When I was serving with the Ithaca Church of Christ in Ithaca, NY, one of the frequent questions I had asked of me by women in the community on a few occasions was whether or not our church oppressed women. Now, you must understand that Ithaca is just a socially liberal culture. I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense, it just is what it is. Many women in Ithaca believe all women should be treated equally and have the same opportunities afforded to men open to them as well. So you can understand why such a question would even come up.
At the same time, I began investing a lot of my reading time into books on the task of Christian missions. As I did, I began to realize that the question these women were raising regarding gender in the church was a missional question. That is, the traditional view of gender in Christian ministry was an obstacle between the gospel and culture. The question was weather or not is was necessary. In other words, as Christians we want to maintain fidelity to Jesus and his intentions for the church. So if the intentions of Jesus for his church is male-hierarchy then we would not be free to abandon such practice. On the other hand, if male-hierarchy is not the intentions for the church, as taught in scripture, then maintaining such order is simply maintaining the “traditions of man.”
Before proceeding any further, it’s necessary to clarify a couple of terms. In biblical/theological circles a complementarian is one who believes that male-hierarchy is rooted in the creation of humanity. That is, God created this world to be a place where men lead with authority over women. On the other side is the egalitarian which believes that men and women were created equal and that male-hierarchy is a result of the fall, the sin of Adam and Eve. Determining which one is right is not easy but this is how I have arrived at an answer.
The question of complementarian vs. egalitarian is best seen in 1 Timothy 2.11-15 and specifically v. 13-14. In v. 11-12 Paul prohibits women from teaching and having authority over men (a later post will be devoted to this passage). But on what grounds does Paul root such prohibitive regulations? Is it because this is the order by which God created the world to be (complementarian) or is it because Christians still live in a fallen world (egalitarianism)? Complementarians point to v.13, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”* to support their view while egalitarians want to say “no” as they point to v. 14 which says “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
Well which is it? Answering this question is critical to how we deal with the rest of scripture. If indeed the complementarian view is correct then no matter what individual practices change in regard to gender and church practice, it means that women will always need to be in submission to the leadership authority of men. However, if the egalitarian view is correct then a male-hierarchal order is a product of the fall and therefore is something that God is seeking to redeem us from in Christ.
For many years I have struggled with this question but deferred to the complementarian view because I couldn’t see the plausibility of egalitarianism. But what I’ve come to realize is that the only way to seemingly resolve the question of whether or not male-hierarchy is rooted in creation or the fall is to return to the Genesis story.
When we return to the Genesis narrative we are told that God created both male and female in his image, thus equality (Gen 1.27). Since Adam is formed first, God must find a “helper” for him (Gen 2.18). The word “helper” (etzer) does not imply inferiority, as the word is twice used to describe God as a “helper” to Israel (cf. Deut 33.39, Hos 13.9) and I’m quite sure God does not see himself as inferior to Israel. In the Genesis narrative, the helper God is looking for is one of equal intellect and nature which is why the animals will not do since they do not bear God’s image. So what we have is the creation of male and female where there is an mutuality (equality) shared between them. It is only in the fall, particularly Genesis 3.8-24 where a shift from mutuality occurs, resulting in the inequity as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin (see Walter Breuggemann, Genesis, 50-51).
Thus in the Genesis narrative, the male-hierarchy appears to be a consequence of the fall rather than a part of God’s created intent for humanity. That is why my view has shifted from a complementarian to an egalitarian view. So let it be said that I am now advocating an egalitarian view. In saying that, I am saying that I believer God is seeking to redeem us from our traditional and complementarian views of gender and this is how I shall proceed in this series.
If you’ve read this far, then thanks. And as always, feel free to leave any questions of comments you may have but please remember to be courteous and Christianly.
————————-
* All scripture is taken from the New International Version, 2011.
See also: Christianity and Gender: Introduction.
After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spu
Jesus and the Victory of God
The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story
The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission
In the Holy Trinity there is both hierachy and equality. The Father is the source of the Son and the Spirit, by eternal begetting in the one instance and by procession in the second…hierarchy. Yet the Son and the Spirit are both fully God…equality It is a mystery in the Godhead. In marriage the mystery of equality and hierarchy existing together cannot be derived by law or principles, but by mystical union with the Godhead. The question of equality versus hierarchy can be asked only if one accepts reductionist principles which we do not as Christians believe. Theosis manifests the mystery of both hierarchy and equality in the relationship of man and wife and of the relationship of men and women to the Church. To be asking this question begs a more fundamental epistemological question, which the Apostle answered by saying, ‘the Church, the ground and pillar of the Truth.”
Rex,
I appreciate your study on this subject. Having been in ministry for over 30 years now and the father of one son and two daughters who are all interested in ministry, this has become an even more pressing issue that I have been thinking, praying and studying about.
