This is the second post in Mark Baddeley’s series on complementarianism and egalitarianism. (Read parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.)
Complementarians like me see egalitarians as reading the Bible under the shadow of the Enlightenment. Their notion of equality is not value-free, or intuitively obvious, or true at some pre-critical presuppositional level. It is a view of equality that was articulated in the Enlightenment as part of that movement’s attack on Christianity. So for the complementarian there is a close relationship between egalitarianism and theological liberalism: not all egalitarians are liberals; but almost all liberals are egalitarians; and both read the Bible in light of convictions that lie at the heart of the modern liberal-democratic state. For both movements, culture and modern reason define all the key terms, and the Bible is then understood in light of that first step made by culture. God isn’t just a Westerner and a convinced democrat, he is an ideal example—the kind of guy any Western cultural liberal would be proud to know; the very model of a modern major general writ large.
From a complementarian perspective, as the last 40 years have played out, people and institutions who accept women’s ordination usually also adopt egalitarianism. And those (individuals and institutions) who adopt egalitarianism usually move increasingly over time in a more liberal direction. So complementarians see women’s ordination as giving birth to egalitarianism, and egalitarianism when it is fully grown giving birth to liberalism.
In other words, proponents of women’s ordination see their opponents as immoral and ungodly, opposing the new way that the gospel opens up for human communities. Opponents of women’s ordination see those pushing for the innovation as captured by the wisdom of the world—adopting as true one of the points of our society’s beliefs that is opposed to the truth of God, and so over time losing their grip on the word of God and the gospel altogether. It is no wonder that this debate generates so much heat.
Both sides see that this is not a ‘food sacrificed to idols’ issue, where the ‘strong’ can make allowances for the ‘weak’. (Or, at least, both sides see that this issue doesn’t work that way for their side. It’s surprising how often people think the ones on the other side should respect the conscience of those who disagree and restrain from acting on their convictions.) For both sides, this is an issue of submission to word of God—either given through Scripture, or given through Scripture as read by a modern moral intuition. One side believes that the gospel requires women to have authority over men on an even footing with men having authority over women. The other side believes that Scripture forbids women to have authority over men.
And behind that disagreement in how affairs in the household of God should be organized are fundamentally opposed understandings of the nature of God, Christ, salvation, human nature, sin, authority, love, equality and even eschatology. (This is something, it should be said, that egalitarians tend to be more aware of than complementarians. Complementarians often limit the debate to the authority of Scripture, to exegesis, and to hermeneutics, not exploring how radically egalitarianism departs from classic orthodoxy on a wide range of issues.)
In such a confrontation we are again stuck in the perennial problem that has faced the people of God over the millennia: two sides, each plausibly claiming to speak for God, and each saying something that flatly contradicts the other side and that expands out to touch on the whole course of Christian doctrine and ethics. Just as with the prophets and the false prophets in the Old Testament, Jesus and the leaders of Israel in the gospels, Paul and the Judaisers in the epistles, the Nicenes and the Arians in the fourth century, and the Protestants and the Roman Church in the 16th century, so now we are faced once again with a blunt, high-stakes, mutually exclusive opposition waged within the house of God.
And this coming stage of separation is going to drive home that the gulf between an evangelical egalitarian and an evangelical complementarian is at least as large as that between Reformed and Arminian, evangelical and Pentecostal, or even Protestant and
Roman Catholic. Egalitarians will, where it is politically possible, push complementarians out of the institutions where they get control. And this public action will drive home the fact that, for them, this is not a ‘second tier’ issue but an issue on a par with divinity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, or justification by grace through faith. In the next post I will try and sketch out why I think this next stage is upon us.
This really underlines the importance of this issue. I am dismayed by a number of evangelical leaders in Melbourne – including a number who would say they are complementarian – describing this issue as a matter of indifference when it clearly isn’t and has very grave ramifications.
Evangelicals in Melbourne are terrified of conflict among themselves, being very aware of those outside their ranks who are delighted by this divide. But it’s too bad. The truth is just too important.
I have to confess that I’m one of those Melbourne evangelicals, though in fact I’m a Sydney evangelical at the core, having grown up there.
I note the comment by Mark: “One side believes that the gospel requires women to have authority over men on an even footing with men having authority over women.” In fact among those with whom I’ve dialogued it seems that only the complementarians are concerned with authority. My reading of passages like Eph 5 tells me that authority is something that I need to give up the way Jesus gave it up along with his life.
I was a bit surprised at the caricature of egalitarians who always seem to slide into liberalism. It’s true that liberals are almost always egalitarian though there are still some liberal Catholics who remain strongly complementarian. But to suggest that those of us who are strongly of an evangelical mind might be tainted with liberalism simply because we believe that 1 Corinthians 12 for example applies to women as well as men or because we think that Paul’s inclusion of women among those who are apostles might indicate a broadening of his theology of women in ministry (just to give two examples) is a bit strong.
As for the question of who pushes who out of institutions I guess it’s a matter of where you’re standing at the time. We have two major evangelical Anglican theological colleges in Australia. I know that Ridley Melbourne includes in it’s faculty both Complementarians and Egalitarians. I wonder how the figures appear at Moore College.
As for Jennie’s final comment: I haven’t noticed egalitarian Evangelicals in Melbourne being terrified of any theological debate. That’s why this issue is being debated in Melbourne at the moment. Unless we continue to thrash out this issue as fellow evangelicals Mark’s prediction will come true. We’ll each hide away in our own hollow separated by a gulf that will undermine our core message of the gospel of God’s grace.
Hi Jennie,
Welcome along! Are you in a position to say what is going to be covered in the coming complementarian conference that Jereth linked in his comment under the previous post?
Well, I can’t speak for whoever you have in mind, but there’s a couple of groups who will see it that way.
One group just focuses on the women’s ordination question and passes over the theological and ethical issues driving it, like Chris’ statement that the Christian way is to renounce authority like Jesus did so as to be a servant to others.
When looked at just from the point of view of ‘can women be ordained’ or ‘can wives and husbands share authority for the family on an 50/50 basis’? Then I think some evangelicals will say – ‘We accept arminians and reformed, how is this any bigger an issue?’
Another group (on both sides) aren’t really sold on the position they are with – some who would like women to be ordained think it is more of a ‘allowed’ than a ‘should’, and some who would like women not to be ordained think it is more of a ‘better if you don’t’ than a ‘thou shalt not’.
You’re right though, I think that’s untenable long term, except in unusual situations. This series of posts is designed to explain to people why I think that’s the case.
The Diocese of Melbourne might be one of those unusual situations – if its evangelicals really want to preserve unity as far as possible and both sides are willing to make substantial compromises of their own conscience for the sake of the other guys.
But for that to happen both sides will need to come to grips with the theology and ethics of the other side and not just pass over it. That strategy can work, but only in the short term – a long term alliance across a sigificant difference needs to be done on an eyes wide open basis, and that requires full and open discussion.
That’s not aimed at Melbourne in particular – I think that’s the case wherever we’re talking about creating some kind of unity when the leaders of both sides (those who’ve thought it through and think it matters) are both agreed that it is not a matter of indifference. But I think it applies as much to Melbourne as anywhere else.
Hi Chris,
Sort of. If egalitarians that you’ve dialogued with have decided to give up authority then they are also concerned with authority. They have taken a position that a Christian must not possess or utilise authority and they think that that is because Jesus gave up having or using authority when he was on earth, and they think that that means that Eph 5 is about giving up authority. All that together is an important point, one which reflects a keen interest in the question of authority. My hunch is that most complementarians are unaware that that idea is taken that seriously in egalitarian circles, if they’re even aware of it existing.
I had to start somewhere in my introductory series, and I opted not to melt people’s brains with wide-ranging taxonomies of the different positions and how they differ from each other. I started with something that can orientate the person who’d like some kind of orientation.
I am planning to blog on this next year at some length (the length bit almost goes without saying, I suppose), and I’m going to try and bring out some of the differences I see within egalitarianism on the question of authority and equality (and also on the question of authority and love).
Your view as stated here is one important one – Jesus rejected all forms of exercising authority as part of what it meant for him to be a servant of all. Therefore Christians should reject authority. I’ve only found that group running churches in independent, and some Baptist, contexts. Anglicanism, with its fixed threefold structure inherited from the 16th Century is so inherently authoritarian in its basic structure that I think it would impossible to find an Anglican church that runs on this basis – they’d have to reject the authority of their bishop to start with. Proponents of this view have tended to have really grasped the implications of their position and even reject the idea that children should obey their parents – parents and children should mutually submit to each other. It’s a radical social vision they have.
But there’s another strand of egalitarianism that says that there is authority in human life, but it should be based on gifting, on ability. Leaders should lead and exercise authority because they have qualities that set them apart – vision, intelligence, wisdom, maturity, a capacity to unite people and inspire them. That strand is quite comfortable with pastors, vicars, and rectors wielding authority and having power as long as it is based on ability, not gender. It’s opposed to lay administration of Holy Communion because only the presbyter has the authority to conduct that service. It’s happy for bishops to exercise authority over the presbyters in their diocese and to require presbyters to submit to their bishop. It’s very happy with the roles of bishops and priests as they come down to us from the 16th Century, with lots of authority and power being part of their role.
And there’s a third strand of egalitarianism that talks like the first but seems to act like the second – that’s the best I can put it at the moment. They’ll fight for women to be ordained and bishops, they’ll say that it’s about service and use of gifts, not power and authority, but they won’t try to change the Ordinal to change the role of the bishop and the priest to remove all notions of authority and power from the roles. They’ll oppose lay administration of Holy Communion, even though that really is an issue of who is authorised (or has authority) to act. That third group I find a lot in Anglicanism, and I’m still trying to work it out. I’m not sure whether they’re just confused and don’t see the issues themselves, or whether I haven’t gotten something about them yet and they really are a ‘third way’ compared to the first two groups.
I’m not sure where you’d put yourself in the spectrum between those three points Chris? If you don’t fully like the first two groups, then you’re probably someone I’m interested to talk to – because that third group is very broad, and I’m not sure I’ve seen much either by them, or by outside viewers, that explains them well compared to the first two groups.
concluding…
Both sides disagree with the other side’s criticism. Both are hurt by the other side’s criticism. But both sides take the stance they do partly because of that criticism. They think the other side is wrong, and that their error matters. So, if I’m going to try and describe the two sides and their relationship to each other, I need to state both criticisms as best as I can.
In a later post next year I’ll try and show why I have that concern about egalitarianism (not necessarily every individual who holds to the view). Then would be a good time to tell me it’s a caricature.
Right now we’re just making sure the interested reader gets what both sides are concerned about.
Complementarians are motivated by ungodly oppression of women, egalitarians have adopted a fundamental point of liberalism.
That gets to the heart of the two concerns quickly. Then the reader can start to go, ‘Okay, so that’s what they say about each other (and it’s probably more complex than Mark has said in 800 words) so which one do I think is wrong?’
Yes, it basically is, as I’ll implicitly acknowledge once or twice. Both sides are likely to move from this point and start to make their institutions more monochrome. So Acts 29, I think, won’t work with egalitarians. I think we’ll see more and more of that from both sides in the future.
But both ‘sides’ have different strengths and weaknesses from a sociological point of view.
Complementarians start with institutional power – all Christian institutions, at the start of this debate, were complementarian in the basic practical point that they didn’t ordain women, authorise them to preach to men or the like. So complementarians don’t need to change anything to get their view expressed – they just stay the same.
Egalitarians are the reformers – they want to change the institution to express their views. They are able to exist in a complementarian structure fairly well as long as that structure doesn’t start making people have to believe in complementarianism to be part of it. Until complementarians make that change, an egalitarian can stay in a complementarian structure and campaign to change it in an egalitarian direction.
You don’t have to believe in complementarianism to function in a complementarian institution. You just have to be able to cope with the fact that the bigger organisation is doing something you think is wrong. In a complementarian structure the egalitarian can’t do everything they think they should (women are unjustly restricted) but they aren’t required to actively do something they think is wrong.
But when egalitarians get control the situation is quite different for complementarians. It’s no longer just an issue of belief, it’s now an issue of practice. Because the layperson has to be prepared to sit under the ministry of a woman teaching in a mixed gender context, or leading a mixed gender congregation, or being a bishop over men and women. They are required to actively do something that they think is wrong to be able to stay in. It’s much harder for them to stay in an egalitarian institution, because it doesn’t just restrict them, it requires them to act and act in a way that they think is wrong.
None of that is ‘fair’, it just is what it is. The two sides are different, and that difference affects even how conscience issues are experienced in social life. I’m trying to say something about it (especially in the next series), but not score points off it – although it may seem that way at times to partisans on both sides who don’t exegete my words very, very carefully.
And Moore – that’s another issue again. It’s very interested in theology, and doesn’t have an educational model of trying to reflect the range within evangelicalism within its faculty. Put together, that means that it will not have representatives of some views you’ll find in another good Anglican college, and will have representatives of other views. There’s more going on there than just the complementarian/egalitarian issue, there’s a philosophy of theological education as well.
It is interesting that this blog has coincided with the announcement by the Westpac chief executive, Gail Kelly, to “put in place gender targets that in the next four years would double to 40 per cent the proporition of women in its upper echelons” (SMH Tues, 12 Oct). At present in Westpac women hold 23% of the management positions and they want to increase this to 40%. Our first ever female Prime Minister, Julia Gilard, was present at the announcement and made this comment: “If you believe as I do that merit is equally distributed through the sexes and you look at any organisations and you’re seeing a result of less that 50-50 you’ve got to ask yourself why? Because it must mean there are women of merit that didn’t come through”. This view fits in with Mark’s second strand of egalitarianism where authority is determined by merit and performance. So if women and men have the same merit and ability to perform a particular role, but we see more men filling these roles, the conclusion must be that women are being discriminated against for not having the same opportunities as men to fulfill their potential. It is this discrimination according to gender which Westpac is trying to address.
