Is egalitarianism a mere reflection of contemporary culture? Do we egalitarians submit to the “feminist spirit of the age and falling short of the biblical ideal.” No, and anyone who says this has shut their eyes to the world around them.
I can and can’t relate to Tony Jones who recently wrote that he had nothing more to say about the so-called “debate” over whether women should be allowed to operate in their full gifting in the church just like men (see “‘Women in Ministry’ –I’m Over It”). He says this because, “It is simply unfathomable to me that entire versions of Christianity today — be they Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist or Amish — restrict ministry to men.” For the most part I relate. I understand that this is a subject that must be handled with caution in some contexts, e.g. if I were preaching the Gospel in Afghanistan I might not push my egalitarianism. I live in the United States though where (hopefully) the installation of a woman pastor wouldn’t put the safety of the church at stake, so I don’t get Christians in our culture who spend time arguing against women’s full inclusion in the church. Rather, I like what T. Michael Law said (see “Biblical Womanhood”),
“And I say this: if you’re not going to wear a head covering to church, why let a theologian or a pastor tell you that you cannot teach or preach? Or why let them tell you that your voice has no place in the most important committees in the church? Or why let them tell you that the theological direction of the church is a man’s job? The appeal to ‘biblical models’ is fallacious, not least because it is often done with a lack of understanding of the social and historical context of the writing that supports the enforced view. It just so happens that the first century context is oh so perfect for the modern man.”
While I don’t support creating a schism in your local church I do support leaving a church where you feel like women are not being given equal standing. There will always be those who selectively choose those passages that limit women’s function in the church, so I see no reason to fight battles within all those churches. Honestly, I don’t care that some churches are “complementarian” just like I don’t care that some women are complementarian. But women who are not complementarian don’t have to stay put either, especially if they sense they have a calling and giftings that are being ignored on the basis of their gender.
Now, what I am about to argue may surprise you since I indicated that in our culture it shouldn’t be a surprise if a woman pastors a church or preaches on Sunday.
I read a bit of Denny Burk’s essay defending and fighting for complementarianism/patriarchy as God’s ideal for the world (if you want to subject yourself to it go read “Complementarianism or Patriarchy? What’s in a Name?”) where he writes,
“Evangelicals who are unwilling to be counter-cultural are going to find themselves one way or the other accommodating themselves to the feminist spirit of the age and falling short of the biblical ideal. Egalitarians accommodate themselves one way, and complementarians-in-name-only do it in another. ”
Then he quotes an essay by Russell Moore who wrote (in the ETS article, “After Patriarchy What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Gender Debate”),
“Egalitarians are winning the evangelical gender debate, not because their arguments are stronger, but because, in some sense, we are all egalitarians now. The complementarian response must be more than reaction. It must instead present an alternative vision—a vision that sums up the burden of male headship under the cosmic rubric of the gospel of Christ and the restoration of all things in him. It must produce churches that are not embarrassed to tell us that when we say the “Our Father,” we are patriarchs of the oldest kind.”
Let me note two things:
(1) Egalitarianism remains counter-cultural. Patriarchy reflects the world’s ways. Even in the United States a woman makes something like 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same job! Burk and Moore are funny framing it as they do. Also, they are dead wrong. Ask women in North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and probably even Australia and Europe: “Are you treated as equal to men in your society?” Many may not want to be seen as equals because they affirm their culture’s values and that proves my point. Most of the world and most of human history has been oppressive to women, even Christians in the name of “headship.” So let’s ditch the silly argument that the complementarians are standing their ground against a corrupt culture. They look more far more like the world in this regard.
(2) Egalitarians are not “winning the evangelical gender debate,” (I can’t name one major evangelical denomination with a woman as Superintendent or the equivalent in the U.S.) but I think we are making progress and my guess is that it resonates with people just like the argument against slavery resonated with people at one point. If there is neither “male nor female” in Christ then even the Pauline admonitions that seem to support male hierarchy are functional, but not optimal.
I’m not going to spend time here tossing proof-texts back and forth. People know my views and I’ve written on them already on this blog. But I do want to ask us to pause and think critically about what Burk and Moore are trying to sell, because it is not accurate, it does not rightly describe the plight of women (even in our culture), and the worst part about it is that it tries to frame egalitarianism as the church adopting the world’s values when common sense shows us that complementarian (i.e. patriarchal) views are far more commonplace everywhere we look.
__________
This post is part of the Week of Mutuality syncroblog
[Note: I am not necessarily equating complementarianism with the oppression of women. As I said early in the post, I don't mind that some women prefer living in a complementarian-type world attending churches that reflect those values. My main point is that egalitarianism doesn't reflect the values of the world's culture and it never has. One can throw around silly statements like "the feminist spirit," but even with all the progress we've made in our culture women are still treated as inferior in politics, business, and almost every sub-culture.]

June 8, 2012 at 3:37 pm
This is excellent. As a recovering Southern Baptist, I’m tempted to anything that comes out of them. It usually just hacks me off and triggers bad memories. But they’re becoming so irrelevant that it’s almost comical.
Which is more counter-cultural:
1) A position that mildly tweaks the dominant position for most of history?
2) A position that clearly is pushing for an ideal that has never, ever before been realized in society.
Good job, friend.
June 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Thank you, Jonathan!