I am looking forward to the fruits of your study.
The following comment comes from Bill Brewer, which was lost in spam, so I am placing here:
Hi Rex,
I am glad you reached the egalitarian vs. complementarian issue so quickly because that is the crux of the matter. The question ultimately traces back to the nature of the Trinity itself. Is the Trinity egalitarian or complementarian? Or in more popular terms, is the subordination of the Son to the Father a mutual subordination or is it immutably grounded in the very nature of the persons within the Trinity?
If it is the former, then the Son could have sent the Father just as easily as the Father sent the Son.
If the notion of the Son sending the Father rings false, then you can start to understand why egalitarianism rings false as well.
Truth is hierarchies come in good and evil varieties. Paul illustrates three kinds in Eph 5:21ff: (1) wives/husbands, (3) children/fathers, and (3) slaves/masters. Each of these is qualitatively different, the first being rooted in willingness, the second in nature, and the third in compulsion. (Note that the preceding categories are identical to the three types of eunuchs in Mt 19.)
There is much that could be said from a biblical standpoint.
In dealing with outsiders though, I would take a prudential, sociologically based approach. For example . . .
Egalitarian complaints that traditional Western culture oppresses females ring hollow in light of objective data.
Women in the United States exceed males in almost every quality of life indicator; e.g., victimization by crime, participation in crime, physical health, mental health, suicide, longevity, alcoholism, other drug use, and education. Christian women do better in these areas than women in general. (Although this was true before feminism came along, it is threatened by the continued advance of egalitarian ideas as described below.)
The facts of female advantage go unacknowledged and unappreciated because egalitarians successfully obscure the broad inequities experienced by men by focusing on the narrow inequities experienced by women. The result is a popular, but false perception of widespread female disadvantage.
The irony of egalitarianism is that it flourishes precisely because its basic claim is false. Western society is more likely to indulge females than oppress them.
The demographic shift in favor of women is so severe that most women have difficulty in finding mates of equal or better status. Lower status men are increasingly the only heterosexual option for many women. The resultant widespread pairing of low-status males with higher status females is a major cause of rising domestic violence. The egalitarian solution is greater empowerment of women, thereby making the demographic imbalance more skewed, male disinvestment even greater, and associated violence even worse.
The challenge of civilization is investment of males in the welfare of women and children. Stated provocatively, the labor and loyalty of women toward that end can be taken for granted. The labor and loyalty of men cannot.
Gender distinctions are key tools for investing males in society. The fact of gender distinctions is therefore more important than their specific content. The egalitarian focus on the injustice of particular gender distinctions masks a thoroughgoing ideological hatred toward any distinctions.
Scripture is intentionally gender conscious because it recognizes the ordering of men’s lives takes precedence over the ordering of women’s lives. Attempts to order the lives of women without concern for the lives of men will be overwhelmed by the disordered lives of men. Most women have few problems that are not associated with misbehaving men.
Scripture therefore focuses on men as the primary audience. Thus we have the 144,000 elect gathered with the Lamb on Mt Zion described as “those who have not defiled themselves with women”– Rev 14:6. The issue for the Galatians was whether to be circumcised– Gal 5:3. Paul tells the Corinthians to “be men of courage”– 1 Cor 16:13. In the OT, Lady Wisdom is female because men are encouraged to love her in preference for wayward women. And on and on … .
The great “un-equalizer” of men and women is children. Equalizing males and females cannot be done except at the expense of children. A culture that shifts the burden of female inequality to children is a culture in deep trouble.
Males are “hard-wired” to escape dependency on females and to reconnect with them and community in a radically different relationship. Egalitarianism interferes with that developmental dynamic. The result is men who remain perpetually immature and disengaged.
Egalitarianism is a degenerative dynamic within prosperous societies that augurs their decline. It produces societies where men are the weaker sex. Societies that turn men into the weaker sex go against nature and cannot compete with other societies.
Matriarchal societies cannot compete with patriarchal ones. Matriarchal enclaves within Western culture (e.g., public housing projects) require a steady stream of ambulances, police cars, and welfare checks to survive. Take away those props and a brutal partiarchy would quickly emerge. Thus the question is not whether there will be patriarchy, but rather what kind of patriarchy will it be.
Males are the “hard cases.” Socialization to norms is more difficult for males than for females. Unequal resources are therefore required to socialize men to the same norms as women. Additional resources expended on the socialization of males rebound to the benefit of women. Egalitarianism denies society the extra resources needed to socialize men to the same norms as women. Individual women bear the consequences.
Since males are more difficult to socialize to norms, they will typically be in shorter supply and will therefore be perceived as more valuable than females.
