Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Egalitarian/ Complementarian


by 11 Comments

Wisdom from Boyd and Martin.

Greg Boyd (click for source)

I have been particularly impressed with two pastors who have addressed some weighty matter recently with wisdom.

First, I want to point to a sermon series by Greg Boyd where he seeks to reconcile the violent depictions of God in the Hebrew Bible with the God revealed to us through Christ. He argues that we should understand these depictions as “shadows” like the Law, Sabbath, holy feasts, and other things that pointed to Christ but that were incomplete without Christ. I am wrestling with his words, but I admit that they are very thought provoking. If you have the time watch/listen to “God’s Shadow Activity” and “Shadow of the Cross.”

Jonathan Martin (click for source)

Second, Jonathan Martin was late to the discussion around Doug Wilson’s use of words like “colonization” and “conquering” to describe the so-called “passive role” of women in sex, but he may have given one of the best responses. In “Gender, race, and Pentecost: the world has moved on.” he humbles us all.  Martin reminds us that God is doing amazing things around the world while we act as if we are the center of the Christian universe. These are three of my favorite  excerpts:

“The future has already arrived, and it has little to do with people like me.  In the global body of Christ, we have seen a remarkable shift in the balance of power.  Those of us in the west in general and North America in particular are used to being in the seat of power and influence; we are used to being those who shape global conversation in the Church.  Our sense of self-importance is innate.   Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Israel, our Christian faith a curious syncretism of sentimental piety and manifest destiny, we send missionaries into the world.  We ship our virtues and vices wholesale into all the earth.”

And

“I am a Pentecostal by heritage and tradition, but culturally I am one of the bourgeois pastors whose day might seem to be coming, but in many ways has already passed.  The whole white male, coffee-drinking, apple product-using, Coldplay-listening type.  It is a very small world that we live in that feels deceitfully large.  We have blogs, we write books, we talk about the most recent issue of Christianity Today.  So it is easy to think we are the center of the universe.”

And

“The average Christian in the world right now is an African or Latin American female in her early 20’s.  She doesn’t read our blogs and she doesn’t readChristianity Today.  She doesn’t know or care who I am and she never will.  The names Piper, Driscoll, Chan, Bell, Stanley, Warren—mean nothing to her.  Like most Pentecostal women coming into the kingdom around the world, words like “complementarian” and “egalitarian” are not in her vocabulary, nor Calvinism and Arminianism.  Unlike some of my brothers would lead you believe (where their lunch table is the only one that cares about Scripture and THE GOSPEL while anybody who believes differently from them in these tired conversations are flaming liberals), she takes the authority of the Bible very seriously.  But more importantly, she believes in the power of the Bible in ways that are incomprehensible even for our most rabid “conservatives.”  The western filter and language that frames these issues will not be determinative for her, unlucky as she is not to read our blogs.  She may well in end up leading a church one day where she preaches Jesus like a woman on fire and lays hands on the sick and watches God heal them, though this will surprise those Reformed colleagues who are sure all female church leaders have been trained by godless-Unitarian-lesbian-leftist-radical feminist-seminarians (she didn’t have access to seminary at all–unfortunately she has read the Acts of the Apostles).  Who knew?”

I recommend taking the time to listen to Boyd’s sermons and read Martin’s article. This is why the pastor-theologian is so valuable to the church. We need more people like them!

About these ads


by 2 Comments

An apology in the right direction.

It was brought to my attention that Jared Wilson has apologized for the blog post that used offensive and insensitive language toward women regarding their “role” in sex (see “Some Reflections, Just One Explanation, and Apologies”). I am thankful to see it. It is an apology in the right direction. I agree with Scot McKnight that this wasn’t the same type of disagreement between egalitarians and complementarians that we are used to reading (see “Thank You”). The words used were potentially far more offensive. Obviously there are complementarians who would never use that language to describe their sexual relationship with their wife. Wilson’s realization that this language could cause harm is one I applaud. I am glad to see he decided to remove the post.

 


by 15 Comments

“Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.” #mutuality2012

Rachel Held Evans has posted a long list of articles written by men and women from the egalitarian perspective for this year’s inaugural Week of Mutuality: Mutuality 2012 Synchroblog. I found this to be quite exciting! As I’ve said, I came to Christianity through Pentecostalism where the gifting and calling of a person was the sign of what the Holy Spirit sought to do in and through their life, not their gender. This doesn’t mean gender is not important, but rather that it does not limit. As the prophet Joel said of the New Covenant given to us through the Holy Spirit, “Your sons and your daughters will prophesy (2.28).” Indeed, these contributions are a wonderful example of God using his children–men and women–as instruments. There are more great articles than you will have time to read, but I recommend you browse through the list.

The church is a better place when the Spirit’s work is not quenched because a man has bias against a women or a woman has bias against a men. A marriage is healthier when two people are committed to being a team unit rather than a hierarchy. Even for so-called “complementarians” who believe in particular gender roles I think the challenge stands: love your wife as Christ loved the church. That hardly means, “Your maleness is a trump card.” I know there may never be a day this side of the Second Coming where the Apostle Paul’s words “in Christ…their is neither male nor female” will be fully recognized just like there may never be a time without war, or a time where no one is impoverished, or a time when there is no sickness. But when I see little glimpses of what I saw through this Week of Mutuality I am reminded that the eschatological dream of God can happen just like there will be a time when weapons are destroyed, the poor are made rich, and our bodies are completely healed through resurrection life.

