If one is able to get themselves past Andrew T. Lincoln's denial of Pauline authorship, his WBC commentary is helpful on a textual level (its a personal favorite commentary of mine). His commentary is the standard in the more broadly evangelical sphere.

F.F. Bruce also offers a generally egalitarian interpretation in his NICNT commentary on Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians. He affirms Pauline authorship, though Bruce can never be said to be dogmatic about something for which there is some tension. An affable, able and solid commentary. You also can't go wrong with Ben Witherington III (BW3) and his socio-rhetorical commentary series. For a more expositional commentary, see Klyne Snodgrass.

For a lighter and personable post, see "Becoming an Egalitarian" from The Junia Project.

Thanks for reading,

NQ

In Christ: Galatians 3:28 And the Equality of Women

The main claim to this explosive text is thus: its chief concern is soteriology, not church status.[1] It, thus, has no (or limited) social implications. One needn’t look far into one of the type/anti-types to see how this would be a problem. Take for example slavery. Klyne Snodgrass has shown that such a bifurcation is unwarranted by the context, and that the same (or similar) arguments were made by slave owners when abolitionists appealed to this text.[2] So the issue is not that Christian men and women can be saved. Paul wouldn’t have balked at that, as he already assumed that Greeks could be saved; this was, after all his mission as “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:3). The “gar” (for or because) in v26 and v27 show that Paul is giving reasons against excluding Gentiles, slaves and women from life in the church. Indeed, “in Christ” is a key distinction of life (especially in Galatians 1:22) in the body of Christ[3] and of the New Creation (see 2 Cor. 5:17-19). This includes the declaration in 5:6 that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumsion has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” This is an explicit statement about life in the church, and what the loopholes were for a Greek to become in the church. Of interest is Michael Gorman's statement in Apostle of the Crucified Lord (pg210) that, "it is certainly within the realm of possibility, for instance, that Paul's opposition to circumcision is at least partially motivated (or confirmed) by its exclusion of women."

The phrase “male and female” is the exact phrasing of the LXX translation of Genesis 1:27, which talks about the creation of male and female in the image of God. What follows in the first creation account is not spiritual authority or church government, but the tending to the garden and the enjoyment of God’s creation. According to F.F. Bruce, "In Christ, Paul believed and affirmed, there was neither Jew nor Greek", whatever distinctions might persist in the world at large. The middle wall of partition between them had been demolished by the work of Christ; Paul would not stand idly by and see it rebuilt, whether as a religious or social barrier.”[4]

Although Bruce has primarily a race relationship in mind here, it isn't difficult to apply the same social difference to slave/free and male/female. Philip Payne argues that there are two reasons why there must not be race/class/ gender-based hierarchy in the church: “One...the identical expression ‘there is no...’ introduces each pair, and second, because each of the three statements is absolute with no qualifications.”[5] The parallelism of each phrase is identical; thus to break the social implications set by Paul[6] here would not only break his argument, but render him inconsistent. What is more powerful is the idea of Law, and the social implications that came with it. Philip Payne lists nearly 50 theological, literary, and cultural reasons why this marvelous text can’t and shouldn’t be divorced from life in the church.[7] I will cite the most potent ones below:[8]

• Colossians 3:10 describes God creating the new self, in which there is no ranking in practice by ethnicity or economic status.[9]
• The Holy Spirit works in all believers (Rom. 8:14; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 5:16, 22, 25; Eph. 3:1; 5:18).
• In Galatians 3:29, “heirs of Abraham according to promise” refers to the Abrahamic blessing to all nations. All seven blessings in Genesis 12:1-3 are about relationships with people.[10]
• As far as we know, there was no dispute at that time that Gentiles, slaves, or women could become Christians. Rather, Galatians addresses treatment of Gentiles as second-class citizens.
• Paul typically uses the Greek conjunction between Jew and Greek and slave and free, “oude” to join two elements to convey one idea. Paul did not intend two 
separate ideas, “there is no Jew in Christ and there is no Greek in Christ,” since there are Jews in Christ and there are Greeks in Christ. Each pair makes a single point: in Christ there is no Jew/Greek division and no slave/free division... Nothing in the text limits their application to standing before God.