Occupations perceived as masculine are usually perceived as higher status than those perceived as feminine. The higher prestige of masculine occupations makes them attractive to females who demand the dismantling of “gender barriers” that obstruct their entry. Moreover, egalitarians insist that girls be socialized to desire male-dominated occupations. Acquiescence to such demands eventually eliminates the affected occupations as a resource for socializing males. The gradual loss of male-only occupations within a society makes investment of males more and more difficult over time. Society as a whole becomes more and more effeminate and less and less viable.
The high status of women and children cannot be sustained by the reordering of society along egalitarian lines. THE major achievement of Western civilization has been its success in channeling male sexual energy to the benefit of women and children. The result has been to give both a higher status and a higher standard of living than at any time or place in history of the world. That achievement is especially remarkable considering the nature and intensity of male sexuality.
The mechanism for convincing men to set aside their sexual agenda to accommodate the needs of women and children is a remarkably simple. Women and children are valued highly in Western civilization because male sexual self-control requires high-value rewards. Wives and children have traditionally served that purpose. Society essentially makes a trade with men– “control yourself and you can have a family.” That trade, however, is fragile because the natural male desire for family is so easily distracted by less burdensome options. In a fallen creation, “wife and kids” are not inherently high-value. So the “deal” won’t work without a huge amount of effort at convincing males that women and children are worthy objects of sacrifice. The overlooked effect of that huge persuasive effort is promotion of a widely held belief in the worthiness of women and children across the larger society. It certainly has not been the case in most times and most places.
Egalitarianism undermines the preceding dynamic by mischaracterizing special attention to male socialization as some kind of injustice. Egalitarianism also encourages females to behave in ways that diminish their ability to inspire male sacrifice. The value of women and children as rewards for self-control is decreased on one hand while alternative sexual outlets are promoted on the other. In the first case, egalitarianism denies men “ownership” of wives and children. In the second, it endorses lifestyles that offer the kind of immediate and anonymous sexual gratification males prefer. (Nothing, by the way, threatens the status of women and children more than widespread acceptance of homosexuality. Thus the role of egalitarianism in fostering that acceptance is rich with irony.]
None of the societal regression implied in the preceding analysis is inevitable– but the way out does require major attention to unique, positive, and compelling definitions of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. How do men and women commend themselves to each other AS men and women? Should they? Egalitarians says no, and in so saying, recast the most important and personal aspect of human life as meaningless.
The only difference between a gay marriage and the marriage of an egalitarian male and female is the former are of the same physical sex. Both couples are alike in their alienation from nature and nature’s God.
For a theological examination, see my post at
http://historeo.com/web/?p=977
Regards,
billb
Bill,
Let me briefly address the Trinity as it pertains to this issue. Is their equality in the Godhead or hierarchy? Are not the Father, Son, and Spirit equals? That is, are they all not equally God? Of course they are and I’m sure you agree. But doesn’t scripture teach us that the Son, Jesus, who is sent from the Father, lives in subordination to the Father? Certainly, Yes! But is such subordination the nature of the Godhead in it’s transcedence or is does it belong to the immanency of the Godhead at work in the world? I’m wondering how Philippians 2.6-8 would bear upon such an inquiry?
Although I have thoughts on such an inquiry, I probably have more questions than answers. Having said that, appeals to the Trinity seems to be a bit anachronistic and so I don’t know if that is the best way to answer the question of complementarian vs. egalitarian.
Hi Rex,
The doctrine of the Trinity has become central to the egalitarian-complementarian controversy. See my post on Kevin Giles’ book at http://historeo.com/web/?p=895.
The egalitarian claim is that (1) the way God appears in history; i.e., hierarchical, is not (2) the way God is in eternity; i.e., non-hierachical.
For egalitarians, the Incarnation is thus deceptive.
I would say that it is not.
God’s actions in history (e.g., the Incarnation, Creation) are true reflections of His very nature.
Creation for example arises, not out of sameness, but out of diversity. In Christian theology, it is the fellowship (love) between the Father and the Son that overflows into the act of Creation.
Every philosophy should give an account of how universals (the infinite) relate to particulars (the finite)— of how particular trees, horses, etc. relate to their ideals. Christianity does this by viewing the Godhead as an interpenetrating fellowship between the Universal (the Father) and the Particular (the Son).
In the material realm, the infinite cannot occupy the finite, so it is the Son, not the Father, who is the agent of Creation, who creates by an “emptying,” by “making room” for the finite.
It is this self-emptying impulse on the part of the Son that makes Creation possible. One can say there is a part of the Godhead who really, really likes particulars (finitude) and that part is the Son. And there is a part of God who really, really likes universals (infinity) and that part is the Father. And it is the love between the Father and the Son that leads to Creation.
So it is love that causes the Father to gladly “send” and the Son to gladly “go”— not only in creating the world, but also in redeeming it. And so the Creation owes its existence— and its redemption— to the self-limiting impulse of the Son.
