Complementarianism and egalitarianism (part 7): The future of egalitarianism (ii)

This is the second post in this section of Mark Baddeley’s series on complementarianism and egalitarianism. (Read parts 1234568, and 9.)

In this four-part series we are looking at some of the reasons why some egalitarians are likely to reconsider their commitment to women exercising authority in the church. This time around, we are looking at the pressure placed upon egalitarians by the gay lobby. The times, they are a changing, and yesterday’s radical advocate of equality and liberty (for fighting for women’s ordination) is today’s muddle-headed conservative champion of prejudice (for not approving homosexuality). One of the biggest challenges evangelical pro-women’s ordination advocates are going to experience is the growing move to approve of active homosexual lifestyles.

Thoughtful evangelical egalitarians are very uncomfortable about the pro-gay agenda. They can see how champions for women’s ordination are often also champions for approval of homosexual relationship as well—consider Muriel Porter in the Melbourne Diocese of Australia. Or they see how high-profile champions of the gay agenda, like Bishop Gene Robinson in America, consider women’s ordination the precondition for change on the church’s teaching on homosexuality. Robinson has stated that he has advised priests in the Roman Catholic Church not to work directly for the approval of an active homosexual lifestyle, but rather to work for the ordination of women first as it is a necessary precondition. Robinson, himself an openly practicing homosexual, understands that women’s ordination is a precondition for the acceptance of homosexual activity—so much so, that his strategy for advancing the cause of homosexuality is grounded in the promotion of women to authority roles first. He, like many other homosexual promoters, sees that only once a denomination or Diocese has endorsed the logic behind women’s ordination is it even possible to discuss whether active homosexuality is legitimate.

Thoughtful egalitarians can see this connection, and it troubles them—when someone like Gene Robinson pushes the connection, not primarily to the world at large, but to a secret meeting of agitators for homosexuality looking for a concrete strategy that will work in their context, it is hard not to see that those in favour of homosexuality perceive a very real connection between the two issues. And so thoughtful evangelical egalitarians are defensive about this link between the cause they cherish, and the cause they repudiate. Some get angry about claims of the possible link, others are hurt at the suggestion, but many egalitarian writers are spending time now to try and show why the link does not have to be there—why ‘the women’s issue’ can be hermetically sealed from ‘the gay issue’. I, like most of their critics, think their attempts have failed to this point, but the fact that this is a new cottage industry amongst egalitarian evangelicals shows that this is a pressure that is on them now—and is only going to get hotter in the foreseeable future as our society moves in an increasingly pro-homosexual direction. That very pressure, and the way that pro-gay activists will keep challenging the egalitarians to ‘go the whole way’ and join them will probably begin to push some back in the opposite direction. If they are left with a choice between what seems to be misogyny, but whose advocates claim is not, and approving a way of life clearly repudiated by Scripture, some egalitarians will take another hard look at whether they got the whole women in ministry question right after all. Others will continue to hold their approval for one issue with their rejection of the other, and still others (as appears to be happening here in the UK among moderate evangelicals) will indeed begin to shift on the gay issue. But some will be troubled by the link, and have a rethink about the various issues in play.

Hence, I think that within the providence of God, that there may be a movement back from within the egalitarian evangelical ‘camp’. Once women’s ordination is established, it becomes the conservative position within a branch of evangelicalism that is always picking away at received tradition (i.e. open or broad evangelicalism—which is generally made up of people who are less conservative in their theology now than they were ten years before, or who like to see themselves as not just conservatively accepting received evangelical tradition). Moderate or broad evangelicalism thrives on being avant-garde—of being up with the latest cutting-edge innovations. But once women’s ordination is in place, and women can attain the highest role in an institution, it ceases to be the great cause celebre to unite the troops against the terrible conservatives. In time, it will become simply the hang-up of ‘the old guys’—everyone over thirty-five. That is, once the view has won, it ceases to become the tool to challenge tradition but becomes tradition among a branch of evangelicalism that thrives on challenging tradition. Its attraction to some moderate evangelicals leaves as soon as it becomes reality.

In the meantime, some egalitarian evangelicals are going to feel increasingly horrified by where a more radical egalitarianism goes using the same arguments and presuppositions that they embrace—and at the moment that seems to be towards approving of homosexual behaviour. Other egalitarians of course will grow more liberal over time. But many may well draw back and look for something that seems to offer a secure theological basis to not follow their former friends and allies down the path into liberalism.

This tension some will feel will only be worsened as egalitarian evangelical leaders continue to find common ground with homosexual activists that outweigh their common ground with fellow evangelicals. A good example in recent years was the launch of Muriel Porter’s book attacking the Sydney Diocese, especially over its opposition to women’s ordination. Muriel Porter is a classic liberal, who supports changing the church’s teaching on homosexuality (not to mention a range of central doctrines). Yet, it was Charles Sherlock, a prominent Melbourne Anglican evangelical, who launched her book.

Such actions raise the question whether at least some egalitarian evangelicals consider themselves fellow worker with liberals against the threat posed by other evangelicals. Some egalitarians will likely ask, not unreasonably, “Why would you launch a book by a liberal attacking a predominantly evangelical institution unless what you have in common with the liberal egalitarian outweighs what you have in common with an evangelical complementarian?” In such cases, is the ‘egalitarianism’ or the ‘evangelicalism’ more fundamental to one’s Christianity? Is there so much common ground between the evangelical Sherlock and the strongly liberal Porter that Sherlock finds her a more natural ally against evangelical Sydney rather than joining force with Sydney against Porter’s liberalism? Could one imagine a complementarian evangelical joining forces with non-evangelicals to attack fellow evangelicals who practice women’s ordination? Generally speaking, evangelicals only join with non-evangelicals to attack other non-evangelicals—evangelicals might join with Catholics of various stripes to attack liberalism, for example. But when evangelicals believe that they share the same gospel with someone else, that usually trumps most other differences. It’s rare indeed to find an Arminian evangelical join forces with, say, a Roman Catholic to attack a reformed evangelical—even though both the evangelical and the Catholic repudiate the doctrine of election. The fact that the both the Arminian and the reformed hold to justification by grace through faith is considered more fundamental.

Such actions suggest that, among the leaders of egalitarianism, egalitarianism is often more important than whether one is liberal or evangelical. Women having authority over men is a fundamental aspect of the gospel. And for other egalitarians, that will be a step in one’s self-identity that they may well wish to draw back from. They will want to not allow egalitarianism to become so all-defining to their Christian faith. And the struggle to step back may well result in them leaving it altogether. Seeing the link, some will do whatever it takes to not join in partnership with liberals or with those who promote homosexuality.

100 thoughts on “Complementarianism and egalitarianism (part 7): The future of egalitarianism (ii)

  1. I once heard Gordon Preece on the subject – he appeared to me to be pro-woman’s ordination. He made the useful comment about this being a pre-cursor to the homosexuality issue:

    “Its not a sin to be a woman – but being a practicing homosexual is”. (or words to that effect).

  2. I don’t know whether you agree with that statement Hamish, but I think that’s a false logic.  I would argue that a Christian can be homosexual in inclination, but celibate and seeking godliness, therefore not sinning.  The sin lies in what the person chooses to do – therefore “practising” is a crucial word that makes comparing a woman and a practising homosexual a comparison of an apple & an orange.

  3. Hi Jennie

    thanks for your clarification – I agree the issue is whether you follow the inclination and act on it, or whether you choose not to.

    I am inclined to all sorts of sinful things…the issue is whether I act (and when I do – whether I acknowledge my failings and repent of my sin).

    I think part of Mark’s article gets to the issue of defining what is sinful – some people are trying to move the goalposts here!

  4. Peter H. Davids, in his book “More Hard Sayings of the New Testament,” does a pretty good job of defining the basics of my hermeneutic:

    “The author of each book of Scripture had somehing in mind when he selected the words to use in writing.  Our assumption is that these words, when understood within his cultural context, accurately represent what he wanted to communicate.  In fact, it is a good working assumption that what an average Christian reader in the first-century contest in which that book of Scripture was written would have understood by the words, fairly represents what the author intended to communicate.  And this is what the church has accepted as the Word of God.” (emphasis added)

    The other main point of my hermeneutic is expressed by Scot McKnight in his book “The Blue Parakeet”:

    “God asks us to read the Bible as the unfolding of the story of His ways to His people.”  McKnight summarizes the story of the Bible in terms of Creation, Fall, Covenant Community, Redemption and Culimation.  “Until we learn to read the Bible as Story, we will not know how to get anything out of the Bible for daily living,” McKnight says.  We can’t just lift individual verses out of the whole of the Story, and expect to understand what God is doing.

    So there it is.  Understanding the overall purpose of the Scriptures as one great Story.  Understanding the words of the Bible in terms of authorial intent, which means that they have to be read in terms of historical and literary context.

    I really don’t understand what is so dangerously liberal about that.  In fact, I stand by this hermeneutic as the best way to hold the Scriptures in high esteem as God-breathed and authoritative for faith and practice.  I am not afraid of where this hermeneutic will lead me.  It has led me to understand God’s place for women in His story differently than the place long-standing church tradition has given them.  If understanding authorial intent and the place of sinners in God’s story, leads me to better love gay and lesbian sinners as myself (who am a sinner too), and that means that I step out of line with the rest of the evangelical community (which has in general treated gays and lesbians horrifically), then so be it.  I think the above hermeneutic is the best way to understand God’s Word, and the best way to live as a follower of Christ.

    The point of hermeneutics is not to make sure you arrive at a certain pre-conceived conclusion (oh, no! whatever we do, we mustn’t change our views about homosexuals!), but it’s an ongoing learning process—to find out what God was really inspiring His vessels to write,  what they meant by what they wrote, and how I am then to live. I will not apologize for that, wherever my studies end up taking me.

  5. I’ve found William Webb’s Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic to be helpful in demonstrating that it is possible to be egalitarian AND not pro-gay.

    I also consider that it’s possible to be egalitarian and recognize differences between Male and Female (Gen 1:27, Gen 2, 1 Pet 3:7).  I don’t really have any enmity towards the Complementarian view except when it veers towards patriarchy (which has been clearly linked to a higher rate of domestic violence).  In the end, one gender dominating the other is not Biblical (1 Cor 7:4).

  6. Richard,
    What exactly are you saying re Complementarianism and domestic violence? I think you ought to clarify your comment here.

  7. Martin, just to clarify: I’m not saying that complementarianism is linked to domestic violence.  On the contrary, a 2004 American study by William Wilcox found that the incidence of domestic violence amongst active conservative Protestants (2.8%) was less than those with no religion (3.2%).  But nominal conservative Protestants had the highest rate (7.2%).  Having a hardline authoritarian patriarchal perspective while being Biblically illiterate is not a pretty combination.  I don’t have a problem with complementarianism, but I do have a problem with abusive authoritarianism.

  8. Hi Mark,
    It is difficult to see how your argument here is not an example of Non Causa Pro Causa or the slippery slope fallacy. By way of contrast I’d point to Shields’ Slippery Slope Axiom: “the truth lies half way down the slippery slope.” Of course, determining exactly where that truth point lies is rarely simple.
    A similar phenomenon could be seen in reactions to the Charismatic movement in the 1980s. Many evangelicals sought to avoid the excesses of some parts of that movement by claiming that “miraculous” spiritual gifts no longer operated at all. The excesses of each position tended to polarise views and make it difficult to hold a moderate position, yet in time it has become increasingly clear that the extremes were equally unbiblical and the truth, indeed, lies half way down the slippery slope.
    A more current example is found in Young Earth Creationism which argues that if you sacrifice a literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis you ultimately concede the entire Bible.
    Is this the case with the comp/egal debate? It seems to this point that the biblical data is not so perspicuous as many on either side would claim (just see the discussion that ensued on this previous post here on the SolaPanel as well as the subsequent posts on this topic!). If this assessment that there is insufficient exegetical warrant to maintain a position at either extreme is true, it seems that it is fear of the slippery slope that strengthens the divide rather than a quest to discover or uphold truth.

  9. Hi Kristen,

    Good to hear from you again, especially after our last conversation got curtailed (caught me off guard too – I was waiting for a warning from Rachel to say that there was just a few days to go).

    So there it is.  Understanding the overall purpose of the Scriptures as one great Story.  Understanding the words of the Bible in terms of authorial intent, which means that they have to be read in terms of historical and literary context.

    I really don’t understand what is so dangerously liberal about that.

    Well, nothing at all.  Nothing you’ve written there, as it stands, is being contested.  Both of those principles are common ground in the debate.

    If understanding authorial intent and the place of sinners in God’s story, leads me to better love gay and lesbian sinners as myself (who am a sinner too), and that means that I step out of line with the rest of the evangelical community (which has in general treated gays and lesbians horrifically), then so be it.  I think the above hermeneutic is the best way to understand God’s Word, and the best way to live as a follower of Christ.

    The point of hermeneutics is not to make sure you arrive at a certain pre-conceived conclusion (oh, no! whatever we do, we mustn’t change our views about homosexuals!), but it’s an ongoing learning process—to find out what God was really inspiring His vessels to write,  what they meant by what they wrote, and how I am then to live. I will not apologize for that, wherever my studies end up taking me.

    Okay, a lot is going to depend on precisely what you mean here.  But as it stands it looks like you’re reinforcing the argument of my post.

    I said that there is a move to approve of active homosexual lifestyles, and that within the leaders of egalitarianism, there are people who are moving in that direction and do so for the same reasons why they are egalitarian.

    You seem to have said, “Yes, I am changing my views on homosexuality.  I think most evangelicals have treated them badly.  I’m doing it for the same reasons why I’m egalitarian.  And I’m not going to apologise for that.”

    That’s fine, I’m not asking you to apologise for it.  I’m not even (at this point) saying it is wrong – although it is clear that I think it is. 

    I was observing that within the ranks of egalitarians there are people who have no interest in changing their views on homosexuality and saying that it is okay in any sense. And that what seems to be a movement among egalitarians to ‘soften’ their stance on homosexuality will put pressure on some egalitarians to reconsider their commitment to egalitarianism.

    People like you might be right, and we should all change our views on homosexuality.  That’s a different debate. 

    The point here is more ‘political’ – some egalitarian evangelicals are going to hold that a homosexual lifestyle is sin. And as other egalitarians say that they’ve shifted on that view for the same reasons why they are egalitarian, some of them will reconsider their commitment to egalitarianism.

    It’s an observation of a dynamic, that is likely to be the case whether we agree with it or not, but that is going to change the nature of the debate a bit in the forseeable future.

  10. Hi Richard,

    Welcome along, and thanks for the contributions.

    I’ve found William Webb’s Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic to be helpful in demonstrating that it is possible to be egalitarian AND not pro-gay.

    Yes, many egalitarians have found contributions like Webb’s useful in that regard.  And I’m not claiming that egalitarianism requires someone to be pro-homosexual or liberal.

    My point is that a link seems to be appearing in the actual manifestation of egalitarianism in reality, whatever we think of the concepts at the level of ideas. And that link is going to put some pressure on some people whose commitment to egalitarianism isn’t indubitable.

    And that issue is reflected even in the way you’ve couched things here.  What you’ve found helpful is that Webb has shown that it is possible (my emphasis) to be egalitarain and not pro-homosexual.  He hasn’t shown that the two are inherently incompatible, just that one can hold to one and not the other.

    That’s useful, but it won’t ‘solve’ the problem for everyone.  They’ll still, I predict, watch egalitarian evangelicals and institutions take softer lines on homosexuality, if not come out in qualified acceptance of it.  And they’ll see no (or almost no) complementarians making such moves.

    That creates a ‘political’ dimension to the issues that will have its own effect on the debate alongside the efforts of people like Webb to address the ideas at purely the level of ideas. 

    Some people are going to go – these guys are fighting a rearguard action trying to show that it is possible to be egalitarian and not pro-homosexual, but those guys don’t need to show that, because it’s inconsistent to be complementarian and pro-homosexual.

    Whether that is right or, as Martin Shields claims, is a slippery slope argument, is somewhat irrelevant to my point.  My point is that it is going to be a dynamic that is going to make egalitarianism problematic for some people, whatever arguments are going to be marshalled in its favour.

  11. Hi Martin,

    Welcome along, and thanks for the contribution.

    It is difficult to see how your argument here is not an example of Non Causa Pro Causa or the slippery slope fallacy.

    Because there’s no argument here about the meaning of what I’m talking about. 

    I’m not saying ‘see this shows egalitarianism is wrong!’ – and so making a call on the meaning of what I’m detailing.

    “All” I’m saying is, ‘there’s reasons to think that the homosexuality debate is going to put pressure on people who would otherwise like to be egalitarian in the gender debate’.

    That’s all.  And there’s no slippery slope there – whether true or false.  It’s just a statement of ‘political’ realities. It makes no attempt to marshall that to say something about the truth of egalitarianism.