Many manuscripts include “male and female” in v11 of the Colossians 3 parallel.[11] Another argument to consider is an education one. Contrast again the statements by Rabban Gamaliel: "Before God all are equal: women and slave, poor and rich..." (Midr. Rab. Exod. 14,15). "Whether Israelite or Gentile, man or woman, male or female slave -- according to their works the Holy Spirit dwells also upon him." (Tanna Elialm R. 9). The structures are similar, touching on each group: women, slaves, poor and rich. The second statement is nearly identical:

Tanna Elialim R. 9 [Gamaliel] -- Galatians 3:28 [Paul]

Israelite/ Gentile -- Jew/Greek

Man/Woman -- Slave/Free


Male Slave/Female Slave -- Male/Female[12]

The structure is so similar that it is nearly impossible that Paul wouldn’t be influenced by it, especially given his established background. Three distinct pairs are presented and thus refuted by a claim of unity via the Divine will.
This is a controlling text for Paul as it perfectly reflects the image not only of Gamaliel, but this text comes early on before any "prohibitive" text. Also included is the direct inference from the text from Gamaliel, showing that Paul is indebted to a tradition that has been around before him.[13] Thus unless Paul is of two minds, each text ought to be weighed in light of this text. Galatians 3:28 closely resembles the Jewish prayer "Thank God I am [not]... heathen... bondman...woman," following the same order as: Gentile, slave, woman.[14] This shows that Paul is aware of how his theology of race, class and gender dictates his practice, and how the churches of God ought to behave. To disregard the final clause is not only disruptive of the context, but it categorically denies what Paul and Gamaliel affirmed. "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each another" (Gal 5:25-26). F.F. Bruce notes, “Paul states the basic principle here [Galatians 3:28]; if restrictions on it are found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, as in 1 Cor. 14:34f...or 1 Timothy 2:11f., they are to be understood in relation to Gal. 3:28, and not vice versa.”[15]

How the Church acts upon spiritual admonitions will always trickle down to the pulpit, to the children’s ministry, and to those who volunteer to serve coffee. In other words, spiritual commands are always practically motivated and demand action within the Church. Paul is not giving wayward nor abstract principles; he is concerned with the dust, grime and blood that keep the Church alive. Race, gender and status presuppose personal relationships and any barrier that inhibits these relationships is done away with in the command to become one "in Christ."

NQ

[1] Wayne A. Meeks argues against both views, saying that Paul envisions a type of androgyny here. This has becomes a mildly popular view in more mainline scholarship, but it bears several problems: for one, it is likely that Paul wouldn’t erase distinctions (especially in light of spiritual gifts and the application therein) on the basis of gender. Also, given Paul’s preoccupation with unity and the diversity of the body of Christ, it seems at odds with his generally conservative view of human sexuality. Finally, Paul’s other writings (Eph 5:21-33) do suggest distinctions based on ontology, but the issue isn’t about the subordination of women, but the genuine mutual complementarity of the sexes. It is about what enhances, not what is beneath.
[2] Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Galatians 3:28: Conundrum or Solution?” Women, Authority & The Bible, 162- 165.