June 8, 2012 at 5:37 pm
LePort,
No offense, but I found this entry to be rather specious. Yes, egalitarianism is counter-cultural in Afghanistan (note your hesitancy to push it there) as well as in most RCC and SBC circles, but it is most decidedly not counter-cultural relative to the overall culture of the post-Christian West, which is Burk’s point. I mean, doesn’t the very notion of patriarchy now seem absurd to Western ears? I rest my case.
June 8, 2012 at 5:51 pm
You rest your case? Um, ok.
Burk’s point remains weak. People may avoid using language that is racist, but that doesn’t mean racism ceases to exist. Likewise, someone may not want to use the word “patriarchy,” but you know that this doesn’t mean society aims for equality. Most men in this country likely maintain an arrogant posture toward women. Though there is no way to poll this I am quite sure most men see themselves as the “final word” in the home. And things like equality of pay and opportunity are solid pieces of evidence that our culture is far more patriarchal than egalitarian.
June 8, 2012 at 6:26 pm
I think he clearly said that while egalitarianism might be an ideal in Western society, we are very far from that ideal. We talk equality, but live in-equality. What is practiced is still not at all an equal society on many levels. It is not our lived cultural norm.
June 8, 2012 at 6:49 pm
LePort,
First of all, speaking as a mathematician your statistic about how American women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes is meaningless absent a careful exposition about how that statistic was constructed and why it says what you think it says, as the old saying goes, “There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.”
Secondly, your point about how even though our post-Christian Western culture may find the very idea of patriarchy to be ridiculous and offensive it nevertheless implicitly operates according to the same patriarchal standards that it would otherwise explicitly reject is weak. Sorry, but anyone who knows anything about how our culture used to be genuinely patriarchal a generation ago would not consider today’s world to be even implicitly patriarchal.
Finally, the problem I have with most egalitarians on the net is that they argue as if gender is merely a social construct that we can choose to deconstruct at will when forming our communities when in reality it is an evolutionary construct that cannot be deconstructed in this way. Let’s be honest, the reason why men are overrepresented in the ranks of church leadership has more to do with our biology than 1 Tim 2:11-12, otherwise complementarians like Burk would ignore those verses just like they do vv 9-10 and 1 Cor 14:34-35! Ditto for why men are overrepresented in the ranks of firefighters, soldiers, heads of state, etc.
June 8, 2012 at 7:19 pm
As I said, I don’t expect people like you, or churches like those who share your views, to disappear and I don’t care that you think that this should be a man’s world. Live as you wish. But you know that even if our culture is less patriarchal than in the past it remains mostly patriarchal. That is my point: patriarchy is not counter-culture.
June 8, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Brain, you and I have sparred on this issue before. The issue isn’t whether or not culture is patriarchal – it most certainly is. With respect to this, I am absolutely and unreservedly ‘egalitarian’. When it comes to issues pastorship (i.e. headship) , however, I am not (as you know). (Does this make me a hypocrite? Hardly.)
The issue is ‘Should our theology be patriarchal (with respect to matters of doctrinal authority (( I scope this gender restriction because yes! most complimentarians also prefix their position with restrictions ))?’.
If it should be, should it be so because of society, or should it be so because a true biblical view of headship in the family, nation or church, says it should. The battle lines seem to be drawn over this second question about what is biblical and not on one grounded in where society is at. I doubt there is little actual disagreement over where society should be at. So to couch the debate in Christianity over something that stems from biblical interpretation in terms of trends in social justice, either for or against one of the two positions, is not right.
There may be ‘complimentarians’ who ARE misogynistic, but I know none. This is anecdotal, of course, but functionally, all of the complimentarians I know support gender equality in society, in family decision making, etc – but not in specific church roles. Why then the apparent hypocrisy?
Because (and I hope you won’t deny this) there is reasonable biblical evident to suggest the complimentarian position as there is the egalitarian one. There are many biblical verses that can be reasonable taken as ‘egalitarians’ present them and there are verses that can reasonably be taken to suggest preferential (but complimentary) gender roles in matters of authority. This debate is a legitimate debate (between fellow believers who otherwise agree). I think it is an unfair rebuttal to suggest egalitarians are simply following ‘trendy worldly ways’. Likewise I think it unfair in saying complimentarians hold their positions due to extant prejudices in social norms.
Given the pressures to ‘be biblical’ or to have faith ‘be socially relevant ‘, I think it important for both groups to look beyond the rhetoric, pursue sound exegesis, prayerfully, respectfully, and engage other contrary Christians in true reasoned debate – but to simply appeal to false stereo-types by either side does no good.
In this debate then, who cares how progressive society IS or IS NOT. That is a separate issue. Let’s worry about what the bible seems to say, and let that be the basis of our debate!
June 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Freudian slip – should have started “Brian” not “Brain”. Sorry about that.
June 8, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Andrew
Of course there are biblical passages that support patriarchy. We agree there (though I would contend there are passages that support a lot of things, but that doesn’t settle the hermeneutical matters). While we disagree on whether male headship is necessarily “Christian” (something I deny, strongly), we seem to agree that culture is patriarchal in general and that is the point of my post.
