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

John Calvin on Women in the Church

John Calvin, "Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy" pgs67-68:

But I suffer not a woman to teach.
Not that he takes from them the charges of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only. On this subject we have explained our views in the exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. If anyone bring forward by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts of God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but being a particular case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

J.G. Brown, "An Historian Looks at 1 Timothy 2:11-14" pgs5-6.

--Nick

Martin Luther and Women in the Church

"She is not to be the spokesman among the people. She should refrain from teaching, from praying in public. She has the command to speak at home. This passage [1 Tim 2:11] makes a woman subject. It takes form her all public office and authority. On the other side is the passage in Acts (8:27) about Queen Candace. We read many such examples in sacred literature -- that women have been very good at management: Huldah, Deborah, Jael, the wife of the Kenite, who killed Sisera (2 Kings 22:14; Judges 4:14, 17). Why, then, does Paul say here that he deprives them of the administration of the Word as well as work? You should solve the argument this way. Here we properly take "woman" to mean "wife," as he reveals from his correlative phrase (v. 12) "to have authority over man," that is, over her husband. He calls the husband "man," so he calls the wife "woman." Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, should have authority. An exceptional example is the case where they are without husbands, like Huldah and Deborah who had no authority over husbands."

Luther goes on to equate his reasoning with I Corinthians 11:3, but I found this excerpt interesting. 

--Martin Luther, "Lectures on I Timothy," pg276.

Quient, "A Theology of Speaking Out"

Quient:

Just a few years ago I became very bothered by what I was reading in Galatians about Paul’s dialogue with Peter in front of the church. He called what Peter did “hypocritical” to the Gospel. His famous Gal 3:28 “Neither male nor female” passage actually comes off of his Jew and Gentile discussion. Even though Peter affirmed that Gentiles had full standing before God as fellow heirs in Christ, He was giving a different message by his actions (not eating with the Gentiles). We are limiting the gifts (female leaders) God has given to us.

We are not allowing their full participation. We are being hypocritical to the Gospel we proclaim. I did not know what to do with this realization. Frankly, I liked taking a more apathetic stance. I liked making it all about me in my heart (“I don’t want to be a pastor”). It was safe. It was comfortable. Not caring all too much also made me safe from being dismissed as “emotional” (*because everyone knows you can’t be reasonable and have visible emotions). Now what I was reading in the Bible was challenging this. If it was true that what we were doing in our churches was hypocritical to the Gospel, much more was at stake. For a while I still avoided coming out with how important I thought this was. I dwelt on the slavery issue since “slave nor free” is also in Gal 3:28 and it was safe to talk about something almost everyone agrees is wrong in hindsight. I looked at how Quaker Christians dealt with that issue in their time. Slavery was the Christian norm in their society, how did they come out and challenge it? More like, how did they bring themselves to? Many wanted to be quiet for the sake of unity. Eventually, I realized that I had to go with what I thought Scripture was convicting me of. I had to be more verbal about this issue and I had to push back more.

Many people here at Trinity know me as the person who talks about theology of gender all of the time. It might surprise many people to hear that this is not where I wanted to go with my life or what I wanted to spend so much time on. I still wish I didn’t have to. At Biola I had delved so deeply into questions surrounding the Biblical Canon, Apologetics, general theology, and church history. I still love those subjects. Now so much time is dedicated to theology of gender topics and while I love doing theology and planning events there is an ugly side of it all that I have been learning about–stuff one would expect to find only in the political arena but are happening in our churches. In addition, I am having to let this be personal and to look around and see the damage that has been done to other women and men in the church. God wants us to make other people’s problems our problem. I didn’t see the damage before even though it was all around me (maybe I will blog more on specifics later).

What is this damage? 

What have been the unintended consequences? 

Better yet, what is the church missing out on?

 For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Women, "Desire" and Genesis 3

Quient:

It has been interesting to see how the meaning of the word often translated as “desire” in Genesis 3:16b has been treated in popular vs. scholarly circles. The former often tends to treat the term as obvious in meaning even though this has been far from the case from the perspective of Egalitarian and Complementarian scholars alike. The reason for this is that in the past there has been very little available for reaching any sort of confident conclusion on the matter (only three uses in the entire Old Testament). In my opinion, if there is little to go by then one should not be dogmatic about any conclusion reached in regards to this word.

