Around the web

Just a couple of things that I thought was too good to pass up...

Those of you who've followed this blog for a little while now might remember me doing a series working through the complementarian and egalitarian views. I didn't touch on the Trinity then, but John Stackhouse of Regent College, an egalitarian, has a good post in which he sums up how both camps appeal to the Trinity to substantiate their respective positions before arguing that the Trinity doesn't prove anything about gender either way.

I listened to Mark Dever's message, Improving the Gospel at T4G, an American conference looking to find the centre ground of an increasingly fragmented evangelicalism, last week (although I'll admit I wasn't concentrating 100% of the time!). It's worth a listen as he wrestles with distinguishing between the gospel proper and what are merely implications of the gospel - might sound like an academic exercise but actually, how we understand the gospel really does impact what we see as priorities, how we witness etc. There's a good summary of his main points at Out of Ur. No substitute for listening it for yourself though, as the subsequent comment thread on the summary post shows. Ugh, lots of people were missing the point, it was just so frustrating to read! I don't know if I agree entirely with everything Dever says, but he's the smart guy and I'm not. But another smart guy, Mike Bird, has good thoughts on it. Bird wants to probe a little more on the details while agreeing with the thrust of Dever's message.

Trevix Wax has a follow up interview with N.T Wright and his new book, Surprised By Hope.

Stephen Murray: Why Being a Follower of Jesus is not enough.

Al Hsu on common ground between 'emergents' and 'new calvinists'. We've just finished a series on 1 John at church and I'm thinking that it's the biblical letter that we all need to hear the most in these times, with its tight emphasis on right belief and right living, both of which are essential, whatever label we self-identify by. I'll love at some point to read both Collin Hansen and Tony Jones's books and compare my own journey over the last couple of years.

Men and women's roles: Random concluding thoughts

Introduction
A mono-dialogue
Continuing the conversation (Gen. 1-3)
The end of the conversation (but not really)
1 Timothy 2:8-15 (Part i)
1 Timothy 2:8-15 (Part ii)


I better wrap up this series. Not quite sure what else to say really, at least not in any coherent way.

Why has this discussion proven to be so heated? I’ve mentioned one reason in the introduction – it inevitably touches at the core of who we are. Furthermore, it invariably touches on church practice. An egalitarian female might feel restricted in a church that adheres to complementarian teaching and that she is not being allowed to express her gifts fully. A complementarian might feel uncomfortable sitting in a church where a female pastor is preaching. There really isn’t middle ground. It can be hard to say "let’s agree to disagree" in a situation such as the ordination of female bishops, for in effect, the complementarian is ceding ground to the egalitarian.

In recent years, the debate has also moved on in such a way that links it with more fundamental Christian doctrines. One of the things that interested me in the initial comment thread over at Tim’s original post is how quickly the discussion moved to the question of the authority of the Bible. Some prominent complementarians, most notably Wayne Grudem, has discerned a trajectory that he sees as leading to liberalism in the way egalitarians read the Scriptures. Egalitarians will dispute this. So there is a sense in which there is a more fundamental debate going on. IMHO, the current vigorous debates over the trustworthiness/clarity/authority of the Scriptures is going to be one of the top two or three debates which will mark out my generation, thanks to the powerful challenges posed by the "postmodern turn" and a pluralistic world. There is an urgent need for a fresh rearticulation of the doctrine of God’s Word and how it informs the Christian life.

Another fundamental doctrine that has been linked to the issue of gender roles has been that of the Trinity. These debates are very complicated, and touch on the issue of the subordination of the Son to the Father. Kevin Giles, an Australian theologian and an egalitarian, has been very scathing in particular on complementarians, effectively accusing them of being Arians (i.e. believing that God the Son is somehow lesser to the Father). Complementarians defend themselves by pointing out the difference between essence and roles. As you can see, the waters can get murky indeed.

It’s just really, really hard for both sides not to talk past each other. The surrounding culture makes it tough too. A complementarian sees a world where people are simply confused by what it means to be a man and woman, from “hooking up” to high divorce rates, and are alarmed by the increasing passivity of the male, often mocked in TV shows where they are portrayed as buffoons and indecisive. An egalitarian sees a world where women in many places are nothing more than objects, where glass ceilings exist, put in place by old boys’ networks, and where women seem to be marginalised in churches.