Here is a quote by the Joint Chief of Staffs which appears at the end of the movie, A General’s Daughter: “There is coming a time when women won’t and can’t occupy a position in the military.” The military for a long time was a man’s domain, but times are a changing. They are changing because gender roles are considered fabrications of our culture and tradition. So when cultural and traditional expectations change, as they are today, then the institution must adapt and reform to keep up with the cultural tide.
I’m surprised you can’t see that your description of the Compl’n sitting in the pew is actually no different from the Egal’n sitting under someone who denies their giftedness. Both are in a sense passive, yet as you point out there is an active choice of remaining under that leadership and teaching.
I do like your comments on the hierarchical nature of the Anglican Church. I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of it. I hate the way bishops in some places exercise their authority. But I’m faced with the dilemma of all those who operate in an existing framework of this sort. If it can’t be changed (and I can’t see that as being possible in the next century or three) do I leave and become and independent or a congregationalist or do I stay and work within the structures to bring about what change I can? And in the meantime carry on the work of the gospel that’s my primary calling. Yes I choose the latter. I’m not an anarchist, nor do I deny the existence and indeed necessity of authority structures in any human organisation, but authority is a reality of life not a motivation for taking up a position. My exercise of authority depends on those around me being willing to submit to my authority yet at the same time that willingness hopefully depends on their recognition that I submit to their needs in exercising leadership.It’s a very complex formula isn’t it? And I don’t think the way I’ve described it is how it always works, even in good evangelical churches!
Hi Stephen,
Nice example! That makes what I was trying to get at quite concrete.
I think some evangelical egalitarians (like Grenz, Kjesbo, and probably Miroslav Volf) would be fairly nonplussed at the announcement. For them there’s no real difference between having all men CEOs and have proportional male/female representation among CEOs. Their real hope (which they probably recognise can’t be realised in society at large) is to have a workforce where the bosses don’t have the ability to hire and fire employees and give employees orders, but mutually submit to their employees, while exercising a non-coercive leadership. For them, women in leadership is part of transforming the nature of leadership, getting women in those roles just a (very important) side-issue in a bigger goal – and desired primarily because it is hoped that it will help transform them away from authority and necessary submission.
Other egalitarians (like our Prime Minister) are happy with employers having power over employees in their workforce. They want justice for women, not so much transformation of social structures, and so want proportional representation for women in authority roles. For them, getting women in those roles is the whole point.
As I said, great example of the difference in approaches – thanks for adding it to the thread.
Are you in a position to say what is going to be covered in the coming complementarian conference that Jereth linked in his comment under the previous post?
Sorry Mark that I didn’t get back to you. The conference next Saturday has 3 speakers, as advertised on the website. Neil has been asked to discuss hermeneutics (i.e. right and wrong ways to read the Bible on the gender issue); Martin has been asked to explain the Biblical teaching and Fiona has been asked to give a pastoral reflection.
Does that answer your question?
Hi Craig,
Yeah, I didn’t explain it that well. Let me put it this way, by use of an analogy:
Here in the UK there was a news item in the last year or two about a Christian couple who had fostered a lot of children quite successfully. Government policy changed, and they could only foster more children if they indicated they would support and endorse any child who experienced same-sex attraction in that attraction. They wouldn’t, and will not foster any more children.
They have gifts and abilities and the desire to serve and use those gifts. It’s genuinely distressing for them not to foster children. Much good goes undone because they don’t do it. But they aren’t being required to do anything wrong by not serving this way. The restriction comes to them from outside and so they are not sinning by not fostering children. They’re still faithful.
And they still remain part of the UK and not have to endorse homosexuality. They have to emigrate out of the UK in order to have any chance of serving and using their gifts in this way, but they can remain in the UK and only passively support the government’s policy (by their taxes and the like).
But imagine the government said, “We are going to have you continue to foster children, you aren’t allowed to not foster, but we’re going to give you some children who self-identify as homosexual and we are going to require you to raise them in line with their self-identity and nurture and encourage it.”
That’s another kettle of fish again – here the outside body is requiring the couple to actively do something they are sure is sin. And the only way to not do that is to emigrate out of the UK.
That’s the analogy for the two sides and their experience of being in the other institution. Both have the experience of being in a body that teaches and practices something they consider wrong.
But the egalitarian is ‘merely’ (and I realise it’s a big deal, I’m not trying to minimise that) restricted from serving and doing all the good they could do. Their call is denied by an external body on grounds that the egalitarian considers culpable. But they don’t have to do anything sinful – like say complementarianism is right – to stay in.
But, sooner or later, the complementarian does have to do that – he (and possibly she, depending on whether she’s happy to submit to a woman who ministers to men) has to submit to a woman in order to stay part of the group. And that’s an active participation, not simply a passive support. The moral questions involved go up a notch.
The only way that the two experiences can be equivalent is if, for the egalitarian, the obligation to use their gifts and to serve in a mixed congregation is like Daniel’s conundrum in Dan 6. Daniel wasn’t required to something actively wrong – pray to the king. But there was a law that said that you couldn’t pray to the LORD, if you were going to pray, it had to be to the king. That was a restriction from doing all the good you could (pray to God) but not a requirement to do something actively wrong (pray to the king). But the restriction so fundamentally cut against the grain of the way in which the relationship with God must be expressed that to keep in line with it would have been an active participation in sin. Love of God necessarily involves praying to him.
And I’ll be blunt. If anyone, man or woman, complementarian, egalitarian or martian, tells me that their need to serve and use their gifts in public ministry is of that level of moral obligation then that is not a ‘call’, that is a pathology. All on its own it is all that the Church needs to know that this person should not, for the forseeable future, be allowed anywhere near any kind of public ministry. If someone tells me that they are being required to commit a sin by being restrained from doing all the service or using all the gifts they have, then they are going to have real problems in playing well with others or sharing the toys with the other children in the playground.
Women and men are free to leave an existing body and move to one where they think their gifts are more likely to be used to the extent that they think they should be. I’m not suggesting that there’s necessarily anything wrong with an egalitarian woman leaving a complementarian structure in order to have a broader scope for the use of her gifts (apart from the wrong inherent in her egalitarianism). But there is an important difference in how the two views hit each other’s conscience when they are enacted. And there’s no ‘points’ to be scored there for me, it’s just something that everyone needs to be clear about.
Hi Jereth,
No worries about the time frame in the response – was simply expressing a genuine interest in what the conference would cover. It sounds good, and thanks for filling out the details more.
Hi Chris,
Hee! Anglicans the world over, across all manner of disagreements, are united by their common bond, the faith once delivered – that the bishops are the problem. I love it. I’m a true-blue Anglican after all.
I think we need to use this more as a selling point to other evangelicals about the strength of Anglicanism – there is nothing that so brings evangelicals together as a common enemy. And the episcopal form of church government is the single most likely way to ensure that all evangelicals can draw together in common suspicion of their leaders.
Yep, it’s a truly Anglican dilemma you have, been with us ever since Elizabeth left the CoE less reformed than most English protestants wanted. Youse is the real deal Anglican, brother.
I am going to make one observation from this, though. If you are fairly sure that the structure can’t be changed in the next century or three to remove large slabs of the authority, power, and necessary submission from the roles, doesn’t that count against your experience that all egalitarians you talk to are only intested in using gifts and serving and not power – that they are all into the abnegation of power?
If all egalitarians in Anglicanism really aren’t interested in power and authority, and even think Christians should be giving up authority as much as possible, it should actually be fairly easy to change things – get rid of a requirement that priests obey their bishops (or even, and this would be just fun, have bishops give a similar oath of obedience to their clergy – that would really be mutual submission), allow laypeople to administer Holy Communion service, and the like.
Like you, I think that’s *ahem* unlikely. But if egalitarians were as disinterested in power and authority as they think they are, it shouldn’t be unlikely, it shouldn’t even be just likely. It should be occuring roughly in line with women’s opportunities to minister being opened up. But, so far in Anglican contexts, egalitarians have functioned as ‘type 2 egalitarians’ – very happy with authority, power, and necessary submission – but want women to have some of that power and authority, and for men to experience necessary submission to women, as part of basic justice.
Okay, I agree with you completely here. This sounds like a godly leader talking about their role and why they do it. You aren’t doing it for the authority, but you recognise that authority is involved in the way you serve and exercise your gifts.
But now you’re with us complementarians and type 2 egalitarians. Good leaders don’t take on leadership for the power but they take on the power for the leadership – for the ability to do good to the people of God in their care. That isn’t abnegation and rejection of authority, it’s a cautious and careful embrace of it for the good of those you serve through the exercise of your authority.
Now, to the degree that you agree with me there, then I would suggest that you, and those egalitarians like you, should be ‘interested in power and authority’ – in the sense of wanting to talk about it and teach about it from the Bible. It’s a reality of life so it needs to be part of egalitarianism’s ‘concern’ even though it shouldn’t be part of its motivation.
And that means my description of egalitarianism as wanting women to have authority on a equal footing with men is a valid description – because that is a necessary part of what is involved in women serving and using their gifts the way egalitarians want. You might want to emphasise something else, but that’s the bit that worries complementarians and I’m doing my analysis as a complementarian, not as a hypothetical neutral observer.
to be continued…
concluding…
Yes, but I think you’ve put it well here. You and I would probably want to both say that your authority comes ultimately from God and from the word of God and is accepted or resisted by those around you – it isn’t given to you by those around you, but we also recognise that what you say here is a valid way of putting it too. (Grenz and Kjesbo would disagree at that point, they do say that leaders are given their ‘authority’ by those who follow them – they actually lead under the authority of their followers.)
Leaders can’t take people further than where they are willing to be led, and so those under authority create an important feedback to the leader. Jim Hacker’s “I’m their leader, so I must follow them!” is a parody, but it works, because most people can see the paradox for the person who can’t use force to back up his or her authority – it must be voluntarily accepted by those who submit to it, even if that submission is still necessary (in the sense that it is a moral obligation).
Church leaders and politicians both need to pay attention to what is right and what the polls say. Pastors have to bring the full scope of the Word’s demands on the congregations, and then seek to move the congregation towards that ideal from where it is now. It’s a test of their leadership that the military officer, or policeman, or judge, doesn’t face in the same way.
Mark,
I’ve been reading this series of articles with interest since 2 of my friends pointed it out to me.
Obviously the Bible lies at the heart of the gender controversy, and ultimately the truth will be settled when the inerrant Word of God has the final say. I, like you, believe that the Bible’s teaching is clearly complementarian, and that egalitarian exegesis is incredibly unconvincing.
Nevertheless, I appreciate hearing your thoughts on some of the wider currents that flow around and feed into this controversy. For example, as you point out in this article, the fact that egalitarianism draws a lot from enlightenment thinking, and that it shares an ideological basis with modern (small “l”) liberalism. I think I can agree with that.
I’m particularly interested in how things have played out across the generations. You talked about “the brutal years of open and sustained personal debate that occurred two decades or more ago”. As a member of Gen Y, I did not experience this debate. Those of us in Gen Y grew up with a particular paradigm (whether egalitarian or complementarian) and that was that.
Fascinatingly, even in the secular world this seems largely to be the case. My job (as a GP) requires me to interact quite personally with large numbers of people. I have observed that most Gen Y-ers are a lot more interested in their iPhones and their home renovations than in competing ideologies of gender. Some of course from the more intellectual classes assume a feminist worldview, and a number are even still fighting for it. On the other hand, many Gen Y-ers from “middle” society have “reverted” to quite traditional thinking. Many women in their twenties and thirties, for instance, are quite happy to chuck their careers, raise kids full time, and dress their little daughters in bright pink. I wonder if things were quite like this a generation ago…
Back to the church. A Christian feminist from the “older” generation was recently quoted in the Age newspaper as saying: “I’m heartbroken that this [conservative] reaction has emerged, and sad that I and my friends have to take up this cause again that we thought was safely accomplished. And we will take it up again. We are not simply going to acquiesce in the undoing of 25 years of our life’s work.” She is saying this, it seems, because in the vacuum left after feminists like her won the battles of yesteryear, large numbers of Gen Y-ers have quietly gravitated back to traditional gender roles which are more in line with the Bible’s teaching.
(source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/men-lead-women-obey-20100610-xz97.html)
But I wonder if there will be a new battle. I suspect that, just as the younger generation in wider society seems to have moved on from the gender controversy, so too have most young adults in the church. People have their positions and will by and large stick with them, and cluster together with others who are likeminded. There will be complementarian churches and institutions, and egalitarian churches and institutions. Sure, there may be a little debate here and there, but I suspect that there is far less appetite for open and bitter confrontation, and in particular for the kind of activism which seeks to pull a whole institution in one direction or the other. (After all, how many Gen Y-ers really care for institutions anyway?)
What do you think, Mark? You have stated your belief that we are entering the “next stage” of “separation into separate churches and religious institutions making rival claims”. Do you think this separation will be marked by open warfare? Or, would you agree with my suspicion (which, of course, could be completely wrong) that those who might be hungering for warfare like the above-quoted feminist are (with all due respect to my parents’ generation!) past their prime; while the younger generation of Christians and their leaders would prefer to “just get on with it”. And hence, the split between complementarian and egalitarian institutions will be a relatively quiet one?
Mark
I love your comment here. Part of the egalitarian push seems to be “I have gifts therefore I must use them”.
1 Cor 14:26 – 33 is helpful here, where restraint is exhorted in order to build others up.
Gifts are gifts of service, for the benefit of others, not oneself. So if its not going to benefit the other person, restrain yourself.
I agree, pathology is a great description.
And I wasn’t going to say anything else until the next part comes out! But I can’t resist.
1. Jereth comments in part 1
and above on the change in Gen Y moving back to traditional thinking. It seems that when complementarians quote sociologists and psychologists or even just reflect on social trends it’s OK but when eqalit’ns do so they’re showing their liberal leanings. In fact Jereth’s comments about gen Y are interesting. Given that Gen Y are, say, 90-95% pagans (I think the stats would support something like this) it supports my contention that patriarchal attitudes arise primarily from the human social milieu rather than from theology.