[3] This is just a sampling from Romans: 6:23; 8:1; 8:39; 12:5; 15:7 and especially 16:3 and 16:7, where Paul mentions fellow “co-workers” and “apostles” in Christ. See also 1 Cor. 1:30; 10:16; 15:22. 2 Cor. 1:20-21. Eph. 1:1-13 includes spiritual blessings to the holy people, as well as hope and the Holy Spirit. We are also created “in Christ” to do good works in 2:10.
[4] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 178.
[5] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 97.
[6] Who elsewhere talks about the two becoming one in Ephesians 2:13-14, and what is more problematic for those who exclude women is Paul’s own confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2:11-14? Peter did discriminate on the basis of race, and Paul said he was acting contrary to the Gospel. Would Paul, based on his own theo-logic, be mistaken to act in the same way as Peter? I think the answer is more than obvious.
[7] Another factor to consider is that the reference to baptism in 3:27 indicates not just a spiritual standing, but more prominently that Greek, slaves and woman are now inaugurated into the new community of God.
[8] These applications may be found in “Galatians 3:28’s Application of Paul’s New Creation Teaching to the Status of Women in Church” in Priscilla Papers special edition 2012, 11-16.
[9] My note: this is a direct parallel passage to Galatians 3:38, as is 1 Corinthians 12:21. This suggests a baptismal formula within the early Jewish-Christian communities, as Galatians 3:27 infers baptism.
[10] Even if this were only in salvific terms (which I think is false), it still presupposes the interaction among believers in the body of Christ. Thus, even if a complementarian wants to suggest that Gal. 3:28 is merely about soteriology, the very nature of soteriology presupposes the reconciliation between not only God and 
humanity, but humanity within itself. We are to work out our faith in the context of the Christian community, and with fear and trembling.
[11] The Vulgate, Hilary (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), D*, F G 629. See n.40 for Philip Payne’s masterful article.

[12] Interestingly, Gamaliel distinguishes between genders in regards to slaves. Though the ordering is different, the principles are clear and explicit: there is no division within the Christian communities.
[13] There is evidence of women leaders of synagogues. See Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church, 28- 29. These references are before, during, and after the time of Paul.

[14] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, cites variations on the prayer, 84 n.7.

[15] F.F. Bruce, Galatians, 190.

Egalitarian Resources on 1 Corinthians 11

This text has vexed many interpreters, and it has designated some to regard it as an interpolation (William O. Walker is one such interpreter, I believe). That said, assuming its textual veracity seems more reasonable than not, so many commentators have sought to somehow resolve the many issues within this text. For me, this text simply was a morass of terrible reasoning on the part of Paul. 

Remember I was rather annoyed with Paul at this time for other reasons. 

What does kephale mean? How is it used here? 

How does this pericope jive with the rest of 1 Corinthians? 

What 'hangs down from the head?' 

In the words of Wayne Meeks, "The structure of Paul's argument in 11:3-16 is not one of his most lucid patterns of logic." (The Image of the Androgyne, 200, though he does acknowledge for an equality of sorts on 201). 

So, without further time on myself, I will offer several egalitarian resources that may help you with this really difficult text. I will say, on the whole, I think 'source' and 'preeminent' are both reasonable, though I favor 'source.'

As it must be said, Philip Payne's really detailed exegesis of this text has largely convinced me that 'source' is more probable. He examines every aspect of this sequence and offers a cogent and exegetically probable rendering of this text. You may consult his book Man and Woman, One in Christ. His reading is the only one that makes sense of the entire passage. If you want a condensed version, see his free Priscilla Paper's article.

Alan F. Johnson's article in the Ashland Theological Journal is helpful for one key reason: he surveys the major publications regarding 'kephale' and assesses them. He includes Grudem, Payne, Bedale and others. Its compact, insightful and he even offers his own thoughts in the end. You also have his popular commentary from IVP here; it is helpful, especially in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 11 and 15. He opts for 'preeminence' though he accepts 'source.'

Linda Belleville's book Women Leaders and the Church is deceptive. First, it is rather short and yet, it is packed with goodies. You should read the book. Second, her section on 1 Corinthians 11 is both short and sweet. She highlights major difficulties and places them within the overall trajectory of Scripture. Just get the book.  I believe she is undecided between 'preeminence' and 'source.' 

Morna Hooker's classic article on 1 Corinthians 11:10 is worth reading. Very intriguing. I cannot find the online article, so here is a google book.