  12. To Richard and all—

    You might want to look at Brad Wilcox’s scholarly work- Soft Patriarchs and New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands. (University of Chicago Press, 2004)

    He demonstrates that, overall, men with traditional views of male headship and who go to church regularly are less likely to be abusive to their spouses than other groups. I imagine that this conclusion is drawn from studies of the U.S. population, but still it bears consideration. It’s not right to merely assume that conservative views on gender roles leads to abuse.

  13. Mark, it’s nice to talk to you again.  The one thing that I wanted to say in our earlier conversation that I didn’t get to, is that I thought you were reading too much into Teri’s and my words.  I think the distinction we were making had to do with semantics—what is was that we were defining as a “name,” on which issue we were merely following what the Scriptures actually say.  Our words were not intended as a denial that the nature of God is “Father”—merely that God never said, “My name is ‘Father.’”  He did say, “My name is ‘I Am.’”  And that’s all, really, that we meant. The implications of that could probably be explored further, but this is a new thread and a new topic.

    You said:

    You seem to have said, “Yes, I am changing my views on homosexuality.  I think most evangelicals have treated them badly.  I’m doing it for the same reasons why I’m egalitarian.  And I’m not going to apologise for that.”

    Actually, what I was trying to say was not that.  What I was trying to say was, I think the focus of those who would draw back from egalitarianism because of the homosexuality issue, are putting the cart before the horse.  The issue is, and must be if we are going to take a “high” view of Scripture, “What does the Bible actually say?”  Instead, people are saying, “homosexuality is wrong, therefore my hermeneutic must result in that conclusion.”  If they are going to back off from egalitarianism because they don’t like where the (non-liberal) hermeneutic as I described it above is leading them—then isn’t the problem that the issue of homosexuality is more important to them than what the story of the Bible actually teaches?

    I’m speaking in terms of ideals, not realism.  I don’t deny that what you’re talking about may happen.  But I would consider that a sad thing.

    As for where I stand on homosexuality itself, my views are in flux, and will be until I have researched enough of both sides of the issue to be clear in my mind on what the Bible, as God’s Story, and according to the principles of authorial intent, is actually saying about the matter.

  14. To Tim:

    I’ve been looking into the findings of Brad Wilcox, as far as I could in a short period of time—and it seems to me that the conclusions lead to the idea that marriages where husbands lay down their lives for their wives as Christ did for the church, are happy marriages.  That model can exist in a marriage that calls itself “egalitarian” just as much as in a marriage that calls itself “complementarian.”  The issue does not seem to be whether the husband leads so much as whether the husband takes responsibility to put his family first.

  15. Mark,

    It disappoints me when some egalitarian evangelicals support the liberal agenda of accepting/affirming sinful relationships.  There has certainly been a trend in some left-of-centre circles in this direction since they see it as a ‘civil rights’ issue, but it’s more like Chamberlain’s appeasement policy.  However most committed younger evangelicals are not on board with their program and are tending to be egalitarian when it comes to secular employment and church leadership, yet complementarian within the realm of marriage.  That’s the situation as I see it in much of Victoria, both in charismatic and evangelical circles.

  16. I am not very familiar with how people argue from the bible for an acceptance of homosexuality. I was wondering if anyone could possibly just briefly outline for me how the biblical arguments go, and how this is similar to accepting egalitarianism from the bible. How does an egalitarian approach to the bible lead toward an acceptance of homosexuality?
    Thanks very much.

  17. Hi Tim (and Teri and Kristen),

    Welcome along, and thanks for the head’s up on Wilcox’s book, I was quite unaware of it.  And welcome back Teri, as well.

    Anyone reading the thread and interested in the book and, like me, would like a quick insight into it, here seemed to be the best place to go – the author explains his findings in a written interview.

    I think I’d both agree and disagree with Teri and Kristen, picking up Kristen’s take on the issue:

    it seems to me that the conclusions lead to the idea that marriages where husbands lay down their lives for their wives as Christ did for the church, are happy marriages.  That model can exist in a marriage that calls itself “egalitarian” just as much as in a marriage that calls itself “complementarian.”  The issue does not seem to be whether the husband leads so much as whether the husband takes responsibility to put his family first.

    In the interview, while Bradford Wilcox mentions examples of evangelicals talking about husband/father authority he doesn’t include that among his factors for identifying the “active Evangelical father” group.  Maybe he does in the book.  This would seem to support Teri’s observation that a lot depends on his definition, and Kristen’s that the things he’s identifying as causes of the good outcomes have no direct relationship to gender-based authority in the family.

    However, if that’s the case, then the book is evidence for Tim’s final point:

    It’s not right to merely assume that conservative views on gender roles leads to abuse.

    At a minimum Wilcox’s book shows no difference in outcomes between actively Christian egalitarian families and complementarian ones. That in itself is a big deal given that there is often a whiff of the purported abusive potential of complementarianism hanging around.

    But, I think Wilcox is claiming more than just that. In his interview with Albert Mohler he defines “Soft Patriarchy” as:

    A soft patriarch is a man who has a sense of his role as the leader in his home.  And that leadership is you know particularly in today’s culture focused on the spiritual warfare of his family and the emotional…of his family.  And so it’s soft in the sense that his approach to the family is attentive to the importance of him being affectionate and emotionally engaged with his wife and his children.  And so in many respects he kind of resembles the iconic new man who has been held up really since the 1980’s as kind of the ideal husband and father for our day and age but of course what makes him different though is he has some sense that he has a unique role in leading the family you know moving forward.

    This suggests that he sees an indirect relationship between dads seeing themselves as a self-sacrificial leader of the home and better outcomes on several fronts (not all – less housework, and less time with children than egaltiarians, but at least slightly better in the other areas he looks at).

    That is, he is saying actively Christian ‘soft patriarchs’ have better outcomes overall than egalitarians.  But it’s not because they wield authority, it’s because they have a high view of fatherhood, invest heavily into it, endow it with strong theological weight and the like.  And those things seem to be connected to seeing themselves as having a unique leadership role in the family. 

    Hence an indirect relationship between gender authority and outcomes – the relationship is mediated through a constellation of intermediatory convictions that could be adopted by egalitarians, but, at present, occur more regularly among complementarians.

    Again, that doesn’t “prove” anything. But I think his conclusions are that compelementarianism is producing slightly (and it’s only slight) better results among active Christians than more egalitarian approaches to family life. And it’s doing so because it is doing a better job of incubating the network of outlooks that do directly feed into those outcomes.

    That could be evidence complementarianism is right, or it could just be evidence that egalitarianism needs to lift its game in a few areas – like setting forth strong and clear and positive distinctive teaching to men about their role as father’s and husband’s.

    So I think it’s an encouragement to complementarians (and a goad to keep focusing on the self-sacrifical aspect of our view of authority), and a challenge to egalitarians – suggestive that either their view is wrong, or at least isn’t being translated properly into life on the ground, and so is currently getting slightly worse outcomes than the wrong view.

  18. Hi Kristen,

    The one thing that I wanted to say in our earlier conversation that I didn’t get to, is that I thought you were reading too much into Teri’s and my words

    I’m happy to confess responsibility for that, and am glad that you and Teri were making a far more limited and semantic point than what it seemed to me (who might be just slightly hypersensitised to such matters due to sitting with the fourth century debates for a few years now).  The Trinitarian dimension will likely (heh) make a reappearance next year, so you’ll probably get another crack at things to tease the issues out further.

    As far as your point on homosexuality goes, thanks for the clarification – that’s far more what I expected from you given our previous interactions.

    I take your basic point that our opposition to homosexuality has to be grounded in what Scripture teaches and so must be capable of being overturned by an appeal to the actual Scripture on the question.

    But I still can’t agree with the way you seem to be putting that point:

    The point of hermeneutics is not to make sure you arrive at a certain pre-conceived conclusion (oh, no! whatever we do, we mustn’t change our views about homosexuals!),

    Take ‘homosexuals’ out.  Put in:

    “whatever we do, we mustn’t change our views about the deity of Christ/the Bible is the word of God/the existence of God/the existence of a real world/the existence of objective truth”

    or try

    “whatever we do, we mustn’t change our views about murderers, paedophiles, liars, adulterers, the incestuous, pride, people who are driven by hatred, the existence of objective right and wrong”

    Those sentences are as true as your version.  As a Christian I should be open to Scripture challenging any theological or moral conviction I hold, no matter how fundamental it is.

    But, I would want to say that it is quite valid for a Christian to say, “that God exists, that Jesus is fully God and fully man, that murder/adultery/pride/hate/homosexuality is sin is not ‘up for grabs.’ It is a settled part of the faith once for all delivered”. They should not feel the need to go back and work each and everything up from first principles before they can believe anything in some kind of foundationalist endeavour. We start with the tradition we are taught, and trust it, revising it as we need to in light of Scripture, but fundamentally positive towards it.

    Now, when serious doubts arise, it is the right and necessary thing to then put that bit of tradition on the table as ‘up for grabs’ and work things through from first principles – as you’re doing now.  And I think that as Christians we need to give people room and freedom to do that.  Not giving that room, and making the doubts culpable creates an environment that is more likely to cause doubts in the long term among people. So I’m glad you’re doing what you’re doing, and think it reflects well on you.

    But, I also think that the rest of us aren’t doing something wrong by not joining you in that activity if we don’t have those doubts. And that it is entirely okay for us to restrict you from speaking as a Christian leader on such issues until your doubts are settled and you’ve either come back to the traditional view, or persuaded our institution to change its view. The freedom we should offer to investigate doubts comes with responsibilities.

    In light of that, I think there is some validity in people saying, “Hmmmn a surprising number of egalitarians seem to be revisiting the homosexuality question, and saying that that’s for the same reasons that led them to revisit the gender question, that makes me uncomfortable about egalitarianism.”

    If it was reversed – if all of a sudden a surprising number of complementarians started to say, “Actually, I’m revising whether we’re really right to reject racial based slavery, and whether we were right to claim that Jesus Christ is fully God” then I really would be taking a hard look at whether complementarianism was as right as I thought it was.  Nothing would be proved, but the “political” aspect of things would shift for me.  And despite Martin Shield’s claim of slippery slopes, I find it hard to see how viewing that as an cautionary sign is irresponsible.

  19. Hi Richard,

    Thanks for this comment, was very informative.

    However most committed younger evangelicals are not on board with their program and are tending to be egalitarian when it comes to secular employment and church leadership, yet complementarian within the realm of marriage.  That’s the situation as I see it in much of Victoria, both in charismatic and evangelical circles.

    This probably feeds into the discussion I had with Jareth in the previous series about Gen Y, and many of the observations he made as someone also living in Melbourne.

    My first experience of this happened this year when, after being paid out on constantly by some other theolog post-grads over here for being opposed to the ordination of women, it turned out they were all ‘soft patriarchs’ when it came to marriage and the family. (And, being the exceptionally gracious and kind Aussie bloke I am, I of course in no way at all returned the favour when it turned out that they were also unreconstructed patriarchs smile .)

    While, for convenience, I generally in the posts set this up as a debate between two ‘sides’ – a strong complementarianism, and a strong egalitarianism – in terms of the ‘facts on the ground’ I think the situation is far more complex.

    There’s a wide range of views out there, some of which seem inconsistent on a strictly ideas based level – such as saying that gender based authority is compatible with equality in the family, but saying that it isn’t compatible in public ministry in the Church.

    Those of us trying to offer some kind of leadership on this (on both sides) need to come to grips with that and take it on board in our teaching, preaching, writing and the like. It seems like a lot of Christians are unconvinced by either of the two basic positions and are hungy for something else. That doesn’t give us any answers, as though we derive theology from the sociology of young Christians. But it’s an important factor to reflect upon and be aware of.

  20. Hi Craig,

    Welcome along.

    briefly outline for me how the biblical arguments go, and how this is similar to accepting egalitarianism from the bible. How does an egalitarian approach to the bible lead toward an acceptance of homosexuality?

    Well, I’m going to try and work this up properly for a post or two next year, so I’ll give it a quick stab now.  Two things though: I’m not saying that you can only be a consistent egalitarian if you accept homosexuality. I’m not passing any verdict on the merits of these arguments. 

    Most of the links have to do with approaches to interpreting the Bible.  The arguments pro-homosexual campaigners use are structured in a way that has similarities to various egalitarian arguments:

    First, people observe that there is only a small number of texts that speak directly to the question.  Each of these is then very carefully picked apart to get at its real meaning to the original audience in light of the Bible’s story as a whole.

    Second, it is observed that often the Bible reflects existing sinful patterns in the culture of the day, and is challenging them in such a way whereby Christians will, over time, come to embrace its radical message that overturns such a cultural conviction.  For egalitarianism, that is patriarchy, for homosexuals, it is a view that says that sexual love must involve gender polarity.

    Third, a lot of passages are seen to have a far less universal scope than is traditionally claimed.  1 Tim 2 is speaking about just one woman that Paul wouldn’t allow to teach.  Romans 1 is speaking of people with a heterosexual orientation who take on a desire for people of the same sex.  Levitical legislation against homosexuality would, when we do the cultural reconstruction, have been understood by the original hearers as forbidding male sex in the context of temple prostitution not universally.

    Fourth, a lot is made of silences. OT laws against homosexuality don’t have anything to say about lesbianism – which seems odd if homosexuality per se is on view.  In Ephesians 5 the husbands are never told to exercise authority over their wives, so wives submitting to their husbands can’t be anything to do with husbandly authority.

    Fifth, both sides appeal to Gal 3:28 as fundamental to a biblical view of gender.  Egalitarians say, “Leadership is about godliness and giftedness, not gender – in Christ there is no male or female.”  Homosexuals say, “Sex is about faithfulness and love, not gender – in Christ there is no male or female”.  Both remove gender from the structure of the institution, either church (egalitarianism) or marriage (homosexuality).

    Sixth, both sides are grounded in a fundamental moral conviction that is quite prominent in the Bible that then shapes how particular passages are read.  Egalitarians are committed to a robust view of equality, and, even before they go to the Bible, are convinced that equality means ‘access to authority is only on the basis of ability – plumbing is not a factor’.  Homosexuals are committed to a robust view of love, and, even before they go to the Bible, are convinced that love is no respector of persons, ‘there is no law when it comes to love, for love fulfils the law – and so plumbing is not a factor in who someone can love, or how they can love them.’

    Alongside that is another factor that interests me more and that has been less explored so far in the debates, from what I can see.  Egalitarians argue that there are no gender-specific roles in family or church.  The two genders are interchangeable – either can do anything the other can, they just do things in complementary ways.  But there’s nothing that is specifically male or husbandly, or woman or wifely.  The genders are interchangeable when it comes to how the marriage works and how church works.  Homosexuals are taking that conviction the next step and saying, “If the two genders are interchangeable, and nothing is linked to either gender, then you don’t need two genders to make a valid marriage.”  There’s nothing about the structure of marriage that requires two genders, because they’re interchangeable anyway.  This is going to be A Big Issue in my view for egalitarians – the judge who ruled California’s Prop 8 referendum rejecting gay marriages as unconstitutional seems to have made precisely this kind of ruling.  Modern concept of marriage is egalitarian, and an egalitarian view of marriage is entirely compatible with the practice of same sex marriage. Gender simply isn’t a factor in how a marriage is supposed to function.

    That’s quick and sketchy, but it should give an idea.

  21. ”The arguments pro-homosexual campaigners use are structured in a way that has similarities to various egalitarian arguments.”

    IMO you are really stretching logic to claim this.  And you will have a very difficult time claiming that practicing womanhood is sin, as practicing homosexuality is.  Equally difficult, you will have a problem claiming that a woman becomes sinful by teaching truth.  And finally, so what.  The arguments that comps use are structured in a similar way that slave owners used to justify slavery. Anyone can use a method, as a good method is just a tool.  Whether they use it for good or evil,  or in righteousness or unrighteousness, is the question.

  22. Hi Teri,

    ”The arguments pro-homosexual campaigners use are structured in a way that has similarities to various egalitarian arguments.”

    IMO you are really stretching logic to claim this.

    Yars, so when Webb entitled his book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals he was clearly wrong to see any similarity at all in those three case studies and so link them together to show why they don’t have to be handled the same way .  He should have entitled it “Slaves, Women & Hamsters”.  And when guys like Richard Bath say

    I’ve found William Webb’s Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic to be helpful in demonstrating that it is possible to be egalitarian AND not pro-gay.

    They’re also wrong to see that there is any need to demonstrate that it is possible to be egalitarian AND not pro-gay – because there’s absolutely no similarity that would require such a demonstration.

    And you will have a very difficult time claiming that practicing womanhood is sin, as practicing homosexuality is.  Equally difficult, you will have a problem claiming that a woman becomes sinful by teaching truth.

    Yes, because people like Kirsten Rosser are saying that she knows practicing homosexuality is a sin but she’s re-examining the question to see whether it’s okay to approve something that is sinful.