As I’ve mentioned before, complementarians too need to clearly model Christ-like love and sacrificial headship if there is any chance for them to persuade others that they have interpreted God’s word correctly. They must seek to encourage the gifts of women. 30 or 40 years ago complementarianism was the majority position. I’m certain this is no longer the case.

This has been a series that has been personally stimulating, and I’m glad that I’m somewhat clearer of my position than before I started. Feedback on this series is most welcome! When I have time, I hope to read up a little more on this subject. Here is a short reading list for those who wish to pursue this further:

Two Views of Women In Ministry - contributors: Linda Belleville, Craig Keener (egalitarians), Thomas Schreiner, Craig Blomberg (complementarians). This is the first work to look at if you want to look at the biblical arguments put forward by each side. I definitely want to read this at some point. Make sure that this is the revised edition, as the first edition (which had Ann Bowman as a contributor) was significantly weaker!

---

Equal but Different, by Alexander Strauch. (C) For an introduction to the complementarian position.

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. (C) Most comprehensive complementarian book.

Women’s Ministry in the Local Church, by J. Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt (C). Does what it says on the tin.

---

Discovering Biblical Equality, by Rebecca Groothuis et al. (E) This is the egalitarian equivalent of the Piper and Grudem book above.

Women in the Church, by Stanley Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo. (E) Argues that women should serve as full partners in ministry with men.

Why Not Women?, by Loren Cunningham et al. (E) YWAM founder offers introduction to egalitarian position.

---

Men and Women in the Church, by Sarah Sumner. (C/E?) This book is a serious attempt to find a third way, but I have to confess I’m not sure if that’s possible. Still, it’s a worthwhile effort. Supposedly John Stackhouse’s Finally Feminist attempts a similar thing on a more limited/pragmatic scale, but my understanding is that Stackhouse in reality firmly lands on the egalitarian side.


† Expand post

Men and women's roles: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 part ii

Introduction
A mono-dialogue
Continuing the conversation (Gen. 1-3)
The end of the conversation (but not really)
1 Timothy 2:8-15 (Part i)

Structure of 1 Timothy 2:8-15
"Therefore"
v.8 the conduct expected of men
v.9-10 the dress code of women
v.11-12 an instruction for the woman
v.13-14 the reason/basis
v.15 who knows???

Diving in
So, in light of the love of God for the whole world which has just been stressed, Paul wants to remind the men that they should be prayerful people. That the warning is against anger and disputing possibly could be to do with the false or controversial teaching that probably resulted in church disputes or division. Think about it, how quickly do we drop to our knees in prayer every time we hear the rumblings of discontentment in church? In our eagerness to score points for our side, we often end up painting a rather unattractive picture of the church family. Our love for each other is obscured, or even worse, absent. What more of our love for our neighbour? Obviously, this doesn’t minimise the importance of doctrine, given what Paul is stressing throughout the entire letter, but the upholding of truth inevitably includes the way we live our lives.

Paul has already affirmed the truth of Christ Jesus, and that is what we should unite around. I think the way I’ve framed the whole issue makes sense because I think v.9-10 also has in mind church division, so v.8-10 makes a couplet. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that women can’t pray (eg. 1 Cor. 11:5). More likely, this could be the particular problem men faced in a situation of a divided church; reacting with anger or a contentious spirit is easier than getting down to the business of praying.

Similarly, the mission and thus, the conduct of the church are probably in Paul’s mind with regards to v.9-10. It isn’t that Paul is trying to institute some kind of draconian dress code. He is cautioning against self-indulgence, where such dress was a sign of extravagant luxury and would have sent wrong signals to the have-nots. No, Paul says, actually, if we want to make sure that people are receptive to the gospel, what should mark us out immediately are our good deeds. In other words, this would have been counter-cultural in a world where flaunting what we have is expected.