Richard Cervin's first response to Grudem is worth reading for two reasons. One, he covers every example from a classical and linguistic perspective, thus bringing fresh insight. Two, he argues that 'kephale' means 'preeminence.' To be honest, he has made his case well. However, Grudem responded and Cervin did as well, though his article wasn't accepted. Having read Cervin's masterful (yet 'unpublished') second response, which is again exclusively directed at Grudem, I think 'preeminence' is a strong possibility, though I still think 'source' is better attested.

Gordon D. Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians is not as in-depth as Payne on 1 Cor. 11:2-16, but he covers many of the major bases. His use of a chiastic structure is helpful. He accepts 'source' as the key translation of 11:3. See also his work in Discovering Biblical Equality ch 11. 

Other egalitarian commentaries include Anthony Thiselton, NIGNT commentary and his 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary, David Garland's commentary, Ben Witherington's commentary, and F.F. Bruce's (dated) commentary.  

For several great websites, see again The Junia Project, Christians for Biblical Equality, Adam Omelianchuk, Margaret Mowczko and J.W. Wartick. Tell them I say hi.

Hope this helps a bit.

--Nick

Egalitarian Resources on 1 Timothy 2

The one nice thing you can say about the evangelical debate over women in ministry is that there is no shortage of material to read. Having read over a dozen books combined on both sides as well as dozens of journal articles, I figured it was time to put forth some resources that helped me sort out the tension within Scripture. While I would prefer to just dump everything here, I think I'd like to add a little more commentary to each section, so that is what will be happening.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the standard text that the debate begins with, at least in my experience. Call it a trump card text, or in the words of Gail Wallace, the "1 Timothy 2 Bomb;" a sadly apt appropriation of a term. That said, I'll post some articles and some books that have helped position this text within its historical-grammatical context. This post is by no means exhaustive, so if you have materials you want to add, just comment or tweet me.

Before we even step foot into this landmine field, start with Alan Padgett's "What is Biblical Equality?" If this is your first time reading, start there. If you are familiar with the gender debate, still start here.

First, of course, is Philip Payne's book Man and Woman, One in Christ. The book will appear in every single post because it is that good. However, the relevant pages are 291-444. What makes Payne's work so helpful is that it is a direct engagement with heirarchalist exegesis, and is incredibly detail oriented. He deals with every facet of the entire passage, including extensive word studies, and concludes that the passage doesn't exclude women from ministry.

If you want something less technical, yet historically aware, Allison Young's CBE post on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is quite good. She draws only from Linda Belleville, but this is fine because Belleville is pretty awesome. For Belleville, you can find her work in the chapter “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11-15,” Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy.

John Jefferson Davis' article "First Timothy 2:12, The Ordination of Women, and Creation Narratives" is helpful for at least two reasons. While Payne deals extensively with the creation accounts, Davis offers a more concise summary that is as helpful as Payne's is extensive. Second is that Davis teaches at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is significant in that GCTS is a top school in evangelicalism and is egalitarian friendly(ish). So that's cool. He also deals briefly with the homosexuality charge that is often leveled at egalitarians.

Kate Bushnell is really good. You should read her. Like, now. Get on that.

For several great websites, see The Junia Project, Christians for Biblical Equality, Adam Omelianchuk, Margaret Mowczko and J.W. Wartick. I don't agree with necessarily everything, but they are committed Christians and very lucid thinkers.

There are several egalitarian commentaries that offer cogent explanations of the 1 Timothy 2 text. They include I. Howard Marshall , Gordon D. Fee and Philip Towner (technical and popular).

Enjoy. Keep reading.

--Nick

You Are Beloved: An Open Letter to Women Who Minister

My wife isn't a preacher, but I enjoy this picture of her on our honeymoon. This is an old church on Maui.

Dear Sister,

I've been vocal (sometimes to the point of screaming, so I apologize for that) in support of your gifts and callings. However, this time, I want to say something a bit different. While I have my opinions regarding Scripture and its proper interpretation, these opinions aren't always the most helpful.

You are Beloved.