2. <blockquote> And I’ll be blunt. If anyone, man or woman, complementarian,
egalitarian or martian, tells me that their need to serve and use their
gifts in public ministry is of that level of moral obligation then that is
not a “call”, that is a pathology <blockquote> I must say I have a similar reaction whenever I hear someone say something like that – except of course that I’m in ordained ministry because I felt a particular call by God to do so. I’m also a bit hesitant to voice my concern because I’m conscious that verses like 1 Tim 4 tell us not to neglect the gift that the Lord has given us. Rom 12:5-7 tells us that we should use the gifts that have been given to us to serve the body. In fact it says explicitly each member [in their use of gifts I take it] belongs to all the others – not just to those of the same gender. If I’m a conservative when it comes to obeying God’s word, how could I not be concerned to use my gifts to the best of my ability? And could this obedience to God’s word indeed be classed as a moral obligation? Perhaps the elevation of “call” is unhelpful (though I assure you I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for such an experience) but for the conservative evangelical, obedience to God’s word does matter and shouldn’t be blown off so easily.
Hi Chris
I live in the next suburb to you, and referred Jereth to this discussion. Have lived in Melbourne for past 11 years, but am originally from Sydney and a confirmed complementarian – just getting cards on the table.
The passage I referred to earlier, regarding when it is appropriate to speak in tongues, is useful. Just because someone has a gift, or feels a call to use it, does not mean they should necessarily exercise it whenever they like.
Thanks
Hamish
Hi Jereth,
Boy this is great stuff. You should hang out with Craig Schaeffer if you ever get the chance – you’ve got a mind like his, looking at the real world we live in concretely, unsentimentally, and with your Bible open. I think you guys would get on like a house on fire (an orthodox, complementarian, house of course).
Yes, and yes. In fact I generally don’t see most egalitarian arguments as being exegetical at all. There’s a few arguments of that nature, but most arguments are hermeneutical (not about what the passage says but about what it means today) and theological (about the meaning of words, where the meaning is derived by something other than than context).
It’s why I think egalitarian evangelical exegetical arguments are only really held by egalitarian evangelicals. Liberal egalitarians and complementarians both agree on what the passage is saying, but the liberal goes, “It’s wrong”, and the complementarian goes, “It’s right.” Egalitarian evangelical exegetical arguments require you to accept a whole range of presuppositions first. And if you don’t share all or most of them – and liberal egalitarians don’t share one set, and complementarians don’t share a different set – then it is, as you say, ‘incredibly unconvincing’.
I’m glad, looking at the wider currents is one of my ‘schticks’, good to hear it’s been useful for you. This whole set of different series on this topic over this year and next is going to try and put this debate over women’s roles into the context of broader issues. As I’m trying to indicate in these posts, women’s ordination is just the signpost of much more fundamental questions. And so just moving directly to the passages that speak to the issue of the public ministry of women is efficient, but misses the more basic questions about the nature of God and his salvation, what it means to be equal, and the nature of authority and love. So we’re going to tackle all that first.
I think it was fairly similar for those of us in Gen X as well. I was never part of any serious debate over women’s ordination, it was all B.M. – Before Mark. The actual debates were very much a Baby Boomer thing, and the way it went down has that generation’s fingerprints all over – idealistic, and uncompromising. I found myself in broad agreement with what you wrote here Jereth about the generational angles, I’ll just flag a couple of areas where I either dissent a bit, or what you said sparked a few thoughts.
to be continued…
1. I agree most Gen Yers aren’t into unreconstructed feminism. That doesn’t mean that what they’ve ended up with is necessarily going to work any better than the Boomer’s failed egalitarianism, or will be any more hospitable to a Biblical view of gender relationships in the family.
This all necessarily draws upon generational theory, which is contested a bit, and necessarily involves making large generalisations. But there does seem to be some indicators of something – lots of anecdotes and perceptions, things like low numbers of Boomers who attended ANZAC day marches and Gallipoli remembrances in the 60s through to the early 80s compared to growing numbers of Gen Xers and Yers since then. Particularly when you move to Gen X and Y the generations have so tribalised that you only capture some with any generalisation.
In terms of pop culture, I find Scrubs versus MASH one of the best comparisons for the Boomer versus Gen X/Y approaches. They’re both medical drama/comedies seeking to say something about life.
MASH is the boomer self-perception – two larrikin heroes, who are always right, who respect no-one else’s authority but will often use authority themselves, who womanise but none of that is serious: they’re actually the two biggest hearts, and most competent surgeons, the two really good guys. It’s a show by Boomers where Boomers are the heroes.
Scrubs is the Gen X perception – the main characters are Gen Y (J.D., Elliot, and Turk, with Carla half-way between the generations). But the hero is Dr Cox who, combining complete dysfunctionality, anti-authoritarianism, high competency, and a genuine passion for others is how Gen X likes to see itself (much as other generations may find that hard to believe – Dr Cox is what Gen Xers likes to kid themselves they really are). The bad guy is the Boomer – Dr Kelso. And when you compare Dr Kelso to Hawkeye you get a sense to just how big the gulf is between the Gen X view of the Boomers from their view of themselves. It’s a show by a Gen X where the ‘heroes’ are Gen Y. And right there is an interesting difference from MASH.
When you look at the three main characters, they all have certain traits. They’re genuinely nice and fair minded people. They’re team players, they don’t have prejudices, they play well with others. They are neither interested in sacrificing patients to keep the hospital going (Boomer) nor are they willing to sacrifice themselves and the hospital for the sake of patients (Gen X). They make mistakes and grow from them, they aren’t always right. They are completely self-centred. And they’re very rational about their life goals – they want to be doctors and they’ll make the sacrifices. Turk and Carla want to be married, they’ll make the sacrifices to make that happen. But they’re shallow – they aren’t interested in big questions of life and what’s right, only smaller questions of how to live the good life in their specific context. They won’t debate any big question, won’t make a stand for any big ideology. They’re all ‘small targets’.
So, move that to our question:
I think the Boomer’s thought they could have it all: family, two careers, independence and yet voluntary ties that bind, no-fault divorce and yet still have good relationships with their well-functioning kids, abortion as a woman’s right and yet the absence of siblings who should be there not affecting families.
Gen X was a bit split: some decided they really wanted a family and invested in that early, but many went the career and Friends/casual intimacy route first and left marriage and kids until they were ready to settle down and had got themselves established. Unfortunately, it turns out that guys chasing careers, and being swinging bachelors, don’t tend to then just become great prospects for husbands and dads in their mid to late 30s, and so there’s a solid number of Gen X women with a career but little prospect of children. Or children but no man. Most of those are caught – they’d rather have kids than the career, but they aren’t interested in any kind of relationship that isn’t egalitarian. But it’s often not an ideology.
to be continued…
I think Gen Y is even more realistic about expectations in this area than Gen X (and that’s saying something – we’ve been so realistic about expectations that the Boomers have called us ‘cynical’ most of our generation’s existence). And so Gen Yers are picking their life course fairly early and paying the cost that they think is involved to get the good that they want. Even more than Gen X, Gen Y’s motto is, ‘Take you want, and pay for it.’ There is none of the Boomer idea that economic growth will always continue, that there will always be jobs, that hard work will always be rewarded, that you can divorce and everything be okay etc – that you can have it all and not pay much for it. Gen Y (and Gen X) for the most part get that you can’t have it all, and whatever you have you have to pay for. And so they are choosing part of something rather than all of nothing. Some are going for the career. Some for the money. Some for the hook up culture. Some for families. Some are going for more than one, but almost all have one that is their key goal, and others that are secondary and can be sacrificed in favour of the key goal.
If that’s roughly right, then I don’t think Gen Y is necessarily embracing traditional gender roles as such. I think Gen Y can see that egalitarianism doesn’t usually work in families. They’ve grown up watching both male-led and egalitarianism models and been in one or the other. And most calculate that egalitarianism isn’t a reliable way to have a happy marriage or an enduring one. And so Gen-Y women are paying the cost for the good that they want. They’re either going career and/or hook-up, or they’re going family – and are prepared to let hubby be a bloke, and are prepared to try and make him happy because they calculate they’re better off long term that way. That’s better than being a single mom, no mom, or on your own.
But it’s not complementarianism. It’s not even ‘traditional’. It’s lowest common denominator ‘traditional’. There’s no sense (that I can see) that the men have any responsibility in this set-up, any real call that marriage is a call to self-restraint and sacrifice. Women are accepting the pornographication of men, of women, and of men-women relationships: both that vouyerism is okay, and then the changes that it is creating to their self-perception and their relationships with each other. Sexting, women going with their partners to strip joints, trying to compete with the invisible women in the bedroom who their partner visits on the internet, all of this both changes the shape of the relationship, and is a sign that the guy is signing on without taking up the responsibilities involved. It’s power without responsibility for men, it genuinely degrades women.
And so, I don’t think Gen Y women are any more interested than Boomer women to vow, ‘I’ll obey my husband’ as something they should do. They’re prepared to do it with their eyes wide open as the price tag for the relationship, but it’s not a sense of it being right. And it comes with a sense that by embracing the role of a sexual object they should be able to exercise some control over guys (or at least their guy) in return. Being sexy is the way to happiness and power. It’s not so much anti-egalitarianism as an application of egalitarianism to a specific context by people who realise they can’t have it all but have to make trade offs. It’s a submission by women simply to get something back. It’s still a ‘zero sum Universe’ that’s going on.
I don’t think that that is going to work much better than Boomer egalitarianism for the long haul when it comes to stable intimate adult relationships. And if Gen Y can’t make relationships work on this kind of basis, the effect of relationship break-up will probably create another reaction against anything that looks like that kind of way of pairing men and women. I think feminism was partly so attractive to women because they got hurt by the sexual revolution, and to men because men who want multiple sexual partners are generally helped out by feminism’s desire to liberate women from marriage and to take charge of their own sexuality. Many men in the secular sphere (think Bill Clinton) who are strong proponents of women’s equality as a social policy have a playboy approach to women in their personal life. That’s not an accident. In a different key, Gen Y can be seen to travelling a similar path.
So I agree about where Gen Y is, I’m not sure what that might mean for the next forty years, however. Gen Y hasn’t had much time yet to make its mistakes and then live with them. Youth always appears to have more potential than it does – it’s one reason why we like shows set in High Schools so much.
concluding
2. I agree with the fact that Gen Y doesn’t seem to care about institutions. Left to themselves, Gen Y would live in a Friends/Seinfeld world. Gen Y won’t be be pushing for fights over institutions, they’ll just move to a different one. And they’ll ‘punish’ institutions that do have great fights by disengaging/leaving. Churches and denominations that have fights over women’s ordination will have to work hard not to lose their Gen Y’s, who, no matter where they stand on the issue, don’t think it’s worth a fight. So that should mean that you’re right – the divisions will take place quietly, without much fanfare, it’ll just be facts on the ground.
But there’s a couple of factors in the opposite direction:
a) The Boomers have another twenty years of serious institutional power ahead of them at least. The youngest Boomer is around late 40s. Boomers have a long lifespan, and are able to be active and mentally acute for most of that. Economic change, and a growing awareness that continuing to work extends the lifespan, will probably lead to Boomers being a serious force for some time. And they care about institutions, and they are ideologues. If Gen Y never finds itself able to care, then they won’t be players in institutional battles – they’ll disengage and it’ll be fought by those older and younger than them (because the next generation won’t share Gen Y’s traits). Gen Y will be the ‘missing generation’ from the point of view of institutional history, even if they really enjoyed their lives.
b) Some of these institutional fights are due to big social forces, not primarily ideologies. The culture wars are not just a fight over economics, politics, and morality. They are also a fight over two different kinds of egalitarianism given to us by the Enlightenment.
On the one hand is the view that authority should be earned by merit. This leads to elites, or professions with great power in modern liberal democracies. The therapies, the media, the judiciary, the academy, the social sciences, the medical professions, education, the sciences – all want the right to state what is true in their discipline, and to determine how their discipline should be undertaken without democratic oversight. They want to be able to make pronouncements to society at large about what is true and for that to be the basis of public policy. They all have genuine authority that everyone recognises has been earned on merit. They want to use that limit democracy.
On the other hand is the view that no-one is any better than anyone else and that authority therefore is in the people as a whole. This leads to a strong democratic push, where people want, not just to elect a representative, but want a representative that they can micro-manage, who will vote always as they want. They want the ability to tell judges to have mandatory sentencing, educators how to teach, and the like. They want democracy to regulate the elites.
That fight is only getting worse, because it is exposing a lack of clarity in the Enlightenment’s equivocal use of the term ‘equality’. Gen Y is unlikely to change that as it’s not a fight being generated by ideology, even though it feeds into the liberal/conservative battle.
c) Culture changes as institutions change. The motor car, the pill, abortion, no fault divorce, welfare for single mothers and not only for married couples in need – all had a huge change on culture that no-one predicted at the time. The gay rights movement is obviously one game changer that no-one yet can see how far it will get, or how big the changes will be. Voluntary euthanasia will be another one. But wars, changes to the economic fundamentals (if we go into a period of deflation for example), other things we can’t imagine could change big parts of the terrain. Gen Y might find that it has a succession of homosexual suicides that the media blames on Christian teaching, or it might find that Christian teachers are imprisoned for ‘hate speech’ on the homosexuality question. Either could change swing their stance on fighting for institutions over to its mirror image. Gen Y is going to live in a world where people try to advance their cause by making laws to hammer their opponents, and by making their ideology part of the ‘operating rules’ of their profession that one has to accept to be licensed (you have to assist at abortions when abortion is legal, for example) and they won’t be able to escape that by just changing institutions. Some instutions have coercive power – and the fights will concetrate on those. Being affected by that, and not being able to escape it – who knows how Gen Y will respond?
So I think you’re probably right for the reasons you list, but I think there’s a lot of complexity ‘under the hood’ that we should keep in mind as well.
Great set of questions, thanks for adding them to the thread.
Hi Hamish,
Good to hear from you.