June 8, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Regardless of whether or not our culture has fully adapted itself to the egalitarian ideal, there is no question that egalitarianism is the politically correct, progressive vision in Western culture. Standing against anything that cuts against its assumptions earns one derision from those who shape opinion in Western society. To argue otherwise is disingenuous and really hurts the integrity of your argument. If you want to be progressive, be progressive, but it seems silly to also want to say that you’re really the one rowing against the current of modern culture.
June 8, 2012 at 9:38 pm
It seems like most complementarians (other that Andrew who admitted society’s patriarchy) aren’t paying attention to the world in which they live. Again, it is politically incorrect to use racist slurs, but racism is a serious problem and more predominate than racial unity. It hurts the integrity of the complementarian argument to deny this. If you are going to be a complementarian, be a complementarian and admit your views reflect how men treat women in most of the world today and in most eras of human history.
June 8, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Does the sight of men laying down their lives for their wives as Christ did for the church really reflect most of the world today, or most eras of human history? Biblical patriarchy is not the world’s patriarchy, nor is Biblical equality the world’s equality of identical roles and responsibilities.
As far as the example about racism goes, it’s fair to say that our society does not live up to its own ideals (a point I already conceded). I think you still must admit, however, that egalitarianism is the more “commonsense” position for most in our culture today. The fact that you were even able to draw a parallel between racist slurs and complementarian beliefs (and I know you were not equating the two) in modern culture seems to prove my point. Both are viewed by most as intrinsically abhorrent.
June 8, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Sure, Christian patriarchy is better than the world’s like Philemon was probably a better slave owner than his contemporaries, but my point stands–it isn’t “counter culture.”
June 8, 2012 at 10:02 pm
You could say the opposite as well–evangelicals’ loss of gender roles is better than the world’s loss of them, but it isn’t countercultural. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Blessings, brother.
June 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm
And I should add that no, egalitarianism is not the “commonsense” position. I have known many men who think of their maleness as superior to women and who think that their wives are there to obey them and make their lives better (even an atheist like my father held that worldview). To see one’s wife as equally and fully human as one’s self is counter culture and it stands within the biblical trajectory on this subject (not necessarily in line with every passage…like slavery).
June 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Once again, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I think that egalitarianism is the “commonsense” position. If either of the candidates for president announced tomorrow that he believed women to be less than equally and fully human, the chorus of boos would resound from coast to coast, and he would certainly not be elected president. Anecdotal evidence about what some people think does not change the fact that their view is not the dominant belief within American society.
June 8, 2012 at 10:46 pm
And as far as the parallel between Biblical teaching on eldership and marriage roles and their parallel with Pauline admonitions concerning master-slave relationships, I would point to an article that you’ve probably already seen — http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/is-a-wifes-submission-culturally-outdated
“Paul does not root Greco-Roman slavery in creation or in eschatology. But the marriage pattern is clearly rooted in both. Thus, the Christian complementary relationship between husband and wife is established by God in a way that the Greco-Roman hierarchical relationship between slaves and masters is not.”
June 8, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Well, I still can’t wrap my mind around this debate. I read Paul and see the complementarian position there (one of the questions I sometimes ask is this: would an egalitarian like Rachel Evans or Scot McKnight or yourself be comfortable writing some of the things Paul writes without feeling the immediate need to justify it or undo it or work around it?). But then I see what Paul says in other places and, more importantly, what he does which is support female apostleship. To me this makes Paul a “functional egalitarian” – someone who held to the conviction of godly male leadership in general, but who lived and endorsed an egalitarian way of life (I don’t think the tension here is all that big, actually). That’s where I’m at.
As to the question in your post, I do think this idea needs to be nuanced a bit more. Sure complementarianism is an implicit norm (I agree there, but…), but in terms of cultural indoctrination, news, media, hollywood, sitcoms, blogs et cetera….. it certainly seems as though egalitarianism is the norm. That’s why Rachel Evans can write an article bashing complementarians and receive a gazillion “hurrays!” while a complementarian better be prepared to be called a bunch of names from every corner and have his view distorted to no end and have bloggers write against them left, right and centre.
It’s like the gay marriage issue. Pop-culture has kicked into overdrive to make the gay issue a societal norm. You would think from watching TV now that one in three people were gay. And don’t’ anyone dare suggest that there’s a problem with that – i.e. it seems to be a culturally dominant idea in society – meanwhile most people in American (and I observe from over the border) don’t accept the idea of gay marriage.
So this whole idea of what makes for “counter-cultural” needs to be parsed a lot more…
June 9, 2012 at 6:08 am
“It seems like most complementarians (other that Andrew who admitted society’s patriarchy) aren’t paying attention to the world in which they live.”
So what if society is patriarchal? Are you saying complementarians cannot seen beyond society in holding the position they do? How is this any different than accusing an egalitarian of following worldly ways?
Brian, my point was that it is as erroneous to say complementarians are complementarians because the world is patriarchal (and they are simply being worldly), as it is to say egalitarians are egalitarians because of political correctness (and they are simply being worldly). These are both stereotypes – and the reasoning false.
Hopefully, both complementarians and egalitarians hold their positions because (in good faith) they believe this is what the bible suggests. You say “I would contend there are passages that support a lot of things, but that doesn’t settle the hermeneutical matters” and I would agree; but this is exactly the type of thinking that shows something more than society’s influence is at work. Likewise, however society is (or is not), debate will not be won or lost by pointing the true nature of society, or which side is closer to that nature.