When I first heard your sermon and listened to your story, I was initially uncomfortable. As someone who never heard a woman preach a sermon until age 24, I recall an experience of divine love. When God spoke through you, something touched me. Scales fell. My heart opened. You were strong like Deborah, proclaiming the goodness of resurrection, of love. You stood against the ropes, facing your calling and you preached with power and the authority of the Spirit.

You are Beloved.

I can only imagine your experiences in Seminary and church, where you underwent both encouragement and disillusionment. Sometimes from people who didn't know any better, and sometimes from people who did. This is tragedy, and it breaks my heart to witness this. However, you stood the tide like Paul, proclaiming the gospel of God as he did to the Roman church. You are an example of strength, of courage, of honor. It takes more than strength of mind and body to follow God's calling.

You are Beloved.

I have never had the desire to preach, and I almost passed out the last time I appeared before a group of people giving a speech. I cannot imagine the tension in your being when you stand to give a sermon. Just know that you have advocates in the crowd, praying for you. On this resurrection weekend, I thank God that there were still human beings who went the extra mile to honor the body of our fallen Lord. Count yourselves among them, and be blessed this day.

Your fellow worker,

--Nick

My Experiences with Female Pastors

My backstory doesn't include much in the way of preaching by women. Usually the only time I ever heard women speak was when I was junior high and the pastor was present to listen to her testimony. Which was awesome, but not much so in the way of a genuine encounter.

The first time I recall ever hearing a woman give an actual sermon, I was visiting my (now) wife Allison when she was finishing up her MDiv at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. After staying Friday and Saturday, I went with her to an Anglican church connected to the Bishop in Rwanda. The woman stood up to give the homily, and began with a quote from Karl Barth. I won't lie, a little part of my past jumped up and down inside my head, screaming something about liberalism. I shushed him and he went and sat in a corner in a huff.

The woman, Amanda was her name I believe, then delivered an impassioned sermon on Romans 5, pulling in conservative scholars and progressive scholars to convey a beautiful and oft-missed point about the pre-existent love of God before He came to us. I enjoyed every minute of her homily and spent the rest of the sermon enraptured, as even the little man in my mind turned around in his chair and took notes.

Another experience involved a bit of a peculiar situation. The church I was attending (American Baptist; egalitarian) had a women chaplain named Joy come in and preach. What made this interesting was not that a woman was standing behind the pulpit and preaching God's word with authority: I was already totally in favor of that. Instead, the service consisted of two separate congregations collapsed into one. The Spanish speaking service had come over, so Joy had to alternative between speaking both Spanish and English.

While difficult to keep with her, due to lack of given time on her part to finish the sermon (and the fact that I barely passed Spanish), her work was deft, erudite and lovely. She maintained a coherent point of reference within Scripture and clearly enjoyed the challenge. After we talked, she confessed to not preparing much and I was surprised. Fist bump.

The final experience I want to talk about was when a good friend of mine, Sarah Schwartz, delivered the word of God via the Internet to my ears. I know Sarah from Thrive and love chatting with her, but I didn't know she was called to be a pastor. And what a calling! I listened to her sermon while at work, and it covered the text in John 4 about the first Samaritan women messenger whom Jesus sends to her people.

Bringing in varying translational and historical details, she preached a magisterial sermon about many facets of this story, including the identity of women in this new world and the Messiah who affirmed and gifted her to bring many Samaritans into the fold of God. Simply put, the simplicity of the story was often lost on me, and Sarah, through the Holy Spirit, gave that story life.

You can find Sarah's story here.

There are many more stories I could write about, but in my journey towards egalitarianism, these are the stories that stand out most to me.

--Nick

Adam's Federal "Headship" in Romans 5

I more or less stole this from Allison.