Humanity is not something humans project onto God. Rather, humanity is something God has projected onto humans. That Humanity is the Son— the Son is the Humanity of God. And so humans are indeed created in the image of God, but the reality of that image is the Son.
This means the aphorism “to err is human” is mistaken. More correctly, “to err is to be less than human.” And so the Son has entered into Creation to restore the broken image of Himself within humanity.
Part of the self-emptying that led to Creation involved a choice on the part of the Son to limit His omniscience. In other words, He chooses not to know, thereby making possible the free will of His creatures.
The aim in all this is love, for love is not possible without free will. Moreover, the Creation cannot reflect the image of its Creator without the love that is made possible by free will.
But free will also makes sin possible. So God tolerates sin for the sake of love.
Thus the suffering of the world ultimately has a moral purpose. And yes, God owns all the grief and heartache in the world. Because in His wisdom, love is worth it. For this reason . . .
. . . Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death–
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
billb
http://historeo.com
Hi Rex,
Thanks for rescuing me from the spam filter.
Here are some questions where you could help me tremendously.
Do egalitarians recognize any gender distinctions as legitimate? If so, what are they and on what basis are they judged legitimate?
What is the difference between ideological vs. sentimental opposition to gender distinctions?
How does an egalitarian argue against gender distinctions without also making a case for acceptance of homosexuality?
If opposed to the mainstreaming of homosexuality into public life, how does an egalitarian escape having that position deemed simply a preference?
I know how the piling up of questions can be off-putting, so apologies in advance for that.
Regards,
billb
http://historeo.com
I don’t have answers to all of those questions…perhaps speculations but not answers. Let me just say two things. First, I don’t see why one could not hold an egalitarian view and still not recognize that the two genders may at times function in distinctly different roles. After all, that certainly happens in a biological sense for the purposes of procreation. Second, I have not studied enough about any link between accepting an egalitarian view and accepting homosexuality as a moral behavior nor do I presently see why accepting the former would inherently lead to accepting the later as moral.
Rex, I know I’m being a bit ill-mannered on the points in question, so this will be my last post on your blog.
The controversy over gender spans a continuum from the nature of the Godhead (theology proper) to the nature of man (specifically the meaning of being male/female; i.e., gender writ large and small).
The egalitarian position is that gender should be meaningless or at least relative to the point of pure subjectivism.
It seems odd to me that one could argue for egalitarian understandings without knowing that such arguments undercut traditional gender roles of heterosexual men/women in favor of a smorgasbord of do-it-yourself roles.
Feminists do not debate homosexual activists.
Egalitarians do not debate homosexual activists.
The reason there are no debates is there are no grounds for an argument.
If being a male or female is gender-free, then there is no reason why a man can’t marry a man. If gender-neutrality is a virtue, then such unions should be celebrated.
Morals are largely grounded in gender roles.
That means complementarians will have their moral failures while egalitarians will have their moral confusion. There is of course more hope for the former than the latter.
The “Three R’s” provide a model for understanding how people fall away from a Christian worldview.
Reinterpretation is the first step. Problem passages are reinterpreted to fit a desired end.
Reevaluation is the next step. When reinterpretation fails, problem passages are reevaluated based on alleged “core principles” that are used to trump plain meanings.
Repudiation is the last step. When reinterpretation and reevaluation fail, Christianity itself is repudiated as inherently flawed.
The preceding path is too well-worn by egalitarian travelers for us not to know it is a slippery slope.
People who have been burnt by unjust gender distinctions need insight. People who are ideologically opposed to gender distinctions need repentance.
Regards,
billb
http://historeo.com
Bill,
Thank you for your comments, which I have absolutely no problems with. When I started these posts, I knew that there would be critical questions and disagreements raised. I don’t mind that as I believe that God can work through such free inquiry to teach us all his truth. The only thing I have ever asked of those commenting is to be courteous and Christianly in their comments, which you have certainly been in everyone of your comments. My hope in blogging is that Christian blogs can be a place of dialogue where readers can agree and disagree with each other while still responding to others in a Christian manner and that I think we have done.
Rex,
I too like Terry appreicate your study and time I know you have put into this subject. I too as a father of two daughters I’m interested in this subject although probably for different reasons.
It’s of course no surprise that I would strongly disagree and be very troubled with your new positions and practices at your congregation regarding the role of women. Yet hopefully you know I say such not out of arrogance but love and respect for you.
Nevertheless I will try to keep an open mind and carefully consider your new arguments and point of view.
I have written a lengthy reply because I will be in and out the rest of the week as my wife’s uncle passed away the other day and we will be gone for a few days.
First of all, I do hope that you will at some point address also the issue of headship in the home and how this has any correlation between the role of women in the church. I believe there is a connection there.