    The whole point of the argument about homosexuality is to say that the Bible, when understood correctly – in terms of the overarching Story, and in terms of what the words would have meant to the original readers – doesn’t say all active homosexuality is sinful at all.  The Church has misunderstood the implications of the Bible’s teaching for two thousand years (with the odd exception here and there in history) in the same way it misunderstood the Bible’s teaching on gender.

    And finally, so what.  The arguments that comps use are structured in a similar way that slave owners used to justify slavery. Anyone can use a method, as a good method is just a tool.  Whether they use it for good or evil,  or in righteousness or unrighteousness, is the question.

    Well the ‘so what’ is the question here (one I’m not going to try and address this year).  Yes, good methods can be put to bad uses.  But sometimes the badness of a method can be seen by how easily it supports very bad outcomes. That’s a question we have to address on a case by case basis.

    I could see how, if I screw my eyes up tightly enough, a person can see some similiarities between complementarian arguments and those for race based slavery – argue that relationships are structured by race in the way that family and church is structured by gender, and that being a slave is analogous to being a wife, or being a pastor is analogous to being a slave-owner, and, yes, there’s some similarities that would need to be addressed.

    If we were in a context where there was pressure on the church to endorse race based slavery, and some complementarians were saying, “Hmmmn, in light of my ‘equal but different’ view of gender in family, I am relooking at the question of whether it’s okay for whites to enslave blacks” then I think most of us would agree there’d be a big ‘so what’ going on over complementarianism. The fact that egalitarianism would be clearly and utterly incompatible in any sense with approving race based slavery would certainly be seen as a big ‘plus’ in its favour.

    So to claim that the ‘so what’ just isn’t there in any way at all when an egalitarian approach to Scripture and to gender in family seems to be a precondition for a pro-homosexual position – not that egalitarianism requires a pro-homosexual position, but that you can only get there from certain basic principles that exist in egalitarianism seems strange.

    If you’re right than Webb’s book is one of the biggest yawns in the debate to date – he tried to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

  23. ”So to claim that the ‘so what’ just isn’t there in any way at all when an egalitarian approach to Scripture and to gender in family seems to be a precondition for a pro-homosexual position – not that egalitarianism requires a pro-homosexual position, but that you can only get there from certain basic principles that exist in egalitarianism seems strange.”

    Didn’t say that. 

    Let’s try another approach.  Humans have building block mentality.  It’s a gift.  We can take theories, mix and match them a bit until we can actually see a building in view.  In addition we’ll claim that’s the only building one can get out of that set of blocks.  I don’t think so.

    That’s basically what I see you doing.  As far as truth is concerned I do not believe that you have cornered much if any relevant truth in the process.  IMO its just an exercise in what is another clever way to bash people who would dare to believe contrary to you, that women can be called and equipped in Christ to minister spiritual things to the same depth as men.

    It seems to me you had better arguments when discussing how a husband should tend to seeing that he lead the family in holiness and tend to his responsibilities in providing and protecting.

  24. ”Egalitarians argue that there are no gender-specific roles in family or church.  The two genders are interchangeable – either can do anything the other can, they just do things in complementary ways. “

    I don’t see anyone claiming straight across interchangeableness.  And FWIW I don’t think any individual can replace another in exactly the same way.  IOW even among men, they all do the same jobs with differences.  But I don’t consider being a husband or a wife, a job or a role. 

    As for church, there are no gifts that are gender specific.  And of course, we are going to disagree that ministries (which use those non gendered gifts) are not gender specific either.  Ministries may tend to be fulfilled by one gender more than another in different cultures, and sometimes in all cultures, but this does not mean we should cancel out the other genders contributions. God chose 2 men and 1 woman to lead the nation of Israel.  But there is no reason to think that because God only chose one woman instead of two, that therefore, in the future there should be NO women leaders.

  25. Mark, you said:

    The whole point of the argument about homosexuality is to say that the Bible, when understood correctly – in terms of the overarching Story, and in terms of what the words would have meant to the original readers – doesn’t say all active homosexuality is sinful at all.  The Church has misunderstood the implications of the Bible’s teaching for two thousand years (with the odd exception here and there in history) in the same way it misunderstood the Bible’s teaching on gender.

    And when I said:

    So there it is.  Understanding the overall purpose of the Scriptures as one great Story.  Understanding the words of the Bible in terms of authorial intent, which means that they have to be read in terms of historical and literary context.

    I really don’t understand what is so dangerously liberal about that.

    You replied:

    <blocquote>Well, nothing at all.  Nothing you’ve written there, as it stands, is being contested.  Both of those principles are common ground in the debate.</blockquote>

    In light of this, I think it would be helpful to the conversation if you would describe what is different about the basic complementarian hermeneutic that would make it avoid asking the questions I am asking with regards to homosexuality.  If complementarians are, as I am, committed to the basic hermeneutic principles of Bible-as-Story and authorial intent, where does their hermeneutic differ?  And why?

    (BTW, I very much agree with Teri that husbands and wives are not interchangeable; simply that they are meant to be co-leaders in the home and not to exercise authority over one another.  I also agree that egalitarianism needs to make it clear that both husband and wife have a separate, unique leadership role in the home and that each partner should consider him- or herself necessary and valuable to the marriage and the family.  It’s simply that one is not over the other.)

  26. Hi Mark,
    Just wanted to say thank you for outlining @ #6678 the similarities that some may see between egalitarianism and accepting homosexuality.
    This is very helpful in following the discussion and evaluating the issue.

    And Kristen, #6683 -isn’t it annoying when you see you messed up the “blockquote” thing just by one letter and you can’t go back and fix it up :( . It seems you have to type it perfectly or it doesn’t work. I’ve done the same thing a few times as well.

  27. Hi Mark

    I wouldn’t mind clarifying something if that’s ok, because I am not following your argument in #6676

    Kristen said this which sounds good to me

    The point of hermeneutics is not to make sure you arrive at a certain pre-conceived conclusion (oh, no! whatever we do, we mustn’t change our views about homosexuals!),

    I would think that it would still be a correct statement if you substituted as you suggest, the “deity of Christ/the Bible is the word of God/the existence of God/the existence of a real world/the existence of objective truth”

    You seem to not agree, and say

    But, I would want to say that it is quite valid for a Christian to say, “that God exists, that Jesus is fully God and fully man, that murder/adultery/pride/hate/homosexuality is sin is not ‘up for grabs.’ It is a settled part of the faith once for all delivered”.

    Are you saying that it is ok to have a belief, because it is settled church tradition, without being able to see how it is taught in the bible. And it is ok to continue to believe these things that are traditional and dismiss other views, without having to look into the bible and be convinced that the traditional view is correct and the alternative view is wrong.
    I know that this is what many people do, but it doesn’t seem the ideal approach to me, so I am wondering if I have misunderstood.
    I would think that a Christian ideally should believe things because they have examined the scriptures to see whether they are true, not just because they are “a settled part of the faith once for all delivered”.

    Thanks Mark.

  28. Hi, all, hi, Mark.

    Mark, in my own fashion I’m enjoying following your posts, and the ensuing discussions.

    You wrote:

    “All” I’m saying is, ‘there’s reasons to think that the homosexuality debate is going to put pressure on people who would otherwise like to be egalitarian in the gender debate’.

    And you also wrote this:

    ‘He, like many other homosexual promoters, sees that only once a denomination or Diocese has endorsed the logic behind women’s ordination is it even possible to discuss whether active homosexuality is legitimate.’

    These two sentences set me thinking.

    I’d like to suggest that the question how far the issue of women’s ordination and that of homosexual ‘liberation’ are connected via the Bible’s language is a relatively simple one.

    It seems to me anyway that it is patently false for anyone to say the method of reading that makes the best case for women’s ordination entails the conclusion that homosexual acts are permissible. As far as I can see the intra- and extra- Biblical evidence we have on each subject is quite clearly radically different.

    It doesn’t take much flair for language, surely, to realise that a doctrinal issue which primarily involves us in the consideration of a number of short passages in the New Testament addressed to various churches, and another doctrinal issue that primarily involves us in the consideration of fairly firm injunctions to Israel, and to the Christians in Rome,  and also of the physiological condition of human bodies, are not on the same footing as each other with respect to evidence?

    (I do not mean to be providing an exhaustive list of all items of worthwhile evidence—I summarise in the interests of brevity.)

    Is it not abundantly clear that whatever our doctrinal views, we can neither read, ‘I do not permit a women…etc’, nor evaluate its meaning, nor draw inferences from it, in the same way as we do sentences as different from it as, ‘Men committed indecent acts with other men…etc.’?

    Perhaps it is unduly optimistic of me to think that we will perceive this. After all, I readily concede that there appears to be nothing which so little burdens our discussions about the Bible’s passages concerning women’s roles as the facts regarding good language comprehension. How do we frequently behave over this issue? People with no genuine mastery of their own language, let alone of another, pontificate about the meaning of ‘oude’, while ultimately justifying their doctrine by airy and entirely unsubstantiated appeals to tools of sound reading like implication, deduction,  induction, probability & etc.!  And a plumber seems as likely to do these things as a theologian…

    To my way of thinking many of the advocates of the traditional doctrines about women, and many of those in opposition (peace be with both sides) have as little assimilated the contents of Joseph’s Logic as they have flown to Neptune.

    Presumably we might easily go on arguing ad infinitum that sentences which are plainly not direct statements of our views merely say what we think ourselves; that passages which as much imply our doctrinal opinions as they do the laws of thermodynamics allow us to deduce our notions; and that passages from which our conclusions can only be reached by inductive reasoning and probable arguments justify our ideas absolutely.

    But still, perhaps eventually what will happen is that moderates will realise the very large elephant dancing about unnoticed in the middle of the room isn’t, say, any supposed relation between the methods of reading that favour of women’s ordination, and those that favour homosexual ‘liberation’—it is the quite bizarre and unjustifiable claim made by some of their more enthusiastic brothers and sisters to be responsible and knowledgable readers.

    Perhaps moderates will begin to test the points where our teachers fudge in justifying their doctrine, and where their fudging is crucial—‘How does the passage support your view?’—‘It obviously says it’, or, ‘It implies it’, or, ‘Well, no other reading but mine is possible’, or, ‘All readings but mine are obviously improbable’, or, ‘You have to be wicked to read differently to me’ (to which answers almost nothing to do with good language comprehension is added).

    Perhaps after all moderates will begin to ask our theologians and ministers to reveal candidly the best mark they received in late high school or at university in a formal comprehension test—and having learned this mark, will resolve to treat their teachers’ opinions concerning women’s roles with the measure of respect they deserve.

    In closing I would like to propose a sixth ‘sola’—‘the facts about inference alone, rather than anything we pull out of our ears on that subject.’

    Peace be on the heads of all…

  29. Let me interject here that David Adams’ comment above appears to relate directly back to statements he made in the last 50 or so comments in “Equal But Complementarian: A Review,” which post is now closed for comments.

  30. Hi, Kristen, hi Mark, hi all,

    However, I don’t wish to continue or revive that particular discussion…

    (Being a new ‘poster’ here, I haven’t yet grasped the sites’ etiquette on such things.)

    What I wanted to do in my previous was to express objections to some of the ideas advanced by Bishop Robinson (which I know are also employed for their own reasons by some conservatives). And I also wanted to point out for the purposes of the discussion on this particular thread that moderates might end up thinking about the quality of their teachers’ reading (whatever views their teachers hold), rather than rejecting the ordination of women for fear that otherwise they will open a can of worms no-one can close.

    It is true that I have thrown a leg over one of my hobby-horses, and galloped around a little; but I would much prefer to be understood to be doing so, in order to make the point that moderates are frequently, well, resolutely moderate…To me there are other directions they can take: many of them (I imagine) will neither move towards greater radicalism nor greater conservatism.

    This seemed a point worth considering.

    May God be with one and all!

  31. I can’t help but think that the true trajectory started with married priests. Since priests have been able to marry it is all down the slippery slope.

    There is no church that has celibate priests that also supporte homosexuality. Therefore no priests should marry. And since we are discussing how to respond to the situation we are presently in, perhaps the best thing to do is back up one step and say that a priest would be allowed one wife, and just one, but if she dies then no more. Or there is the practice of the early church in which a bishop lived apart from his wife. This would show solidarity with homosexuals who are to remain celibate.

  32. My preferred option, however, is to treat a celiebate or married clery, the ordination of women, birth control, and homosexuality as separate issues.

  33. Hi Mark,

    I much prefer to read your thoughts on the arguments themselves, rather than this political punditry-cum-crystal ball gazing.

    I don’t think it does anyone much favours to paint with such a broad brush in us-and-them terms, while naming just a handful of people (Porter). There’s a risk we build a fine, self-contained theory based on not much than a few continually-perpetuated stereotypes.

    This is also somewhat myopic—I can imagine someone substituting issues/labels with regards to Sydney on lay presidency and sacraments, for example.

    Plus, I think there’s a case that on the conservative-on-these-issues side you need to get your own house in order first. The conservative position has been on the wrong side of the argument on the social role of women—and homosexuality for that matter—not because they’re inherently linked, but because society has changed, and the conservative position has been changed by it. For example, should homosexuality still be illegal? Should we have Islamic-like laws regards to gays? What is the actual social argument? (Let alone what the nature of homosexuality actually is – another lost argument.) That the conservative position is now “It’s ‘wrong’ [whatever that means] … but society can do what it wants” speaks volumes.

    Ditto women—we get to enjoy the fruits of feminism while taking a limp, reactionary “Feminism is the Worst Thing Ever” position. I mean, really.

    The fact that the conservative position has changed so much, and retreated so far just into the inner workings of the church, down to issues like the gender/practice of bishops, shows that it’s the conservative position that has—and will continue to—face pressure & change. The claims of “We’re upholding the bible” are a sign of weakness, not strength—having lost any pragmatic argument, that’s all that’s left.

    PS still looking forward to your follow up from our conversation on your blog early in the year, haha :D

  34. Hi Teri,

    That’s basically what I see you doing.  As far as truth is concerned I do not believe that you have cornered much if any relevant truth in the process.  IMO its just an exercise in what is another clever way to bash people who would dare to believe contrary to you, that women can be called and equipped in Christ to minister spiritual things to the same depth as men.

    Yars, that’s what’s going on here – I’m outraged that people would dare to believe something different from me and so I’m finding some fiendishly clever way of bashing them.
    Thank you for giving a text-book example of why I don’t want this kind of ad hominem observation in my threads – because so few people can do them in a way that is constructive.

    It seems to me you had better arguments when discussing how a husband should tend to seeing that he lead the family in holiness and tend to his responsibilities in providing and protecting.

    Thank you for the feedback, and I’m glad that my suspicions that such an approach might help depolarise the debate (not necessarily end it) a bit between some of us looks like it’s got some potential. We’ll see how that goes next year when I try and articulate it more properly in a post or two.

    But, from where I stand, I used the exact same ‘building block’ method there as I am here.  It seems to me that I haven’t changed how I’m doing things between there and here.  So if what I’m doing now is an expression of outraged pride that people would dare disagree with me, and a form of passive-aggressive intellectual violence against them, then it was then as well with that bit that you liked.

  35. Hi Teri and Kristen,

    Teri:

    ”Egalitarians argue that there are no gender-specific roles in family or church.  The two genders are interchangeable – either can do anything the other can, they just do things in complementary ways. “

    I don’t see anyone claiming straight across interchangeableness.  And FWIW I don’t think any individual can replace another in exactly the same way.  IOW even among men, they all do the same jobs with differences.  But I don’t consider being a husband or a wife, a job or a role. 

    and Kristen:

    I very much agree with Teri that husbands and wives are not interchangeable; simply that they are meant to be co-leaders in the home and not to exercise authority over one another.

    I would refer you both back to my final two clauses in the italicised bit Teri quoted:

    either can do anything the other can, they just do things in complementary ways

    Those two clauses, together, were intended to define ‘interchangeable’. 

    ‘Interchangeable’, as I used it, was not a claim that an egalitarian view of gender was androgyny – both are the same in every respect (except plumbing and reproduction). It was a claim that an egalitarian view of gender did not structure family (or church) around gender by assigninig some tasks or roles to one gender or another.  Either gender can do everything the other one can, but they’ll do it in a different way – and that difference will add something positive to the life of that family/church. That is, your rebuttal of my claim here seems to be more or less what I’m saying your view is.

    That is, complementarianism makes gender difference part of the esse of the family – you have to have two genders for everything to get done, lose one and you can’t really have everything you need for a marriage to work. Gender is part of the structure of how the family works.