According to Sarah Grimke, if Adam is the only one responsible for the fall, or sinned willingly (whereas Eve as deceived), why on earth should these be construed to give him (man) leadership over women? Dr. Payne writes on Egalitarianism and federal headship on his website. I found the following helpful (emphasis mine):

Don’t Stretch the Analogy Beyond Its Purpose

To read more into the analogy than Paul makes explicit is to risk substituting a private inference for the direct teaching of God’s Word…On p. 281 Cranfield highlights the point of the analogy: “Adam is only mentioned in order to bring out more clearly the nature of the work of Christ. The purpose of the comparison is to make clear the universal range of what Christ has done.”

Other Passages Focus on Eve’s Responsibility for the Fall

Paul writes in 2 Cor 11:3, “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” In 1 Tim 2:14-15 he writes, “the woman being thoroughly deceived and fell into transgression [lit: ‘has become in transgression’], but she will be saved through the Childbirth if they remain in faith and love and holiness with propriety [to counteract socially unacceptable behavior here just as in 1 Tim 2:9 (cf. Cor 11:3–16)].” The association of Eve with her descendents, as the equation of “she” with “they” requires, shows that her transgression affects them, and that her seed (Gen 3:15) crushes the serpent, Satan, and brings salvation to them through “the Childbirth.”

Genesis Holds Both Responsible

Since in Hebrew “Adam” identifies both the man in isolation and the man and the woman together in Gen 1:26-27, “let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule…,” and since it was the sin of both the woman and the man that led to the fall in Gen 3, and since God addresses both woman and man (in that order) stating the consequences of the fall, and since there is a corresponding plural contrasting God as “us” and man as “them,” it seems inescapable that Eve did participate in the fall and in its ultimate reversal through her seed.

“Mankind” not “Male”

One possibility is that Paul intended “one man” to refer to the Adam (singular) identified as “them” in Gen 1:26-27, as possibly indicated by Paul’s use of ἄνθρωπος rather than ἀνήρ. Paul may have chosen to use the word “Adam” because it is a singular name, even when used to designate the original couple, and so makes a more direct counterpart for the singular name, the one man (ἄνθρωπος, focusing on his humanity, not his being male), Jesus Christ in 5:15, who brings the opposite, salvation from that fall…It is not Adam or Christ as male that is highlighted here, but Christ as human, hence the use of ἄνθρωπος in “though one human being” rather than ἀνήρ, which Paul could have used if he had intended to specify man as male.

Payne also cautions that neither the terms “federal” or “headship” are used in this portion of Scripture concerning Adam. These are terms some of us are using to describe what we think the text means, not what the text says exactly. I would put the argument on par with universalism claiming their interpretation of the text.

--Nick

Sarah Grimke and Evangelical Egalitarianism

Quient:

Sarah Grimke was a Quaker woman who faced opposition in her preaching and public speaking against the evils of slavery because she was a woman. In response she gave scriptural arguments in support of an Egalitarian interpretation of the Bible when it comes to gender. Evangelical Egalitarianism did not originate in the 1970s, but was the result of the reformation movements following the 2nd Great Awakening. As a movement Evangelical Egalitarianism developed out of the Abolitionist movement and continues on even today. Many notable denominations and evangelists have historically given their full support for women in ministry (for example: Moody himself and his institute).Egalitarianism was primarily an Evangelical movement and any non-Christian feminists generally had to join existing Evangelical feminist groups or causes. The key error of the early Egalitarians was their idealistic belief that if they only changed the laws that the hearts of the people would follow. In 1920 women gained the right to vote and confident their work was done began to fade, but their opponents reinforced the spheres they still had control over: the home and church. The key problem was not legal, but social and cultural and the status quo returned. However, out of the increasing dissatisfaction with the prescribed gender roles of the culture, a new kind of feminism(s) began to rise (1960s-1970s?).

It was not an Evangelical movement, but a liberal and secular one which did not have the same understanding of the authority of the Scriptures. Unlike the Evangelical movement which saw abortion as oppressive towards women and sought mutual sexual chastity among the genders, this movement eventually began to equate abortion with a woman’s right to choose and sexual activity outside of marriage as liberation. The Evangelical strain continues, but has now been eclipsed by liberal and secular feminism(s) and has been wrongly associated with that movement as though it never existed before.