So we finally arrive at v.11-15. In light of what we’ve just learned, all of you should pray for me now. :)

The following three paragraphs draw heavily from the sermon I heard:

v.11. The word translated "quietness" here doesn’t mean total silence. (Again, we think of 1 Cor. 11:5). Rather, it simply means to have a quiet and peaceable spirit. Again, makes sense in light of the context of false teaching and church division. So there is no way any church can justify total silence on the part of the women. The word "submission" here is used in the same way in Ephesians 5, which I already mentioned in my three-way conversation with myself...errr, Alex and Casey. So again, it seems to me to hint at some form of order here, which makes sense in light of v.13-14.

v.12 "have authority over" here is not the term used to mean the normal exercise of authority, but rather another term which has negative connotations of usurping authority or being domineering. So Paul is stressing attitude and manner of learning. (Actually, I find it interesting that my pastor, a complementarian, opted for this, since I believe that the noted biblical scholar Andreas Kostenberger has actually argued for the former option on grammatical grounds convincingly enough that even many egalitarians have accepted his conclusions. However, it does not make a difference for my pastor’s overall argument, as the next paragraph will make clear. He and Kostenberger are essentially on the same page, I think, even if they don’t agree on this!)

In the sermon I heard, it was argued that v.11-12 is actually one sentence in the original, again, an assertion backed up by grammatical evidence. v.11 and 12 are not two separate instructions, but rather, one command. So, in other words, the command here is that a woman is not to teach in such a way that exercises authority over man. Now obviously, I am not at all qualified to evaluate such an argument! But the implications of this is simply that this should only be restricted to the church, and not to all situations, so one can’t use this passage to argue against women CEOs or Prime Ministers. I’m quite happy to accept this.

This command is grounded in creation (v.13-14), which suggests a universal application rather than a time-bound command. Paul also appeals to creation in 1 Cor. 11. How you take this depends on how you interpret Genesis 1-3. But it seems to me Paul is arguing by ascribing some significance to the order of creation here, and it’s hard to escape that without doing some fancy twisting, and I think the context of chapter 2 also lends this point credence. I also think that while v.14 can and has been interpreted misogynistically, i.e the woman is somehow more prone to deception, I would simply take it as a statement of fact. So I don’t buy the argument that the reason woman can’t teach is because she’s gullible. Instead, it’s better again, it seems to me, to take v.13-14 together, so that we see one factor in v. 14 happening – Eve sinning – is due to the irresponsibility of v.13, Adam, as designated head, fails to stop this. Again, this of course assumes a complementarian interpretation of Gen. 3.

As for v. 15, you can imagine no one quite knows what to make of this. My pastor suggests that it is possible that some have reasoned that, since, during the Fall, one of the effects of sin was the pain of childbearing, some false teachers could have been suggesting that to be redeemed meant that women no longer should suffer from pain. So if you were still undergoing pain in childbearing, you weren’t saved. So Paul wants to stamp out such patently false teaching. Rather, it is continuing in the faith which is important. I think it makes sense.

So that’s my reading, which is decidedly complementarian. But within this boundaries,
I think there is actually plenty of flexibility for women to get involved in ministry. I have happily sat under the teaching of women in Bible studies. I think the more I think of it, the more I am wanting to give full range of expression to women in ministry. I am still a little hesitant on women in the pulpit (is that teaching with authority?), but I know some complementarian churches have women preachers, as long as the overall leader is male. There still needs to be more thought on this, as egalitarians have often charged complementarians, rightly to my mind, with confusion over the exact parameters of what women can and cannot do in ministry.

I think the next post in this series will be the last; I haven't quite figured out what to say yet! Maybe that's a good thing. It'd be more general comments, though, so I hope the exercise of close(r) reading of the biblical texts, which ends here, has proven beneficial!


† Expand post

Men and women's roles: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 part i

Introduction
A mono-dialogue
Continuing the conversation (Gen. 1-3)
The end of the conversation (but not really)

This is one of the most disputed passages in the whole Bible today. There have literally been hundreds of books written just on these eight verses alone! And I haven’t actually read even a single one of them! So it’s tempting to just give up on this portion of Scripture and discreetly turn the page. Still, I do trust in the clarity of Scripture, so long as we are in line with how language and literature (genre etc.) works, and we understand that clarity does not equal to ease of understanding – understanding the Bible can be hard work!

To tackle 1 Timothy 2:8-15, it seems important to me to see where these 8 sentences emerge from. Also, I am fairly dependent on a sermon I heard on this passage for this post, especially on linguistic matters, since I don’t understand Greek nor do I own any commentary on 1 Timothy. It'd probably help to have an open Bible at hand somewhere to follow this post.

Background and purpose of 1 Timothy
Paul is on his way to Macedonia, but he has left Timothy back in Ephesus. The reason for this is the rise of false teachers in the church (1:3-4). Paul had already taken serious action against two of them, Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:19-20). More generally, this seems to be primarily a book about church order, so in chapter 2, we already have instructions concerning our controversial passage as well as public prayer, chapter 3 on the qualifications for overseers and deacons, chapter 4 on church discipline and chapter 5 on caring for different groups in the church, be it widows or slaves.