The current state of society has nothing useful to say about which position is correct, or why Christians hold that position; Christians are called to be set apart from society – and I believe this is generally true of both groups, whatever their position – complementarians and egalitiarians. By either side making the case their opponents more closely approximate the world’s values – this is nothing more than a type of ad hominem reasoning.
So where is the value then in pointing out society is patriarchal? Does that somehow speak to which position we should hold as Christians?
June 9, 2012 at 8:15 am
residentoftartus: Your second paragraph in your second response needs a little bit of clarification my friend. As you your third paragraph, it is just wrong. Cultures do assign gender roles. If you don’t think this at all, then let me ask you this: Did women in ancient Rome have different ‘roles’ depending upon their class? Second, are the roles of women in the present, the same or different to that of ancient Rome?
AndrewT: You are right, we ought to go to the interpretation of the Scriptures… the problem is the interpretation itself. complementarians believe they interpret it correctly and most faithfully…meanwhile, those like Ben Witherington, Craig Keener, and Scot McKnight, believe they are correct in their interpretation! Both sides attempt to answer the seemingly opposing verses…So now what?! It is only rhetorical at the media-level/popular-level, where there only exists soundbites and brief expositions of verses. However, Witherington, Keener, and others, have written lengthy dealings with complementarian interpretations; just as complementarians have against egalitarians. What it boils down to is reading these works, and actually dealing with the arguments; instead of the soundbite dealings where no one can actually respond to the arguments given— and that is the something we rarely see!
On a different note, your distinction is very odd and confused—displaying a tiring gymnastics of trying to be Western and modern, yet maintain the old ways. You claim that culture should be egalitarian, but then say that when it comes to family and the church, the Bible displays a male headship, right? Considering two important aspects of ‘culture’ is family and religion, your conclusion about culture then becomes confused—because you’ve essentially said culture should be egalitarian, while at the same time saying that culture should have male headship. So obviously, what you should be saying is Christian culture should be complementarian— which then means you are not really egalitarian for culture at all—because I would assume you’d hope and pray that all cultures were to become Christianized right? And hence my confusion over your statement…Could you clarify?
Derek: You write: “would an egalitarian like Rachel Evans or Scot McKnight or yourself be comfortable writing some of the things Paul writes without feeling the immediate need to justify it or undo it or work around it?” Just because one may have to explain or unpack something, does not mean it is a wrong interpretation. We do that all the time with slavery in the Bible…right? Would you be comfortable reading Ephesians 6:5-6 to an African American slave in the 1800s? I mean, we’re dealing with a text written in the 1st Century, and clearly displaying 1st Century habits—so we are going to actually need a bit of explanation for things.—I’ll have to check out your post on functional egalitarianism.
June 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
John
Again, I emphasize that a politician could stand up tomorrow against war and many would cheer, but that doesn’t mean we are not a warring culture. A politician could stand up tomorrow against racisim and many would cheer, but that doesn’t mean we are not a racist culture. A politician could stand up tomorrow against patriarchy, and he would likely lose half of his funding. Even if people cheer, it is not fair to say that a popular “mood” (that it is “popular” is debatable) removes a systematic reality. The systematic reality remains, so let’s not pretend that PC language makes a problem go away. Sadly, it is often the opposite: it makes people feel like something has gone away even as it remains a strong reality.
As far as Piper’s point about creation is concerned, let’s be honest, Paul himself argues from both angles. In 1 Corinthians 11.11-12 Paul moves from grounding male “headship” in the created order to ending this section with these words:
In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God. (NET)
It is interesting that here he grounds the interdependent relationship of men and women within their relationship “in the Lord (ἐν κυρίῳ),” especially since this sounds a lot like the Pauline “in Christ” often grounded in Christian baptism. Likewise, even as he uses the language of headship (assuming he is not addressing the Corinthians language rather than stating his own view) he ends with the language of mutuality (τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), and that is important.
June 9, 2012 at 8:46 am
Derek
I don’t know that Paul would have felt comfortable saying the types of things William Wilberforce or Frederick Douglass said about slavery, but does that mean they shouldn’t be said? Of course not. I agree that Paul was functional in his approach. I think Onesimus and Junia are examples of that functionality. He could write that slaves and women should submit on one hand while praising Junia the Apostle and standing with Onesimus the slave.
That Evans can gain a crowd means that she has become a spokesperson for a ground who needs one. It doesn’t mean the popular view has changed in evangelical or even broader Christian circles. Martin Luther King Jr. gained a large crowd in Washington D.C., and they cheered, but the plight of the Black man and woman in our country remains worse that the white man and woman. So a ground swell of popularity must not be confused with the turning of a tide.
Andrew
I am not saying complementarians hold their view because the world’s view is similar. I am saying, simply (and this point seems to be lost on several), that complementarianism is not counter-culture. You are right that being counter-cultural doesn’t mean one is in the right. I am not arguing that (even though in this case I think it is so). I am arguing that when Burk and Moore try to frame their view as counter-cultural they are wrong, very wrong.
June 9, 2012 at 8:48 am
LePort,
You don’t understand, this isn’t about “people like [me],” men will always be overrepresented in positions of authority because of how our species was molded in its biological development. I had no say in the matter, I was not one of the sons of God shouting for joy when it all went down. Promise.