    That isn’t the case with egalitarianism, at least in terms of how it normally articulates its position when it’s fighting complementarians.  Gender is part of the bene esse of the family – the viva la difference! of the genders brings two different contributions to family life, but you don’t actually need two genders to get everything ‘done’ – no roles or tasks are linked to gender. I take your point Kristen, that that doesn’t mean that egalitarianism can’t do better than it has at setting forth a vision of fatherhood and motherhood (and not just parenthood) – and it’s the fact that you see that is one of the things that means I really enjoy our conversations – but it’s also noteworthy that egalitarianism hasn’t done that so far (doesn’t prove anything, but it’s worth noting).

    My observation is that that view of marriage and gender is a pre-condition for contemporary arguments for same-sex marriages. It’s a basic conceptual building block that means that those in favour of same-sex marriages think that those of us who disagree with it are guilty of a prejudice as though we were saying that blacks can’t marry whites.

    I realise it’s an area where most of us haven’t put a lot of thought into it yet, but I don’t think my drawing attention to a link there is particularly controversial – as I said, the Prop 8 Federal Judge ran that kind of argument as part of his ‘findings of fact’.  And the law fraternity and media seem to have generally thought he was speaking just simple common sense.

    I’m not saying that egalitarians have to be pro-homosexual to be consistent. I’m saying that it would hard to get to an argument for same sex marriages from a complementarian view of gender in marriage.  It’s not that hard to get there from an egalitarian view of gender in marriage.  But it’s not the only position on that question that an egalitarian could conceivably hold either.

    Given the strength of the push that seems to be happening from that side, I think we need to come to grips with that, as it is likely to be a factor in how this debate plays out. But I’m not saying that it directly proves one side or disproves the other.

  36. Given the number of comments that have come in over the last couple of days on the three active threads, and that I currently have less time to field comments that earlier, I’m going to draw a line under this thread for the next day or two, and focus on the comments on thread three.

    Depending on how things go this time around, I may not get to everyone’s comments (or even questions) and interact with them.  I’ll do my best, but figured now was a good time to get that out there. I certainly read and think about every comment that people take the time to make, but I may have to triage a bit this time.

  37. Hi Luke,
    Great to hear from you again, welcome along.

    Er, Mark, it’s rather cute that you can argue that complementarians, who <i>by definition</i> don’t support women in positions of authority, are really the tolerant ones after all; especially when you ground your case in “rumours” of “unwritten policy” … ! How many female bishops have they appointed?

    Heh, well “rumours” of “unwritten policy” was because I can’t reveal my sources – would get people into hot water as the lines of information was tracked back. But in the previous series I did link to a post by the Ugley Vicar where he reported a conversation along those lines. 

    If you’ve been around non-Sydney Anglicanism much you’ll know that arguably one of the features of Anglicanism is to be into plausible deniablity – don’t say (for example) “no evangelicals will be ordained in this Diocese”, but just keep finding that evangelical ordination cadidates who keep their evangelical faith need more ‘spiritual formation’ and cannot be ordained ‘at this time’. Nothing is ever written down, you can’t challenge an unwritten policy, it’s just how things play out “in the specifics of the particular case, which of course I can’t comment upon.” It’s a game Anglicans play well – Yes Minister and Prime Minister are almost like a ‘how to be Anglican’ manual. (Except the Gafcon crowd and the radical liberals on the other side, who upset everyone by just speaking plainly), and I was doing a small homage to it in that phrase.

    And where on earth did you get the idea that I was saying that us complementarians are the tolerant ones after all? Obviously we’re not tolerant. After all we’re clearly all against women and on a power trip!

    My point is, and some people will recognise the phenomena as something they’ve experienced, is that there’s something extremely surreal about knowing that your view is righteous/patriotic/tolerant/orthodox (pick the superlative of your choice) simply by virtue of the ideas themselves but then finding that in practice you can see that it doesn’t quite work that way in practice. That homosexual couple has a really good quality relationship, that woman who chose to be a single mother and who sleeps around is a really good mother, these guys who are fighting for the Bible by standing up for a six day creation are a pack of thugs who hide behind anonymity .  That kind of thing proves nothing, but can begin to make people ask questions.

    Those who don’t ‘get it’ don’t get it, and usually get grumpy with those who respond that way as though they’ve slipped a cognitive cog or two. But I think some will be able to see that some people sympathetic to a plea for more dignity for women will become far more unsympathetic when it results in the departure of complementarians that they respect and have relationships with, who feel pushed out. And that’ll be the case whether or not clear eyed convinced egalitarians think that feeling has any validity or not – the group I’m looking at is generally as impatient with egalitarians telling people how they should feel as they are with complementarians doing that.

  38. continuing

    I’m not sure the definition of “tolerance” is to let people exercise institutionalized sexism should they wish, however the question of whether it should be privileged or protected is an interesting one.

    Yes, at the level of the State, it is tolerance to let people exercise institutionalised sexism should they wish, in those institutions that come under ‘freedom of association’.  Even if the State thinks it’s bad, our liberal-democratic state has traditionally said, “some parts of social life must be allowed to do their own thing, and people be free to join and leave them with minimal oversight.” Without that principle in place we’ll find that what’s allowed in non-State institutions will be changed everytime a government is changed – a feature of more authoritarian societies.

    But more fundamentally, this is a debate occurring among Christians who recognise each other (usually) as being Christian.  And the debate is over whether it is or is not sexism. In such a context, to try and make allowances for the group you disagree with is considered ‘tolerant’ and to not do so is considered ‘intolerant’. Along the lines of what Teri accused me of on the other thread:

    IMO its just an exercise in what is another clever way to bash people who would dare to believe contrary to you, that women can be called and equipped in Christ to minister spiritual things to the same depth as men.

    Another way of putting that is to say that Teri thinks I’m being intolerant of other views – because I’m trying to exclude them by argumentation because I think they’re wrong.  If it’s intolerant to do that (and I’m happy to wear that), then what you’re proposing by saying ‘complementarians are sinful (because its sexism) and so therefore shouldn’t be permitted any life in the institution’ is certainly ‘intolerant’ as well.

    I think sometimes it’s right and proper to be intolerant.  And so (as has happened on this thread) egalitarians are free to say that that is right thing to do.  That’s a question you will have to work out among yourselves – seems a bit odd for a comp to give advice on that. 

    My point is that some Christians hate anything that looks like intolerance and need to be really sure that the stakes are worth it before they’ll accept it.  So taking the ‘full egalitarian embodied’ approach will have a cost on the ground. But if that’s the right thing to do, then that’s just a cost that can’t be avoided, life’s like that.

    to be concluded

  39. concluding

    Certainly, if you lived in an apartheid regime where racial egalitarianism was not possible, you’d first want space to exercise your own conscience if nothing else, but once in power how would you accommodate those who would absolute reject a black president?

    It’s an apt analogy. For example, if we play a game when we substitute “black” for “female” and see what results we get…

    “I don’t want to be led by a black person.”

    “I don’t want a black person to be in a position of authority over me.”

    “Black people are equal, but different.”

    “Black people can preach to other blacks, but not to mixed congregations.”

    … they’re not pretty. If it sounds racist in one context, I suspect it’s sexist in another.

    Therefore, given (I would hope) egalitarianism will eventually prevail, the question of whether one legislates, or accommodates, is certainly a thorny one. Seriously, how would you suggest those who held a minority view in apartheid situations be accommodated?

    Heh, when this issue came up in the threads for the previous series and I claimed that some egalitarians consider complementarianism to be such a grave sin that any possibility of compromise or working together will be impossible long-term, pretty well all the egalitarians said, “Come one, Mark!  Almost no-one thinks that – no-one says that it is that serious a sin.”

    And then you offer us this.

    Many thanks be on your head, for proving my point from the previous discussion. One that I took a fair bit of stick for at the time for painting such an ‘extreme’ picture.

    I agree with you, Luke.  Any egalitarian who sees this as analagous to apartheid the way you do has to not compromise for the reasons you are saying here. My point is that a lot of egalitarians (including pretty well all who made comments on the previous series) don’t agree with you about this. They take offence that your view is representative of egalitarianism at all.

    And that’s part of my point in the post.  Politics generally has winners and losers. Either you or they are going to have to be disappointed.  The egalitarian institution will either compromise with apartheid in your eyes or lose its tolerance high moral ground in the eyes of other egalitarians who don’t see the moral question as that serious.

    That’s just life, it’s a debate you guys have to have.  My point is, the time is coming when you guys are going to have to have that debate inhouse as you work out how to make egalitarianism work institutionally in the real world.  And there’ll be some costs there.

    Just as there was for us comps – whether we went for ‘don’t license women preachers, ‘license women preachers but don’t ordain them’,  ‘allow women rectors but not bishops’, or ‘allow women bishops but offer a conscientious objection’, there was a cost and our position seemed less plausible to some than it would have otherwise.

    As, though, to to your strong analogy between race and gender, I think most egalitarian (let alone comp) evangelicals won’t accept it.

    For the logic of your view is to also say,

    “Saying that certain gender combinations can’t make a valid marriage is like saying that certain racial combinations shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

    That is, if race and gender are as analagous as you say, then there is no rational objection to same sex marriage either (or at least, one has to work very hard to establish one).

    Which few egalitarian evangelicals are going to want to agree with (not sure where you stand on that?).  And supports my case that egalitarianism is a necessary pre-condition for acceptance of active homosexuality.

  40. Hi Mark,

    Just a quick response before I head off (it’s late… or early : ), with a few random points:
    – I wouldn’t want to be seen as representative of the broader egalitarian movement in any way/shape/form, I’d be fine if they all disagreed with me, so don’t let me prove your point ; )
    – I should clarify (!) that the apartheid comment was meant as an extreme example (for the sake of the argument) of a moral majority who would have to consider the minority who are quite clearly in the wrong, but I don’t think it’s analogous to complementarianism ! Lazy comment on my behalf. For the record, I just think complementarianism is kinda dumb, and has retreated to the point almost of irrelevance, but I respect the good intentions of those trying to do the right thing.
    – I do think the race/gender analogy is legitimate though to illustrate sexism—you’re resorting to slippery slope arguments trying to say it leads to acceptance of homosexuality (which is a can of worms in and of itself), which is neither here nor there. Seriously, how could you say with a straight face “Sorry, Mr Black Person, we believe black people are equal, but different and therefore it’s inappropriate for you to lead.” Say it to a woman though, and it’s fine!

    There is a certain ‘ick’ factor (for want of a better term) that makes people uncomfortable with things they’ve been taught/told/otherwise believed are wrong—it happened with race, and it will happen with gender too. Some people never get over it, which is sad, and others (I guess) take years/decades. The question is how do you show people the sky wont fall in despite their gut telling them the black/female person leading (or even preaching to a congregation) is ‘wrong’?

  41. “Thank you for giving a text-book example of why I don’t want this kind of
    <em>ad hominem
    observation in my threads – because so few people can
    do them in a way that is constructive.</em>

    Perhaps, Mark, you are not aware that many of the things you say about egals is bashing and personal (ad hominem).  I forgive you for that oversight, but it’s still uncomfortable to read.

  42. ”That is, complementarianism makes gender difference part of the
    esse of the family – you have to have two genders for everything
    to get done, lose one and you can’t really have everything you need for a
    marriage to work. Gender is part of the structure of how the family works.”

    Gender is indeed part of what makes a marriage and makes it work in a wonderful way. 

    However, what compism or rather patriarchalism does is make up rules that are not natural, that are not required or necessary for the husband and wife to live life well together. Particularly patriarchal is the idea that it doesn’t matter that the wife can do something better than the husband, the husband must do it. And rules are made up to determine what those things are. Some decide that it must be certain types of decisions that are to be reserved for the husband; and of course there a more and varying rules. Then this is romanticized as a vision of fatherhood or motherhood, roles of gender differences, the authority of husbands, or some such.  The world is a big place with lots of different people in it.  Some people can actually survive well within these types of boundaries.  But in my experience and observations, most people suffer a little in having to play act life in marriage. Some people, primarily women, suffer a lot.

    Since no one can be thrown in jail or even thrown out of church for not abiding by these varying assortment of determined roles, then there must be an incentive to contain and restrain people to these roles. The best incentive would be that Scripture admonishes it.  However, in reality there is nothing and next to nothing to support the majority of the patriarchal rules of marital roles. Thus, is born fear mongering.  Fear mongering is saying that if you don’t do what someone claims is the correct thing to do then such and such is going to happen to you. This is achieved by claiming that without the ‘proper’ gender roles established in marriage than someone is going to ‘slip’ into homosexuality.  Another one is that living without these gender roles in place will allow someone else to use the example of your freedoms to do something bad. This is achieved by saying that the egal belief of mutuality is a precondition for a belief in homosexuality. 

    This fear mongering is a form of making good bad and bad good.  In reality though what is good cannot be changed by someone using it as a stepping stone to do bad.  As well, bad people use good people and good things in order to get their bad works accepted, all the time.  But it’s not the fault of the good people or the good works, its the fault of the bad people. 

    Thus, my conclusion is that the fact that homosexuals would use the examples of good people as an avenue to support their sin, has nothing whatsoever to do with the good people or their good works.  Those who would use the sin of homosexuals to try to claim that those good people and their good works must not really be good because homosexuals used them to get what they want are only following the bad example of homosexuals.  It’s not a good argument.

  43. ”Most women married to husbands who have a complementarian approach to their marriage and are actively Christian seem to be enjoying better marriages slightly more often than their egalitarian counterparts. Both are also associated with experiences like yours and like mine, and the degree of difference is only small, but the outcomes at present are slightly better among evangelical complementarians in the U.S.”

    This is just way too relevant to definitions to mean anything.  Again, what are the components of ‘soft patriarchy’.  Is the husband still the final decision maker?  If so, then in the majority of cases even if the wives don’t say it, they are being damaged. Does the husband stand against his wife serving the body of Christ in leadership positions in church?  If so, then in the majority of cases even if the wives don’t say it, they are being damaged.

    Just because women are able to make do with whatever situations they are faced with in the men they love, does not mean ‘its all good’.  As you said, Mark, it just doesn’t prove anything.

    Also, FWIW, I’m truly sorry that your family had to go through divorce.  Mine did as well.  Yes, divorce for whatever the reason, almost always is hurtful to the children whose plane of reference and understanding is so small.

  44. Hi, Mark,

    I’m following the discussion with interest. I had no idea these blogs were in the ether. They seem an invaluable tool for discussion.

    I wanted to mention, so you might have a feel for my own background regarding these things, that I was brought up a conservative Protestant; I have been a genuine ‘Mr Mum’ for the last fourteen years (I have this role in my family because of a serious spinal injury suffered in youth); I belong to the editorial team of Philament, which is a publication of the English Department at Sydney University; and I’m currently writing a doctorate on the neo-Thomist philosopher and theologian, Jacques Maritain.

    Although I dislike defining myself or others, I imagine I would be classed as a moderate orthodox Protestant.

    I remain puzzled as to why Bishop Robinson (or any conservative for that matter) might think that a serious analysis of the evidence to do with the two issues, women’s ordination and homosexual ‘liberation’, would because of the methods of analysis required, somehow justify the conclusion that homosexual ‘liberation’ follows from the embracing of women’s ordination.

    The two problems of language that must be solved with respect to each issue are significantly different. Therefore, the methods of analysis we employ in each case should be significantly different. That being so, any respectable analysis which leads to the conclusion that women might be ordained cannot possibly imply by its methodology the conclusion that God has a permissive view of homosexuality.

    I struggle to understand why our best response to Bishop Robinson’s and others’ opinions is not to point out that, from the point of view of the evidence we have, each of the two issues is on a different footing to the other. Which means that, while you might win both arguments in the political arena using similar methods, from the point of view of evaluating the significance of the primary facts according to which each case must be made, you can’t possibly win them both using the same methods.

    As a moderate weighing up these things, it is my opinion that any attempt to connect the two issues in debate can only be made for purposes that are entirely political, and that anyone who seriously thinks the two issues are intimately related with respect to evidence and the analysis of evidence is simply mistaken.

    I appreciate that you are concerned yourself merely to report what seems to be the state of affairs in the Church’s culture at present; but still, I would be interested to hear your views on this point…!

    Cheers to all.

  45. I meant to write—‘The problems of language that must be solved…’ etc; of course I did not mean to say there were two problems with respect to each issue.

  46. This is a good article – in a thought provoking series. Mark’s observations here seem to fit with what I have personally observed happening around me over the years here in Melbourne. 

    Thanks for you work in writing these up – I look forward to the remainder.

  47. Mark,
    It seems to me that “thoughtful complementarians” would be very uncomfortable with the way the tactics of complementarian “champions” for male hierarchy follow the four processes identified by sociologists as central to the reproduction of inequality: othering, boundary maintenance, emotional management, and subordinate adaptation.