But I don’t think we need to see the rise of false teachers as just a side note, an “oh, btw Tim, do take care of the business of false teachers while I tell you how to run a church” from Paul. Instead, I think the spectre of false teaching looms large in Paul’s thinking regarding the running of the household of God, and the letter is bookended by a charge to be faithful and a warning against false teaching. "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care” (6:20). Paul is concerned that the church must be seen as the “church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (3:15). When we gather together, we are in some way, a family, a group of ambassadors of God. Therefore, all these instructions about church order are, in the end, to ensure that God’s name is not besmirched by improper conduct among his people, which could be undermined by all sorts of false teaching. (Notice how 4:1-5 follows immediately on from 3:14-16). So in v.16, possibly quoting an old creed or hymn, Paul gives us doctrinal teaching, but not in an abstract sense, since it is finally to do with person of Jesus. It is the "mystery of godliness", so doctrine and conduct, theology and worship, go together.

Context
In chapter 1, Paul has spoken against false teachers, reminding us of the usefulness of the law in showing up our sin, and given his testimony about God’s abundant grace in Jesus. This is something worth fighting for and we can’t let others shipwreck it (1:18-20).

So why is Paul so adamant about this? This is made clear in chapter 2. It’s not about nitpicking over the final details of doctrine. No, it’s all about mission. In 2:1-7, the first matters he addresses to the church is prayer. Pray for the authorities (v.1-2)...why? So that they won’t get in the way of mission (v.3), a mission that is huge in scope ("all men"). Mission is the heartbeat of God (v.4-5), and at the center of it is Jesus (v.5), the only one who could reconcile us to God. This is Paul’s heart too (v.7). Paul remembers this all too well: "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – of which I am the worse" (1:15). This is set against the less than trustworthy sayings of the false teachers, eg. 1:4, 1:8-10, 3:1, 4:1-5, 9-10.

Why is this so important? Because unfortunately, the NIV has left out a very important word in v.8. It should start with the word "therefore", linking v.8-15 back to 2:1-7. We need to understand v.8-15 in light of v.1-7. (See more literal translations like the NASB or ESV which has kept the word.) So when we read the instructions regarding men and women in worship, we should do so, knowing that Paul has the mission of the church in mind.

[To be continued, when BK jumps into shark-infested waters!]


† Expand post

Men and women's roles: The end of the conversation (but not really)

Introduction
A mono-dialogue
Continuing the conversation (Gen. 1-3)

Because we're not emerging.

...

BK: So we’ve covered the Creation and Fall story-blocks...so how about we cover the Redemption block? How does Jesus figure in? Let me quote Galatians 3:28 – "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Why don’t you each tell us what the complementarian and egalitarian take is?

Casey: For the egalitarian, this is a total abolishment of class, racial and gender barriers in Christ. So, it’s a reversal of Genesis 3 as I’ve described before, and full male/female equality is restored.

Alex: Complementarians understand this to simply mean that God’s salvation extends to everyone! So just because I’m a Gentile doesn’t mean I am denied entry into God’s kingdom. Ditto for women. Gender has no role to play in our salvation, so just because someone is a guy doesn’t mean he somehow merits salvation more than women.

BK: Let’s perhaps cover just one more issue. We haven’t talked about marriage yet. How does this play out within the complementarian and egalitarian framework? I’m thinking specifically of Ephesians 5:22-33.

Casey: Let’s look at this in context. Don’t leave out v.21, where it says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ". Surely this, however we interpret what follows, needs to be kept in mind. So I don’t think it’s as simple as pointing at this text and saying, "aha! Isn’t this clear?" The culture of the time certainly didn’t think much of women! So Paul subverts their cultural understanding, using marriage as a prime example. There is mutual submission at work here. Women serve their wiveshusbands, but equally men love their wives, just like Christ! This is followed by the examples of parent-child and masters-slave.