But more to the points now that you have raised. My friend I think you miss the mark regarding the Genesis narrative and how you think the male-hierarchy appears to be a consequence of the fall rather than a part of God’s created order for humanity. I’ll come back to Genesis in a bit.
First off, I look at another important passage in this discussion of role of women in church and home found in 1 Corinthians 11. This is where Paul shows that the relative position of men and women is like the hierarchical structure within the Godhead: “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (v. 3). I’ve always liked this summary: “The Father planned redemption; the Son enacted the plan; the Spirit revealed that plan to us.”
And of course Paul also uses the home as the primary metaphor to describe Christ’s relationship to His Church. (Eph. 5:22-32). Now, for the record I believe a husband is to be the loving head of the household, to be the servant leader of his wife and provide godly leadership in the church. I believe God designed the woman to be the wife, mother, nurturer, and helper. She is to submit to the man’s leadership in church and home.
And I do not believe we can separate the home and the church in divine order because the underlying principles are the same.
Back in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul does appeals (vs. 9) to the account of Creation (Gen. 2) rather than to the story of the Fall (Gen. 3), because the divine assignments seem to be clearly given before the Fall (Gen. 2:15-24). These distinct roles have never been abolished.
And of course Paul clearly states his commitment to role distinctions (1 Cor. 11:3-10), while certainly indicating that he did not consider the woman to be inferior or less vital to the kingdom (vv. 11-12).
So Rex, I too believe the creation account recorded in Genesis 1-3 of man and woman and their subsequent fall into sin do in fact provide the foundation for all biblical thinking about gender roles. Of course when Jesus was questioned divorce practices, He responded by affirming the truthfulness of the Genesis record and based His gender teachings on it (Matt 19:3-8).
But Rex, from my viewpoint, Genesis two seems to have been written to communicate the idea that Adam was created first to signal that the man has the responsibility to lead in his relationship with the woman. Correspondingly, Eve had the responsibility to follow Adam’s leadership. Before Eve was formed, Adam existed in the garden to care for it, he received instruction from God, and he named the animals.
So yes, the creation priority of man is not without significance. And of course, the New Testament provides a divinely inspired commentary on Genesis 2. You say the gender roles are not based on creation order, well my friend you disagree with the inspired apostle Paul who says otherwise:)lol! The apostle Paul wrote, ” For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim 2:13)
Thus the New Testament does in fact use Adam’s prior creation to demonstrate God’s design that men are to be the leaders and teachers in the church of God. Again, you cannot not explain away the fact that Paul went back to the original design in creation for his support rather than appeal to cultural issues or a “missional question” as you state.
Therefore Paul’s prohibition is then to be seen as permanent and universally binding on the church for all time and all cultures although admittedly there will be some different cultural expressions of how the principle might be played out.
And so it seems to me Rex that this fact precludes the egalitarian position which of course holds that male/female roles are a direct result of the Fall. The creation order was established in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall. Paul then proceeds to show the disastrous effect of this role reversal in the garden (Gen. 3:1-17). He doesn’t absolve Adam of guilt, but he points not only to Eve’s violation of the divine command concerning the forbidden fruit but also to the reversal of divine order in which Eve independently made this important decision, thereby refusing to
submit to Adam, who at the same time abdicated his spiritual leadership. (I’d recommend a re-read of F.LaGard Smith’s book, “Men of Strength for Women of God”, chapters two and three for more on the creation order and fall and the role of women).
Rex, nothing in Scripture suggests that it was God’s plan for godly women to assume positions of authority over men in the home or in the church. This fact is consistently illustrated by Biblical history from beginning to end. In both Old and New Testaments male leadership is overwhelmingly the pattern—whether priests, kings, prophets, judges (yes I know about Deborah), or the inspired authors of Scripture. Now yes women indeed share the gospel and do nurturing in the faith, performing a myriad of kingdom tasks—all within biblical
boundaries and in harmony with the creation order.
But again, Rex, I don’t think you cannot separate the home and the church in the divine order. You cannot negate truths concerning the structure of home and church.
I believe we should be holding the dignity of women in high regard. I also believe that we should encourage women to use their gifts in service within the church. And I certainly believe that men and women in parallel positions should be treated equally. However, I believe Scripture is clear about the differing roles within the home and church for men and women.
So, Rex, I do hope you address the issue of how equality and headship can coexist in the home and church because I do hope you still believe in both males being head (spiritual leaders) of their homes and men serving as elders or shepherds and preachers in the church??
I guess I believe Christ’ redeeming work doesn’t set aside the concept of headship in the home and church.
Anyway, I understand that we sincerely differ with each other. May we both pray for God’s wisdom as we seek to understand scripture as best we can.
Oh, BTW, Ed and Pam Mosby came to Central this past Sunday and spoke about the China Now work. We are trying to get more involved in this work. It was great seeing them and fun talking about old times and friends and students during our time together in Hardin’gs SBS.