    The term “othering” refers to the process whereby a powerful group defines into existence an inferior group.  “Othering” commonly entails the overt or subtle assertion of difference as deficit.  The symbolic tools used to accomplish othering include classification schemes and identity codes, which are the rules of performance and interpretation whereby members of a group know what kind of self is signified by certain words, deeds, and dress.  Equally insidious are identity codes that define any adaptive or any “dissident” behaviors of subordinates as signs to discredit—thus turning acts of resistance into evidence that subordination is deserved and inequality is legitimate.

    “Boundary maintenance” refers to the ways in which power groups and individuals protect their positions by ensuring that their resources and power are transmitted to only members of their own group. Boundary maintenance shows up in homes too. Husbands may “lend a hand” to their wives with housework or childcare. As long as they only temporary assistance they can keep intact the boundary between “men’s” and “women’s” roles. Men who do cross the boundary and engage as equal partners in family work may face pressure from other men.

    “Emotional management” by superiors helps keep subordinates’ feelings of shame, anger, resentment, and inferiority under control so they won’t erupt and cause problems. Subordinates are given tokens of appreciation or “the appearance of status” to distract them from awareness of their very real lack of voice. This is often done through language. For example, wives are told that their role is noble and that they are queens of their households and Mother’s Day is made a big deal.  Yet in that same home, a woman’s role exists only where permitted by her husband.
    “Subordinate adaptation” follows due deprivations by the power group.  Adaptations offer practical knowledge of how to get by, and alternate criteria by which to judge one’s self competent, worthy or successful.  Sadly, these adaptations engender perceptions, habits and circumstances that virtually ensure the reproduction of inequality on a larger scale.  (ie. “A Woman’s High Calling” by Elizabeth George, “Created To Be His Help Meet” by Debi Pearl)

    Inequality it maintained by the implied possibility of people being “held accountable” as members of any of the hierarchial order’s categories.  To be held accountable is to stand vulnerable to being ignored, discredited, or otherwise punished if one’s behavior appears inconsistent with what is prescribed for members of a certain category. Compliance is thus enforced. (ie. egalitarians charged with rebelling against authority)

    <blockquote> In the meantime, some egalitarian evangelicals are going to feel increasingly horrified by where a more radical egalitarianism goes using the same arguments and presuppositions that they embrace<blockquote>

    In the meantime, some complementarians are going to feel increasingly horrified by where a more radical hierarchialism goes using the same arguments and presuppositions identified by sociologists as the ones used by power groups to reproduce inequality of race, class or gender.

  48. Hi Craig,

    Just wanted to say thank you for outlining @ #6678 the similarities that some may see between egalitarianism and accepting homosexuality.
    This is very helpful in following the discussion and evaluating the issue.

    You’re welcome, glad it helped.

    Are you saying that it is ok to have a belief, because it is settled church tradition, without being able to see how it is taught in the bible. And it is ok to continue to believe these things that are traditional and dismiss other views, without having to look into the bible and be convinced that the traditional view is correct and the alternative view is wrong.

    I know that this is what many people do, but it doesn’t seem the ideal approach to me, so I am wondering if I have misunderstood.

    I would think that a Christian ideally should believe things because they have examined the scriptures to see whether they are true, not just because they are “a settled part of the faith once for all delivered”.

    Well, I think if someone comes to the point where they think the Bible might not be teaching something that is part of tradition, then they do need to go to the Bible and work it out from first principles. 

    But that people shouldn’t be suspending belief in anything until they’ve worked each and every bit of the faith once for all delivered out at some (fairly exhaustive) level. 

    If that was the right way to go, we wouldn’t even preach the gospel to people, we’d just give them a Bible and train them in some of David Adams’ linguistic theory that is clearly just basic to be able to read the Bible meaningfully.

    Part of the issue here is that one of the dynamics of liberalism at the moment in its debates with evangelicalism is to require a traditional evangelical beliefs to need justification before they can be ‘settled’ – and to keep coming up with new arguments, new perspectives that mean that the conversation has to be continued indefinitely.  It can end when that traditional is seen to be wrong, but if someone continues to hold it, then the conversation needs to go on, and they need to continue to suspend belief in it.

    Again, the dynamic with egalitarianism is similar – look over the last thirty years or so of the debate and the interpretations (and theoretical framework supporting) of the texts keeps changing.  The latest one shown on this blog in comment threads is that 1 Tim 2 is speaking about just one woman.  And each time a new interpretation is brought, some people speak as though the question is thrown completely up in the air again, and the new sits on the same level of plausibility as the old – as though coming up with a genuinely new interpretation of a text read for 2000 years needs some justification.

    So, in no way at all querying that the Bible is the sole authority, not tradition.  But am questioning that a person is only allowed to believe things that they themselves have worked out from the Bible on their own. Given that, until the rise of the printing press and widespread literacy, most Christians couldn’t do that anyway – they couldn’t read, and couldn’t get their hands on a copy of the Bible, it’s a method that privileges only the wealthy and educated as being able to believe things.

  49. Hi Kristen

    In light of this, I think it would be helpful to the conversation if you would describe what is different about the basic complementarian hermeneutic that would make it avoid asking the questions I am asking with regards to homosexuality.  If complementarians are, as I am, committed to the basic hermeneutic principles of Bible-as-Story and authorial intent, where does their hermeneutic differ?  And why?

    Well, I think you show a keen awareness of how our hermeneutics differ – you’ve made comments since then in these threads that put your finger on some of the points from an egal perspective.  But I’ll do a quick run around the threads and give some quotes of basic principles that are often found in egalitarianism, are rarely found in complementarianism circles, and that are necessary preconditions for anyone to reevaluate the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.

    From you http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_8/#6745:

    Paul, in his day, said wives should submit to their husbands so that the gospel would not be hindered, in that society where husband-rule was the established norm.  What would he say about the way we hinder the gospel today?

    Here is a one example – taking ‘the gospel will not be hindered’ to suggest that Paul was simply advocating a fairly pragmatic principle of just fitting in with a contemporary norm – even when, by egalitarian views, that contemporary norm was utterly incompatible with the gospel.
    Complementarians generally disagree that much if any of the Bible grounds its teaching on such a ‘theology lite’ basis.

    And it is easy to see how such a view is required to re-evaluate homosexuality.  If the position on how the genders should behave in the NT was really just fitting into a contemporary norm, so as not to cause offense, then, now that society finds our take on homosexuality offensive, and it hinders people from taking the gospel seriously, then we should relook at that question as well.

    And again from you http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_8/#6754:

    Was David wrong in introducing music to worship of God, when the Law spoke of worship only in terms of making sacrifices?  Should Paul have insisted that the passage “You shall not muzzle the ox when it is treading out the grain” was clearly meant to be only about the treatment of oxen?

    Is the word of God static and fixed, or living and active?  Are we allowed to apply the Scriptures to our day—or must we re-create old days and old ways?  And if we must do so—then why did God not have Moses serve Him the same way Abraham did?  Why were His ways with Solomon different from His ways with the Judges?  Did Jesus advocate that Israel return to some earlier cultural period, or did He address the culture He found Himself in?

    I would strongly recommend having a look at Scot McKnight’s book “The Blue Parakeet.”  It shows that God’s people have always read His word with discernment, and have always applied it to their own place in history and to their own cultures.

    Here you mix together developments in salvation history with cultural change.  What Christians would have traditionally considered changes that take place in the theological story of the Bible as it moves forward, and that culminates in the NT which is the full and final revelation, you see more as setting up a principle of cultural change that will continue into the present.

    And the language of ‘always read His word with discernment’ and ‘Is the word of God static and fixed, or living and active?’ will be immediately recognisable to anyone who has done much reading in the liberalism of mainstream American denominations (or the Uniting church and some Anglican dioceses in Oz) as their language at the popular level for how to read the Bible and why.  This is one of those things I was gesturing at last series in our conversation – a point where egalitarianism seems to share the same concepts as liberalism.

    And again, one can see how this is necessary to reevaluate homosexuality.  Yes, the Bible does, in certain cultures, forbid active homosexuality, but cultures change, the word of God is not static but living, and we can’t take for granted that it would say that same thing to us that it did to those earlier cultures. In the same way that what was wrong at one time (worshipping God any other way than by sacrifice) was right later (when David introduced dancing), so it is conceivable that what was wrong at one time (being sexually active any other way than in a heterosexual marriage) may be right at a later time (like, well, now).

    to be concluded

  50. concluding

    And, from Luke Stevens http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_8/#6740:

    From Paul’s point of view in the 1st C, a woman’s deceiveability may well have seemed like an empirical, observable, universal truth (hence its grounding in creation) given the opportunities (or lack thereof) women had at the time.

    Some bits of the Bible reflect the best understanding of the world that they had back then, but we’ve since learned more about the world and know they are wrong.  So Paul really did think that women were more deceivable, but we’ve since discovered that’s wrong.

    Few comps will agree that the Bible is wrong, especially on anything that is to do with life and doctrine.

    Take out 1 Tim 2 and apply it to Rom 1 and you can see the same argument.  Yes, Paul reflects an ancient view that thought that homosexuality was unnatural.  But we’ve since learned that people don’t choose to be sexually attracted to members of their own gender – sexual orientation is more innate than that.  And that has to change how we read those texts.

    There’s three good examples of where the differences lie in how egalitarianism and complementarianism approach the Bible, and a quick sketch of why I think that egalitarianism doesn’t have to be pro-homosexual to be consistent, but also that it’s approach to the Bible is a pre-requisite to change one’s view about homosexuality.

  51. Hi Andrew,

    This is a good article – in a thought provoking series. Mark’s observations here seem to fit with what I have personally observed happening around me over the years here in Melbourne.

    Thank you for the vote of support in a sea of ‘nay-sayers’, much appreciated.

    Thanks for you work in writing these up – I look forward to the remainder.

    You’re very welcome, and I hope that the finish was helpful.

  52. Hi Kay,

    Welcome along, and a heartfelt thank you for what I think was one of the more lateral and constructive contributions to the discussion so far.

    It seems to me that “thoughtful complementarians” would be very uncomfortable with the way the tactics of complementarian “champions” for male hierarchy follow the four processes identified by sociologists as central to the reproduction of inequality: othering, boundary maintenance, emotional management, and subordinate adaptation.

    This is the opening paragraph in an argument showing how standard sociological categories can be quite validly used to classify complementarianism as a strategy to reproduce inequality.

    And then you finish with the ‘pointy end’, showing how my argument in the posts works exactly the same way in reverse:

    In the meantime, some egalitarian evangelicals are going to feel increasingly horrified by where a more radical egalitarianism goes using the same arguments and presuppositions that they embrace
    In the meantime, some complementarians are going to feel increasingly horrified by where a more radical hierarchialism goes using the same arguments and presuppositions identified by sociologists as the ones used by power groups to reproduce inequality of race, class or gender.

    To your entire comment, I can only agree.  I think it was a perceptive and helpful observation.

    Some egalitarians will look at what I wrote (or experience it in their context) and some will say, “Hmmn, if that’s true that’ll unsettle my support for egalitarianism”, others will say, “Hmmmn, that’s just an abuse of something that egalitarianism does validly – but I can see how it might unsettle others so we need to take steps to close that ‘back door’ (and Webb’s book would be a good example of that), and others will say, “Pfft, only an idiot could think that – that is such a pathetic argument that it shouldn’t even be dignified with a response.”

    So similarly, some complementarians will look at what you wrote (or experience it in their context) and some will say, “Pfft, complementarianism just isn’t about inferiority – so the whole presupposition is wrong and it’s just an appearance of similarity”, others will say, “Well, complementarianism isn’t about inferiority, but I can see how it could be used that way, or even perceived that way, so this is showing me what I have to guard against”, and others will say, “Yes, complementarianism is really about inferiority, I need to change allegiances.”

    And, in both ‘camps,’ only ‘thoughtful’ proponents will be at all susceptible to such a re-evaluation based on reality.

    As I said to Mike Taylor http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_6/#6652, I didn’t opt to discuss the dynamics in both directions because I think that what you’ve described should be immediately recognisable to any egalitarian or complementarian – it’s been part of the story of why some comps have become egals for decades now.  But that doesn’t make it any less true, and so it was worth saying again. 

    My point is simply that now that egalitarianism is getting an institutional presence a dynamic that used to go only from complementarianism to egalitarianism is now likely to work in both directions. And that could open up new opportunities for complementarianism that, up until now, only egalitarianism has enjoyed.

  53. Mark, thank you for that thoughtful explanation of where a complementarian hermeneutic differs.  I pretty much agree with what you have said are our differences.  I would like to point out, however, that what you are characterizing as “theology lite” in Paul (where I maintain that he teaches some things pragmatically, in order not to give offense to the surrounding culture), I see as something that Paul himself admits to doing in his own letters.  In 1 Cor. 9:12, Paul uses very similar words to the ones he uses in Titus 2:5.  In Titus 2:5 he says to teach wives to be subject to their husbands “so that no one will malign the word of God.”  In 1 Cor 9:12 he says that he and other servants of the Gospel will “put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.”  He goes on in 1 Cor. 9:19 and following, to explain his mindset towards ministry:  “I become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”  (v. 22) 

    What I read is that Paul definitely did have a pragmatic outlook on some of the the things he did and said with regards to how they would be perceived by non-believers.  In fact, his statements in 1 Cor. 9 appear to be statements of his overall view towards the gospel of being of primary importance, to the extent even of overriding his personal freedoms in Christ.  I think it makes sense to apply Paul’s own philosophy in one passage, to other places in his writings where he appears to be doing or advising something similar.

    This is not “theology lite.”  It’s simple theology. smile

  54. PS.  I wanted to add that I do not subscribe to the type of hermeneutic that says that Paul could have been mistaken about something he wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit.  In any event, Paul did not say, “women are more easily deceived than men.”  He said only, “Eve was deceived, and Adam was not.”

  55. Hi Kristen and Mark,
    I hope I am not intruding to make a comment here on the question of hermeneutics.  I have no formal theological training. I have been a comp for many years until I first really started to consider egalitarianism earlier this year. My change in thinking has had nothing to do with any life experiences, but only to do with endeavoring to understand the bible. The egal position that seems most plausible to me is a bit different to the way it has been presented in http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_7/#6796.
    Kristen said

    Paul, in his day, said wives should submit to their husbands so that the gospel would not be hindered, in that society where husband-rule was the established norm. What would he say about the way we hinder the gospel today?

    Mark replied

    Here is a one example – taking ‘the gospel will not be hindered’ to suggest that Paul was simply advocating a fairly pragmatic principle of just fitting in with a contemporary norm – even when, by egalitarian views, that contemporary norm was utterly incompatible with the gospel.

    I may be wrong, but there seems to be a suggestion here that for egals the submission of wives to husbands is appropriate just to the culture of Paul’s day for pragmatic reasons and therefore no longer applicable today.
    I understand passages like Eph 5 and 1Tim 2 (not wishing to debate these individual passages Mark- just mentioning them as examples to illustrate what I am thinking) as applying very well today.  He says wives are to submit and husbands are to love. He does not say husbands are to exercise authority. He says we are to submit to one another. He says a woman is not to teach and authentein a man. He does not say a man is to teach and authentein a woman.
    There is nothing in these passages where I say “the bible said this back then, but it doesn’t apply today because our culture is different.”
    And I certainly don’t think “Paul really did think that women were more deceivable, but we’ve since discovered that’s wrong.”
    So I am questioning whether the things being said of egalitarianism are necessary ways of interpreting the bible if one is going to be egalitarian. So I am still asking what Kristen asked a while back. Is the hermeneutic (if I am understanding the term correctly) necessarily that different between egals and comps?
    Thanks.

  56. Craig, in an attempt to clarify:

    I am not saying the submission of wives to husbands is only cultural.  I’m saying that my best understanding of the texts shows that the right of husbands to have authority over their wives is only cultural—it is a human institution, not a divine mandate.

    In Ephesians, I see Paul as addressing how husbands and wives in the Kingdom of God are to relate to one another—with the understanding that this cultural paradigm of husband-rule exists, but re-setting the wifely submission within a new paradigm of mutual submission.  She submits, but not to his authority; she submits rather as all Christians are to be submissive to one another.

    In Titus 2, Paul is talking about something else.  Paul left Titus in Crete to “straighten out what was left unfinished.” Titus 1:5.  In Chapter 2 he starts talking about how Titus is to teach the congregation members to behave.  Three times he uses this kind of language: 1) “so that no one will malign the word of God” (speaking of wives being taught to submit to husbands); 2)“so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (speaking of young men being taught to be self-controlled); and 3) “so that they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (speaking of slaves submitting to masters).  Paul is not talking about husband-wife relations or master-slave relations, but about people’s external behavior..  He wants people to behave in ways such that the neighbors don’t get a bad impression, and so that those who are already saying bad things about Christians will have no leg to stand on.  Within the context of external behavior, then, Paul says it’s important for those under cultural authority, or those of lesser status (like “young men”) to behave as expected, in order not to give a bad impression.