Again, if your egalitarian ideal is a world in which gender has been completely deconstructed then your world is a fantasy that cannot possibly be realized. Similarly, we all desire a world in which evil doesn’t exist but that will never happen on this rock either barring an act of God.
June 9, 2012 at 8:53 am
resident
I am convinced you did not read this post. How can by “egalitarian ideal” be a world in which gender is completely deconstructed? I did not say that gender doesn’t matter. Nor did I say that I aim to make the world egalitarian (I will leave that to Christ at his return). In fact, I said quite plainly (for those who read the post) that I don’t care if some people function within a complementarian worldview. I know women who prefer that type of world, so why should I worry about them? My main point stands firm: complementarianism is not counter-cultural. It reflects culture. It is a product of culture.
So before you continue to misrepresent the egalitarian worldview I recommend this post: http://rachelheldevans.com/4-common-misconceptions-egalitarianism
It is quite obvious you hold some of these misconceptions.
June 9, 2012 at 9:48 am
LePort,
I did read the above entry, that’s why I challenged your statistic as well as your contention that the kind of patriarchy implied by complementarianism is not in fact counter-cultural (I’m not a complementarian by the way and could attend a church in which women were serving at every role).
With respect to Evans’ post about common egalitarian misconceptions, I would note that while she did acknowledge the fact that there are difference between men and women rooted in our biology she did not explore in any depth what this meant for forming human communities. My suspicion is that she did not do so because her ideal would not sustain such an exploration.
Returning now to your contention that complementarianism is a cultural product, this is a little bit of a red herring to me, leaving the aside for the moment the technical mumbo jumbo of Mohler-Piper-Burk complementarianism we are surely talking about an instance of a much larger phenomena that needs to be discussed in its own right, which is the fact that men are consistently overrepresented in positions of authority in general and not just in the church. Of course, this larger phenomena is also a cultural product but it is not merely a cultural product as it is rooted in our biology as evidenced by the fact that it’s a cross-cultural phenomena not to mention biological common sense.
Here’s the deal, most of the people that I attend church with are poor and struggle with problems that aren’t common to my academic social class (drugs and such). We need to have a male as head pastor at my church because some part of their brain cannot respect the authority of a female head pastor, and that will never change because it’s a reality that’s not entirely socially constructed. How do people like that fit into your vision of the church? Would you consider them to be lower than yourself for needing a male authority figure?
June 9, 2012 at 10:10 am
resident
I attend a church with the same demographics in Portland, OR. We celebrate people’s one year or three years of freedom from drugs or narcotics prior to praying before Bible study. Many of my students move from homeless shelters, to homes and supplemented housing, and live a hard life. So no, I don’t consider them “lower then myself.” Let’s avoid these ugly and misleading “slight of hand” type statements.
If someone wanted a pastor who spoke the same language, or who shared the same culture, or even had the same skin color (which is obviously a reality if we look at the segregation that takes place on Sunday) that wouldn’t make them “lower” than me. It might not even be wrong (depending on all the factors involved). But it could be wrong, especially if we do not disciple and guide people away from their racism.
We know from many studies over the last few years that racism is inherit in young children. It has to do with forming trust with those who are familiar. If a white baby sees a white mother’s face day in, day out, studies show they react different to different looking people at an early age. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is a similar correspondence as young men realize they are male and they watch and emulate others who are “familiar” to learn to trust those they think are like them. In some sense this is good and natural, but as racism (and sexism) show, the trajectory can lead to very bad things, bad divisions, and ugly abuse of those who are different.
So I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. If a male needs a male to show them how to be male, that is fine. But that this demands a male pastor or a male preacher on Sunday is false. If it happens to be the case for you or those in your church that is different than saying there is something objectively grounded in nature that demands it be so.
June 9, 2012 at 11:03 am
LePort,
This isn’t about me, strictly speaking I’m neither complementarian nor egalitarian, I am for whatever works for the maximum number of people. My concern is that a progressive egalitarian vision for the church would leave a lot of people behind.
“If a male needs a male to show them how to be male, that is fine. But that this demands a male pastor or a male preacher on Sunday is false.”
It depends on the church model being used. The most common church model that I’ve seen in the Southern Midwest is a congregationalist model where the pastor pretty much does everything except lead the different Sunday School groups and prepare the food for church potlucks (the burnout rate is pretty high for these poor pastors as you can imagine), I sincerely doubt that the average women pastor could fill this sort of executive pastoral role and minister as effectively to the different church members as the average male pastor could. Heck, I’m a bossy dude and even I couldn’t fill the sort of role demanded of pastors here.
Now, the mainlines have a different model than the congregationalist one I just described, but they aren’t attracting as many people. So, how does a progressive egalitarian vision for the church realistically work for my community?
June 9, 2012 at 11:28 am
First, I don’t know that “attracting as many people” should be a factor. If you want to argue that a woman would struggle to shepherd people in your community because of their view of women, fine. If we move toward “attraction” models then we should all ask why every pulpit doesn’t have a message that sounds like Joel Osteen’s.