The way most scholars end up deciding the term’s meaning is an appeal to a “context” or one’s already established theology in combination with scant evidence.[1]  Currently, the most popular understandings of  “t’shoo-kah” are: 1) the woman’s sexual desire, or 2) a desire to be subjugated, or to be overly dependant or, 3) Eve’s desire to dominate her husband. However, an additional option has reemerged on the scene that is in agreement with how the Greek Old Testament understands the word. Admittedly, I had previously opted for the third and dismissed this fourth option—as did most commentators I have read. What has changed my mind very recently however has been the availability of seven new examples to work with from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before going into what I think is the better option, I will explain the advantages and disadvantages of the other options.

Sexual Desire

The first view, which understands Eve’s desire to be sexual in nature, has the advantage of being able to draw from the context in Song of Songs where the desire is of a sexual nature. In addition it can utilize an Arabic root “^saqa” which is a passionate longing compatible with Song of Songs 7:11.[2] It also draws from the immediate context of the pain in childbearing mentioned previously. Still, this view often relies too heavily on preconceived theology and speculation. For example, Gordon Wenham finds he must resolve the tension between Adam’s rule placed in the curse section and an understanding of the rest of Genesis before the fall to be in favor of exclusive female subordination. He decides: “Women often allow themselves to be exploited n this way because of their urge toward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands.”[3] Whether or not most would actually concur that female sexuality is the culprit behind falling for unreasonable male demands, this view does utilize some of the immediate context and at least the context of one of the Old Testament uses of the noun form of the word.

Desire to be Subject

The second view, believes the woman’s desire is to be subjugated or dependant. This can be understood under a positive or negative backdrop concerning male authority. Exclusive submission to leadership itself may be seen as motivated primarily by the result of the fall or it is often understood to be something good that existed before, but now functions as a curse in the new context of fallen male domination.

Michael Stitzinger takes the latter option, but awkwardly fits it in the context of what he perceives as Eve’s failure to obey Adam earlier. The text of course does not say this anywhere, but this is the presupposed theological paradigm being used to interpret an addition passage even if it does not quite explain why the desire here is for submission when elsewhere it was not evident and admittedly female “sin nature precludes that they will do this.” So, Eve didn’t do it before and women don’t tend to do this later—but this context indicates that Eve’s desire is for submission? 

Despite these weaknesses, one of the strengths of this view is also the use of the Arabic root “^saqa” which Stitzinger understands to be a deep female longing to be submissive to one’s husband.[4] However, even the best feature of this view and the previous one is criticized by Foh who points out that the similar word “saqa” is actually phonetically the equivalent Arabic word which instead means “to urge, drive on, impel.”[5]

For the rest, click HERE.

--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

The Egalitarian/Complemenetarian Divide (Part VI)

Conclusion

Operating on the assumption that Egalitarians and Complemenatrians, as committed Evangelicals, accept the same overall hermeneutical principles with different applications, has enabled a closer look into their different shaping principles that are a result of their interpretations of specific texts. This paper aimed to identify those shaping principles and influences and it was discovered that where they diverge is the added principle of ontological gender subordination (whether explicitly stated as such, or as a consequence of believing the “created order” sets a normative pattern describing a woman’s nature as subordinate). This acceptance or rejection of the clarification of the principle of equality, along with the unique way culture colors our perception, influences how the debate has been conducted and often inadvertently distorts how those with a different shaping principle are perceived. It is my hope that the approach from the vantage point of this paper enables Evangelicals of different convictions to understand the overall debate more clearly as they attempt to honor God and His Word in their interpretations.

Bibliography 

Belleville, Linda. Women Leaders and the Church: 3 Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Blomberg, Craig. “Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters” Denver Seminary 13, Febuary, 2010.

Christians for Biblical Equality. “Men, Women and Biblical Equality”. Ltd. CBE on the web at “Biblical Equality.” 1989, www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/men-women-and- biblical-equality.

Clark, Stephen. Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1980.

Cottrell, Jack. Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Joplin,             Missouri: College Press, 1994.

Cowan, Steven. “The Metaphysics of Subordination: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.” Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 14, no. 1, Spring 2009.

Emerson, Michael and Smith, Christian. Divided By Faith. NY, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Erickson, Millard. Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Pub, 2009.

Giles, Kevin. “The Word ‘role’ in Complementarian Literature” last modified April 14, 2011, http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=539

Groothuis, Rebecca. Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.

Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Pub, 2004.

Hove, Richard. Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999.

Johnston, Robert. “The Role of Women in the Church and Home: An Evengelical Testcase in Hermeneutcis,” in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation: Essays Presented to Everett F. Harrison by His Students and Colleagues  in Honor of His Seventy-fifth Birthday. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 1978.

Keener, Craig. “Questions from the Editors,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001.

Knight III, George. The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women. Grand Rapis, MI: Baker Book House, 1977.

Kostenberger, Andreas. “’Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender’ (Ch20) by Roger Nicole and ‘Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate’ (Ch 21) by Gordon D. Fee.” Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 10, no. 1 (Spring 2005).

Marshall, I. Howard. Beyond the Bible: Going from Scripture to Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004.

Myatt, Alan. On the Compatibility of Ontological Equality, Hierarchy and Functional Distinctions. Presented at the 61^st annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. New Orleans, November 20, 2009.

Noll, Mark. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Ortlund Jr., Raymond. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship.” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, Il: Crossway, 2006.

Padget, Alan. “The Bible and Gender Troubles: American Evangelicals Debate Scripture and Submission.” Wiley Online Library 47, no. 1 (February 24, 2008).

Pierce, Ronald and Groothuis, Rebecca eds.,  Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, Il: Inter Varsity Press,  2004.

Schreiner, Thomas. “Review of Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William J. Webb” Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 7, no. 1, Spring 2002.

Swartley, Willard. Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation.   Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983.

Thomas, Robert. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Pub., 2002).

Walker, Douglas. “Women in Ministry: the Logical Core of the Debate.” (PhD diss., Trinity International University, 2011).

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part V)

Shaping Influences:

The Influence of Culture

Sacred and secular cultures have had massive impacts on Evangelicals, and as a result, have influenced the gender debate. It is common to hear how much secular culture and liberalism have influenced Egalitarianism or how Egalitarianism will inevitably lead Evangelicals down the path to liberalism or even the acceptance of homosexuality. Massive amounts of effort has been dedicated towards making this alleged reality known and warning the faithful of the danger of falling down the slippery slope. For example, Grudem, the founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has clearly dedicated himself to such a cause by pumping out works with titles such as: Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?, Evangelicalism and Biblical Truth, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, and Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path to Liberalism? Some Disturbing Warning Signs.

Other authors are subtle in expressing their fears of liberalism or the decline of Scriptural authority. For instance, Thomas Schreiner hints at his thoughts throughout his critique of William Webb (who does believe all we need for faith and practice can be found in Scripture). Schreiner continually characterizes Egalitarians as continually promoting “new thesis” and contrasts this with the traditional view (his view) that apparently does not need to be continually defended because it does not change. “Is the goal of publishing to write what is true or what is new? One of the dangers of evangelical publishing is the desire to say something novel.” After giving a fantastic Egalitarian positions not widely held, he gives a kind introduction of Webb before ending his introduction with “but I think all will agree that the book attempts to break new ground on the women’s issue” (all emphasis in Schreiner’s writings are mine).[1]

Kostenberger ends his review of the works of Egalitarians Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee by characterizing them as dishonest. “Personally, I do not think the end justified the means, nor is the pride paid worth the possible gain…In the end, this debate is about truth, not politics; about exegetical responsibility, not propaganda…We ought not to trivialize the issue by substituting rhetoric for substance. We ought not to marginalize the issue by obscuring the clarity of Scripture.”[2] Egalitarianism is thought to be a new, novel or even sinister force that has come to displace Biblical authority. Even authors admitted to be contributing good scholarship (as Schreiner said of Webb) are also understood within a certain negative backdrop or framework. Many Complementarians believe Egalitarians have read back into Scripture what is at heart a secular ideology, even if Egalitarians do this inadvertently. Mary Kassian expresses this sentiment all over her chapter titled “The Slippery Slope” in her book titled The Feminist Gospel.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part IV)

With a Different Overall Approach Comes a Difference

In the Way “Guiding” Passages Function

Egalitarian and Complementarian Evangelicals accept that the Bible is thoroughly consistent. Scripture interprets Scripture and one passage does not contradict another. There is unity throughout. However, how does this play out when, on the surface, isolated passages appear to be teaching something different? Even after looking at genre, context, lexical and data, Evangelicals are still coming out with different interpretations—especially in regards to women in ministry.