    Paul is very concerned about the way the world sees the church. He emphasizes it three times in Titus 2, as I have detailed above.  But this is a different matter than the (internal) matter of husband-wife relations within the church.

    But Paul’s focus on not giving offense to the surrounding culture in Titus 2 is still something I think we should keep in mind today.  Husband-authority, I believe, is an ancient human institution that has passed away in the modern Western world.  To act as if we must still live that way is causing offense to the surrounding culture.  But this does not negate the loving mutual submission of the Kingdom, in which wives yield to husbands and husbands lay down their lives for their wives.

    I hope that clarifies where I’m coming from.

  57. Hi Kristen and Mark,

    Thanks for elaborating further Kristen on your understanding of Eph 5 and Titus 2. Sounds good to me.

    I’d like a bit of help please from you or Mark or others to check how I’m thinking about the hermeneutical issue and homosexuality and slippery slopes.
    It seems to me that all Christians – comps and egals are on the slippery slope for some issues.
    Comps often seem to call the egal hermeneutic a “liberal” hermeneutic and one that can lead to the acceptance of homosexuality. But comps and egals both seem to use the same sort of hermeneutic with their attitude to slavery today. If no egals existed, then the homosexuals could use the same hermeneutic as comps use regarding slavery. Should comps then be concerned that they had a liberal hermeneutic with regard to slavery and it could lead to acceptance of homosexuality?
    On these issues, there are no commands for husbands or slaves to exercise authority. On other issues, some would say that there are definite NT commands, like foot washing and head coverings – so perhaps those who don’t wash each others feet or don’t insist on women wearing head coverings are even further down the slippery slope?
    I’m thinking that the whole issue of hermeneutics should really be a non event for the egal/comp discussion. Homosexuality, slavery, foot washing, head coverings, egal/compism are all separate issues that need to be prayerfully studied and decided on their merits.
    And Mark, you said

    Here is a one example – taking ‘the gospel will not be hindered’ to suggest that Paul was simply advocating a fairly pragmatic principle of just fitting in with a contemporary norm – even when, by egalitarian views, that contemporary norm was utterly incompatible with the gospel.

    You seem to be doubting that Paul would “fit in” with a cultural situation that was not ideal, or even “utterly incompatible with the gospel”. Is not this what he did with slavery?
    Let me know if I am on the wrong track. I probably need to read William Webb’s book, but these are just some things going on in my mind at the moment.
    Thanks.

  58. Now that it looks like I’m finally coming out of this series of bouts of illnesses that has been going for almost three full weeks, I think I’m finally in a position to try and get ahead of the pack for once, and tackle this comment by Jereth:

    Is there a link between egalitarianism and acceptance of homosexuality?

    The story of the Evangelical Women’s Caucus and the origins of Christians for Biblical Equality provides an interesting anecdote.

    I suspect this is the same thing that Mark Topping gestured at in his very good set of comments over in the thread for the third post in this series.

    I think I agree that it is another (pretty big) anecdote that suggests that there is some kind of link between egalitarianism and approval of active homosexuality.  That for all of the complaints of ‘slippery slopes’ that we’ve had, the better category for this issue is ‘the law of unexpected consequences’.

    On the other hand, I think it is also important to note that the egalitarians divided on this issue.  It’s not like all egalitarians decided homosexuality was okay, or have done so since.  So, while I will continue to say that I think one has to be an egalitarian before one can change one’s mind about the morality of active homosexuality – one just can’t get there from a complementarian framework.  I think it also shows that one can be an egalitarian and, with perfect consistency, not approve of active homosexuality.

    I think both sides of that coin need to be kept in mind. 

    Egalitarians need to be aware of their flank and not deny it’s there – ‘cause they are going to have keep writing books like Webb’s to stop ‘their’ people going that way. 

    And complementarians need to be aware that some (many? most?) egals will never approve of homosexuality, and will do so quite consistently.

  59. Hi Mark,
    You said,

    I think one has to be an egalitarian before one can change one’s mind about the morality of active homosexuality – one just can’t get there from a complementarian framework.

    Just wondering why a complementarian can’t get to homosexuality via their understanding of slavery. Why does he have to go via egalitarianism?
    It would seem to me that if complementarianism was an absolute slam dunk, and egalitarianism didn’t exist, then some comps would still find their way to accept homosexuality through their understanding of the bibles teaching on slavery. Any thoughts? Thanks.

  60. Okay, looks like the conversation with Kristen and Craig at the end of this thread is still active, so…

    Hi Kristen,

    This is not “theology lite.”  It’s simple theology.

    Agreed, the way you have put it here. Although not egalitarians put it as carefully as you have.  But you have certainly put it in a ‘theology’ way.

    In your case, I need a different way of describing this approach – like ‘thin’ vs ‘thick’. It’s theological, but it’s not a ‘normal’ theological approach to praxis. The way you understand the link between Paul’s practice and the theological reasoning behind it is a bit different from ‘love one another because God is love’ or ‘set your mind above where Christ is now seated’ that then begins the ethical component of Colossians. So, some kind of phrase to indicate that difference, but yes, ‘theology lite’ doesn’t correctly capture how you articulate that.

    PS.  I wanted to add that I do not subscribe to the type of hermeneutic that says that Paul could have been mistaken about something he wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit.

    Sure.  I’m sorry you feel the need to do that, but it is more a sign of where Evangelicalism is at, then anything about you.  I made sure I gave the person and (IIRC) the comment where the quotes came from to flag that, as always with egalitarianism, there are a range of views within the movement and there can be some strong disagreements internally.

    Not all egalitarians (or even most) will think that there are errors in the Bible’s teaching. But that view is found more often within egalitarianism than complementarianism. Again, both sides of that statement are important to get a sense of the two movements in relation to each other.

    But not a hint of a suggestion was intended that that was the view of anyone in these threads other than the person who actually said it.

  61. Hi Craig,

    Thanks for your patience and persistance.  I’ll try and tackle some of your questions in the order they’ve come.

    I understand passages like Eph 5 and 1Tim 2 (not wishing to debate these individual passages Mark- just mentioning them as examples to illustrate what I am thinking) as applying very well today.

    That’s more than fine.  I’m not trying to exile the Bible from our discussions. I’m just tired of, and bored with, egals and comps having exegetical battles that, to my mind, prove nothing except who had the best arguments on the day. It doesn’t have to be that way – I think Jereth and some others had a fairly decent discussion about Gen (IIRC) in the previous series. Bringing the Bible in like you have (and how Kristen did in explaining how her view wasn’t ‘theology lite’) are good models of how to do it, IMO – hardly the only possible ways, but certainly there. 

    I’m even happy for people to have a discussion (as long as it isn’t off topic) about texts as long as it isn’t just a battle. Just use your wisdom, and do it in a way that doesn’t seek to win points for your side, but to make sure a reader can see the issues in relation to each other, why you are convinced of your view and the problems you have with alternatives (even other egalitarian alternatives – actually voice your in-house disagreements as well).  That’s more what I think makes for good conversation, and if we could do that more when we read the Bible together on threads I’d be less touchy about it.  The way we do tend to do it now, for me, cuts against the grain of what Scripture is – it isn’t a resource to win arguments.

    So I am questioning whether the things being said of egalitarianism are necessary ways of interpreting the bible if one is going to be egalitarian. So I am still asking what Kristen asked a while back. Is the hermeneutic (if I am understanding the term correctly) necessarily that different between egals and comps?

    My short answer is ‘yes’.  In this debate is two different understandings of the nature of the Bible and what is involved in listening to the Word of God.  That’s not just my view – you can see some of Suzanne’s comments where she’s argued that egals and comps are moving towards having two different Bibles.  I think that’s probably right (I hadn’t seen it that clearly until she said, but I think she’s seen something there), and that gives some indication of just how big the gulf is, because, as far as I know, that kind of division hasn’t really existed in evangelicalism before, historically it’s more of a feature of our disagreement with Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

    My longer answer is, in this world very few things are necessary.  Yes, I imagine it is possible for someone to go to every text that has anything to say about this topic and decide, on each and every one, that what is being taught, on simple exegetical grounds, is a view consistent with political liberalism – because that’s what egalitarianism is, when mapped onto standard political theories.  And despite how controversial my statement about the Enlightenment basis of egalitarianism has been, Groothius (who is a respected figure among egalitarians, from what I can see) clearly says the same thing in that article Kristen linked for me in the previous series (the one in the Discovering Biblical Equality book).  She makes an important qualification that egalitarianism didn’t get it from political liberalism, but from the Bible (I think that’s absurd, as I’ll explain down the track when I do some posts on this, but it’s important to note that she thinks that and that that is important to her).  But she does clearly say that the Bible teaches a view that is basically identical to political liberalism.

    Now, that’s possible.  That a competent exegete, from any culture or period in time, should have seen that the Bible has always taught a view that eventually became articulated as political liberalism.  And the Church, until about fifty years ago, consistently failed to read every text correctly at the exegetical level.

    to be concluded

  62. concluding

    Is that plausible?  I don’t think so.  I don’t think most egalitarians think so either.  Most egalitarian arguments don’t try and argue that the Bible was trying to structure all relationships in both the OT and NT along the lines of political liberalism (even if they never use that term – just use the framework without the label, they still don’t think that framework is there consitently).  At some point most egalitarians state that the text in question was organising things in a way that we shouldn’t now. 

    And so, one of the things that normally is at work in these debates is a question of what the texts mean for today

    So, to take up your example, sure, in Eph 5 masters aren’t told to order their slaves and husbands aren’t told to have authority over wives.  Men aren’t told to authetein women.  So husbands and wives, men and women in church, were always supposed to eschew any authority relationships connected to gender, and the Bible has always taught that clearly. 

    But that reading becomes strained when applied to 1 Pe 2 and 3, where slaves and wives are told to subject themselves to their master and husband respectively, and where Sarah is held up as an example of someone who obeyed.  I’m sure that can be read differently as well (almost any text is capable of multiple readings), and I’m sure as we tackle each and every text they all can be read in a different way. 

    But the issue is plausibility.  These readings only convince egalitarians with a high view of Scripture.  They rarely convince egalitarians with a low view of Scripture or complementarians with a high view, both of whom tend to agree with what the text is saying even if they differ sharply as to what to make of that.  So most (the overwhelming majority) of egalitarian approaches have a strong hermeneutical component – that the texts can have different implications now than they had originally. How that is argued varies, but most forms of egalitarianism have some kind of mechanism where the authority of Scripture is honoured, but there’s a clear distinction between the letter and the spirit.

  63. Mark wrote,

    “My short answer is ‘yes’.  In this debate is two different understandings of the nature of the Bible and what is involved in listening to the Word of God.  That’s not just my view – you can see some of Suzanne’s comments where she’s argued that egals and comps are moving towards having two different Bibles.  I think that’s probably right (I hadn’t seen it that clearly until she said, but I think she’s seen something there), and that gives some indication of just how big the gulf is, because, as far as I know, that kind of division hasn’t really existed in evangelicalism before, historically it’s more of a feature of our disagreement with Catholicism and Orthodoxy.”

    I would like to clarify what I said. I do believe that there are now two different Bibles. However, I did NOT say that there are two different views about the nature of the Bible. So, I do not share Mark’s view on this at all.

    I believe that complementarians and egalitarians have two different streams of interpretation, and do not share a common Bible.

    In fact, I firmly believe that egalitarians hold to a traditional interpretation, one that has endured for two millenia. But complementarians have significantly reinterpreted the Bible.

    For example, in the ESV look at

    – the note for Gen. 3:16, that Eve’s desire is against her husband.

    – Romans 16:7, that Junia is well-known to the apostles.

    – 1 Cor. 11:10 that a woman has a “symbol” of authority on her head

    – 1 Tim. 2:12 that Paul does not permit a woman to “have authority.”

    In each of these verses, the TNIV, and the NIV 2011 is close to the King James version, and the ESV has a new interpretation, as we see above. 

    Phil 2:9 is another example.

    Now that major spokespeople, (some are women) among complementarians have said that the NIV 2011 cannot be recommended, there is no longer any common Bible, since the KJV, that is accepted by both egalitarians and complementarians.

    In the case that two Christians, one complementarian, and one egalitarian, are debating about the Bible, even though they may have the same views on the nature of the Bible, they cannot refer to a common English text that is accepted by both sides. This is greatly to be regreted. I can only recommend to you to either argue from the original languages, or agree to use the KJV.

    Although I recognize the so called unisputed text in 1 Peter, I do believe that it implies that a wife is in much the same position as a much flogged slave. I do not believe that this passage in any way promotes the fact that a wife should be in this position. It is a commentary on society at that time.

    I do not believe that this passage defends either slave labour or hierarchy within marriage. It is written to those who had no choice, either as slaves, or as wives, and no way of escape.

    We need to be grateful today, that there is recourse to the law.

  64. ”1 Pe 2 and 3, where slaves and wives are told to subject themselves to their master and husband respectively, and where Sarah is held up as an example of someone who obeyed. “

    Suzanne has accurately approached this in context.  The subject is that new Christians had to deal with masters who didn’t believe and from which believers could not just leave.  As well believing wives with unbelieving husbands (who probably had mistresses and concubines) who did not obey the Word and who likely believed that women were sexual objects and little more, needed to know how to live with their husbands.  Peter gave them enough wisdom to survive.  The part about Sarah was that she didn’t fear in a situation where she needed to heed what Abraham asked of her.  The Jews of that day would have known the story better than most do today.  The advice would be slightly different to believing husbands since they had legal power in those days to just throw out their wives, so Peter admonishes them to treat them gently.

    The real wisdom is in the following verses in chapt. 3.

    ”8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,
      “Whoever would love life and see good days 
must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. 
11 They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. 
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, 
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

    13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

  65. Hi Suzanne,

    I would like to clarify what I said. I do believe that there are now two different Bibles. However, I did NOT say that there are two different views about the nature of the Bible. So, I do not share Mark’s view on this at all.

    Sure.  And just to clarify on my side: I said that I now agree with Suzanne that two groups are increasingly generating their own Bibles, and that I think that is evidence that there are two different views of the nature of the Bible.

    I didn’t mean to imply by that that Suzanne either agreed with me that there are two different views about the nature of the Bible, or even that her point about two different Bibles is even evidence of that.  Those are conclusions that I have drawn from a point that Suzanne and I hold in common, and those conclusions are mine, even if the evidence I mused over was something that I agree with Suzanne about.

    Hope that settles that issue on all sides.

  66. Okay, on the 1 Peter 2 and 3 discussion, I am now going to do the opposite of what I did with Kristen about the Father of God discussion and I’ll have the last word.

    Suzanne and Teri have both taken a minor point that was an illustration in a broader argument and then sought to argue exegesis – more or less the kind of thing I explained to Craig I don’t want us to be doing: every time someone appeals to the Bible to make an argument concrete we have to stop and argue. That’s fine, there’s nothing inherently wrong with what they’re doing, but Tony’s asked me to work at getting these threads more on topic for the posts.

    They’ve put their case.  I’ll put my case in response and this time I’ll be having the final word.  After this comment, the issue is ‘off-topic’ as moving rapidly off the subject of the post (and my discussion with Craig about hermeneutics and homosexuality).  Craig can add anything he wants that pertains to our discussion, as this conversation is ‘his’, but any other comments will be deleted. 

    If Teri or Suzanne feel that I’ve outrageously misrepresented their position, (not if they simply want to rebut my argument – any alert reader should be in no doubt that they’ll disagree strongly with what I’m about to say) they can email/message me privately about it and I’ll be quite open to an addendum being added to clarify anything they said that I then made less clear.

    Teri said:

    Although I recognize the so called unisputed text in 1 Peter, I do believe that it implies that a wife is in much the same position as a much flogged slave. I do not believe that this passage in any way promotes the fact that a wife should be in this position. It is a commentary on society at that time.
    I do not believe that this passage defends either slave labour or hierarchy within marriage. It is written to those who had no choice, either as slaves, or as wives, and no way of escape.

    The ESV (and those who don’t trust this complementarian Bible should check a few others) of 1 Peter 3:1-7:

    1 Likewise, wives,be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

    7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

    Suzanne says that the passage implies that women are in the same position as a much flogged slave and from there draws the conclusion that the passage is commenting on society at the time and not defending hierarchy within marriage.

    I disagree on both points.  If the ‘likewise’ in vs. 1 puts the wife on the same footing as a slave, then surely the ‘likewise’ in v7 does the same – it puts the husband on the same footing as the wife, and therefore puts the husband on the same footing as a slave. ‘Likewise’ is showing there is a connection between the statements to slaves, wives, and husbands, but ‘in much the same position’ I don’t think correctly captures what that connection is. I can’t see any other exegetical evidence for saying that the passage implies that wife and the slave are in much the same position.

    to be continued

  67. continuing
    On Suzanne’s other point that I mentioned, this is a good example of what I was saying to Craig.  There is no evidence in the text itself to say that this is a commentary on society and not an endorsement of hierarchy within marriage. Personally, if it was any other text than about this issue, and the writer appealed to historical examples from a previous culture – as Peter does in verses 5 and 6, I would automatically discount any possibility that this is just a commentary on the current culture and not a trans-cultural norm.  If he’s addressing the current culture and appealing to examples from a previous culture, then there needs to be some exegetical evidence to say that it isn’t a transcultural norm, otherwise we should (and usually do, I think) assume that. 