Take care,
Robert Prater
Robert,
Thanks for your courteous reply. I did take time to read over your comment, reread some biblical texts which I hope to give attention to in some future posts on this series. You should know that I am holding my position lightly, as for years I held a complementarian view because I could not see the legitimacy of the egalitarian view. The change in my view came by accident in my studies and research on Genesis 1-3 for sermons, classes, etc…
In your comment, you resort to so many proof-texts to make your point yet by doing so, you also make a ton of assumptions about each passage. Further more, before you can truly critique my position you must first understand how I am arriving there and your comments suggests you have yet to understand (which does not necessitate that you agree). For instance, you proof-text 1 Tim 2.13 in order to bolster your claim for male-hierarchy without even considering that the very next verse would say else wise; which is something did address in the post.
Thanks Rex, for the thoughts. If the definitions you give for complementarian/egalitarian are the only ones out there, then I’m stuck in limbo. Neither really fits my view of what the Bible says.
I’m a separate but equal guy. That is, I don’t have a problem with men and women being equal yet having different roles, different functions. Equality in status does not equal equality in role. (Sounds like something out of our anthropology textbook)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, I not sure whether a scholar would like my definitions or not. I am doing my best in these post to keep things simple rather than a post sounding like it belongs to a theological journal. Also, I think it’s possible to affirm equity and also affirm different roles. After all, biologically, when it comes to sexual reproduction, men and women still do have different roles.
Rex,
You beat me to it. I’ve got a series in the draft stage about gender equity. However, I think most of us are lost in the weeds on this issue. We’re not lost because we’re either complementarian or egalitarian, but because we think those are the only two options. Frankly – and this is what I will argue in a week or two – it is a false choice. No choice and no family actually functions as either egalitarian or complememtarian. Those are theological and social locations that make us feel good because we think we’re upholding the Word of God or uplifting people, but our lives and churches don’t fall out that way.
Sean, I look forward to reading your thoughts, and I think you might be on to something about complementarian vs. egalitarian being a false dichotomy.
Thanks everyone for your comments, including you thoughtful criticisms. I certainly don’t mean to present the egalitarian viewpoint as something that is so clearly settled. Rather than responding back and forth in the comments (which I don’t have the time for), I will address some of your concerns in another post.
I do need to clarify that even though I am presenting an egalitarian viewpoint, my views do not represent the Columbia Church of Christ (CCoC) as a whole. While the CCoC has become more gender inclusive, it is still very much complementarian in it’s practice.
Rex,
I had a few more things I wanted to reply here with. Thanks for indulging me:)
It does seem to me as our western society is becoming more and more egalitarian, not in the sense of seeing everyone equal (a point surely we would all agree with that) but rather in the sense of seeing everyone the same (which I think most us would all dispute). But as this happens there is also an unhealthy “homogenization” that not only masks the God-given differences between men and women, but even tries to eradicate them.
And yes the the issue of gender roles even is connected to the issue of homosexulity and same sex-marriage as the Bill points out in his comments.
Now Wayne Grudem has in recent years written on this quite a bit and argues that the spectrum of different views on gender inevitably affects other areas of life as well. Grudem and many others are convincred that the egalitarian view will lead to all positions and service and leadership in the life of the local church and should be open to women or men based entirely on calling and gifts.
I also always keep coming back to F. LaGard Smith, who was way ahead of the game and saw this one coming when he wrote some very wise words and gave an appropriate warning which is now over 20 years old in his excellent book, “Men of Strength for Women of God.”
Smith in making some final conclusion in his book writes:
“Crack the door open in biblically neutral areas of service, and we will soon find it to be a threshold to the biblically ordained leadership roles themselves. The slope is indeed slippery. As a lawyer, I am well aware of “floodgates” arguments which seize upon improbable ultimate consequences as a reason for not doing something that is imminently reasonable. Floodgate arguments should be used with caution. But in this case we already have proof. Already we have seen churches which have made the rapid progression from women passing communion trays and leading congregations prayers to being appointed deaconesses, pulpit ministers, and elders.” (p. 294)
“Why should women join with men in leading prayers or reading Scriptures in the worship? “Because,” we are told, “there is neither male nor female.” If that is true, then it is also true that women should be able to join men in the pulpit. Accepting that rationale for shared partipcation in seemingly innocent areas of public worship leaves no room for line-drawing whatever. That is why the ‘floodgate” threat is so real.” (p. 295)
Smith concludes:
“Maintain a high male profile in everything that the church does reminds us of the greater principle: It is not what women could do, but what men should do………if we are given fewer guidelines than we might hope for regarding other specific functions within the church, we nevertheless are bound by the overarching principle of male spiritual leadership. Any involvement of women which threatens that principle is contrary to God’s will. Sadly, today’s call for the wider role for women in the church appears to be just such a threat.” (p. 297-298)
Something to think about my friend.