Alex: I agree that v.21 is an important transitioning verse. But if you thought I was jumping though hoops on Genesis 3, I think you’re doing the same here! Firstly, the reason the wife should submit to her husband is precisely because he is the "head". Her submission is modelled on the church’s submission to Christ. This is quite simply, the natural reading. The difference is, headship shouldn’t be modelled on the world, but on Christ and his sacrificial love. No chest-pumping for the man here. So I am totally with you on men loving their wives! In fact, husbands get more airtime in this passage to make sure that blokes really, really understand the humble love they are to model. So I agree with you on the imperative, but take exception to the fact that you label this as mutual submission.


Casey: I concede, against my will, that complementarians have the stronger case here, but I don’t think the egalitarian case is crushed completely. I still think there is some kind of mutual submission going on, and that needs some explaining.

BK: Sorry Casey, I do think complementarians win on this one. Linguistically, there might be one way to explain "submit" as well. Stott tells me that the Greek word for submit, hypotassomai, has at its heart the word for order, taxis. There has yet to be even one example in ancient Greek literature that understands this word in the context of relationship between persons. It’s always in relation to authority. So submission here could potentially mean a humble recognition of ordering of roles within marriage. But this isn’t the clincher for me. It’s 5:24. We submit to Christ, but Christ doesn’t submit to the church. He’s the glorified Lord. But as Alex already pointed out, men can’t be arrogant about this.

Casey: No fair being a fictional character of your imagination! I should caution you though that some people might bristle at a perceived patriarchal tone in what you just said. But since I’m actually in your mind, I know you’re not equating men as somehow superior. But some egalitarians simply think that’s how the logic works out; no matter how much complementarians try to dress it up, it’s the guy who "wins". I don’t think so though, you know, me being nice and all.

BK: Oooh, you get a bonus for this. How about I let you make one more point for the egalitarian position, with no rebuttal from Alex?

Alex: *finds himself gagged* Mhmmhfmhhwmm!!!!

Casey: In 1 Corinthians 12, we find that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in his distribution of spiritual gifts, there is no distinction between gender. Surely, if the spiritual gifting is gender-neutral, and God wants them to be exercised, men and women should be free to exercise them. There are after all, examples of female leadership in the Bible.

BK: Alright. I didn’t say I can’t make a rebuttal!

Casey: *whacks BK with a baseball bat*

BK: Ow! Ow! Can’t you take a joke? And where did you get that bat from anyway?

Alex: Hey Casey, I’m hungry. What say we get outta here for a bite? I’m sick of being in BK’s mind anyway. Let’s jump over to Jamie Oliver’s...

Casey: Nigella’s better...

BK: I’m staying out of this one.

---

Postscript: I do hope that the exchanges above give a much better idea of how both sides justify their positions exegetically. I chose to concentrate on Genesis 1-3 primarily because so many of the other relevant passages appeal back to them, plus, I’ve actually studied Gen. 1-3 in some depth. There’re even more arguments both sides could throw out on Genesis 1-3 alone, never mind 1 Corinthians et al., but Alex and Casey decided that there was more than enough to chew on! I hope you don’t mind that this is a little skewed towards the complementarian side. This in part reflects my upbringing and the church teaching I’ve received, (possibly personality and experience plays a part too). I probably haven’t heard all the egalitarian arguments yet, but for now, the complementarians have won me.

For the moment, I’ve restricted the discussion mainly to discussion of the biblical texts themselves, since I think that’s where we should all start, and that will continue into the next post in this series when we look at 1 Tim 2:8-15. Later, I might discuss how this debate touches on other vitally important parts of Christian belief, and all the miscellaneous stuff that has yet to be touched on, like how this works out in practice etc. etc.


† Expand post

Men and women's roles: Continuing the conversation (Gen. 1-3)

with Alex and Casey. Which is actually me. But not really. Arrrgh! I'll go see my psychiatrist now.

Introduction
A mono-dialogue

...

Alex: Don’t worry, that’s not the only argument. Secondly, Adam is allowed to name Eve. Naming, in the context of Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern culture, implies a measure of responsibility for and authority over what is named. So for a king in the Ancient Near East, to name people or things was an act of authority. This is probably why Genesis 1 is written in such a way; anyone who read Genesis 1 would recognise that God, by naming or calling things, is showing he is the ultimate authority over creation. So, the act of Adam naming Eve (Gen. 2:23) would be another point where responsible male headship is demonstrated.