I don’t have any problem with what you say. Of course it’ a problem if someone wants to “hog the stage”. What I’m concerned about is when someone is precluded from using their gifts altogether. Of course they can use them in Sunday school or a women’s bible study and that’s certainly a use of the gift of teaching. But it’s a bit like the person with 10 talents putting them in the bank to earn interest rather than to maximise their return. I know several women whose gift of teaching is clearly apparent whenever you hear them speak. Why should they be stopped from using such gifts in a mixed congregation? I seem to remember Peter being told “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” If God has given gifts that we’d normally think of as meant for public ministry to a woman, doesn’t that mean he’s made it “clean”.
HI Mark
I’m not sure how you can separate exegesis from either hermeneutics or theology. Yes exegesis is concerned primarily with the text, but the text is never isolated from it’s context, both book/letter, Bible and cultural/social. How could you possibly exegete 1 Corinthians without considering the cultural context of 1st century Corinth?
And if you exegete a passage and don’t then take the next step of considering its impact on the current day context what do you have? a bit of theological knowledge that is of little use other than to boost your ego. Similarly if you don’t think about what a word means in its original context how can you possibly think what it means for you today. If the Bible is God’s living word we need to think hard about what words we use to express it. The classic example in this context is the word anthropos traditionally translated man but more accurately traslated person in most cases. See the excellent article by Gordon Fee & Mark Strauss at http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Fee-Strauss-Gender-and-Translation&ac=true Note they emphasise gender accurate language not just gender inclusive.
As I scan over this block can I just say that I don’t actually see much exegesis appearing in your commentary. In fact I think the majority of Biblical references have come from me and mostly I think, though you may disagree, in an exegetical rather than simply hermeneutical context. I’d much rather engage on the Biblical evidence than on the cultural and sociological evidence because I think the sociological experience will always revert to the fallen world lowest common denominator as you point out in one of your last few posts. IN fact what you describe:
<blockquote>They’re prepared to do it with their eyes wide open as the price tag for the relationship, but it’s not a sense of it being right. And it comes with a sense that by embracing the role of a sexual object they should be able to exercise some control over guys (or at least their guy) in return. Being sexy is the way to happiness and power.<blockquote> is exactly what Gen 3 says is the curse of the fall – if women’s “desire” in ch 3 is the same as Satan’s “desire” in Ch4. i.e. desire to control.
(Is that exegesis or theology?)
Hi Chris
<blockquote> Why should they be stopped from using such gifts in a mixed congregation? <blockquote>
Ah yes, the “why not” argument. The Bible calls us to be distinctive. Why could the Jews not eat lobster or bacon, but we can (now they are “clean”).
I did CRE this morning at my son’s school. The story was Namaan, Elisha and the servant girl. He was told to wash in the river Jordan 7 times. Why? When he eventually did, he was healed. The kids got it – he trusted God.
The question is, are we willing to do the same, when the Bible calls us to be distinctive and different? As males, we are called to submit our lives to Christ. Jesus said “not my will, but yours” and submitted himself to the way of the cross.
Submission, voluntary – not forced, is a hallmark of what it is to be Christian.
Hi Chris,
I do not think there is anything wrong with reflecting on or making observations of society. I’m happy for both comps and egals to do that. So long as ultimately our theological convictions are formed by the Bible.
I’d agree with you that 90% of Gen Y are pagans, but then again I’d quite confidently assert that the vast majority of the Baby Boomers and Gen X are unbelievers too. Furthermore the radical feminist movement of the 60s and 70s was spearheaded by unbelievers. So I don’t think your point about unbelief being inherently patriarchal is proven.
Also, just to clarify my observations—I’m not saying that the majority of Gen Y have reverted to traditional gender roles. Just that a large chunk of them have. If I was going to fill out the details more fully, based on my observations, I would say…
1. the majority of Gen Y (both male and female) hold to egalitarian ideology in principle, however
2. in practice about half of Gen Y women are egalitarian or feminist, and half have reverted to more traditional lifestyles
3. as for the Gen Y men (in practice), a portion are egalitarian, a (large) portion are living an interminable adolescence which is neither egalitarian nor traditional, and a portion are traditional
A (complementarian) female friend once put it this way: the Baby boomer women fought to give their daughters the freedom to live life however they chose; and many of them have exercised this freedom by unashamedly doing what comes most naturally to them, namely pursuing full time motherhood rather than a career, economic dependence upon a male breadwinner, etc.
Jereth
Hi Jereth,
I think you and I are very much on the same page with you latest comment – your response to Chris was going to be mine, and I agree with your very carefully stated analysis of where Gen Y is at, and your complementarian friend’s analysis of why.
My reference to ‘Craig Schaeffer’ in http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_2/#5466 was a classic example of my incompetency with names – I even referred to Chris as ‘Craig’ in one comment. I was referring to the inestimable Craig Schwarze, who has joined the conversation in thread for post three.
Hi Hamish,
What is it that makes Christians distinctive & different? Jereth has pointed out that it’s not women choosing to be stay at home mothers. Is it perhaps that the way we relate is not on the basis of power but service? “By this shall all know …”
But your mocking of my question didn’t in fact answer the question. We know why Jews didn’t eat pork and we know why Christians now do. We know why it was only the priests in the OT who spoke for God and interceded for the people and we know that in the new covenant that task has been given to all God’s people. We also know that God’s plan was that your sons AND daughters would prophecy once the Holy Spirit was given, yet there are still those who want to maintain the old ways of only men speaking for God. You read the single prohibition in 1 Tim 2 and decide that only men are allowed to teach yet you ignore 1 Cor 11 where women are clearly allowed to prophecy. I too grew up in Sydney and the prevailing understanding of prophecy when I was growing up was that prophecy was what happens today when we preach God’s word. So why do you worry if a woman stands to preach God’s word? It isn’t really a question of authority because the authority of the preacher comes from God’s word not from the preacher, no matter how gifted they may be.
Jereth, you write
In fact I know a number of such examples. But in all cases the decision to raise their children at home is nothing to do with whether they’re egalitarians or not. In fact they’re very much egalit’ns, including some who are high level professionals in their secular careers. The decision to stay at home is the result of them and their husbands desire to provide the best setting for their children’s upbringing and is enabled by the fact that the husbands are earning enough for them to afford it. The fact that they stay at home doesn’t reflect in any way a subordination in their relationships. e.g. in one case the wife recently took long service leave from mothering leaving her husband to care for the children for a week or so.
It’s almost as if you read being a mother as precluding any other pursuit, particularly any that involve intellectual thought and particularly leadership. Yes, I have heard many mothers bewailing the fact that they haven’t had an intelligent conversation since they started looking after their children but all that does is highlight the fact that they’re just as capable of intelligent thought as a man if given the opportunity.
Hamish says
So are you willing to submit yourself to God’s word when it’s brought to you by a woman? Are you willing to submit yourself to a female bishop appointed by your archbishop? If not, you’d better have a good reason “why not”.
Hi Chris (and Hamish),
No complaints here, your contributions have all been constructive, and have helped moved the conversation forward.
I’ve enjoyed your and Hamish’s interaction over the issue of the imperative to use one’s gift. I am fundamentally in agreement with Hamish about the ‘why not’ question – wouldn’t have quite put it the same way, or drawn a close connection with OT purity legislation – but basically on the same page.
It’s the reason why, even though I started the Christian life as a convinced egalitarian, I slowly and very reluctantly became a complementarian. I could see that the passages were teaching clear patterns of gender relationships that had authority components to them in at least some social contexts. I couldn’t make any sense of why God would do that, or how it couldn’t be anything other than evil. But I could see God was requiring it. So I stepped out in trust that maybe God might enable me to see why as well one day. For years when asked on the question I had to say, “God’s clearly saying x, but I have no idea why that’s good.” It’s an unpleasant situation to be in, let alone for years.
But I think that’s rare. I think most Christians if faced with Abraham’s test to sacrifice Isaac would say, “God can’t command me to do something that is clearly evil, so this is not God speaking at this point.” I see it regularly in Bible studies and internet discussions – people shy away from interpretations that will cause a dissonance with other things that they already know to be right. People don’t like being in a situation where they have to say, “God said it, I can’t see why it isn’t evil, but I’ll just trust that it isn’t because God said it.”
I’m not wanting to put a value judgement on any of that here – I think for our purposes that’s just what it is. So while I agree with you Hamish fundamentally, I don’t think that saying, “Don’t ask why, just obey” is always the best primary approach in these debates.
People at heart agree with Sherlock Holmes, “Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It is impossible, simply impossible, for God to command evil. So any interpretation of a passage that appears to be saying that God hasn’t done that, no matter how improbable it is, will be usually be preferred to an interpretation, no matter how probable it is, that leaves the reader in the position of saying, “I can’t see how God isn’t requiring me to do something evil here.” It’s one reason why we’re going to do this the long way around next year – we have to examine some of the views about the nature of love, authority, and equality that lead people to think that inherent male-female authority relationships are problematic, or people will prefer improbable interpretations of the texts to ones that are probable but impossible.
Moving to this issue:
Yes, it certainly can. Although I think Rom 12:5-7 is better for that than 1 Tim 4. 1 Tim 4 is exhortation to someone who already is in a presbyter role and serving that way, so it’s not immediately obvious that it is an exhortation to someone not in that role, but who has the gifting for it.
I didn’t say that a desire to use one’s gifts wasn’t a moral obligation, I said that being restrained by an external body from using them when you would if that restraint wasn’t there doesn’t require you to sin the same way that having to actively do something that is against your conscience requires you to sin. I didn’t say one was a moral issue and one wasn’t, I said that they are two different orders of moral obligation. And people who say, “You are making me sin by not permitting me to use my gifts as much as I think they should be used” are not the kind of people who should be in public ministry.
to be continued…
concluding
I think any person who believes they have a gift should seek to use them to serve the body. But that use is going to be shaped by the community of which you are a part. If you’re in a 10 000 person church with a senior minister who does all the preaching, you ain’t going to be preaching. You aren’t sinning by that (and we’ll assume for the sake of argument, that being in that church is the only faithful option). If all the teaching ministries in that church that are not giving sermons are also filled, you won’t be sinning by not exercising that gift. You look around you, say, “What can I do with the possibilities and limitations that my context hands me to most edify the church of God?” And then you do that.
If those limitations placed upon you by your context are culpable, then those who are responsible for the limitations are guilty of sin, not the person who is so limited. As long as they want to use their gifts, the person who is restricted is not required to sin.
I don’t think that’s minimising the issue, or not paying attention to the word of God. It’s trying to be clear about what kind of ethical issue is going on here. It’s the difference between not being allowed to hand out pro-life literature in the hospital where you work as a doctor, and being required to assist at an abortion. They’re both moral issues, but they are of different orders, and to collapse them together will cause problems for people’s consciences that they shouldn’t have to bear.
God gives gifts to all sorts of people. Divorced guys, guys with children who aren’t believers, guys who aren’t godly and mature, guys whose wives could not cope with the pressures that their husband being in a presbyter role would put on them, all can and do have gifts that we would normally think of as meant for public ministry. And yet Scripture gives more requirements than just the existence of gifts. Some of those requirements are moral and spiritual, some have to do with family situation (and the candidate doesn’t have control over whether someone divorces them or whether their children believe – faithful spouses are divorced, faithful parents have children who don’t believe), and one requirement is gender. They’re all mixed up together – some that a person is responsible for, one that is an issue of chromosomes at birth, one that is an issue of the Holy Spirit’s gifting, and some that have to do with different people’s actions (both the candidate and the other members of his immediate family) that the person isn’t necessarily responsible for.
To imply that not allowing any gift to be publicly used in mixed gender contexts that could be, if every other requirement was met, is to treat it as ‘unclean’, has implications for more than just the women question. It has implications as to whether the Church has any right or responsibility to restrict anyone from exercising their gifts publicly even if they don’t fit the requirements needed to be a presbyter.
Your argument here has too much ‘collateral damage’, Chris.
Mark,
Holey moley. You have obviously put a LOT of thought into all of this. I was not expecting a PhD thesis in response to my question – but thanks!
I concur with you that the kind of “traditionalism” we see Gen Y reverting back to is not complementarianism by any stretch. Hence I used the word “traditional” rather than “complementarian”. The young women who are pursuing full time motherhood, dressing their daughters in pink and joking about how baby-brained they are, do not typically consider themselves to be in a subordinate/submissive role relative to their male partners. They simply recognise that in order to have the life they truly want, they must accept long term economic dependence on a reliable male, and whatever comes with that.
As for the Gen Y (and Gen X) males, the main legacy of feminism on them is the “interminable adolescence” I described above in my response to Chris. Exactly as you say, feminism has liberated men to pursue of life of sensuality and entertainment free of any responsibility. Those who do eventually decide to slow down and take on a partner and family slide into one of 3 modes: doormat (I earn the money, wife makes all the decisions, that’s ok so long as I have a comfortable life and get to keep buying toys), egalitarian, or traditional (I earn the money and I’m the boss). None of these 3 modes are complementarian in the biblical sense, as you have noted.
The large number of Gen X women who have gotten to their late 30s and then realised “oh crap, I’ve left it too long my body can’t make a baby” and end up needing a referral to IVF services is very sad. Fortunately many Gen Y women seem to have cottoned on to this deathtrap and (aided by the Howard/Costello baby bonus) are getting down to baby business much earlier; this further cements their taking on of a more “traditional” (non-careerist, economically dependent) role. (The problem of course being the relative paucity of men of their generation who have moved on from adolescence and hence make a suitable mate.)
Perhaps another factor that plays into all of this, which I acutely recognise as a health professional, is the widespread awareness of mental health which Gen Y has but which I suspect the older generations did not. Gen Y (women mainly) are aware that they have a limit that they cannot go beyond without breaking, psychologically. They recognise that pursuing everything at once (career and family) is a reliable way to end up with clinical anxiety and depression.