At their best, individuals within both theological systems simply try to take into account the whole counsel of God and make the best sense of what is available to them. They utilize constructively God’s gift of cognitive dissonance, which drives people to make sense of, and find consistency in, their world. “…Since consistency is itself a virtue reflecting the rational character of God, then God has created this drive as an essential part of our noetic structure.”[1] However, we live in a fallen world where cognitive dissonance can turn to the subtlest rationalization—even if only for the sake of maintaining what appears to be a consistent worldview. Susan Foh captures this tendency when Evangelicals are at their worst: “Human nature tends to make things uniform, to smooth out the wrinkles in the biblical material to make it fit neatly in the boxes of the human mind. To create a logical, uniform system, both sides—the subordinationist and the egalitarian—must ignore or explain away the other.”[2] This is often how those on opposite ends of a heated debate see each other. Both Complementarians and Egalitarians frequently accuse the other of dismissing or ignoring passages that challenge or are unfavorable to the accepted theology, and often do not believe the passages offered adequately address what is most important in the debate. They often believe their counterpart is rationalizing away important Biblical data, either to protect an unbiblical view that is widely thought to be traditional, or as a novel attempt to square modern American ideals of equality with the Bible. However, this negative application of the need for consistency does not have to account for why either side emphasizes some passages over others, even if this is sometimes the case.

If there is a difference in the shaping principles of equality, with the Complementarian taking on an added premise, and this difference accounts for patterns of different approaches (broad principled vs specific), then it is not a leap to consider that the differences in approach will not only encourage which passages are emphasized, but how they are often used. Douglas Walker provides just such an insight.

For the rest, click HERE.


--Nick

Is the "Women's Ministry" Inadequate?

Quite interesting. My lady quotes someone and responds.

I shared my frustration with Christian women’s things…because they tend to be: devotional or “light” in nature, emotional/relational, or focused entirely on a women’s “role” as wife, mother or housewife. None of these things are bad, but women are more than this… and need more than this as well.

…I mostly read blogs/books written by men because they tend to be general about theology and the Christian life (and not exclusively through the lens of fatherhood, being a husband, or masculinity) – and therefore applicable to everyone. Why is it that so few women are capable of this? Our identity should be in Christ and should flow from the Gospel. But it seems that for too many women, their identity is in their role and flows from their life status. Don’t misunderstand – there is a time and place to discuss roles. But too much women’s material is anchored only in roles or distinctly feminine issues.
–Enough Light

The post reminded me of a complaint many of my other female friends (Complementarian and not) have about how the women’s ministry is done in their churches. This is especially felt by women who might be classified more as “thinkers.” Personally, when I hear “women’s ministry”, the words that immediately pop into my mind are: boring, devotional, shallow and for mothers (I am not a mother yet). Part of the issue for me is that I was initially raised in a church that taught me in Sunday school and youth group to dig into the Word and was rich and diverse in application. I later went on to get a B.A. in Biblical and Theological studies at Biola too. Unfortunately, the women’s Bible study or ministry often gets confined to activities and “studies” that are about Ruth or Esther (great women of God), but don’t go beyond these figures or simply don’t dig into the intricacies of the text. Are women actually interested in matters of doctrine, systematic and Biblical theology? My experience has been that they are once they are introduced.

For the original post: Allison Quient.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part III)

Part III:

Differences within the Foundation Contribute to Differences in Approach

As a result of the differences within the foundation of the Complementarian and Egalitarian views, the approaches used to argue their cases often differ. One can quickly notice a general pattern of approach that appears to follow the very shape of how their views were constructed in the first place. The pattern hinges on the acceptance or rejection of the additional Complementarian premise.
From early on, it has been acknowledged that Egalitarians “have tended to emphasize the broader affirmations of the gospel which stress oneness in Christ. Traditionalists have usually centered on specific passages of advice in Scripture” (emphasis mine).[1] The Egalitarian tendency to take a more broad principled approach is highly evident. In the organization Christians for Biblical Equality, the following statement can be found for their rational for Biblical equality:

The Bible teaches that, in the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the full redemptive freedom of women must not be interpreted simplistically and in contradiction to the rest of Scripture, but their interpretation must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their total context (1 Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:9-15).[2]