Casey: I see this differently. For example, God named the animals before human beings. Does that mean that animals have priority over humans? Nope. So the order of creation shouldn’t be such a big deal. A few of us would argue too that while the description of the historical-cultural context you argued for is plausible, it developed later. Besides, I think that there is a possibility that man naming woman is simply an act of his own free will (Gen. 2:22), and that you read too much into this. From my own reading, man calling woman "bone of my bones" shows that woman is equal to man. She was made, not from his head or his feet, but from his ribs.

Alex: This is where we part ways, it seems. Again, I fully agree that woman is equal to man in value, dignity, personhood and so on. I suppose you could say we are equal in our essential humanness, so I agree with you on "bone of my bones". But she is also called "woman, for she was taken out of man" which to me indicates some difference being highlighted. Yet man and woman can enjoy each other and be united. I still think this fits better with the text itself as well as the context.

Casey: Shouldn't I get my turn now?

Alex: Alright.

Casey: You argue for equality in personhood but distinction in roles. But when we look at Genesis 1:26-27, we are not just equally made in his image, but both man and woman are given the responsibility to rule over his creation. So I don’t think there’s a case for role differentiation. Instead, I think this is because of the Fall and the entry of sin. I would think that Genesis 3:16 shows this clearly. So previously man and woman were one flesh – great image, isn’t it? – but now her husband will rule over her. As one flesh, they were part of each other; it wasn’t a case of male authoritarianism. Male headship is a result of the Fall.

Alex: Hey, Jesus loves the institution of marriage and hates divorce, so I am all for one flesh too! Just...don't, err, let your imagination run away on the one flesh imagery. But I don’t buy your reading. "One flesh" could just as easily show the complementarity of man and woman. They fit together. And notice what happens after Eve sins. God goes to Adam first for an explanation. When God explains the penalty for sin, it is to Adam he charges it to. I think this is backed up by Romans 5:12-21. It implies headship on Adam’s part.

BK: Ooooh, I find that compelling!

Casey: No fair BK! You’re supposed to be impartial!

BK: *sheepish* Sorry. You are in my mind after all, which is actually a breeding place for eeeeeevil...I mean, it isn’t a neutral ground. But I’m trying my best to accommodate you.

Casey: I’ll be in your brain’s control room to do a little tweaking later...

Alex: With regards to Genesis 3:16, complementarians understand it on the basis of what "desire" means. The same word is used in Genesis 4:7, and in its context, means to conquer, usurp, a desire to usurp authority. So in the Fall, the sense is that woman now has sinful desires to be controlling or manipulative. Similarly, man now sinfully wants to rule over their wife in a way God had not intended. In other words, male headship, which should be marked by love, responsibility, and tenderness, is now replaced by brutishness and oppression.

Casey: I still think that you’re twisting what Gen. 3:16 says. I think I can agree with you when you mention that Adam now sinfully seeks to dominate or oppress his wife, but I would argue that in this verse, the first half about childbearing relates to the effects of sin about woman, whereas the second half is exclusively about man. Isn’t this the first time as well a subordinate relationship is introduced in the text? So, desire here is simply a woman’s right desire for companionship or something similar from her husband.

BK: So Alex’s case builds upon the way the word "desire" is used in Genesis 4:7...

Alex: ...which I would think has force because Genesis 4 is so close to Genesis 3, so there’s no real reason to think the word is used differently. Moreover, the same word and meaning is used in Song of Songs somewhere. And how can this desire be woman’s right desire when the context of chapter 3 is sin?

BK: ...whereas Casey, assuming earlier arguments made for Genesis 1-2, thinks that Genesis 3 reads much better by showing the subservience of woman to man, where there was no hint before, unless you read it into the text.

Casey: Yeah. Don’t forget how I read Genesis 1:26-27!

BK: Whew! That was exhausting! We’ve spent lots of time on Genesis 1-3, and my brain is running low on fuel.

Casey: Yes...*rubs hands*...do you want me to, er, help you in the brain control room?

Alex: Hey!

Casey: I tried.

BK: So we’ve covered the Creation and Fall story-blocks…so how about we cover the Redemption block? How does Jesus figure in?


[always end on a cliffhanger! How will the cosmic battle between Alex and Casey play out?]


† Expand post

Men and women's roles: A mono-dialogue

Introduction

BK: Welcome to the lair that is BK’s mind! Ignore the cobwebs and creaking sounds. They’re for uh, aesthetic purposes.

I went back and forth as to whether to start with 1 Tim 2:8-15 and go from there, but in the end I figured a top-down approach was better suited, not least because 1 Tim refers to Genesis, a key passage in the entire discussion.