In all of this (feminism and its aftermath), women have been the clear losers. They are caught with the unfortunate combination of desire for kids and a ticking biological clock. Women are the ones ending up barren, economically disadvantaged, welfare-dependent, grieving after abortions, emotionally unfulfilled, selling sex for financial security, stuck with less-than-ideal partners. I was talking to someone who said that you’d be forgiven for thinking that feminism was invented by men! I agree. So it seems does George Pell (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/relationships-market-after-50-years-of-the-pill/story-e6frg6zo-1225929083359)
So what about the debate within the church. My hope is that the pendulum swing away from thorough-going feminism towards something more traditional (even if it is not complementarian) will make complementarianism more “saleable” to Gen Y. I think there might be some signs of this already. The hardest sell will be to the men (the major beneficiaries of feminism)—convincing lifelong adolescents to grow up and take responsibility is not an easy thing!
Jereth
Chris,
I’m struggling to keep up with you guys!
I agree with what you say here. Please see what I have written (addressed to Mark) above.
Full time mothering does not automatically imply a relationally subordinate role. That’s why I’m using the word “traditional” for this phenomenon, not “complementarian”.
Hmmm. Do you see what you have done there? You’ve assumed something about what I think, even though I have not said anything of the sort. I have never said that being a mother is incompatible with being intelligent. I have never said that being a mother is incompatible with being a leader.
All I have said is that being a full time mother is a “traditional” role, that it entails economic dependence upon a male partner, and that it is compatible with (but not equivalent to) role subordination.
I think, Chris, that you are simply revealing here some egalitarian prejudices about what complementarians think. Egals obviously think (or like to think) that comps support full time mothering because women are dumber than men. That’s nonsense, of course. We believe that women are highly intelligent and capable, just as men are; they just have a different set of gifts which suits them to different roles. Furthermore, role subordination does not at all imply any kind of inferiority, including intellectual inferiority.
It takes a great deal of intelligence (the kind of patient, nurturing intelligence that many men lack) to guide a small child as they develop through the early stages of childhood.
Jereth
Chris,
This is really, really, sad, Chris.
What you are basically saying here is that teaching women and children is a waste of talent. (Or at least a less profitable use of talent.)
Teaching women and children does not pay spiritual dividends.
Women’s and children’s ministry is, in the final analysis, not all that valuable.
The real profit is to be had in teaching men.
Can you see that you are actually being incredibly sexist (and also very elitist) here? You are saying, in effect, that teaching women and children is a second class activity; it is a task that is beneath the most gifted persons in the church.
Women with great gifts of teaching are too over-qualified to teach mere women!
Jereth
Hi Chris,
I’m married to Jereth, and I met you once at the 2008 CBE conference. I hope you’re well.
I hope this isn’t really what you meant to say:
Did this come out wrong? Because the way it comes across is that teaching women and children is an inferior ministry. It’s quite offensive to women actually. But surely this is not what you really think? Or what you would say to your women’s Bible Study leaders, and your Sunday School teachers?
Whether or not we agree on appropriate roles for women in the church, surely we can all agree that those who lead Bible Studies, and those who teach the Gospel to children are essential parts of the Body of Christ, and their ministry bears much fruit for eternity.
In my experience, finding enough leaders for Bible Studies and Sunday School is a struggle in many churches. Those leaders need our encouragement, not to be made to feel like they had better start preaching to the congregation if they want to have any real impact for Jesus.
In Christ,
Rachel
I am sure Chris can defend himself, but I have to say that I think Jereth and Rachel has removed Chris’ comment from it’s context.
I believe the point was that when you only allow a woman to do two things instead of three things that she is gifted to do, then her giftedness is not going to be exercises as much as it could.
Another aspect that Chris might have been trying to bring out is that if a woman is gifted to teach (a mixed congregation) but she is told her teaching must be limited to children, then her real talent is being wasted.
I found these two points easily when reading the statement in context.
I assume you’re referring to the qualifications for a bishop (again I assume you’re taking that to mean the rector/vicar) in 1 Tim 3. It’s interesting that complementarians want to assume that “husband of one wife” means the Parish leader can only be a man, yet they overlook the fact that that literal interpretation leads to the subsequent requirement that all parish leaders must be married. What does that say about people like John Turner, John Chapman, Peter Adam, Paul Barker, John Stott, to name but a few? If you’re going to use that passage consistently you’d surely have to rule them out as well.
Hi Jereth,
Yes it’s easy to misconstrue what I said and to imply more than I said. I wasn’t saying teaching Sunday School or a women’s Bible study was a waste of talent nor that you couldn’t have an impact in that ministry. As Mark pointed out if you’re in a church of 10,000 people that may be the only way you can use your gifts, though that then raises other issues which I’ll address later.
No, I was saying to use your gifts for the whole congregation is far more profitable than to use it for a restricted group. That applies to all of us. One of the reasons I went into ordained ministry was because God convicted me that the gifts I’d been given were underutilised in the place where I was ministering, even though I was a Churchwarden and a leader of a Bible Study.
I’ve had a far greater impact for the gospel in the last 18 years of ministry than I did in the previous 18.
I might add that to deprive men of hearing a gifted woman expound God’s word is to do them a disservice, since you’re denying them the complementarity of ministry that your moniker proclaims.
Hi Jereth,
I think you’re probably right about my prejudices about what compl’ns think, but I hope you accept that the same applies often from the other side. So I hope we can bear with one another in our frailty.
<blockquote>All I have said is that being a full time mother is a “traditional” role, that it entails economic dependence upon a male partner, and that it is compatible with (but not equivalent to) role subordination.<blockquote>
As one of those males whose wife depended on me working 9-6 while she raised our children I often wondered if it was actually me who was the subordinate one. was she economically dependent or was I a wage slave?
Hi Mark,
Yes there are always examples that confuse the issue. Of course if you’re in that situation, whoever you are you’re not going to be bale to use your gifts to the max.
But I guess I have 3 comments on a situation like that.
1. If you’re someone God has gifted for teaching or leading I would hope you’d be a leader and teacher at some level. e.g in one of the 600 or so small groups that they must have. But would a woman be able to take on that role if you were the minister?
2. If you’re someone God has gifted for teaching or leading perhaps you might be encouraging that church to send you out to plant or revitalise another church? Could a woman do that? Before the Acts 29 people reply with a loud NO, let me suggest they read up on the history of church planting and mission work. There’s an interesting book by Rosie Nixon, “Liberating Women for the Gospel” that has a chapter on women and church planting with lots of examples of women who planted churches, did pioneer evangelism etc.
3. The vast majority of people in Australia are not in churches of 10,000. In fact in most parts of Australia outside Sydney at least there is a great shortage of committed theologically trained evangelicals to lead churches and teach the Bible. Yet when a woman puts herself forward to do just that she’s accused by some compl’ns of going against the will of God or being under God’s judgement for her disobedience.
Dave said:
Chris said:
With all due respect, brothers, I still cannot agree with what you guys are saying here.
You’re both asserting that exercising one’s gifts to a limited group (rather than the whole congregation) is a less profitable use of talent.
You’re implying 2 things (whether you are conscious of it or not). Firstly, that there is a hierarchy of ministries. The best (most prestigious, most valuable, most noteworthy) ministry is that of the congregational pastor. Moving down the ladder, there is the associate pastor, then the women’s pastor, then the youth pastor, then the children’s worker, then the musicians, then the coffee servers, then the cleaner, then (right at the bottom) the men’s ministry coordinator <cheeky grin>.
Secondly, that the “impact” or “effectiveness” or “profit” of ministry is to be measured in a worldly fashion. If you can teach more people, or smarter people, or more influential people, (etc.) you have had a bigger impact / effectiveness / profit for the gospel.
Both of these are contrary to Scripture. Scripture teaches that despite the diversity of gifts given, all parts of the body, all ministries, are of equal value. Where would the body be if every part was the eye, etc. And Scripture never measures the value or impact of a ministry according to worldly standards (2 Cor 5:16). A ministry is effective according to whether it is done in faithfulness and obedience to God’s word, not according to how many people were reached, etc.
According to worldly standards, Chris, you may have had a bigger impact for the gospel working as a parish minister in the last 18 years. But what if some time in the previous 18 years you had a conversation with someone which led them to Christ, so that they will escape hell and live eternally with God? Is that single conversion not an infinite gain for the gospel, and for God’s glory? What gives you the right to devalue what you achieved (with God’s help) as a layperson? It is only when we reach eternity that we will truly see how our life work has borne fruit; it is foolish to try and measure things now according to the world’s standards.
I am someone who grew up in the church, and so I can attribute my salvation today to the marvellous work of children’s ministry. If those gifted women who taught me as a child had been encouraged to use their gifts “more profitably” by preaching to the congregation rather than investing their talent in children’s ministry (which has a low return at best, and is a “waste” at worst), I and countless others would have suffered great loss.
Jereth
Maybe an analogy from everyday life would help make this clearer.
In a school, there are some “general” teachers who teach an ordinary class of children. In the same school, there are some teachers who focus on a restricted group of “special needs” children—those with learning difficulties, attention problems and so on. Who is doing the more profitable work? Those who teach the whole class, or those who just teach the segment with particular needs? Should we encourage the brighter and more gifted teachers to teach the entire class, and leave the special needs children to the less capable teachers?
Jereth
I have no argument with you over the value of any ministry. I’ve been ministering as an adult member in the church for 45 years of which for only 18 have I been ordained, so I’m a keen valuer of lay ministry. Nevertheless Jesus teaches us that he will judge us for the way we use our gifts. Are we using them to the maximum? The parable of the talents uses the sort of worldly values that you decry. Both the returns and the rewards are in terms of quantity not just quality.
In fact in the list you quote in 1 Cor 12 Paul gives a hierarchy of gifts – first apostles, second prophets third teachers, etc., down to tongues. So perhaps some ministries are more “important”.
I would suggest that the reason he gives that order to them is because the more “important” ones are the ones that bring people to a (deeper) knowledge of God.
It’s a bit like 1 Tim 3 where he says “if anyone aspires to be an overseer they desire a noble task.” It’s OK to desire to lead. It’s not a worldly ambition to seek to maximise your effectiveness for the kingdom. The fact that I might aspire to be a leader in the church doesn’t demean what I’ve done before. It’s not a put-down to those who are humbly leading men’s ministry – which, BTW, I do in my Parish so I’m deeply offended by your comment
. Nor does it make any assumptions about the grace of God or who he might use to fulfill his calling out of the elect. It just says that I aspire to maximise the use of my gifts to the greatest extent I can achieve.
One final comment on my personal call to ministry. I was bewailing the state of the church one night to Peter Adam and in the course of he conversation we started talking about the possibility of going out as missionaries somewhere and we asked Peter what he thought. His response was simple. If you think the Church in Australia needs good ministry why don’t you go and do it? You see it wasn’t that I wasn’t doing good ministry already, but the horizons were wider than my small parish in Canberra and I needed to have my eyes raised.
Jareth, my statement that you quoted does not say what you claim it says. I suggested Chris might be talking about someone who was gifted to teach a mixed congregation (i.e. NOT gifted in teaching children. I do not assume that all women are gifted to teach children, do you? That appears sexist!). In this situation, telling a woman that they can only teach children (an area where they are not gifted) is therefore a waste of their talent as they cannot teach where they are gifted, only where they are not.
I do not believe in a hierarchy of ministries, nor have I implied that there is a hierarchy of ministries. Exegesis should be fun with you Jareth!
Chris,
Hmm, I still don’t think we quite understand each other.
I agree with you that all of us have a responsibility to use our gifts to the maximum. I agree that we are to seek a better “return” for our talents.
Where we seem to differ is that egalitarians believe that a woman who has the gift of public teaching is not using her gift to the max if she “only” does women’s ministry. Egal’s believe that only when she teaches men as well as women will she be using her gift, investing her 10 talents, to the max. Otherwise she is just, as you said, putting her talents in the bank.
Comp’s believe that when a woman who has the gift of public teaching invests that gift in women’s ministry (teaching, pastoring, discipling, evangelising women) she is using her gift to the max. She is generating a maximal return from her talents. This is because ministering to women is no less valuable, dignified, strategic or profitable than ministering to men (or both men and women).
This is how egalitarian philosophy unpacks in my mind.
a. If a gifted female teacher restricts her teaching ministry to women, she is exercising her gift in a limited, inferior way.
b. Teaching women only is an inferior activity compared to teaching both women and men.
c. Teaching a room containing 100 women is an inferior activity compared to teaching a room containing 50 men and 50 women.
d. A room containing 100 women listeners is inferior to a room containing 50 men listeners and 50 women listeners.
e. Women are inferior to men.
I suspect that you guys will agree with point a., and become increasingly uncomfortable as you move down towards point e. But in my mind at least, the logical progression is inevitable. Once you accept that a women-only ministry is inferior to a whole congregation ministry, you are saying that women are inferior to men.
Jereth
Hi Chris and Dave,
Thanks Dave, I’m aware that I commented on one section of a long argument. The reason is that one particular sentence baffled me. I understand the context of that sentence. I was just trying to point out that it can come across as offensive to women.
In trying to live out the Bible’s teaching, complementarians are not saying that women should not do full time ministry. I agree that working in church ministry is a great use of a woman’s time, and that in devoting more time, she might be able to achieve a lot more.
However, I would think that both complementarians and egalitarians could agree that there are many types of valuable ministry. Both complementarian and egalitarian women serve as children’s ministers, youth ministers, chaplains, women’s workers, evangelists to women in prison, and in many other targeted ministries. Who would tell these women that their work is going to be less fruitful? I just can’t see it.
I can understand there being different opinions on how to obey Scripture, but I can’t see how a woman who chooses to minister to women or children only is going to be less fruitful.
Blessings,
Rachel
Hi Rachel,
You said, “I can understand there being different opinions on how to obey Scripture, but I can’t see how a woman who chooses to minister to women or children only is going to be less fruitful.”
I cannot see it either. I am 100% with you.
Jareth, please stop saying that I am saying things I am not. With your points a-e I am not even happy with a. I have not said what you have INTERPRETED me as saying and I have tried to clarify that (and you have not interacted with my clarification).
Man, next time Chris can look after himself. Jereth, just because you say something is, does not make it so!