Second, it is possible that the egalitarian vision will not work for your church right now. As I said in my post, I don’t think it would work if I was a church leader in Afghanistan. Do I think it is ideal that it doesn’t work? Of course not, but I recognize that the Gospel cannot be limited to places where everything is ideal. We can’t wait to for a culture to mature before we preach the Gospel and build new assemblies. If your church is part of that culture, and it is at home in that culture, then the egalitarian vision might not “work.”
June 9, 2012 at 11:42 am
LePort,
Maybe I should have said “reaching” instead of “attracting,” but no matter I think we’ve harangued each other enough over this subject. For what it’s worth, I think you’re a great guy and possibly a better man and servant of our Lord than myself. And I’m happy to see that when push to comes shove you’re also practical, that’s good.
Still, I’m not convinced that the progressive egalitarian ideal is the right one, I honestly think that it conflicts too much with the biological realities that we have to work with. Obviously, I can’t convince you of that and neither can you convince me of the converse, so there we are I guess.
June 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm
LePort,
Forgive me, I’ve been trying to knock some sense into hardened apostates without much success and its put me in a punchy mood. I don’t think I’ve ever had much success trying to breathe new life into these dead fields, but the challenge of it draws me like a moth to the flame.
June 9, 2012 at 2:04 pm
betweenathensandjerusalem said “On a different note, your distinction is very odd and confused—displaying a tiring gymnastics of trying to be Western and modern, yet maintain the old ways. You claim that culture should be egalitarian, but then say that when it comes to family and the church, the Bible displays a male headship, right?”
I don’t confuse administration of ‘culture’ or ‘state’ (both products of man), with the administration of the ‘kingdom of God’ or ‘family’. It is possible for God to distinguish the roles men and women fulfill in the administration of family, for example, without applying the same principles to how we treat women in society. Furthermore, there are tiring gymnastics only if you believe (as you apparently do) that for one to believe in ‘equality’ one must do so with blind indifference to gender distinction.
I am not so encumbered in my belief, and so encounter no such gymnastics. Of course, I believe this position is biblical justifiable as I’m sure you believe your position is too.
June 9, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Brian do you presuppose that there is such thing as ‘gender conflict’? Is it possible, in your opinion, for someone to legitimately believe there is no such thing as antagonism between the genders?
June 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm
AndrewT: This is beginning to sound like those who say, ‘Jesus without religion.’ — Of course we’re talking about a culture…anything with humanity involved can be measured within sociological and anthropological terms; regardless if it is God ordered or not…just as we describe the kingdom of heaven as a ‘kingdom,’ which is a type of human ordering when its not God’s own! Just as the socio-religious term ‘scape-goating’ applies to both the ancient Hebrew nation, than say… any other ancient society. Even while we’ll probably still quibble over these terms you still clarified what you meant for me
.
I am not blind to gender distinction— I just understand that gender roles are mostly determined by society. The only distinctions that are not, are those rooted in the biological-psychological structures. To give an example, biologically women have to bare young…therefore that is one gender role within a society that can’t be ‘broken’ down. But whether women should stay at home or go to work, is not found within the psychological-biological structure, and is often determined by society.
June 9, 2012 at 5:13 pm
betweenathensandjerusalem — ah .. I see.
So when we interpret something in the bible like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” we should gauge this on sociological or anthropological terms in our interpretation? Must everything in the bible (in your opinion) be seen this way?
If you answer ‘no’ than clearly some of what we read in the bible must be taken in an acultural, atemporal way. I believe God cares more for the proliferation of His word, than petty human politics, for example, so the bible must speak more to one than the other.
If you say yes, however, than we have much larger issues that divide us than ‘egalitarian / complementarian’ differences – since such a view would all-but imply the predominate feature of the bible is the contribution of the human author (who I believe is secondary) – which means we see the text in a fundamentally different light.
With respect to recognizing gender distinction – the argument is about whether or not the bible legitimately determines gender roles. Saying “.. gender roles are mostly determined by society”, I concede, isn’t entirely absolute – but it still implies you’ve already made up your mind about the bible’s role setting distinction before looking at the evidence.
Even so – I’d say this:
Let society make up its own mind about gender distinction within society (all that will ultimately pass away). When it comes to the authority of women to determine issues of doctrine, or to be accountable for a family unit as head, perhaps we should look at what the bible says, and debate our points from there, for if God has weighed in on the matter (in His word) – frankly I care more about that perspective, than convention or social norm.
June 9, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Andrew
Can you clarify what you mean by “gender conflict?”
June 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm
No I don’t, but the social-sciences obviously help us understand and interpret the Scriptures, or would you not agree with this? The use of sociological and anthropological studies in religion help us as human beings understand how religion impacts us as human beings at a broad level; i.e. what societal function religion holds. Taking a look at Scripture, or religion, in this light does not up-front negate the truth value of a religious belief, nor does it up-front interfere with any particular understandings of Scripture. Because Hebrews used scapegoating as a way to relieve individual or societal sins, and this was a common practice, does not negate the truth or worth of Israel’s sacrifice over, say, a priests offering to Marduk—but the social-sciences role is not to determine whether YHWH exists and Marduk doesn’t. My point is, when you say that you’re not using any socio-anthropological categories, because your using the Bible and God, well I say you are mistaken. God is interacting with humans, and ‘human interaction’ is measurable, even while the supernatural may not be. I mean, do not even complentarians believe their way works out best for the family and society as a whole? Would you yourself not agree that if your view is correct, that it would actually be the best way to organize society?