Robert Prater
I’ve not read that book by F. LaGard Smith but I’ve read a couple of his other books and in my opinion, he is more prone to being a reactionary with some hints of fear-mongoring. There’s no better way to shut down open and inductive inquiries to questions that people have then to warn them that such an endeavor is a “slippery slope” that leads to X without having given them an opportunity to hear a fair-minded case for X actually being right (as opposed to an opponent of X presenting the case with all of their polemical assertions added in).
Rex,
I promise last comment for a while:) I also wanted to provide a link at bottom for an excellent and thought provoking article by Dr. Jones who writes for The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wayne Grudem serves on this also). Jones is a an Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Th.M. Program at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC).
Anyway, please read and consider with an open mind becasue to dismiss any connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality is grossly naive and foolish.
BTW Rex, our good old friend and another feollow Harding classmate, Cris May has written an excellent research and possible thesis paper for Harding Graduate school on the issue of homosexuality and deals a good length with this subject also. Let me know if you’d like a copy.
God bless,
Robert Prater
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-2/Egalitarianism-and-Homosexuality
Good start. I have never believed that God, by giving men and women different roles, intended to make one any less or one any more valuable than the other. We have always been equal in value and our different roles are equal in importance. I am afraid that society has defined a woman’s role as inferior. Not God.
The quotes from F. LaGard Smith are dangerously legalistic. In fact, I’m often shocked how many of our CoC leaders reference those quotes approvingly. Smith openly admits that certain areas are gender-neutral, but he wants those areas to belong to men anyway just to be safe. He’s making a rule where he concedes there is none. He’s not different from the Pharisees who made a fence of rules around the Biblical rules, just to make sure that no one would accidentally break the Biblical rules. And how did it work out for the Pharisees?
At the close of the day, I won’t be judged by what F. LaGard Smith believes and writes — or anyone else; just myself.
So I’d offer this: What if complementarian and egalitarian views are not mutually exclusive, totally incompatible? Our glimpse at the triune nature of God gives some indication of this kind of relationship — where one has a function/purpose that complements another’s, yet there is equality and mutual submission. (In our rush to get to Ephesians 5:22, we must not ignore Ephesians 5:21.)
Then we have to address whether instructions given by God are meant for the context of home, church or both (let’s just ignore the world beyond for the moment). Are they addressed to “women of the church” and “men of the church” or “wives” and “husbands”? That may help provide a clue. Do any of them dictate male authority over females, or simply prohibit female authority over males? Is authority to be exercised over anyone of either gender and if so, under what conditions?
You’ve bitten off a big bite, my friend — one that I’ve only nibbled at for lack of educational chops and available time to chew!
Keith, thanks for your comment. I think you and Sean Palmer may have a point about the complementarian vs. egalitarian not being so mutually exclusive or an either/or choice. Also, I like the questions you ask as such questions help keep us from making pretentious assumptions about certain passages of scripture just because we’ve heard such scriptures only interpreted all of our life in the way we are using such scriptures.
If someone believes that men and women are complementary, but not in a hierarchical way, then I would call them an egalitarian. Both sides of this debate believe that men and women are inherently different, the question is whether they believe men and women are different with respect to hierarchy. So complementarian vs. egalitarian is fine, but many egalitarians will point that an even better way of framing it is hierarchical complementarian vs. non-hierarchical complementarian. I think it’s unfortunate that traditionalists were able to co-opt the term “complementarian”, as if egalitarians didn’t believe that men and women complement each other.
Rex,
Please take my word that I don’t want to criquie your psotion first before trying to understand how you arrived there. But thus far in what you have presented I find your arguments misguided and inadequate.
Now my friend you say I’ve been being guilty of “proof-texting”, and “assumptions.” Would love for you to demonstrate where I have done such. You make the accusations, wish you’d back them up:) Saying it “don’t make it so!”lol!!
Now, but I do believe you are presenting a false false dichotomy about Paul’s prohibitive instruction regarding women either being the creation order or the fall. Paul clearly states his reasoning as being both. You seem to reject one and accept the other.
Then you accuse me of “proof-texting” 1 Timothy 2 when I’m just interpeing the text in a straight forward manner. I know you will get to this passage in later posts, but you did bring it up and I believe present the false dichotomy my brother!
I am only noting that the reason Paul gives this restriction is explained in verse 13 which says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” So the reason Paul supplies for this restriction goes all the way back to Genesis and the creation of man. Thus, he grounds this restriction in creation and the divine order of creation which then clearly gives it a timeless application.
I’d love to know how I’m proof-texting and making a “ton of assumptions” here.