I should say beforehand that if you’ve arrived at this post via google, please don’t take this to be exhaustive or definitive, as I am very much still pitching my tent on the slope known as the learning curve myself. At the same time, I obviously hope that I am mostly on the mark with my take on the two camps Christians generally find themselves in, and that everyone listening in around the campfire with little knowledge beforehand would have a better grasp of the issues involved by the end. This is so important as I think one of the reasons the two sides often talk past each other boils down to a failure to understand what the other actually believes.

Say hello to two fictional constructs of my mind, Alex and Casey. (Haha, maybe this way I can declare no liability). They tell me that the picture to your right is a good portrait of them, but I'm not so sure. What do you think? I shall declare beforehand that tentatively, my position is similar to the one held by Alex, and that I hope I don’t misrepresent Casey! Evangelical Christians have generally held one of these two positions regarding the role of women in ministry and family. So could you describe your respective stands?

Casey: Well, Alex is the hierarchicalist...

Alex: Hey, that makes me sound like some evil dictator with a harem of Carrie Fisher look-alikes! It’s complementarian, c-o-m-p-l-e-m-e-n-t-a-r-i-a-n. I’ll appreciate that, you evangelical feminist! And spell it right too!

Casey: Oh, and evangelical feminist isn’t any less pejorative? Do you think I burn bras and effigies of Tyson or something, except that I just call it spiritual warfare? I’m an egalitarian, which captures what I stand for much better, and doesn’t send out all the wrong signals like you just did, Jabba!

BK: *Ahem* Errr.....you do realise the vibes you both are sending is messing with my mind, don’t you?

Alex and Casey: Sorry.

Alex: I appreciate that you take the Bible just as seriously as I do, even if I don’t always think how you argue your case does it justice.

Casey: And I appreciate that you believe than men and women are equally made in the image of God, even if I think that you don’t always see the contradiction in the logic of your argument.

Alex: Fwiends?
Casey: Fwiends.

BK: Awww, Christian charity in action...but I’m afraid I have to interrupt the lovefest, folks. I hope that continues in this conversation though, so no cheap shots at each other! So now we know what you are. Apart from a shared love for Star Wars, how about you tell me what exactly a complementarian and an egalitarian believe?

Alex: I guess basically speaking, complementarians believe that God created men and women as equals in value and dignity as human persons, but with different gender-defined roles. Our different roles as head and helper complement each other, hence, complementarianism. These distinct roles do not indicate superiority for the man, but rather reflect the design of an infinitely wise Creator.

Casey: Egalitarians believe that men and women are equal not just in personhood, but in roles. Men and women are full equal partners in life, with similar opportunities in ministry and responsibilities in the family. We recognise men and women are different, but our gender shouldn’t really affect the role we play.

Alex: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). As Casey already mentioned above, we agree on this. Men and women both deserve to be treated as human beings fully. We shouldn’t treat each other as less than this.

BK: I see. And yet you differ. It seems to me that how you understand creation plays a big part in the divergence of paths. Is that fair?

Casey: Yep, so how I’ll read Genesis 1-3 would diverge from Alex. I think Alex takes a wrong turn. Turn on the headlights; it’d help you see through the fog!

Alex: Definitely. The creation account gives us a norm. When the Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus with a question about divorce, he goes back to Genesis (Matthew 19:35-38). Btw, Casey, you’re the one driving the wrong way, methinks.

BK: So give us more on Genesis 1-3 then!

Alex: So, we’re equal in value and dignity, and I so want to stress this because of we so often get accused of seeing woman as somehow lesser…

Casey: …which I think is sometimes justified…

Alex: That’s fair enough. We complementarians need to speak out against injustice perpetuated against women all over the world. Back to the main point. So Genesis 1 shows us made in the image of God, but Genesis 2 shows us that men and women are created equal but different! Firstly, notice the order of creation. Man was created first, then woman...

Casey: This is why sometimes complementarians just make me want to tear out my (and their) hair! No offence Alex. How can you use such an argument? I think you’re reading that in!

Alex: Hold your horses, er, hair, Casey! That does seem a bit arbitrary, but let me finish. I think that would be true normally, but the order of creation is important precisely because that’s what Paul appeals to in his argument. See 1 Corinthians 11:8, and of course, 1 Tim 2:11-15, which I believe BK here would talk more about. I take Paul’s words here to be inspired Scripture. This appears to be the norm.