My point with gender roles defining society plays a role in this discussion— For example, when reading Paul’s letters, specifically Titus, it would seem that Paul is writing to the ‘upper’ echelon of society (maybe the church Titus was going to had a lot of rich folk?)….as generally the lower classes had no time to ‘teach’ the younger women to be good wives, nor did the wives of the lower classes stay at home— they worked, because they needed to work. That 50s housewife ideal is something from the Victorian-Era middle class, as prior to the modern period, most women worked. My assessment is further supported when Paul brings up slaves. So my point, if we take 1st Century gender roles into consideration and not ignore them as you suggest, we see a great deal of difference contextually when dealing with the gender texts. I have looked at the evidence— I’ve looked at it through the eyes of a historian (which is my academic training), I have a considerable stack of works on gender roles in the Bible, and I also used to be a ‘complentarian’ and had written a paper on women ‘pastors’ while attending Liberty University briefly…
June 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm
between
That comment reminds me of Gordon D. Fee’s article: http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/cultural-context-of-ephesians.pdf
June 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Ah yes.. I have ‘Discovering Biblical Equality,’ which I think he edited…I’d have to look again. I’ll have to check out this article. It’s too bad that people do not like to apply historical-sociological-anthropological critique to the Bible—I mean, there is a way to do it that does not fall in line with the dreaded 19th century German school of biblical-criticism. Once we jump out of our present mindset, realizing, as I indicated in my post on historical thinking, that history changes, we should notice differences in how we do family today than how they did family. If we do not, we’re doing something wrong (like not properly interpreting the Scripture)… I mean, if you believe the Bible is presenting a picture of a 1950s housewife, like Mark Driscoll, then you are just plain wrong—you need to read some Roman societal history — For those who may be interested in going further, I recommend starting off with: A Day in the Life of Ancient Rome is a nice ‘fictional’ but accurate picture; or Daily Life of the Ancient Romans is a great real-basic scholarly work on the subject.
June 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm
P.S.— My Roman history professor was a great resource for this, she did her work on Roman women and society.
June 9, 2012 at 7:50 pm
between
I agree 100%. I know historical research doesn’t settle things and sometimes it does obscure canonical realities (e.g. I’d reader read the Book of Psalms with an eye toward literary-canonical points rather than historical points), but I have seen too many exegetes make major mistakes with Scripture because they confused the “plain reading” with their culturally conditioned reading. When we do historical research we are trying to understand the author in a hermeneutical cycle that doesn’t deny our horizon while not denying the author’s either.
June 9, 2012 at 8:00 pm
betweenathensandjerusalem: “… but the social-sciences obviously help us understand and interpret the Scriptures, or would you not agree with this?”
I’m critical actually .. consider this, what effect does it have pigeon holing a written work where the author is solely human – say history (as an example)? It forces us to gauge that work against some historiographical tradition or framework, which means that our own interpretative approach must make a judgment about the authors intent, presuppositions etc. We thus read our own meta-narratives into the text and attribute them to the author (and deny that this is what’s happening). A hideous presupposition is forced on the reader that the author’s approach is the most important component to be critiqued, understood, analyzed; not what the author is saying, but how they are saying it; or what drives their saying. It’s a nice trick to shift the readers attention off of what is being said, onto who is doing the saying.
A diligent reader ‘MUST’ find ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ in an author’s work (which is just sociological fluff). In this approach, an Individuals thesis, the logical relationship between premise and conclusion, or the truth of their presuppositions are not deemed particularly meaningful in-and-of themselves without understanding the baggage the author brings to the writing. Unfortunately, this is fallacious thinking, and it presupposes that truth is somewhat relative, as though an author’s sociological and anthropological circumstance prohibits them from conveying narrative, argument or truth objectively. It smacks of ‘argumentum ad novitam’; we get to judge the prior author without worrying about our own judgment. Looking at another fallacy, we learn from ‘ad hominem’, that no property of the speaker (including sociological and anthropological circumstances), in any way, alters the truth or falsity of what is being said. The only thing that does, is the actual ‘truth’ property of their premises, and the validity of their logic. The methodology is skewing the hermeneutic. Do the social-sciences help? They facilitate the false notion that there is something empirical in hermeneutics, more than there is; at best a placibo.
Brian: Do you understand the relationship between genders in terms of ‘Conflict Theory’ or is it possible no such a relationship exists? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory )
June 9, 2012 at 8:04 pm
betweenathensandjerusalem: I forgot to add – the criticism I offered above is a scenario where plainly the authorship was ‘merely human’. I see the approach you asked about, as dubious at best with pure human authorship.
Add to the mix the possibility that God may have underwritten the bible, to one degree or another, (presuppose some type of theory of inspiration), what possible influence could sociological and anthropological circumstances play if an omnipotent God played any type of role? One would have to have a very low view of scripture, and inspiration, to even hint at that argument!
June 9, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Andrew
I wouldn’t know. I have not studied that subject.
June 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Would you say that your perspective on gender relationship emphasizes the social, political or material inequality between men and women?
June 9, 2012 at 9:05 pm
No, I don’t think I focusnon the negatives.