And yes I do think your understanding of the Genesis narrative and stating that “ the male-hierarchy appears to be a consequence of the fall rather than a part of God’s created intent for humanity” is grossly wrong.
Again, you clearly disagree with Paul because when he read the Genesis account (chapter 2) he saw male leadership implied in the creation order. Man was made first and therefore bears the responsibility of leadership. This is further born out in Genesis by the fact that Adam is not only first, but he names his wife, which is an exercise of authority and is the first to be questioned after the fall. So for me male leadership was evident prior to the fall and again, this agrees with what the apostle Paul says, “for Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
I continue to maintain that Paul bases his restrictions and teachings on the role of women in the church on the order of creation (1 Tim. 2:13,14). God first made Adam; afterward Eve. Not only that, but he made Eve for the sake of Adam, to be his helper (Gen. 2:18-25). Neither is complete without the other. (1 Cor. 11:11) But this pre-fall order of creation presented in Genesis 1 and 2 does show the foundation importance the Bible attaches to the creation account for understanding the subject of the role relationship of women in the church and the home. Again this appeal is also made in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 where Paul also ties authority in with the created order.
But, again, I will wait to see what your explanation and interpretation of this passage is that your believe allows for women to take either positions of leadership/authority in the church/home over men and in the worship assembly.
But I continue to come back to what Paul says (you say I’m proof-texting by doing such) that he does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man because Adam was created first, then Eve. It just seems obvious to me that in what Paul says the issue of authority is tied to the created order.
Now, yes, it is also true that Paul bases his statement on the role of women on Eve’s role in the fall. Eve’s being the one who was deceived does have something to do with women’s being prohibited from teaching men and having authority over men in the New Testament church.
It seems to me that the really significant point is that it is not the transgression itself but the deception that is being held against Eve. The fact that Eve was deceived by the Devil is in some way related to the fact that women are not permitted to teach men and have authority over men in the church. We simply cannot deny this connection.
The problem and challenge becomes, though, is to explain it. Exactly what is the connection? Some have seen this prohibition related to some inherent female characteristic which itself is relate to vulnerability to deception.
I don’t believe such or think Paul I saying women are more gullible or intectually inferior to men(as some do wrongly with 1 Peter 3:7 and “weaker vessel” statement) but this is most likely not his point.
Some suggest that the women of Ephesus—like Eve—were temporarily being deceived by false teaching or the problem of women dominating men in Ephesus (i.e., feminism was invading the church). I’m not sure that’s exactly it either (although it certainly was a problem). But rather the main problem Paul is concerned about at Ephesus is false teachers who are men not women (1 Tim. 1:3; 4:1ff) causing problems in the church.
Now, I think Douglas Moo is on to something when he has suggested that Paul may be saying this:
“The woman, created to be man’s helper and subordinate to him (Gen 2), acts independently when confronted with temptation, to the downfall of both (Gen 3). It may be that Paul views the teaching/ruling activity of women in the assembly as just such an improper reversal of intended roles. Thus, in verses 13-14, Paul substantiates his instruction by arguing that the created order establishes a relationship of subordination of woman to man, which order, if bypassed, leads to disaster.” (Douglas Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal , p. 69-70)
I think the point of reversing the created order is correct. So it seems that the first couple reversed the God-designed roles and indeed, the results were “disasters” as Moo points out—i.e., the woman led the man into sin and the man followed his wife into sin (both equally guilty). German theologian Werner Neuer remarked, “The fall is therefore, not only the rebellion of mankind against God, but the setting aside of the divinely appointed order of male and female.”
If this is true, than indeed it is a most profound thought that the fall of humanity was occasioned by a gender role reversal which makes the gender roles no trivial issue.
Regardless, I see the context of 1 Timothy 2 and I believe Paul does not leave his readers to conjecture that the directive to women not to teach men or to exercise authority over men is for the first century alone or a local historical context. The theological origin for this directive in worship is again the creation order as well as the fall and deception of Eve.
Nevertheless, as I said, I will try with an open mind to consider your points of view (which yes could be right and mine wrong) even though I do in my thinking presently disagree with you and believe you have bad “cracks” in the foundation of your thinking on these matters:).
Respectuflly your brother,
Robert Prater
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Headship? | Kingdom Seeking
Rex,
My interest in your article is not just because I have two daughters who are interested in ministry. (by that I do not mean that they are interested in preaching or serving in a public way in our worship service). The oldest is getting ready to leave in about a week for a years commitment to a children’s home in Honduras. However, I wish to encourage my daughters and those young people who I work with on a daily basis to be use the talents and abilities God has blessed them with in a way that fulfills His plan for their lives.
Amen! That’s exactly the desire I have for both my daughter and son.
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Jesus and Women | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Moving Towards Equality | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Regarding 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Regarding 1 Timothy 2.11-12 | Kingdom Seeking