The following are some of the excerpts from the Letters of Sarah Grimke. I have not provided the Scriptural arguments here since most are surprisingly familiar (some suited uniquely to her time). Instead, here are some of her essential thoughts that have come out of her convictions concerning Scripture:

I surrender not our claim to equality. All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off our necks, and permit us to stand upright on that ground which God designed us to occupy. If he has not given us the rights which have, as I conceive, been wrested from us, we shall soon give evidence of our inferiority, and shrink back into obscurity, which the high souled magnimity of man has assigned us as our appropriate sphere…He has done all he could to debase and enslave her mind; and now he looks triumphantly on the ruin he has wrought, and says, the being he has thus deeply injured is his inferior. –Sarah Grimke Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman p.10-11 Letter 2

He has adorned the creature whom God gave him as a companion, with baubles and gewgaws, turned her attention to personal attractions, offered incense to her vanity, and made her the instrument of his selfish gratification, a plaything to please his eye and amuse his hours of leisure…The poet has sung, in sickly strains, the loveliness of woman’s dependance upon man, and now we find it reechoed by those who profess to teach the religion of the Bible. -p17 Letter 3

For the original source, enjoy it here.

--Nick

James Dunn on Junia

Jimmy Dunn has written an excellent commentary on Romans. I thought his commentary on Romans 16:7 was illuminating. Cannot believe it took me this long to find this gem.

Dunn:

The full phrase (v2) almost certainly means "prominent among the apostles," rather than "outstanding among the apostles" (see, e.g. RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, Cranfield, Kasemann and those cited by him). The straightforward description "the apostles" (contrast 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25), and the following clause, together strongly suggest that Andronicus and Junia belonged to the large group (larger than the twelve) of those appointed apostles by the risen Christ in 1 Cor 15:7 (Schnackenburg, "Apostles," 293-94, surprisingly ignores 1 Cor 15:7 when he argues that Andronicus and Junia [sic] had never "seen the risen Lord"). That is, they belonged most probably to the closed group following apostles appointed directly by the risen Christ in a limited period following his resurrection (Paul himself being aborted = born early, in order to enter this circle is uniquely appointed apostles before it closed--"last of all as to the abortion" [1 Cor 15:8]). This would give Andronicus and Junia a higher status in the eyes of Paul and others. . .We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the fiondation apostles of Christiniaty was a woman and wife."

James D.G. Dunn, "Romans 9-16" pg 894-95.

I'm not certain Junia was the wife of Andronicus, as it is never explicitly stated in the text. the inference could be there, but as it simply isn't explicitly stated, I'm content to step back and shrug. I'm with Dunn on this one.

--Nick

Relational Rapport and Egalitarian Musings

While I found Eric's post on TGC helpful, I found his follow-up to not only be insightful, but almost a mirror image of my relationship with Allison. I shall explain after showing some of Eric's thoughts.

Reitan:

My wife is strong. She is determined. She is stubborn. She reaches for and accomplishes what most others imagine to be impossible. I am married to this woman, and I am proud of her. Proud to have her as a partner in life. Grateful that she is the person who stands beside me in raising our children...

I'm not sure what they'd say about my marriage to a soon-to-be Ironman triathlete. She is physically stronger than me. She does things I cannot fathom. But I'm not jealous. I'm proud of her. My manhood isn't threatened, because I don't buy into such a stupid, banal, and destructively straight-jacketing vision of gender relationships as the one that the Wilsons endorse. If I did, our marriage would collapse. As it is, our marriage grows.  

The rest of the post is worth your time, but I wanted to personalize some of the data in my own life. Allison has struggled with some issues in her past, and has since become one of the strongest women I've ever known. I count it a blessing to have a partner who has never considered herself greater than me, nor has esteemed me to the point of inflating my ego.