There are many other examples of a general principled approach being utilized by Egalitarians. A “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” is advocated by authors such as William J. Webb in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals and I. Howard Marshall in Beyond the Bible. This approach puts great attention on the broad sweep and direction Scripture is moving in and even allows for a more full application of a Scriptural principle than the text presents. While the many authors of Discovering Biblical Equality do pay attention to passages with a more specific focus, much of their case in support of Egalitarianism depends on the overall pattern of how women have been used by God in leadership roles, the movement throughout Scripture towards more inclusion of women in a patriarchal society, and passages that exemplify the principle of equality—sometimes to the exclusion of the Complementarians’ added premise (e.g. Galatians 3 in context). Egalitarians could build a positive case from these alone, especially Genesis 1 and 2 “because [these passages] do not speak about subordination or prescribe difference in roles; whatever is said of the male is said equally of the female.”[3] However, the Egalitarian must also counter the Complementarian’s premise and this they also attempt with limited degrees of success at persuasion when using the broader, more principled approach.

Of course, there are not a few Egalitarians who prefer to focus on texts that are more specifically and directly geared towards the Complementarian premise, this focus may be an adaptation for their opponents rather than a denial of the broader approach. Craig Keener, who does not base his case on principles, explains his own sentiments:

The broader theological method has its place; for example, the abolitionists typically argued their case more by identifying principles, and the slaveholders more by pointing to concrete texts…Broad models like Creation (Gen 1-2) and Christ’s redemptive work (for example, Gal. 3:28) are excellent places for biblical theology to start…I do not mean my own approach to be a condemnation of a different approach.[4]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part II)

Allison Quient's second post. It gets better and better. ;)

Differences within a Common Foundation

The “Shaping Principles”

(Continued)

How do Egalitarians and Complementarians understand the other’s view of equality? It often seems the two speak past each other as they assume their own paradigm. For Complementarians, the fundamental difference between men and women is a gender hierarchy that is compatible with, and clarifies, equality of personhood. If one rejects this, it is thought that they must be, at least in principle, rejecting gender distinction or believe it is the idea of hierarchy itself the Egalitarian has a problem with. This very often gets read into the egalitarian critique of their position. For example, Grudem goes after Belleville and other authors by framing the key issue as the Egalitarian arguing equality implies “sameness in authority or roles.” Grudem writes,

But equal value and equal honor and equal personhood and equal importance do not require that people have the same roles or the same authority. A fundamental egalitarian error is constantly to blur the distinctions and to assume that being equal in the image of God means that people have to be equal (or the same) in authority…it is merely an unproven assumption, and it simply is not true.…The fundamental egalitarian claim [is] that if there is equality there cannot be difference in role, and if there is difference in role there cannot be equality.[1]

Millard Erickson notes this basic misunderstanding of Egalitarianism when he comments,

 …I do not know of any egalitarians who would make this claim or who assume it in their discussions. Of the egalitarian couples I know, most do not insist on each performing exactly half of all roles, so that their functions are identical. Where they disagree with “complementarians” is whether one member of the pair always has the final word, or the ultimate authority. Thus, it appears that the fundamental claim that Grudem finds actually has been read into or projected from the perspective that he himself takes.[2]

Unfortunately, thinking Egalitarian opponents are only, or mostly concerned with “sameness” or lack of diversity leads to providing examples that do not address what the Evangelical Egalitarian is actually concerned with.[3] Grudem lists several examples of hierarchical relationships acknowledged by most to involve people of equal value, but different roles and levels of authority such as, the difference between the manager of the Diamondbacks and the pitchers, or the president of a university and the faculty.[4]

Does this accurately capture where Egalitarians diverge in their rejection of the additional premise? Is this usually the fundamental Egalitarian error? Grudem entirely misses the problem Egalitarians have with the additional premise. It is not hierarchy among persons that is the problem, but rather a hierarchy based in ontology. Is the president who he is by right of caste or something inherent in his nature? The examples that would be more readily identified by Egalitarians as antithetical to an equality in personhood would not be the difference between a President and a citizen, but the difference between a king by right of birth and a peasant born and kept necessarily in subservience, or the Pharaohs who were thought to be divine and therefore inherently superior to their subjects.[5] The examples Grudem offers capture differences of role, but not the “role” tied to ontology, or as some would put it, a role tied to a function that cannot be otherwise and is universally based on gender to which Complementarianism is uniquely subscribing.[6]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Theopologetics, "One in Christ Part II

This is part 2 of the interview, dealing with complementarian objections to egalitarianism. Quite good.