Dave,
I seem to have raised you ire. That was not my intention—I’m just trying to have an honest conversation here. Part of the problem is that what started off as a conversation between HAmish and Chris about usage of spiritual gifts has turned into a conversation between Chris and me and Rachel and you. Because it is a 4 way interaction, not everything I say is going to be addressed to all of you at once, so please don’t take it that way.
Please note that with my points a-e I said “This is how egalitarian philosophy unpacks in my mind.” I’m not accusing you guys of thinking all these things, simply outlining how it works out logically for me.
Having said that, I really do think that we are at the crux of egalitarianism here. Egalitarianism insists that women cannot be truly equal to men unless gifted women teachers are allowed to teach whole congregations (men and women). [Analogous to the secular argument that women cannot be truly equal to men unless they are allowed to be company CEOs, heads of state, etc.] Consequently if a woman’s ministry is restricted to women (and children) she is being treated as an inferior. What this implies is that there is something less valuable about women’s ministry; it is in some way inferior to ministering to the whole congregation.
You may not be able to see that connection, but that is how complementarians perceive it. When you guys talked about “waste”, and putting talents to less profitable use, that confirms our suspicion.
Jereth
Jareth, I do not think you have raised my ire…not really sure what that means. It can be difficult to communicate purely through blog comments, but I am perfectly calm and happy.
I am responding to the points you have specifically aimed at Chris and myself. I am not assuming other parts you have said are related to me. Bits where you say things like “You are both asserting”…
With regards to your points a-e I was simply responding to what you ‘suspected’ we believe so you could have some clarity. We do not always believe what you suspect, though you seem to think that we believe things without knowing we believe them.
Finally, I will try one more time to explain what I said so you can please stop saying that I am saying what I have not. If someone, anyone, has a gift through the Holy Spirit… Say my brother has the gift of prophecy. He does not, however, have say the gift of words of knowledge (this is actually true!!). It would therefore be a waste of his gift of prophecey if I said he could not practice it, but instead could only serve God by speaking in tongues. Do you get it?
To translate it back closer to what was said before, if we say to anyone that they cannot exercise their Spiritual gift but only have opportunities to do what they are not gifted in, then that is a waste of their gift.
To bring it a step closer again…if I say to a woman who is gifted in preaching to a mixed congregation of adults that she cannot do this but can only look after the creche kids, even though she is NOT gifted in this area, then I have wasted her gift. Why? Because she is not given an opportunity to use the gift she has.
Now, Jareth please note that my argument applies no matter what the gender, or what the gift is. I could reverse it and say that when a woman who is gifted in teaching kids but not adults is not allowed to teach kids but told she canonly teach adults – this is a waste of her talent. As a result I am not in any way suggesting that some gifts are greater than others. Can you follow this? Please let me know if you can’t and where I lost you!
You may have suspicions, but I think you might have allowed your suspicions to get ahead of what I actually said if you consider them confirmed by what I have said.
Dave,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I think that our lines got crossed because Chris and you have been saying slightly different things. Most of my critique has been aimed at what Chris said. Because you rushed to his defence I have lumped you in with him, and I apologise for that. I also apologise for making you feel misrepresented.
In response to what you have said: according to the complementarian position, the Spirit would not bestow a gift upon a person if they are not qualified to perform that particular ministry. So I do not believe that women are gifted to lead or preach to mixed congregations, because according to the complementarian understanding of the Bible’s teaching, that is something that women are not qualified to do.
I understand that it may appear to some people (such as yourself) that certain godly women have been given the gift of leading and preaching to a mixed congregation, and so when they are kept from using that gift it seems to you like a waste. However, as a complementarian, I would say that what has happened is that the person’s gift has been misinterpreted. It is entirely possible for people to sincerely misinterpret gifts of the Spirit—that is, to sincerely think that someone has been given a particular gift when in fact they actually have another gift.
You are correct that the gift of teaching adults is different to the gift of teaching children. I do not think that teaching children is the exclusive realm of women, contrary to the impression I may have given above. There are some women who have the gift of teaching adults, not children. According to my (complementarian) understanding of the BIble, these women should be encouraged to minister to other (adult) women (Cf. Titus 2:3-5), and in doing so they will in no wise be wasting their gift nor generating a sub-maximal return for the Gospel.
regards
Jereth
Hi Dave & Jereth,
Dave you just saved me saying a similar thing.
The other thing I’d like to point out is that it’s interesting that Rachel & Jereth are offended by the thought that women’s ministry to children and other women might be devalued – which it certainly isn’t by me, yet they can’t understand the offense felt by women with teaching and leadership gifts when they’re told not only that they’re not permitted to exercise their gifts in leadership of a congregation but will be accountable before God if they do. Yes the latter is a quote. In fact I was told
I’d be accountable before God as well if I let a woman preach to men.
In the end this all goes back not to how we feel but to how we understand God’s revelation of himself.
I’m still waiting to see an exegetical/theological defense of the complem’n view on women’s ministry to men but maybe Mark will take that up in a later blog.
Thanks for your gracious reply Jareth.
With regards to whether or not a woman might be gifted by the Holy SPirit to teach men, I have often had comps tell me that just because a person is gifted does not mean they should use it. I have seen this view at CBMW. 1 Cor 13 deals with what might be considered a similar topic. People might be gifted to teach but if they do so without love, then they are just noise.
But, if I understand it correctly, your view, Jareth, is that women would simply not be gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach men. Is that correct?
Now, as I cannot find that view at CBMW, would it be at all possible for you to point to a passage that indicates that the Holy Spirit gives gifts on a gender specific basis. For example does Paul say somewhere that a certain gift is given to only the male gender?
You do not need to exegete it, just reference your claim from the Bible.
Cheers
Dave
Hi Jereth,
I’m afraid you’re sounding a bit like the liberal anglo-catholics who rely on the Lambeth quadrilateral for establishing the right action. i.e. tradition holds equal sway with scripture. “according to the complementarian understanding” just doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid. Complement’n tradition may be just as wrong as liberal Anglican tradition.
Yes but how do you work out what’s a correct interpretation? By a doctrinaire prejudgment or by the fruits of their ministry as Jesus told us to.
I prefer to keep an eye open for the work of the Holy Spirit.
Hi Jereth
Dave asks:
Let me help you with a few references: Joel 2:28; Cor 11:5; 14:4 though they might not be what you’re looking for.
Jereth,
Apologies for where I have spelt you name incorrectly!
Hi everyone,
I am not focusing this comment on anyone in particular. I want to make a few generalised points and add some genuine and honest questions with regards to all this talk on “gifts” and a little on “authority”. Egalitarians like to talk about “gifts” as the basis for determining gender roles in the church since the nature of men and women are equal. But complementarians like to talk about “authority” as the basis for determing gender roles since the nature of men are women are different. I am sure each side will try and blame the other of neglecting the equality or differeces in the gender, but i don’t want to go there.
So a couple of questions come to mind – how do “gifts” and “authority” relate? how can authority be given to one gender over another without affecting their equality since the authority seems to be made on the basis of gender, and not some arbitrary decision of God to give authority to one gender and not another? does the Bible give us any reasons why one gender is given authority over another or are we only given descriptions of the way things are as opposed to why they are that way? that is, to put these questions in context, Gen 1 & 2 are about relationships, authority and order, they are based on both the equality and differentation of the gender, but can we say more than just this is the way the creation is ordered? it seems to me more reading Genesis that authority and gender can’t be separated, but somehow, authority can be given to the male without affecting the equality between male and female. But apart from being made male and female, what else can we say?
Dave,
Yes. I am surprised that you have not seen this view expressed at CBMW.
As to whether God gives gifts on the basis of gender:
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
I think that we need to make a distinction between a gift and the way in which the gift is exercised (the “service”, or if you like “office”). God gives various gifts to his people so that the body can be edified. Two people may be given the same gift, but choose to use that gift differently.
I do not see any biblical evidence that there is such thing as “the spiritual gift of teaching men” and “the spiritual gift of teaching women”. There is just “the gift of teaching”. Both men and women are given the gift of teaching. Men who receive that gift may exercise it in a range of ways; one of those ways is teaching the congregation from the pulpit. Women who receive that gift of teaching may likewise exercise it in a range of ways; the only restriction being that they should not teach men.
So yes, I do not think that “the gift of teaching men” is given to women. But neither do I think that “the gift of teaching men” it is given to men. Both genders simply receive “the gift of teaching”. So in that sense, no, gifts aren’t given to people on a gender specific basis. But the BIble does regulate how gifts are to be used, and these regulations can be gender specific (as in 1 Tim 2:11-14).
I hope that addresses your question.
Chris,
The what…? That sounds like something from the distant days of high school geometry
I’m not appealing to tradition, Chris. I simply insert that qualifier (“according to the complementarian understanding”) to acknowledge our difference of opinion about what SCripture teaches. If I simply said “the Bible does not permit women to teach men” (which is my opinion), I would risk offending you because you disagree that the Bible teaches that. So it is safer and more polite to say “according to the complementarian understanding of the Bible”.
Yes, the Bible teaches that women are given the gift of prophecy. But firstly, I do not equate “prophecy” to “teaching” (and neither does the Bible). Women are permitted to prophesy to men, but they are not permitted to teach men. Secondly, when women prophesy to men, according to 1 Cor 11:3ff., they should wear a head covering. Whether head covering is a literal command (as some Christians sincerely believe, and I have no objection to that) or just a cultural marker, the point is that when women exercise the gift of prophesy (and prayer) to men, they must do so under male headship.
(But I suspect you have heard all this before.)
regards,
Jereth
Hi Steven,
Excellent questions.
I’m not sure about this though:
In fact if you read Gen 1 & 2 carefully I think you’ll find that there are only two levels of authority present: God to humans and humans to animals. The woman is created and we’re specifically told this is flesh of my flesh, etc. – a statement of equality. Yes there are differences between the genders but I don’t believe they’re mentioned in Gen 2. The man calls her “ishah” because from “ish” she was created – i.e. she’s of the same genus as him – a second statement of equality.
I know the complementarians often point to the idea of helper as indicating a subordinate relationship but of course God is also referred to regularly as our helper – hardly a subordinate relationship. In fact it isn’t until Gen 3 that we find an authority relationship referred to – as part of the curse of the fall.
Chris, I can’t resist responding to this.
Dave—you’re finally going to get some exegesis! Hooray <grin>
I disagree that Genesis 1-3 establishes no order (specifically, no male authority) before the fall. It does. A number of things, individually and taken together, make Adam’s original headship over Eve very clear.
1. The human race is named “Adam” (or “man”, Gen 1:26-27 and Gen 5:2.) even though it is made up of males and females
2. Adam is made first (Gen 2:7)
3. Adam receives divine commission and commandment on behalf of humanity—before Eve is even in the picture (Gen 2:15-17)
4. Eve is created to be “helper” (which indicates subordinate role, because in context she is there to “help” the man with the commission he has received in 2:15-17 [and 1:28]; she is not there to “help” him out of trouble, as when God helps Israel)
5. Adam speaks first, and in doing so names the woman (Gen 2:23)
(naming clearly implies authority—Adam named the animals in verse 20 and is exercising authority over them cf. Gen 1:28)
6. The Fall reverses the order of creation (Eve leads Adam into sin)
7. Adam is held to account first (Gen 3:9) – even though Eve sinned first
8. God’s accusation against Adam includes that he listened to the voice of his wife (i.e. he allowed himself to be led by his wife into sin, when he should have been the leader and prevented her from being deceived – Gen 3:17)
9. God continues to address the couple via Adam’s representative headship in Gen 3:22-24 (you can’t argue that this is a post Fall problem, because God is the one speaking)
10. 1 Cor 11:7-9 exegetes Gen 2 as teaching male headship
11. 1 Tim 2:13-14 exegetes Gen 2 as teaching male headship
12. Jesus is the “second Adam” (Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15), not the “second Eve”
Of course, egalitarians will disagree with all of these points, but they are valid points nonetheless and the cumulative weight of them makes the complementarian understanding of Gen 1-3 entirely defensible, if not correct.
regards
Jereth
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.
God bless,
Rachel
Hi Chris,
Due to my incompetency, my responses to you in our bit of the conversation have now migrated over to thread three. Do you mind publishing any further responses you want to make on that thread? My apologies for that.
Dave,
I’ve realised that I said something muddled to you earlier and I need to clarify it. You said:
I replied
My clarification:
As I explained further down that same post, I do not think that there is actually such thing as “the gift of teaching men”. The Bible doesn’t define spiritual gifts with reference to intended recipients. There is just “the gift of teaching”, and this gift can be exercised in various ways, towards various recipients (teaching men, teaching women, teaching a mixed congregation, teaching youth, etc.)
So, you are correct that there will not be anything at CBMW which says “God does not give women the gift of teaching men”. What you will find at CBMW is more along the lines of “God would not call a woman (who has the gift of teaching) to teach men.” I confess that I got my terminology confused, and I apologise for that.
So the issue is not so much gifting as calling. A woman may receive the gift of teaching, but she would never be called to teach men using that gift because the Holy Spirit would never call someone to do something disobedient to the Word. To quote Wayne Grudem “God never calls people to disobey His Word… What a woman perceives as a call from God to a pastoral ministry may be a genuine call to some other full-time ministry that is approved by Scripture” (EFBT, page 481-482)
Sorry again for the confusion. I hope this clears things a little. Feel free to ask me for further clarification if you need it.
Jereth
Hi Chris,
Just a quick comment on this:
I do understand that women can feel offended by this. It’s a hard teaching and extremely counter-cultural these days. I’m sure it can be very hard for women who are facing this. But won’t all Christians come up against parts of the Bible they find difficult to understand and obey?
We are all accountable to God for everything we do. I don’t believe that pointing that out to people we disagree with is particularly helpful.
In Christ,
Rachel
Hi Andrew,
And a very warm welcome along. Always good to know you’re around, especially on this vexed issue.
Oh, that’s Horrible, Doctor. That’s not a good sound…
See? Now you’re just messing with my head. As soon as anyone says something like ‘I salute your courage’, I flash to Humphrey Appleby saying, “And may I congratulate you, Minister, on taking such a courageous stand.” Now I’m jumping at shadows, looking around for angels hightailing it out of here, because they’re too smart to walk this path.