Casey: I just don’t agree.

Alex: Don’t worry, that’s not the only argument...


[Keep tuning in for the next installment of Looney Tunes, er, I mean, Tom and Jerry, nonono, I mean, Alex and Casey!]


† Expand post

Men and women's roles: Intro

He let her knew early on who was the boss. He looked her right in the eye, and said clearly, “You’re the boss”. – Anonymous

I think I was probably 10 or so when I first began to puzzle why some boys thought about girls so much. OK, most of the girls I knew weren’t appalling or scary or anything like that, but they didn’t seem very exciting. For the most part, I was oblivious to them.

Then puberty hit, and that question has errr, evolved. No longer was the mystery the attention afforded the ladies, but the women themselves!

So this is where I strain the analogy and say that I have had a similar experience with the question of the role of women in the church and home. For many years after becoming a Christian I was happily ignorant, only dimly aware that some parts of the church were paying this issue a bewildering amount of attention. But sooner or later, if you’re a Christian, there’s just no evading this. This came home to roost when I led a Bible study on 1 Corinthians early last year and we got to chapter 11. What did I actually believe? I was left scratching my head – and I still do – but it’s no longer over the existence of this debate but rather over the complexity of the discussion.

It’s always wise counsel, especially in blogging, not to rush to comment over matters where you’re out of your depth, particularly when they are strongly emotive. Go to any relatively popular Christian blog, and you’ll always find that the posts that are most commented on, alongside predestination/free will, is on women in ministry. And trust me on this, the rhetoric that is sometimes used would probably make even Kenny blush.

And this is because, I think, partly due to the fact that these questions touch on the very core of our being. It’s about who we are, how we see ourselves. This isn’t just banal chitchat about how nice the weather is. This is part of a larger conversation in the wider world. There is a huge amount of confusion over what it means to be a man or woman today, not helped by the challenge to the categories of gender as an intrinsic part of our human makeup. Let me just randomly pull out two quotes from two introductory works I have on critical theory. “In proposing gender as a basic problem and an essential category in cultural and historical analysis, feminists have recast the issue of women’s relative identity as equally an issue for men, who, upon ceasing to be mankind, become, precisely, men.” “What the term ‘sexual difference’ [as opposed to ‘gender’] may usefully gesture towards, then, is the idea that identity itself is perhaps most productively and critically seen as fissured, haunted, at odds with itself.” Are women from Venus, men from Mars, or are we all actually part of a huge galactic diaspora? What of metrosexuals, female eunuchs and chauvinist pigs of both sexes?

NT scholar Scot McKnight thinks that “When it comes down to it, there is fear on all sides...fear coming out in a host of emotions and reactions. There is no one answer; there is nothing simple here; the reason this is a big issue is because it involves all of us — male and female — in all kinds of theological and ecclesial settings and it includes our marriages and our children and our basic decisions.” I think he’s on to something. And we might come back to this. And although the chatter is normally focused on the women, it's equally just as important for the men.

So I was very reluctant to get drawn in when Tim invited my participation on this, and more specifically, 1 Timothy 2:8-15. A "what the" moment indeed! In the end, though, I decided that this might be a good opportunity, at the very least, to locate my bearings. I find I’m always much better at clarifying my thoughts when I write them down, and anyway, this needn’t be taken as a definitive, comprehensive statement of my beliefs about the roles of women. I’m allowed to change my mind!

I had been trying to figure out how best to approach this. There's usually a big need for the discussion to be contextualised to minimise misunderstanding. The problem is that it’s hard to be pithy, as the gallons of ink spilled on this topic show. At the same time, I don’t want to overreach and end up saying too little in too many words. Very importantly, I feel, it is possible to get lost in a fog of issues, be it cultural, historical, a particular situation etc., but I think it's key that the starting point is the Bible, and so a lot of the discussion will simply be the hard work of looking at the text itself. Anyway, this is a rough outline of where I’m going:

A broad overview of what different Christians believe concerning the roles of men and women
A more in-depth look at 1 Tim 2:8-15, since this was the passage under scrutiny in the first place.
Further thoughts on miscellaneous issues not discussed above but which needs touching on.

All subject to change of course!

(Note: clicking on the "men and women's roles" label below to see the entire series).


† Expand post