Theopologetics

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (PartI)

Allison Quient wrote this for her "Scripture, Hermeneutics & Theology" class. I think it is quite good.

Introduction

It has frequently been claimed that understanding the differences in hermeneutical approach is key to illuminating the barriers that now divide the Egalitarian from the Complementarian when it comes to women in ministry.[1] However, the two groups, as Evangelicals, adhere to the same basic hermeneutical principles, but apply them in different ways because the shaping principles that constitute their positions differ as a result of their understandings of specific texts.[2] This paper aims to identify what the different shaping principles and influences of Evangelical Complementarianism and Egalitarianism are in order to understand more clearly how they influence the recent debate.

Differences within a Common Foundation

The “Shaping Principles”

In the midst of all the confusion over the definition of  ‘equality,’ Egalitarians andComplementarians share a common component in their definition. While traditional Christian patriarchy taught that a woman’s nature was ontologically inferior,[3] both Egalitarians and Complementarians believe men and women are ontologically equal in value and worth as persons before God. Egalitarian author Rebecca Groothuis defines equality as “the fundamental biblical principle that every human being stands on equal ground before God; there is no group of persons that is inherently more or less worthy than another.”[4] In summarizing the Egalitarian position, Robert Johnston provides the following as part of how the nature of a woman is to be understood under the concept of equality: “Gen 1:26, 27 recounts how God made male and female in his image. Man and woman were to be a fellowship of equals like the fellowship within the Godhead…and were given joint responsibilities (Gen 1:28).”[5] In 1977, George Knight III was the first hierarchalist to put a Complementarian perspective into print. Based off of the fact that man and woman are both made in the image of God, he articulates: “Thus both by creation and now also by redemption that renews that created image quality, the unity and equality of male and female are most fundamentally affirmed.”[6] Wayne Grudem continues this sentiment when he says, “If men and women are equally in the image of God, then we are equally important and equally valuable to God…God’s evaluation is the true standard of personal value for all eternity.”[7] He lists this idea first among key issues and presentations of the Complementarian view. Clearly, equality in essence is important to both theological perspectives and both would define it in relation to God.

For the rest (and there is a lot), click HERE.

--Nick

The Origins of Biblical "Feminism"

I found this to be quite informative.

Does Evangelical Feminism have its roots in 20th century feminism? Not according to Merrill Groothuis. 

 ”The historical origin of evangelical feminism as a “movement” can be located in the writings of Sarah Grimke, an abolitionist of the 19th century. Beginning with Grimke in the 1830s, the evangelical leaders in early American feminism maintained that the Bible had been mistranslated and misinterpreted by men so as to appear to teach the subordination of women as a universal norm. This early feminist belief was tied in with the belief that the Bible also fundamentally opposes slavery–even though the pro-slavery faction at that time had an arsenal of biblical proof texts to support their position. In fact, the women’s movement of the 19th century arose in large part from the concerns of Christian women such as Sarah Grimke who began to speak out against slavery, and wound up having to defend their right as women to speak publicly about anything at all. 

 Although evangelical feminism today has gleaned some truths and some encouragement from late 20th-century feminism, its basic philosophy does not derive from the women’s liberation movement that began in the 1960s and ’70s, nor does it find inspiration in the radical feminist religions that have emerged along with a variety of alternative, New Age-type spiritualities in recent decades. Rather, evangelical feminism is primarily continuing along the lines of a fundamentally Christian tradition that began nearly two hundred years ago.”

Allison's blog and subsequent link.

--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

Scot McKnight, "Femsculine Christianity"

Well, the responses to John Piper haven't quite stopped. But this one is interesting, especially the example given from the point of view of the early church.

McKnight & "Femsculine Christianity"

--Nick

John Stackhouse on Mark Driscoll

A very interesting point by John.

"We are thus told, by Mrs. Driscoll as well as then by her husband, that a man who does not provide for his wife and children is flatly disobeying God. If she is out working and he isn’t–save only in extreme cases of injury, sickness, or other physical debility (unemployment is not mentioned as an excuse)–he is “worse than an unbeliever.” 

That last phrase comes from the text–the one and only text–adduced by the Driscolls on behalf of their forbiddance of men staying home and women working: I Timothy 5:8. And now a cascade of basic exegetical, theological, and homiletical problems begins:"

For more, John Stackhouse on Mark Driscoll

--Nick