Thank you Rachel Held Evans and all the other contributors for giving me a little piece of eschatological bliss this week!


by 56 Comments

Complementarianism is not “counter-culture.” #mutuality2012

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.

Wow, look at all that egalitarianism in the world!

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.]


by 21 Comments

What defines our gender identity?

For Christians the prototypes of Adam and Eve establish a foundational narrative for gender identity, but does this make it any easier to determine what is intuitively masculine and feminine?

Don and Betty Draper of the hit show Mad Men. (courtesy of moviespad.com)

Whether or not you affirm a literal Adam and Eve you likely agree that their role in Scripture has something to do with establishing the “norm” of gender distinction and gender identity. Male and female are different. There is much that is shared, but at a very basic level we are different biologically. It is from this difference that we humans construct gender distinction through cultural expressions. And while many cultures share similar traits it is hard to find many things that transcend cultures and epochs as universal “masculine” or “feminine” traits.

In Scripture the Apostle Paul seems to argue that head-coverings or possibly uncut hair are norms taught to us by nature (unless he is quoting something said by the Corinthians as some argue). He writes that nature itself teaches us that men should have short hair and women long hair, but does it (οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν, γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίουδέδοται, 1 Corinthians 11.14-15)? What if Paul would have encountered people groups in Africa or modern women in the United States? Why don’t they seem aware of this?

What may seem obviously masculine or obviously feminine in one culture is not so in another. There was a time when it was masculine to join the army and go to war. Women and children remained behind, likely because one man can produce many children, but every pregnancy requires an individual woman, so we humans learned that our survival allows for many men to expire, but not many women. For various reasons this is not a convincing argument for preventing a woman from joining the United States Army. What changed?

If you’ve read anything from people like Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, et al., you realize that there are many male Christian leaders and thinkers who are concerned with the changes they see in culture. Often they appeal to a “biblical manhood” that looks more like something you’d see on Mad Men than first century Galilee or ancient Israel (remember: the “Proverbs 31 woman” is an entrepreneurial figure who works, does business, does politics, and finds herself fully integrated into ancient Israelite society…she is no Betty Draper)!

I sense that Christians are quite confused at this juncture in the history of western society. We are transitioning out of the industrial age, many men seeing their manual labor jobs given to machines, and many more women are entering the workforce (rightfully so). I know of some youth pastors who say that it is difficult to know how to teach young men how to embrace and express their maleness. I assume this is why some of the aforementioned folk gravitate toward expressions of gender from a more black-and-white era. Yet anyone who knows anything about the 50′s and 60′s is very, very aware that it was unfair to both men and women. Women weren’t allowed to fulfill their full potential as humans and neither were men who were taught that their role was that of a “bread winner” whose sole job was to “provide.” Many of these men found themselves retired as strangers to their wife and children. Many of these women found themselves experiencing an existential crisis realizing that there is more to life than reproducing and washing dishes (though there is nothing wrong with those tasks, obviously, there is more to being a woman than those things).

So returning to a “golden age” to recover “the way we never were” (as sociologist Stephanie Coontz describes it) is not the best idea in my estimation, nor a realistic one.

Yet (!) we know as men and women we are different, even if it is at a very basic, minimal level. What does it mean to create and maintain healthy gender distinctions so that people can develop a gender identity? Surely it has nothing to do with boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink or boys playing with trucks while girls play with dolls. This is inculturation, whether good, bad, or neutral. It has little to nothing to do with being ontologically male or female. If a girl wants to play baseball and a boy wants to be a pastry chef we know this is fine, even if there are gender stereotypes associated with them. A boy can do ballet while retaining a masculine identity. A girl can joined the armed forces while retaining a feminine identity.

So what does it mean to be made in the image of God–male and female? What makes masculinity and femininity? What role does culture have in establishing norms and how to we avoid “othering” people who don’t align to our superficial stereotypes?

Thoughts?


by 15 Comments

Best books on gender roles and equality?

Last week I wrote a post on “The top ten most difficult doctrinal/theological subjects that contemporary Christians need to address.” Today I want to invite readers to leave a comment recommending books on these topics that you have found to be helpful. The seventh item on my list was that of gender roles and equality about which I wrote:

While I am concerned about women having the freedom to serve in their church according to their calling this is just the tip of the iceberg. As we’ve seen in recent debates over contraceptives there is a great divide between many forms of conservative Christianity and women’s rights movements. While we could argue that abortion rights are a distinct matter I think it is fair to say that you can’t separate that subject from this one.

What is a book (or books) that you recommend for someone wanting to think through this subject?


by 6 Comments

Ben Witherington III addresses gender roles, homosexuality, and the church.

In the videos posted below Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary addresses how the church should respond to the question of gender roles and homosexuality:

What are your thoughts on one or both of these videos?

Related: 

Neil de Koning of Think Christian asks, “How should Christians respond to April 20’s Day of Silence, a student-led national event that brings attention to the bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in schools?” Join the discussion on that blog here.

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove writes about the proposed amendment in North Carolina to make marriage between a man and a woman. He provides his perspective as a Christian who does not support the amendment in “Should This Family Be Ilegal?”

Ed Stetzer lists some “biblical principles” regarding human sexuality here.