June 9, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Brian: I agree, we shouldn’t come to the Scriptures with just historical context in mind. We need to come to the Scriptures with multiple tools and considerations.
AndrewT: I really don’t see your critique as substantial— because the same could be said against the, ‘each individual his own conscious’ approach popularized by the Enlightenment and especially made famous by the Evangelicals of the 2nd Great Awakening. Or any other approach, whatever that may be…We all come with ‘baggage,’ reading our own meta-narratives into the Scripture. It is no accident that when someone tells me ‘that’s how they read the Scriptures,’ that it happens to match their church’s doctrinal statement, or those that they read the most. It is no accident that when someone tells me what a particular Scripture verse says (more so with those debated verses), they usually back up their ‘interpretation’ by either quoting a theologian or Bible scholar, past or present. So to me, your historical critique isn’t much of a critique, but a word of caution that everyone should hear, because you’re right, we all come with ‘meta-narratives,’ and we all need to be aware of a discipline’s limitations. Historians know their craft doesn’t get you to ‘ultimate truth.’ And that isn’t the point of history. History’s point is to recreate the past in an informed manner. You cannot know what Plato’s ideas to critique as being true, until you know what Plato was actually getting out—which requires disciplines like history. Jesus’ theology that he taught, only makes sense within a particular context, does it not? This particular may not make sense to those outside, and thus are reliant upon those who employ the historical skills to recreate this construct—hence the commentaries you may be using. If you benefit from Licona, Craig Evans, Larry Hurtado, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, Darrel Bock, DA Carson, and the list goes on, you are gleaning the benefits of historical analysis applied to the Scripture. When you rely upon English translations, you are again, reliant upon men who are employing a bit of historical analysis. They are picking the best English words that fit the historical context of a particular word….My friend, you cannot escape the importance of historical analysis when it comes to the Bible! When we divide ourselves over doctrine, like we have, we present a Bible that is relative from the start, do we not? When many honest Christians come away from the Scriptures with differing theologies, that seems to mass a pretty sizable threat does it not?
Now I want to be clear here, perhaps you misunderstand my position. I do not think historical analysis is the only tool here…we do have to recognize the limitations. History, as you’ve indicated, is not an ‘ultimate truth’ seeking craft. Philosophy is certainly handy in determining the truth value you of things…Philosophy has helped me tremendously in doing ‘theology,’ or in my own ‘historical’ analysis. But it has its own limitations as well—itself a philosophical question. What are the limitations of philosophy! I suppose answerable whenever we figure out a solid epistemology and theory of the mind! We need to remember that God chose a particular people in a particular time to reveal his word, and we need to take that seriously.
Pingback: RHE – the mutuality 2012 synchroblog: a re-blog | Morven's Blog
Pingback: RHE- “Mutuality 2012 Synchroblog” | Christian Egalitarian Marriage
June 11, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Australia # 1 in equality? I beg to differ. The glass ceiling is lower than in most other western countries – for heaven sakes, they still have the “coming out” dances for young women with the sole purpose of being presented to prospective husbands in a pretty dress. Where is Sweden, Iceland, Finland, and Denmark in the list? These all are well-known egalitarian countries.
June 12, 2012 at 12:33 am
John commented above: “Does the sight of men laying down their lives for their wives as Christ did for the church really reflect most of the world today, or most eras of human history?”
I’m not sure I’ve ever ‘seen’ any husband lay down his life for his wife. What does this look like in real life?
I’ve seen plenty of women, Christian and otherwise, who have given up their rights, or never had any to begin with, because of a patriarchal culture. Is this what you mean by laying down your life?
If a husband and wife have a mutually sacrificial and unselfish relationship, where each honors the other above themselves and looks out for the interests of the other person, is this laying down your life?
I’m married to a very kind, selfless and thoughtful Christian man. We have a ridiculously happy marriage. We both aim to be loving, selfless and supportive in our relationship. However, after almost 30 years of marriage I don’t think that my husband has actually laid down his life for me. He is still very much alive and enjoying life.
So John, if you can, and without religious jargon, what do/did you mean? And please also explain how this is different to what a loving, selfless Christian wife does.
Thanks.
PS Hope you don’t mind my questions, Brian. But I really don’t see how Christian behavior comes in ‘pink’ and ‘blue’ versions, and I’d like an explanation from John if he is willing.
June 12, 2012 at 5:41 am
Marg
Of course I don’t mind. I welcome your thoughtful questions!
June 12, 2012 at 5:44 am
As an Australian who returned here in 2005 after 30 years overseas living in China, USA and England all I can say is where did you get your statistics from. Culturally Australia in both the larger sports culture ( and we are nuts about sports )and the church is the most sexist environment I have encountered.
June 12, 2012 at 5:49 am
Susanna and aussie
The statistics come from armchairadvocates.com and the sources are listed on the left hand side of the graph. I can’t speak first hand to it since I didn’t do primary research, but it is interesting to hear that you two feel Australia has such a long way to go. I have never been there. Maybe it has to do with employment and income or something like that?
June 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm
(Regarding the Australia issue:) the above infographic suggests that the relevant factors are 1) healthcare, 2) economic opportunities, and 3) education.
Pingback: Our most popular (read and interacted with) posts written in 2012 | Near Emmaus