But yes, I think I will have to try and offer something substantial about what gender is and, to quote the great 20th Century bard, ‘What if feels like to be a woman (and a man).’ I think calling my efforts ‘a theology of gender’ will be outrageous hyperbole, but it will be an attempt to say something theological about gender that I think is important to the question.
And thanks so much for confirming my suspicion that attempting such a thing is, in itself, grounds for being certified.
This bit intrigues me, a lot. I know what I would mean if I said these words, but your mind works along ‘equal but different’ tracks to mine, Andrew, and I hate missing any gold you’re willing to share.
Can you spell out what you’re getting at here with just a couple of more sentences for me? You’re someone whose thinking I pay very close attention to on these matters.
Ack! This is getting embarassing. Trying to keep up with the threads and speak on them all…This is a post three comment folks. Please ignore, and I’ll republish it in its natural habitat.
Jereth, thanks for clearing up the confusion. You did have me scratching my head for a while there!
Now, with regards to us having some eexgesis…I am not sure if much of your points are exegesis! But you are correct, IF your points are vvalid then I would say the comp view is not just strong, but I reackon we can shut the book! Now I do not know how much of this we are allowed to do, but if I can start with just one point and show it to be false would you be happy to listen?
Your second point, that Adam was made first (primogeniture)is classic CBMW, so well done there! Now, you said you wanted simple, plain reading exegesis without a whole lot of BIblical Theology and cultural mumbo jumbo. So, I ask where in this verse does it say “God created Adam first which placed him in authority over Eve who was made second? It doesn’t.
So, lets go where Piper goes and look at the OT. He claims that the firstborn son is in authority over the younger. Sadly there is no evidence of this in the OT. In fact God makes it clear that it does not work this way with the likes of Joseph and Benjamin. Primogeniture in the OT does, however, refer to inheritance, not authority. There is evidence for this.
Now you might want to consider, like a good exegete, whether or not in the Bible there is any evidence of authority type structure that relates to order of creation, since it is not spelt out in relation to Adam and Eve. Thankfully there is such evidence, but it works against your point. Pigs, along with the other beasts of the field, were created before Adam and Eve, and yet Adam AND Eve are put in dominion over them. Hmmm. This hard exegetical evidence works against what you have presented.
I do not see any textual grounds for accepting your second point, or cultural, or anything else. Your second point is not exegesis, but rather an assumed position built on no evidence. Welcome to CBMW!
Sorry, I should just add, that your point two does not add evidence for two levels of authority, which is what Chris was talking about. What you claim to have presented though is evidence for Adams “headship” over Eve. “Headship” is not a Biblical term, though you have mentioned kephale in regards to CBMW so you would know that “Head” is. You would also know what egals beieve kephale means. In your second point, in referencing Genesis 2:7 you HAVE provided exegetical evidence for Adam being the “Head” of Eve in my understanding of Paul’s use of the term “Head”.
So I guess all was not lost!!
Dave,
I’ve realised that we’ve been interacting in quite some detail here without knowing anything about each other. I think it’d be nicer if we both had some idea where the other person is coming from. About me: I live in Melbourne and was born and bred there. I was raised in a Christian home but “owned” the faith for myself when I went to university 12 years ago. My wife and I currently attend Canterbury Gardens Community Church, which is in the outer suburbs of Melbourne.
I was a complementarian “by default” from my uni days; I took a year out of my secular job back in 2007 to study at Bible College, where I encountered very strong egalitarian practices. That forced me to investigate the issue in detail, which I did over the course of that year (that’s when I read Discovering Biblical Equality and Bilezikian’s book, and the other articles that I mentioned before). In the end I remained complementarian but am now of the “informed and passionate” variety rather than “by default”.
So, Adam being created first…
Personally I am not entirely convinced by the primogeniture argument either. It requires joining of the dots that I’m not convinced is legitimate. So we seem to be in agreement there, Dave. But I don’t think primogeniture is necessary for our argument.
An important aside: I also agree with you that this fact taken all by itself— Adam having been created first – is not enough to establish his authority over Eve. All it does is establish some sort of relational priority. However, when taken in context of rest of the narrative, I believe it does become clear that this relational priority does include authority.
To see why the order of God’s creation of Adam and Eve is important, we’ve got to take into consideration the whole flow of the narrative. In verse 5 it says that the world cannot flourish because “there was no man to work the ground”. God’s response to this is to create Adam in verse 7. Now that Adam is present, a garden can grow (v. 8-9) and Adam is commissioned to work it (v. 15). At this point in the narrative (before Eve is even there) Adam by himself stands as representative humanity. The world has the worker it needed in order for it to flourish. God is able to commission humanity (verse 15) and to speak his moral law to humanity (verse 16-17). All this happens before Eve is there; her personal presence is not required because Adam represents her. It is only after all this that God recognises and meets Adam’s need for a partner (verse 18).
[So, what is significant is not so much that Eve was created after Adam, but that she was created 11 verses after Adam during which a lot of important things happen.]
Adam’s authority over Eve follows from the fact that God does not need to interact directly with Eve after she is made. Adam received the divine commands as representative head (verse 16-17) and so it is his responsibility to pass on these commands to Eve (which he evidently did, see 3:3). Eve’s obedience to God’s commands is Adam’s responsibility as well as her own, and with such responsibility obviously comes authority. (Think of a captain passing on commands to his troops that he received from his general.) We see this again in the fact that when they sin, Adam is the one called to account first (Gen 3:8-11) even though it was Eve who in fact sinned first.
You might feel that I’m reading things into the text that aren’t there. But I would ask you: if God’s design was for Adam and Eve to have an egalitarian relationship, why did he not create them simultaneously? Why did he not create both Adam and Eve, and then give them their commissioning and commands (as found in verses 15-17) together? I have not encountered a satisfactory egalitarian answer to this problem.
regards
Jereth
Pleased to meet you Jereth! Great idea to get to know each other better! I live in Ryde in Sydney where I work for a Pressie Church. I studied at the PTC in Sydney for 4 years. Before that I lived in Gilgandra and Gulargambone where I was a school teacher, then a timber cutter and farmhand (I was a lumberjack!). I have one wife and three kids. I grew up in Sydney before going to Gil/Gular. I grew up comp, but while at the PTC I decided I needed to get sorted on the issue. I did not feel comp arguments did justice to certain key passages. I went looking for answers and became an egal.
I will get back to Genesis with you later…must go to church. They miss me when I am not there!
Hi Jereth,
I belong to St George North Anglican Church. We have just begun a sermon series and home bible studies on Gen 1-3 so this passage is quite topical at the moment.
You said
“An important aside: I also agree with you that this fact taken all by itself— Adam having been created first – is not enough to establish his authority over Eve.”
You then ask the question
“If God’s design was for Adam and Eve to have an egalitarian relationship, why did he not create them simultaneously? Why did he not create both Adam and Eve, and then give them their commissioning and commands (as found in verses 15-17) together? “
Could your first comment have something to do with the answer to your question? If God didn’t necessarily see that by creating Adam and Eve in a certain order, He was putting one in authority over the other, then He could do it this way for whatever reasons He wanted to. He didn’t have to create them simultaneously, or one after the other in order to indicate any authority relationship or not. He created animals before Adam and Eve and then told Adam and Eve that they had authority over the animals Gen 1:26-28. If He wanted to give authority to Adam over Eve, He could create them simultaneously or Eve first, or Adam first and then just tell them if there was to be authority of one over the other. I agree with you that Adam being created first is not enough to establish his authority over Eve.
Hi Jereth,
You said,
“4. Eve is created to be “helper” (which indicates subordinate role, because in context she is there to “help” the man with the commission he has received in 2:15-17 [and 1:28]; she is not there to “help” him out of trouble, as when God helps Israel)”
Does being a helper really indicate anything to do with authority? As you have indicated, God is our helper. He is our helper when we are in trouble. But He has given us a commission to make disciples. He has given us commands to obey. Does He not also help us in these things? When He helps us are we in authority over God?
With reference to the exegesis of Genesis 1-3, most of the arguments raised by Jereth above are examined in detail in my MTh (hons) dissertation which can be downloaded here.
Hi Craig
In Genesis 1, the humans do have authority over the animals despite being created last. But Genesis 1 (or more accurately 1:1-2:3) is a separate literary unit from Gen 2-3 (which begins at Gen 2:4). So you can’t automatically import things across from Gen 1 to Gen 2.
In my post which you quoted, I explained in some detail why Adam’s “firstness” means he has authority over Eve. It has to do with the overall flow of the narrative.
Again, it is not just the simple fact that Eve is Adam’s “helper” that sets up an authority relationship.
What sets up the authority relationship is the fact that Adam is representative humanity before Eve has been created (as verses 15-17 indicate—see what I wrote above). When Eve enters the scene, her purpose is to “help” Adam with the mandate that he has been given to rule the Earth / keep the garden. It is very significant that God gave Adam the mandate all by himself—not with Eve standing beside him. This indicates he is in a position of leadership.
Sometimes complementarians say “Adam has authority over Eve because he was made first, and because Eve was his helper.” People need to understand that this is just shorthand—it is not a full explanation. A full explanation requires going into more detail about what is found in the text, as I have done here.
regards
Jereth
Jereth, I am back! With regards to the Adam created first thing. I think it is fair to say that there is nothing in the passage that says explicitly that Adam being created first means he is in authority over Eve. I believe it is fair to say that you would like to suggest that implied in the passage is the idea that Adam is in authority because he was created first.
I have suggested that the narrative explicitly says created order is not the issue, but rather whether or not God sets one in authority over the other, as with Adam and Eve over creation.
You said, “At this point in the narrative (before Eve is even there) Adam by himself stands as representative humanity.”
Actually he is representative of himself. There is at this point no humanity, just Adam.
Your suggestion that, “All this happens before Eve is there; her personal presence is not required because Adam represents her” assumes that Adam represented me too, and therefore Adam has authority over me. Do you believe this? All this is fine, but this does not explicitly (or I would argue implicitly) say that Adam being created first gives him authority over Eve. For us to beieve it does requires us to assume what is NOT said.
You said, “ [So, what is significant is not so much that Eve was created after Adam, but that she was created 11 verses after Adam during which a lot of important things happen.]”
True, but how many verses (and recorded days) after the pigs were made was Adam made. Are you not assuming the time makes a difference?
You spoke about God not interacting directly with Eve after she was made. This is now a new point and I was hoping to stick to the one point, but since you mention it I think it appropriate to point out that the text explicitly says God did interact with Eve. When the serpant asks Eve what God said about fruit eating Eve says that “God said you (plural) must not eat…” She did not say, “God said you (sing) must not eat…” Even without this evidence though, your claim God did not speak to Eve was assumption, not a fact as the text never said “God didst not spake to Eve!” I will leave the other stuff you mention and stick to the point two that we are dealing with.
You said, “You might feel that I’m reading things into the text that aren’t there. But I would ask you: if God’s design was for Adam and Eve to have an egalitarian relationship, why did he not create them simultaneously? Why did he not create both Adam and Eve, and then give them their commissioning and commands (as found in verses 15-17) together? I have not encountered a satisfactory egalitarian answer to this problem.”
Ok, I think you are reading things into the text! You ask a question to back up why you should be allowed to read into the text. You want to be allowed to assume that the reason for Adam being created first was to place him in authority because you believe there is no other good reason for God to have created one before the other. First, I need to say that this is a weak argument. Second, I need to say the passage does give us reason for why God did things in the order and time that he did. If God had created Adam and Eve at the same time then we would not know that even in a pre-fall ‘good’ world it is not good for someone to be alone (without humans). If Adam had not named the animals then we might be tempted to believe that a dog really is man’s best friend. The text gives us explicit info as to how God’s chosen plan of creation had a purpose. It also helped Adam know himself just how important a partner Eve was when he says. “Finally, flesh of my flesh etc”. This also leads us to another reason why they could not be created at the same time. God wanted Adam and Eve to be physically linked to one another so there could be a bond, a oneness of flesh between them. This required one being created first and then the other being taken from the first created.
So, I truly believe that your second point is made with no exegetical evidence Jereth. I do not want to go anywhere with the rest of the list if you cannot see this about your 2nd point. It is probably the easiest of all of them for me to explain and show you have no evidence for believing it, though this can be shown for the others as well.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I’ll do my best to keep up with you!
Yes there is nothing in the text that explicitly says that Adam had priority or authority over Eve. But neither is there anything which explicitly says that there was no order or hierarchy in their relationship. Both comps and egals have to make inferences about what the narrative is teaching. The question is which inferences make better sense of the narrative.
I think it is fairly clear that in verses 15-17, Adam is acting as a representative, not only for Eve, but for all humanity. The commission to work and keep the garden is one given to all humanity (so we see Cain becoming a worker of the ground in Gen 4, and Noah in Gen 9, and so on). I think this commission is parallel to the one in Genesis 1, to rule and subdue the earth (clearly that is for all humanity). All humanity lives under God’s moral law not to grasp for divine knowledge (i.e. Sin) on pain of death (verses 16-17).
“Adam” (the individual) shares the same name as the human race as a whole (Gen 5:2). Adam’s fall into sin, and the consequent curse of death, affects not just him but everyone else (even those not yet in existence). Paul indeed teaches that Adam represents all of us, you and me included.
TBC…
Dave, (continued)
As a matter of fact, the pigs were created the same day as humans, and 1 verse apart! <grin>
But the point is not how much time transpired, but how much theologically significant material intervenes in the narrative. Adam is made in verse 7. In verses 8-14 the author describes his natural environment at length. In verse 15 his vocation is described, and in verses 16-17 there is God’s moral command/prohibition to him. All this before Eve arrives.