The issue of complementarianism came up early in our relationship, after we had begun our first school semester apart. We met at Biola Allison's final year and decided to pursue one another during her final Summer before her fated trip to Westminster. I was raised complementarian, and had never experienced anything but. My paradigm was narrow and I wasn't prepared for actually experiencing anything outside of my narrow frame of reference.

The worst part about the gender discussion wasn't that it happened. Instead, it happened over the course of thirty or more phones calls, which involved missed communications, frequent silences and difficult to reconcile passages. I actually (for the first time at Biola) tried to formulate a biblical argument to counter-act Allison's. Like Eric's bride, Allison has a stubborn streak grounded not only in independence, but of a desire to learn and grow.

I honestly threw everything I had at her. I spent weeks attempting to show (bully?) her into accepting the plain meaning of I Timothy 2. However, I did realize something. I realized that if I had convinced her to change her mind and return to complementarianism, I wasn't actually interested in leading.

I never was. I never had any desire to lead her or have her submit to me. I had been reacting to a challenge by another to the foundations of my preconceived paradigm. Instead of listening and learning, I was reacting.

This challenged me, and really got me thinking. I had some sun spots in Scripture that I couldn't shade. Deborah was one, as well as Paul's treatise on marriage and relationship in I Corinthians 7 (which was a shock to me, I didn't even know those verses existed). I am the type of person that has a strong disdain for inconsistency, especially for myself. If I cannot have a harmonized (within reason) theology, this bothers me greatly.

So that is a brief summary about how I began to rethink my preconceived paradigm about women and relationship. During this time, I had never once considered the roots of sexism or mistreatment of women due to the fact that I hadn't experienced it. I mean, I had experienced some religious intolerance, but that had nothing to do with my gender.

I found that it is easier to dismiss sexism and the mistreatment of others if one is unwilling to reexamine their paradigm. It is easier to dismiss sexism if one is in the majority, as it is easier to ignore the plights of the minority. I realize that such things require time and the influence of the Holy Spirit, and I hope that both are working together for us. And, of course, I could be wrong.

So, I suppose I am fully grateful to have a woman who can kiss me and kick my ass. I had no anticipation as to submit to my girlfriend, and now that we are together as one, I couldn't imagine anything less. 

For Eric's thoughts, please click here.

--Nick

The Gospel Coalition and Circling the Wagons?

For the entire post and the subsequent response on TGC site, click HERE.

For Eric Reitan's provocative response to Wilson/s, click HERE.

For Scot McKnight's exhortation, click HERE.

For Daniel Kirk's musings, click HERE.

God bless. Still thinking.

--Nick

Hermeneutics: "Slave & Women"

My lady wrote this. Check it out. ;)

"Different Interpretive Methods within the Evangelical Egalitarian Camp 

I’ve made a lot of progress finding the points that are guiding the differing interpretations of the gender debate. My understanding that there are two different interpretive methods being used in the Egalitarian camp was confirmed by Douglas Walker in a TEDS dissertation I recently read. In my own words, they are: 1) Those who say the text actually means something different than what the hierarchalists think it means and 2) those who believe Paul’s words are more culturally confined (because they believe the text warrants this?). I would definitely fall into the first camp even though I acknowledge those coming from the second perspective sometimes make valid points. I would side with Schreiner in saying that everything necessary for faith and practice can be found in the Scriptures and has its ultimate expression in the NT (I include useful principles here)."

To continue, Allison Quient blog post


--Nick

Women in Ministry, Or Helpful Theology of Gender Facts

I contributed a little to this, and Allison Quient did a majority of the research. The post on her blog is incredibly in-depth and focused. Check it out.

A sample:

Did you know…? 

"I have come to understand that many people don’t know some of the key facts and information about debated Scripture passages for a theology of gender. My primaryaim here is NOT to provide you with an Egalitarian interpretation of Scripture, but some key bits of information to consider in the debate. It is up to you to think through these and come to your own conclusions and interpretations. 

If you want, skip to the books you are more curious about. If you want specific citations or sources that I didn’t include, just ask and I’ll give them to you."

Allison Quient's page

--Nick