    Be that as it may, the decision as to whether this is commentary or endorsement has to be done at the hermeneutical level, and be based on considerations broader than the text on its own.  That’s relatively straight forward for complementarianism – texts are normative and not commentaries unless there’s good exegetical otherwise is the basic rubric.  For egalitarianism that’s often alleged to be a very naïve way to read the Bible (and I’m not saying that Suzanne personally thinks that, just so there’s no misunderstanding on that point).  Hence, my argument to Craig that I think that hermeneutics is generally part of egalitarianism and that it doesn’t argue every text simply teaches an egalitarian structure to relationships that can be seen through exegesis on its own.

  68. concluding
    Turning to Teri’s comment:

    The subject is that new Christians had to deal with masters who didn’t believe and from which believers could not just leave.  As well believing wives with unbelieving husbands (who probably had mistresses and concubines) who did not obey the Word and who likely believed that women were sexual objects and little more, needed to know how to live with their husbands.  Peter gave them enough wisdom to survive.  The part about Sarah was that she didn’t fear in a situation where she needed to heed what Abraham asked of her.  The Jews of that day would have known the story better than most do today.  The advice would be slightly different to believing husbands since they had legal power in those days to just throw out their wives, so Peter admonishes them to treat them gently.

    I disagree that ‘the’ subject is that new Christians had to deal with masters who didn’t believe and husbands who didn’t believe.  That’s far too narrow a take on the thrust of the passages.

    In 2:18 Peter says:

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

    ‘The’ subject is dealing with masters.  Whether or not they believe isn’t even mentioned in the passage – merely whether they are good or unjust.  Unjust ones get far more attention, but is that because that is ‘the’ subject, or because that is a far harder test of faith than being subject to a good and gentle master and so needs more light from the Word shone upon it?

    In 3:1:

    Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives…

    This has better grounds for Teri’s claim because Peter gives conversion of unbelieving husbands as a purpose.  But that has to taken with the opening of the sentence – ‘be subject to your own husbands so that even if some do not obey the word’.  What is on view is being subject to husbands, not just unbelieving husbands. I’d suggest that unbelieving husbands are an important subcategory that causes extra problems for believers being subject to them, which Peter therefore spends more attention on.  But the focus is broader than just the problem of being married to unbelieving husbands – the focus is being subject to husbands.

    Similarly, I would argue that Teri’s take on how Peter uses Sarah misses the significance of the words Peter uses in 1 Peter 3:6.  Much is made by some egalitarians that in Eph 5 that wives submit to husbands but aren’t told to obey them, and husbands aren’t told to exercise authority or give commands.  Well here in 1 Peter 3 Sarah is not just an example of not fearing ‘when she needed to heed what Abraham asked of her’.  She’s also held up as an example for obeying Abraham, and even for calling him Lord.  Teri has correctly identified one way in which Peter uses Sarah, but not two others – two important others given that the silences seen to be important in Eph 5 are here not silences in the text but explicit statements, explicit statements that seem, exegetically, to imply a hierarchy within the relationship between Abraham and Sarah that Sarah did good to embrace.

    I think a case can be made that the text isn’t doing that at all (I disagree that such a case is right, but I think it can be made).  But I think such a case has to be done the way Suzanne was doing it – by appealing to hermeneutics, that this is simply commenting on the culture of the day, not trying to establish a trans-cultural norm for marriage.  I don’t think we can take ‘Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him Lord’ and see that as holding up a fundamentally egalitarian vision of marriage at the exegetical level.

    Hence my answer to Craig – I think most forms of egalitarianism draw on heremeneutics as an important part of their reading of Scripture.  And involved in that in my opinion is a different view of the nature of Scripture than complementarianism’s view that obeying Scripture should be fairly ‘hermeneutic lite’ on the whole.

  69. Just had one of those thoughts one wishes one had half an hour earlier.  Having to moderate explicitly is a new thing for me and I’m going to have to learn a whole new skill set.

    Teri and Suzanne (and I suppose anyone else) who’d like to, are quite entitled to write up their rebuttal of my argument over 1 Peter 2 and 3 somewhere else in cyberspace (like Suzanne’s blog) and put a link to it in this thread, with a brief statement as to what the link is for.  I’m not interested in stopping that, and I’m sure some readers (at least) would be interested to read it.  I just don’t want either one side to present their case on the texts, or for the debate to go beyond each side giving one expansive statement and one expansive response in these threads. 

    So rebut me elsewhere and link that here if you’d like to. I think that’s a good compromise.

  70. “Hence, my argument to Craig that I think that hermeneutics is generally part of egalitarianism”

    I am puzzled by this comment. It appears to me that you are suggesting that hermeneutics is not a part of complementarianism. Could you clarify this for me.

    I have tried to make clear that I believe that comps and egals have a different interpretation for several key texts, which I listed. This is what I meant by two different Bibles. I did not intend anything more than that. In each of these diverging passages, it is complementarians who have introduced an unusual and heretofor unpublished hermeneutic, i.e. in Gen. 3:16 and in Romans 16:7.

    I realize that Mark may delete this comment but I am concerned that a false impression will be left of what I was refering to.

  71. I do think that Mark’s comment about hermeneutic is key to understanding this post, so I hope that Mark will respond.

  72. Well, that’s an on-topic question, as the issue with Craig is about hermeneutics.  Off-topic would only be to keep arguing exegesis about 1 Peter.  It’s past midnight here, so I’ll try and cover it tomorrow (my time), unless I take a break for a day from commenting.

    Thanks for the question Suzanne.

  73. I feel that, on reflection, we do agree that the two sides are generating different Bibles, and I am curious about what you will say about this. My view is that there are two different hermeneutic traditions which affect the translations themselves, and that the egals stick for the most part with a traditional hermeneutic in their translations.

    I look forward to your discussion of this point.

  74. The “if” can be better translated as “when” as it assumes the condition in the Greek.

  75. Hi Mark,

    I think it also shows that one can be an egalitarian and, with perfect consistency, not approve of active homosexuality.
    I think both sides of that coin need to be kept in mind.
    Egalitarians need to be aware of their flank and not deny it’s there – ‘cause they are going to have keep writing books like Webb’s to stop ‘their’ people going that way.
    And complementarians need to be aware that some (many? most?) egals will never approve of homosexuality, and will do so quite consistently.

    Thanks Mark for these helpful comments

  76. Hi Mark,
    Thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into these discussions. I am finding them quite thought provoking and helpful in understanding the issues involved in this subject.
    As I have said before, I am just speaking from the point of view of the average member of a congregation. I am not a theologian. So I hope my comments or questions don’t seem too basic. I am just seeking to understand things better.
    There seem to be several issues raised here.
    1.Two different bibles. Is this referring to the idea that the translators are affected by their theology? So with one way of translating various passages an egal understanding is more readily apparent where as with a different way of translating these passages a comp view seems more likely? Do we all need to therefore examine both sides to see which renderings seem more accurate with less bias from their theological viewpoint?
    Mark, is this idea of different translations leading to two different bibles what you mean by “different understandings of the nature of the bible”?
    2. As evangelicals, we all see the bible as God’s word, and authoritative. The difficulty is in determining what God really said, what He meant by it,  and how He wants us to apply it today.
    3. Am I understanding you properly in this one Mark?  With regard to the gender issue, comps and most egals have a different way of approaching the passages. Comps see patriarchy as a universal ideal from God and the biblical writers are continuing to endorse and apply it in various passages. Egals see the biblical writers as applying universal principles (eg mutual submission, love) to the cultural situation of patriarchy. These principles, if followed through can actually mean that patriarchy is not ideal or necessary today. Mark, you seem to be saying that egals are here drawing on hermeneutics, so that “the texts can have different implications now than they had originally”. In contrast, comps don’t do this on the gender issue.
    4. With regard to slavery (foot washing, head covering etc), it would seem to me that many comps and egals use a similar way of interpreting the bible to what egals do with the gender issue. They see the biblical writers as applying universal principles to a cultural situation. If these principles are followed through, then they can actually mean that slavery (foot washing, head coverings etc) is not ideal or necessary today. On these issues, “the texts can have different implications now than they originally had”.
    I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind clarifying the reasons why you (or comps in general) believe the hermeneutic should be applied to slavery (and other issues) and not to Patriarchy? What are the essential differences between Patriarchy and Slavery that would make them require a different hermeneutic? From your comments, I think there is the issue of OT historical references from a previous culture (Sarah obeying Abraham).  Do you have any brief outline of the kind of things that help you decide if a text is normative as it stands?
    Thanks very much Mark.

  77. Craig wrote:

    Mark, is this idea of different translations leading to two different bibles what you mean by “different understandings of the nature of the bible”?
    2. As evangelicals, we all see the bible as God’s word, and authoritative. The difficulty is in determining what God really said, what He meant by it,  and how He wants us to apply it today.

    One difference in hermeneutic, generally speaking, is that complementarians are much more likely to hold an inerranist position on the Bible while egalitarians are rarely inerranist.

    FYI
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/category/complementarianism/
    (see point 3)

    By inerranist I mean people who hold the “total inerrancy” view—that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches, including the historical and scientific points on which it may touch incidentally. Egalitarianism tends to go along with the view that the Bible may be inerrant on matters of faith and doctrine but not inerrant on “lesser order” matters.

    I’m willing to bet that if you do a survey of comps vs. egals on issues like the historicity of Adam and Eve, the historicity of Noah’s flood, the historicity of Jonah, the possibility of predictive prophecy in Isaiah 40-66, etc., you will find some statistically significant differences which would reveal different underlying hermeneutics.

    There are also likely to be statistically significant divergences on other significant points of theology, as Kevin DeYoung notes. Again I think this reveals a difference in hermeneutics.

    One of the differences in hermeneutics that I have observed is that comps tend to be more “miss the wood for the trees” or “bottom-up”, and egals tend to be more “miss the trees for the wood” or “top-down”. In other words, comps tend to appeal to individual texts and place less emphasis on overarching themes; egals place a lot of emphasis on overarching themes at the expense of individual texts.

  78. Craig,

    I think you are right, that there is a different hermeneutic, but IMO both sides use hermeutic of some kind or other.

    However, when I originally spoke of two different Bibles, I was referring to translation. In that arena, comps include more hermeneutic in translating than egals, in my view. For example, in Gen. 3:16, the ESV provides the note “or against.” That is hermeneutic. It is also extremely recent hermeneutic. It does not have a history in the rabbinical tradition or in the church fathers, or the reformation.

    We see the same thing in other passages which I mentioned. I suppose egals might have similar notes in an egal Bible, but I can’t think of an egal Bible, per se. The ESV is a comp Bible, but the TNIV and the NIV 2011 are joint efforts, with both comp and egal input and the NLT and RSV also had very broad input, not egal only.

    So, if the ESV becomes the recognized Bible of comps, and it really has very little input from egals, then that is the parting of the ways. This is very recent because it is only in the last few months that the NIV 2011 has been published online and is NOT recommended by CBMW and other vocal comp groups.

    So, in my view, there are no egal Bibles per se, no Bibles in which the actual translation has been altered in the direction of egalitarianism without the input of comps also on the translation committee. But there are Bibles with no egal input. That is my view at this time, but I look forward to hearing the other side.

    Gender inclusive Bibles, are not per se, egal Bibles, as this has to do with the change in English from “men” meaning “people” in the KJV, to “men” meaning “men” in English today. That is why there is a shift from “men” to “people” and we see this in all Bibles to some extent. The only difference there is that the ESV has reserved many passages in which anthropoi is used for “people” and has inserted “men” instead. This is, once again, due to the use of hermeneutic, or interpretation on the part of the translation committee, that although the Greek actually says “people” it really means “only men.” I have discussed this with Jim Packer and he agrees that it could mean “people” but he said “we think it means men.” This is hermeneutic being used in translation. I did get Dr. Packer’s permission to publish my interview with him. There should be no problem with my making this statement.

    I do know that Dr. Packer recommends the NLT, which is a gender inclusive Bible, but does not recommend the TNIV and NIV 2011. This is a very serious problem in my view, and is at the core of the disagreement between the two parties.

  79. “One of the differences in hermeneutics that I have observed is that comps
    tend to be more “miss the wood for the trees” or “bottom-up”, and egals
    tend to be more “miss the trees for the wood” or “top-down”. In other
    words, comps tend to appeal to individual texts and place less emphasis on
    overarching themes; egals place a lot of emphasis on overarching themes at
    the expense of individual texts.”

    Jereth, I really don’t believe that this is true.  Nor is it beneficial to try to pigeonhole comps and egals in that manner. We already have enough real differences without needing to create others.

    IMO Christians whether comp or egal, Greek, Jew, Asian or African or whatever, should always start with the text including it’s cultural historicity, as well as context, original language meanings, grammar, etc.  From there we can note overarching themes running through Biblical history.

  80. “egals place a lot of emphasis on overarching themes at the expense of individual texts.”

    I used to think that this was true, but recently I have noticed a different pattern, that comps place great emphasis on hierarchy or patriarchy as a general theme, at the expense of many individual texts. It just happens that egals and comps emphasize a different theme, at the expense of different texts.

  81. Hi Teri,

    It’s fine for you to disagree with me but please note I was talking in terms of general tendencies, not “pigeonholing”.

    These are tendencies that I have observed. (You may have observed different—that is fine.) I have spoken to many egalitarian friends and read many egalitarian books and articles. The tendency is to start with overarching themes and systematic categories (eg. equality, justice, redemption), with reference to the overall direction and thrust of the Biblical story, and the broad trajectory from the Old to the New Testament. The exegesis of individual texts is generally done afterwards, in reliance upon the framework established by the broader treatment.

    Pick up Discovering Biblical Equality, or Beyond Sex Roles by Gilbert Bilezikian, or any number of other egal books, and you’ll see that this is the method used. I’m pretty sure this is also how William Webb goes about it judging by reading one chapter by him.

    This hermeneutical difference is parallel to the debate about hell. On one side, the traditionalists generally use individual texts as their starting point. Universalists and annihilationists generally use big biblical themes and categories (eg. God’s love, justice, victory) as their starting point.

    Jereth

  82. Jereth,

    perhaps we are talking and thinking past each other.  I’m thinking of how people come to their understandings.  IMO and observations most all egals have come to their understanding from the texts themselves.  You’d likely say the same of comps.

    But when people discuss their understandings it is possible that discussion starts with what they see as a theme.

  83. Jereth,

    If I understood what Mark told me earlier, he said that egals and comps both share a belief that the Bible must be read first of all as God’s great Story of creation-fall-redemption.  I had thought it was like you said, that comps focused on individual texts first—but Mark is saying otherwise.

    So I’m confused that you now state this as a difference between the egal and the comp hermeneutic, when Mark had stated that we share this in common.

    Reading the Bible as God’s Great Story is certainly reading it in terms of the big picture, the overarching framework. I don’t really see how focusing on individual verses, without keeping the Story and its themes in mind, is going to yield an accurate understanding of the text.

  84. Hi Kristen,

    Thank you.
    I’m not saying that we ignore one or the other. It is a question of relative emphasis.

    Again, I’ll use the analogy of the hell debate. Traditionalists are certainly interested in the big themes of justice, God’s love and victory, but for them the individual texts are ultimately decisive (eg. “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” must be understood at face value). Our understanding of the big themes is adjusted by our understanding of the texts—eg. a traditionalist would say that God’s justice and victory are compatible with (indeed, enhanced by) the eternal torment of the unredeemed.

    Annihilationists / universalists tend to process and adjust the text’s meaning by the big themes. So, they will argue that God’s victory is not a true victory if the unredeemed are still in existence; therefore “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” must mean something other than the strict face-value literal meaning.

    I cannot speak for Mark, but in the comp-egal question (as with other doctrines), my approach is to allow individual texts (eg. Eph 5) to control my understanding of the big themes (eg. “justice”, “equality”, “fairness”) and the broad overarching Bible story of redemption. Not vice versa. And in my view, this goes back to my own personal committment to verbal plenary inspiration and total inerrancy.

    Jereth

  85. Jereth, I see where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure the verse you chose was especially illustrative of your point.  I believe you are taking it from Revelation 20:10 – “And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are.  And they will be tormented day and night forever.”