My question is: why is the narrative written this way? Why not verse 7, then verses 18-25, then verses 8-17? The story would still work perfectly okay this way. But with Biblical narratives (especially one as important as this), we’ve got to assume that there is divine intentionality not just in the story but also in the way it is told. In Gen 1:28-29 God addresses the male and female together. In Gen 2:16-17, God addresses the man alone (even though the message applies to the woman too). A point is being made here. In Gen 1 the equality of the sexes is emphasised but in Gen 2 the differentiation of roles is emphasised – the leadership of the man.
According to some hypothetical historical reconstruction, God may have spoken directly to Eve as well (sometime between 2:25 and 3:1). But what we have in front of us is the Biblical narrative, and this narrative is inspired Scripture, not the hypothetical reconstruction. In the narrative, only Adam is directly addressed. If Eve was directly addressed this is not recorded in inspired Scripture. We are to draw our theological conclusions from inspired Scripture, not from a hypothetical reconstruction of what might have happened.
I don’t think the plural “you” proves anything. I can say that God commanded me “Love your neighbour as yourself” (where I am included in the “your”) even though this command was mediated to me, not directly given.
TBC…
No, I actually did not say this. In fact, I said that in and of itself, Adam coming first does not give him authority. You may need to re-read what I said above.
All this would still work perfectly fine if verses 18-25 preceded verses 8-17, as I suggested above.
Ditto.
Phew! There, I got through it <grin>
I might add one last point, Dave.
Egalitarians like yourself presumably think that the chronological order of Adam and Eve’s creation was somewhat arbitrary, because there was no hierarchy of any sort in their relationship (pre-Fall). If God’s coin had landed tails instead of heads, Eve would have been created first, then met the animals, then put to sleep, and Adam made from her rib and brought back to her to become “one flesh”. Right?
(I’ll assume your assent and move on.)
But then Adam would have been deceived by the serpent, and Eve would have been made ruler over him. Abraham and the patriarchs would have been matriarchs. God would have called his daughter Israel out of Egypt. There would have been Davina and a royal line of Queens instead of David and a royal line of Kings. Daniella would have beheld “one like a daughter of woman” instead of “one like a son of man” in her vision of the Ancient of Days (Daniella chapter 7). Jesus would have been a woman, the “daughter of God”, the “second Eve”. There would have been 12 female apostles. God will have fixed a day when he will judge the world in righteousness by a woman he has appointed; of this he has given us assurance by raising her from the dead.
All this would follow if in Genesis 2 Eve was created first, and Adam second. It sure changes a lot!
Me, I’m going to stick with the notion that Adam created first implies male headship.
There’s too much here to offer a detailed response to all that’s been said (and I’ve already linked to my detailed exegetical study of Gen 1-3 anyway, see above), but I’d like to make a quick response to Jereth’s last comment. I don’t think that the sequence of creation need function only to establish some sort of hierarchy.
What we must not forget is that the text was originally addressed to an audience in a patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal culture. What does the sequence of creation say to a member of that audience?
I would suggest that it undermines the social subjugation of women. In the current form (and sequence), the text emphasises the unique suitability of the woman over and above all other creatures as suitable for the man, and it establishes the husband-wife relationship as the primary relationship above patrilineal obligations.
Hi Steven,
Great question, as always. Hopefully by now you’ll have read the interaction between Andrew Moody and I and will have seen that this is on the agenda for the discussion next year. I lack Andrew’s confidence that what will be offered will be the answer, but I am hopeful that it might at least be a building block towards it – wrong in such a way that it helps someone else articulate something genuinely edifying.
I agree with the general concerns you are raising, and will try to both articulate some of the key questions/issues that any position needs to address, as well as offer my substantial take on it.
My own view is that we will have to revisit some of the assumptions and terminology of the debate, particularly the concept of ‘equal’.
Take the debate on this thread between Chris, Jereth, Rachel and Dave over whether women only ministering to women is the equivalent to putting talents in the bank and drawing interest off them.
Chris seems to be arguing a version of what I’ve called a ‘type 2’ egalitarian evaluation – a fairly simple hierarchy of value of ministries (with some important qualifications and nuances once the debate got under way). Ministering to men and women is higher than specialised ministry.
But Jereth’s response isn’t my kind of complementarian evaluation, from my stance it is more of a ‘type 1’ egalitarian evaluation – there’s no better or worse if you minister to few or many, a subgroup or the whole, it’s all the same in its value, honor, strategic worth.
But that doesn’t square with either my sense of ‘the real world’ – the senior, ‘jack of all trades’, minister is simply the most strategic and basic ministry in any church. Specialist ministries (including one absolutely rarefied and so inbred they can only exist in carefully created institutions – like theological lecturers) all depend on that basic ministry being done well enough under God to make all other specialist ministries possible. If a church has to downsize, there are certain ministries whose employed staff it will let go before others.
And that expresses something I think I see in Scripture, particularly 1 Cor 12:21-26.
Different parts of the body have different inherent levels of honor, but we treat those with less inherent levels of honor with more. The ‘equality’ is not found in some flat, this is the same as that, kind of interchangeability. Older have more honor than younger, the big public preacher more than the person who mows the lawn.
But those with more honor rely on those with less, and are to use their honored status to give a special dignity to those who don’t have it automatically. So the outcome is that every part is honored, and all rejoice when any part is honored.
The outcome is similar, but some receive their honor more or less directly from how the Spirit has gifted them (at least in terms of how that is set up in 1 Cor 12), and others receive it, still ultimately from God, but mediated through others.
It seems closely similar to Paul’s treatment of giving in 2 Cor 8-9 where it appears that God intentionally gives differing levels of wealth to different groups of Christians so that the wealth can be redistributed by generosity. (2 Cor 8:13-15, and particularly 8:15 in light of the Wilderness is key here – what was true in the OT simply by the act of God: all got what they needed – now becomes true by an extra step, those with more give to those with less). The end of 2 Cor 9 indicates the outcome of this arrangement is that it knits people more closely to God and each other. People don’t end up with the same wealth – some poor people give beyond what they could afford, some rich people give only a bit – but all should receive ‘enough’.
This kind of approach is hard to map onto most contemporary discussion of equality. Our view of equality is very mathematical. Equals means same – same ability, same opportunities (if you’re egalitarian) or same honor, same dignity, same value (if you’re complementarian). I think the NT might be setting up something more foreign still, where there is deliberate inequality in order to engender a certain kind of equal community.
Jereth, I also thank you for your response and must say I think you are keeping up very well indeed!
You said, “Yes there is nothing in the text that explicitly says that Adam had priority or authority over Eve. But neither is there anything which explicitly says that there was no order or hierarchy in their relationship. Both comps and egals have to make inferences about what the narrative is teaching. The question is which inferences make better sense of the narrative.”
Jereth, because I do not believe there is hierarchy between Adam and Eve in the passage I do not have to find any inferences. You believe there is hierarchy and so the burden of proof is on you. I would suggest that if God wanted this authority to be clear then he would have made it explicit.
You said, “I think it is fairly clear that in verses 15-17, Adam is acting as a representative, not only for Eve, but for all humanity. The commission to work and keep the garden is one given to all humanity (so we see Cain becoming a worker of the ground in Gen 4, and Noah in Gen 9, and so on). I think this commission is parallel to the one in Genesis 1, to rule and subdue the earth (clearly that is for all humanity). All humanity lives under God’s moral law not to grasp for divine knowledge (i.e. Sin) on pain of death (verses 16-17).”
The task of taking care of the garden was not given to Cain or Noah. They were not even in the garden. Rather they are living out the curse of the fall and having to sweat to produce food. I am not going into your other arguments about Adam yet as they actually relate to your other points and I am trying to show your exegetical claim that Adam being created first gives him authority is not true. If it is a valid exegetical point it should stand on its own. Also, you might “think” the commission is a parallel, but I don’t!
Now, in regards to the order of the account and the time that passes between the creation of Adam and Eve. You have admitted there is nothing explicit to say this means Adam is in authority. You would like to know why the narrative is written that way. I should not have to answer this for you to prove or not prove your point. Unless you can link this directly to Adam being in authority, then it makes no difference.
I will say though that I believe there is a difference between Adam and Eve with the roles they were given. Adam was told to keep watch over the garden. This does not mean he is in authority over Eve, but rather that he should watch over the Garden (something he failed to do). Also, as Paul reminds us in 1 Tim 2, Eve was decieved, Adam was not. Why not? Because Adam was created first (and stuff happened before Eve was created). Adam saw God’s creating power, Eve did not. Eve was decieved but Adam knowingly sinned. This occurred because of the way the story happened. Why did it happen this way? Because God wanted it to. Does it say Adam was in authority over Eve because he was made first? No!
You said, “A point is being made here. In Gen 1 the equality of the sexes is emphasised but in Gen 2 the differentiation of roles is emphasised – the leadership of the man.”
Sorry, but I do not see leadership being emphasised in Gen 2. Please show me where, if indeed it is emphasised. I can see where equality is emphasised in Gen 1 and can point you straight to it.
You said, “According to some hypothetical historical reconstruction, God may have spoken directly to Eve as well (sometime between 2:25 and 3:1). But what we have in front of us is the Biblical narrative, and this narrative is inspired Scripture, not the hypothetical reconstruction. In the narrative, only Adam is directly addressed. If Eve was directly addressed this is not recorded in inspired Scripture. We are to draw our theological conclusions from inspired Scripture, not from a hypothetical reconstruction of what might have happened.”
Sorry Jereth, I was not giving you a hypothetical reconstruction, I was giving you exegetical evidence. We have no reason to believe that Eve had a defective memory or that she willfully lied about what God said. To say so would be to read into the text. We do know (exegetical fact) that she said God spoke to “you” plural. I am drawing my conclusion from inspired scripture. I believe the grammar is there for a reason. You “don’t think” it proves anything, but it does! If God spoke those words only to Adam then Adam would have been right to say, “Excuse me God, but it is only me here!” Of course this point is an aside and does not directly deal with whether or not there is exegetical evidence to believe the order of creation makes a difference.
Finally Jereth, I do not believe the way God created was random, and so I do not accept your hypothesis! You said, “Me, I’m going to stick with the notion that Adam created first implies male headship.” No worries, I accept that you are free to do that. Please note though that you appear to be doing that on assumptions and not exegesis. On what you ‘think’, not what you read. A key to understanding what the Bible says is being able to read it without our cultural and indoctrinated lenses!
This somewhat flies in the face of your earlier thoughts about the way egals and comps operate. It even goes against your own words just now, “We are to draw our theological conclusions from inspired Scripture, not from a hypothetical reconstruction of what might have happened.”
Hi Dave,
Thanks again for your responses. Dave, I feel that we have probably discussed this enough. If you’ll remember, I was wary of getting into an exegetical debate for a number of reasons (I think I said this on thread #3), one of them being that it is very time consuming. I think I spent about 2.5 hours typing up my responses yesterday, and I just don’t have that time to spare. Also, I don’t think there is a high likelihood of either of us convincing each other. It’s just like trench warfare, I’m not sure what useful purpose this debate serves.
I just want to say a few things in wrapping up. Firstly, I hope I have demonstrated to you that I am not just blindly following CBMW, eg. in the fact that I don’t buy their primogeniture argument. While I appreciate CBMW, I have thought this entire thing through independently and my position is one that I hold with first-hand conviction.
Secondly, I want to make clear my agreement with you that the simple fact of chronological sequence does not necessarily establish an authority relationship or a hierarchy. Complementarians do need to dig deeper than just saying “Adam was first, therefore he’s the boss.”
Thirdly, I think that the idea of “authority” has become something of a distraction. I prefer to think in terms of “headship”, as per 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23. Headship (as complementarians understand it) is a wider concept than authority – it includes a sense of “coming first”, “priority”, “leadership”, “prominence”, “representation” and so forth. Authority is just one aspect of headship, and it is not always a major aspect (eg. Queen Elizabeth is my “head” of state, but has very little authority over me). In my understanding of Gen 2-3, Adam being created first (point 2 in my original list) establishes his headship but taken in isolation from other observations from the passage, it does not do much to establish his authority. I see his authority being established more clearly in some of the other points, eg. points 3, 5 and 7.
Let’s agree to disagree about comp vs. egal, I regard you as a brother in Christ despite our disagreement and I trust you regard me the same way. I’ll keep watching Mark’s series with interest, and probably share with you the same curiosity about where the heck he is going with it! (I note that #4 is out today, he just seems to be circling around, covering the same ground without actually advancing anywhere, what on earth are you up to Mark?!??)
Cheers
Jereth
Thanks for considering me your brother in Christ Jereth. I certainly view you in the same way. I appreciate that you were willing to discus as much as you did!
Cheers
Dave
Thank you Dave, Jereth and Martin for this interesting discussion. It has been very helpful to see the back and forth comments that have been made. I can appreciate Jereth wishing to bow out at this stage. Is there anyone else who would have a bit of time to discuss a couple of questions still going around in my mind from this discussion.
I think we agreed that Adam is never explicitly told that he has authority over Eve. And yet, Adam and Eve are explicitly told that they have authority over the animals. Does anyone have any ideas on why God thought it necessary to explicitly state one, and not the other?
Also, I would have thought it would be normal in most situations for anyone granting authority to someone over another person to spell it out quite explicitly, and not leave it to one or both parties to work it out from the general vibe of what was happening. Any ideas on why God may have done this, if indeed he did really mean to convey Adam’s authority to him?
With thanks,
Craig.
Dave,
I wonder if you have read chapter 2 (especially pages 81-87) of this book, which can be found online-
http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/biblicalfoundations.pdf
I think it is very helpful explanation of the complementarian understanding of Adam and Eve, and relevant to the discussion we were having.
regards,
Jereth
Thanks for the link Jereth. I have read it before. With regards to 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2, these only ‘exegete’ the Genesis passage the way Grudem suggests if we do not understand them properly. 1 Tim 2 is about a woman who is deicieved (just like Eve who was less knowledgeable than Adam who, as you have pointed out was created much earlier). 1 Cor 11 should not be quoted if you are not going to even attempt to deal with 1 Cor 11:11, which Grudem ignores. IMHO!
Further to your link Jereth, here is one that I would recommend!
http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Basels Man and Woman in Genesis 1-3.pdf
Dave