    When the same words are repeated in verse 15, about “anyone not found in the Book of Life,” the words “and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” are not repeated.  It is easy to assume that the intention of the verse is to say that these humans will also be “tormented day and night forever,” just as verse 10 does—but the text does not actually say this.  The text also says in verse 14, “Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.  This is the second death.”  Since other scriptures say “death” is ultimately done away with completely, it is possible to infer that the “second death” means the complete elimination of Death and Hades.  What exactly this means for human souls, however, is not explicit.  Are they “tormented day and night forever,” like the devil, the beast and the false prophet?  Or are they done away with completely like Death and Hades?

    Where I stand on this issue is not important to the topic.  But I think annihilationists (some of them, anyway), are paying more attention to what individual verses actually say and don’t say, than you might think.  The same is true of evangelical egalitarians and other egalitarians who have a high view of scripture. It’s not that we say, “the overarching themes of the Great Story are against female subordination, so we are going to disregard or fudge over any verse that says otherwise.”  It’s more that we say, “the overarching themes of the Great Story appear to be against female subordination.  Let’s look closer at what these individual verses actually say and what they don’t say, and see if, when we drop the assumption that a verse HAS to be saying that females are born to be subordinate, the overarching theme of full functional equality is not actually borne out by the text.”

  86. Kristen,

    Woah I was not trying to start a debate about hell! Just using it as an analogy! (I just picked one among many representative verses.)

    The same is true of evangelical egalitarians and other egalitarians who have a high view of scripture.

    I’m curious to know what yourself and the other egals here mean exactly by “a high view of Scripture”.

    Do you believe that every chapter, verse, phrase and word of Scripture is wholly an utterance of God that is intended for every believer in every age?

    Do you accept the doctrine of inerrancy as it is expressed here?
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

    cheers
    Jereth

  87. Heh,

    The “if” can be better translated as “when” as it assumes the condition in the Greek.

    I’m deriving some amusement at how we can have such staggeringly intelligent people (yes, genuinely so) on these threads and yet the basic ‘off-topic recognition and avoidance’ skill is so imperfectly mastered.  This is off-topic.

    I’m pretty sure that this comment is a reference to 1 Peter 3:1.  I’ve left it up, rather than deleting it, as I think it might help make concrete some of what I’m going to say about hermeneutics and translation to Suzanne.

    But, for the record, (given the terseness of the comment, I’m not sure what the basic thrust of the observation was), my observation that 1 Peter 3 is not just about unbelieving husbands, but husbands in general, with unbelieving husbands being an important subgroup – that observation had nothing at all to do with how one understands the phrase ‘even if’  (which I’d agree with Don about anyway).  It had everything to do with the next word in the clause, ‘some’.  My basic point is unchanged – unbelievers are a subgroup within his originally broader category of ‘wives be subject to husbands’ and so that passage is about more than just the issue to do with the subgroup.

    That might be wrong, but if it is, I don’t think it hangs on how one takes ‘even if’.

  88. Hi Suzanne,

    I am puzzled by this comment. It appears to me that you are suggesting that hermeneutics is not a part of complementarianism. Could you clarify this for me.

    Sure, I’ll try. I think it is more accurate to say that many complementarians in my experience claim that hermeneutics plays little role in how they read the Bible – it’s just exegesis.  I’m not one of those, but sometimes I find it hard to clearly state the issues as I see them with the basic exegesis/hermeneutics categories we tend to use.  I agree with what I think those complementarians are trying to say, but I think saying something like, “They do all this interpretation stuff, and we just do exegesis” captures something important for complementarians but in a way that is hard for others to understand. I’ll be trying to pick this point up in some detail in my response to Craig, but I think, if you look at some of what Jereth is saying, you can see some of the issues there, spelled out a bit differently.

    I have tried to make clear that I believe that comps and egals have a different interpretation for several key texts, which I listed. This is what I meant by two different Bibles. I did not intend anything more than that. In each of these diverging passages, it is complementarians who have introduced an unusual and heretofor unpublished hermeneutic, i.e. in Gen. 3:16 and inRomans 16:7.

    Yes, I know, and when I reread what I wrote in preparation for these comments, it was very clumsily put, it did imply that you agreed with my broader point – not what I intended, but it was what I ended up implying in fact, I think.  So apologies for that. 

    I was only agreeing with the ‘two Bibles’ part – that both ‘sides’ are coming to the point where they have little confidence in the translations preferred by the other.  And that’s all I saw us having in common, I’m pretty sure that you and I will disagree as to why that’s the case. But I think we do agree that it is the case.
    Picking up this:

    I feel that, on reflection, we do agree that the two sides are generating different Bibles, and I am curious about what you will say about this. My view is that there are two different hermeneutic traditions which affect the translations themselves, and that the egals stick for the most part with a traditional hermeneutic in their translations.

    Well, I’d make a distinction between a hermeneutical tradition and a theory of translation as the key difference.  I don’t think it’s two different hermeneutical traditions driving the different Bibles so much as different philosophies about what makes a good translation. This is probably going to feel like a very wandering discussion, but I’m trying to make some connections that I think are important.

    When I look at the NIV family and the ESV (and even more, the NASB) I don’t think “egalitarian and complementarian translations”.  I think something more like “dynamic equivalent and word for word translations.” This is picking up Jereth’s comment at: http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_7/#6943 which Teri disagrees with and says unhelpfully pigeon holes the general tendencies of people in the two ‘camps’ (although since I wrote that, the conversation has moved on), but which I think was both helpful and necessary, and is raising the broader issue that the egal/comp division is tied to.

    And that’s the growing division within evangelicalism between the conservative evangelical wing and the moderate evangelical wing. 

    Most comps are conservative evangelicals, and most conservative evangelicals are comps.  Most egals are moderate evangelicals and most moderate evangelicals are egals.  There’s exceptions, but in my experience personally, and as I read the literature and look at the institutions, that holds true on the whole

    Now, the relationship between that is complex and varies from person to person.  Some people are conservative evangelical because they are complementarian.  And some are complementarian because they are conservative evangelical. (And then you get the ones who mess up the nice system who are conservative evangelical and egalitarian).  And you can do the same drill for egalitarianism.  Some people moved on the gender issue and that drove changes to how they approach a range of issues that are often markers distinguishing conservative evangs from moderate evangs, and for others they moved on those issues first, and then went ‘in light of that, egalitarianism makes far better sense of the Bible’.  And if you listen to people’s ‘conversion narratives’ as to why they are now The Egalitarian Formerly Known As An Complementarian (with apologies to Prince) I think you can hear that range – there are different paths from either camp into the other.

    to be continued

  89. continuing

    One of the issues that tends to separate the moderate/conservative groups is where they are on the inerrant/infallible spectrum – in what sense, and to what degree they think the Bible says anything about history, science, etc that is wrong factually. 

    What is often missed in that debate, IMO, is a different stance towards the text and where one tends to think ‘inspiration’ is located.  For inerrantists, the actual words are inspired – God wanted those actual words, and those words are God breathed.  For infallibilists (and this isn’t absolute, it is only in comparison to inerrantists) the words are more the shell that contains the word of God. The word of God is not the Hebrew and Greek words, but the message, the communication that those words serve.  And a key piece of evidence for this is often held up to be translation itself – if it was the words that are inspired, then we couldn’t translate and still have the word of God.  We’d all need to learn Greek and Hebrew (which is, I think, Islam’s view with regard to the Koran).

    Where that is important, is that I wouldn’t say that the different translations are coming from different hermeneutical traditions directly. I would say that there are different interpretative traditions, and differing understandings of what makes for a good translation.  Complementarians, because they are generally inerrantists (and that’s the important bit) usually prefer ‘word for word’ translations.  As far as is possible, they want the details of the Hebrew and Greek expressed in the English text.  They don’t want the translator to decide what kind of genitive is involved and then give an English equivalent, they don’t want ‘propitiation’ translated as ‘sacrifice of atonement’.  They want all that left for the commentaries and the interpreter to decide.

    In comparison to that philosophy of translation, more moderate evangelicals (or more infallibist views of Scripture) are happy for the translation to give the sense of the meaning for the reader.  Hence, wherever Don stands on these questions, his statement:

    The “if” can be better translated as “when” as it assumes the condition in the Greek.

    The evalutation that that would be ‘better’ is a good example of this difference.  Someone who prefers the ESV (or in my case, that’s too loosey-goosey, I prefer the NASB which, as a friend of mine likes to say, isn’t even in English, it’s in Hebrish) won’t think that’s better at all.  Greek has a number of ways of saying ‘when’. For the inerrantist, the fact it said it this way, and not another way, is likely important, and so that particular detail needs to be captured in the translation. 

    Similarly, the fact that we think it means ‘when’ is simply ‘State of the Art’ for our understanding of how conditional clauses function in ancient Greek.  Next year our grasp of that could be profoundly changed by some very clever NT boffin (as aspect theory is changing our view about how tense functioned) and then the translations will all be seen to be wrong if they simply had ‘when’.

    So I think that’s the big difference going on.  And it similarly reflects preaching practice.  You can find highly exegetical expository and topical sermons in both conservative evangelical and moderate evangelical circles.  But in my experience, there’s a link – people who see the words as inspired tend more to preach by commentating on the text closely.  Those who see the message as more what’s inspired, tend to preach sermons that engage and expound the ‘big idea’ rather than the details of the text. Again, it’s not hard and fast, but that has been my experience across multiple contexts.

    to be concluded

  90. concluding

    In all that, I don’t see any group as standing in an older translation tradition.  The KJV was translated with a 16th C knowledge of how Greek and Hebrew worked, and a pre-modern view of how language and translation works.  All of that is about as foreign to us as feudalism is – we can sort of get it, but only ever ‘from the outside’.  Both sides (and other ones I haven’t mentioned) will find some things in previous approaches that they can take comfort from, and things they disagree with. The fact that the KJV is still a good translation shows that these things aren’t absolute-attention to the text ‘trumps’ theories in the abstract –  but I don’t think anyone could reproduce the KJV now – our basic conceptual tools are quite different.

    In terms of the issue you particularly raise – about complementarians adopting new translations at some debated texts, my take on that is a bit different.  I’ll assume you’re right that that is happening, as I haven’t done the work on this myself.

    For me, that’s not as simple as one side preserving an older tradition and one side doing something new.  I apply the same kind of ‘system thinking’ that I did to the issue of how a group of loosely aligned commentators should work together on a thread when I did my ‘godly dummy spit’.  I take your point here and think you are basically right:

    Gender inclusive Bibles, are not per se, egal Bibles, as this has to do with the change in English from “men” meaning “people” in the KJV, to “men” meaning “men” in English today. That is why there is a shift from “men” to “people” and we see this in all Bibles to some extent.

     

    But the extra thing I would say, is that that isn’t a ‘neutral’ change.  The reason why it used to be the case that ‘men’ meant ‘people’ and now doesn’t, and why ‘sons of God’ meant ‘sons and daughters of God’ etc is because a few centuries ago society was more patriarchal.  The change in language there reflects a conscious effort to make our discourse more egalitarian.

    When that kind of change takes place at the structural level of language, it isn’t surprising that the group that sees itself as trying to uphold the traditional patriarchal/complementarian position, then sees the need to have to bring that sense out more explicitly in some texts than it had been done before.  There’s no doubt, if you’re right and that’s happening, that that is a change in practice from the past.

    But for me, it’s like Luther including the words ‘by faith alone’ in his translation of the Bible into German.  The basic structure of people’s thought and discourse on justification had so shifted, that in light of that he felt the need to make it explicit, or else people would just miss it altogether.

    Personally, not a fan – hence why I like the NASB.  But I don’t kid myself that I’m ‘the normal case’ either and that all Bible’s should be translated with me as the basic target either.  So I don’t like that practice, but I don’t condemn it either.  I do think that inerrantists should be doing it ‘with fear and trembling’ however, and only to the absolute minimum that they think is absolutely necessary – cause it cuts against the grain of our basic philosophy of translation.

  91. Hi Suzanne,

    This is a bit of an addendum, and afterthought:

    The only difference there is that the ESV has reserved many passages in which anthropoi is used for “people” and has inserted “men” instead. This is, once again, due to the use of hermeneutic, or interpretation on the part of the translation committee, that although the Greek actually says “people” it really means “only men.” I have discussed this with Jim Packer and he agrees that it could mean “people” but he said “we think it means men.” This is hermeneutic being used in translation.

    How I see this is part of what I meant by “systems thinking”.  When English uses the same word (men) for both ‘adult males’ and ‘people’, then translations can just use the word and leave it for readers to decide whether it means one or the other.

    But unless anthropoi can never mean “adult males” and must always mean “human beings” (and that debate really is off-topic here) then, when English moves to the point where two different words must always be used to indicate those two different concepts then the translator has to do the interpretation – he or she has no choice.

    Unsurprisingly, committees with a good egalitarian presence will then see most/all of those references as ‘people’ and complementarian committees will see a greater number as requiring ‘men’.

    I’m not sure that’s a change in hermeneutic traditions by either side.  It is a change in practice because English has changed, and, as we all know, faithfulness is never as simple as just ‘doing what we used to do’ – sometimes faithfulness means ‘doing something new’.

    Egalitarians use ‘people’ not ‘men’, that’s certainly a change (earlier traditions just had ‘men’) – but arguably one that is a faithful change – they use just the one word for most texts that have anthropoi.

      Complementarians decide that some texts require ‘men’ not ‘people’ and so use two words to translate anthropoi, not one, depending on context.  That’s a change, but again arguably a faithful one.

    Which is really the faithful interpretative tradition, well that is the question of the hour.  But it is also somewhat off-topic at the moment. At the moment we’re just trying to get a sense of whether we agree that there’s an issue here and whether we can agree on what that issue is.  Who’s right is for another day.

  92. Mark,

    I only have a couple of minutes right now, but I would say that you have represented the current complementarian explanation for why there are two Bibles.

    However, I am a little older, so I can attest to the fact that a few years ago the Bible favoured by egals was the NRSV and the Bible favoured by comps was the NIV. It was thoroughly accepted and recommended by comps. But on the appearance of the NIVI, and the TNIV, then this tradition was rejected by comps.

    The main reason, that I have read, is that 1 Tim 2:12 reads “assume authority” instead of “exercize authority.” I can assure you that the negative connotation for this word is the traditional understanding in KJV, Calvin and Luther.

    Also, in Gen. 3:16, and Romans 16:, as well as 1 Cor. 11:10 and a few other places, the ESV does NOT use a word by word pattern. In fact, in the translation of anthropos and aner as well, the ESV is all over the map, usually translating “men” for both of these words, and the NIV 2011 is much more word for word.

    I will respond to other points later. Thanks.

  93. Yes, my short “if” comment was in ref to 1 Pet 3.  Peter is giving counsel to wives with husbands who are not God fearing.

    Anthropoi can refer to a group of all females, a group of all males, or a mixed group.  In 2011 English, this means the word to use to translate it is “people” UNLESS one knows some additional context that restricts the meaning.  This is what comps claim (that they KNOW this additional context), but it is just a claim based on their interpretation of OTHER texts.

    This is why Denny Burk objects to translating anthopoi as people in NIV 2011, as that word choice is not sufficiently masculinist for him.

  94. Also, on grand scope being used by egals versus specific verses being used by comps, I disagree totally.

    I think comps are misinterpreting specific verses as well as the grand scope.  I have egal understanding for all the verses and I see Jesus, Paul, etc. as egals.  Not primarily egals, as the gospel comes first and love is a higher priority, but egals nonetheless.

  95. The gospels often have narratives about fig trees, and sometimes the fig tree is called a “tree” and sometimes a “fig tree” but it is the same story, we know it is a fig tree. But I have never seen a translator use the word “fig tree” when the Greek clearly says “tree.”

    In just the same way, I do not know why the ESV translators decided that anthropoi, which clearly means “people” should sometimes be translated as “men.” Just because it refers to men, does not mean that one can simply alter the meaning of the Greek. But the ESV does this all the time, on the basis of what the translators “think.”

  96. On the ESV translation philosophy, I think it is word for word EXCEPT for any gender related verses and then it is masculinist.  That is, they had 2 goals and the top goal was to be masculinist.

  97. I am getting tired of this.

    Yes, Don and Suzanne, you feel strongly about these things.

    I said that discussing the relative merits of which interpretive approach is off topic.  All we were trying to do was work out if we agreed that there were two interpretive appraoches and then, if we roughly agreed about where that issue was.

    What that means is that you are entitled to state how you think egalitarianism is doing it.

    It does not mean that the two of you then post multiple short comments whose basic purpose is to indicate why you don’t like how you think complementarians are doing translating.

    If you want to play it that way, fine. 

    The whole issue is now off-topic. 

    We’ll just run with Jereth/Teri/Kristen’s discussion and my discussion with Craig.

    We simply are not going to have a repeat of the pre-Christmas constant chorus of ‘why I don’t like the other side’.  I’ve had too many complaints about it by people who would otherwise like to read the threads.

    So translation issues?  No more comments on that topic, please.

Comments are closed.