:: in.a.mirror.dimly :: A theology and culture blog with the Bible in one tab and a news feed in the other.

14 responses for this post

1. jovial_cynic Says: 25.09.08 at 9:14 am

   Adrian is a complementarian in his views on women in ministry which, in part, means that women are only allowed to teach men.

   I think you meant “that women are not allowed to teach men.”

2. ed Says: 25.09.08 at 9:25 am

   Ha! Thanks for catching that. I was running late this morning, but wanted to wrap this post up. I gave it a quick proof read for misspelling, but as I hit “post”, I thought to myself, “I hope I didn’t make any mistakes…”

3. Steve Says: 25.09.08 at 10:50 am

   As a Wesleyan theologian I would agree that egalitarianism is both biblical, and a practical reality. The same pastors and theologians who hold a complementarian view of women in ministry don’t seem to mind that most Sunday school classes are taught by women. The same Holy Spirit that empowers men to preach and teach is the same Spirit that empowers women to do likewise.

4. Victoria Davidson Says: 25.09.08 at 11:51 am

   Okay, so that’s the dignified word for it now: complemetarianism. I’ve been so busy tending to the sick, preaching, teaching, and generally pastoring that I haven’t had time to read the latest from the men who are afraid of competition from women. Gee whiz. I’m so out of it.

5. DaveW Says: 28.09.08 at 5:32 pm

   A couple of years ago in a comment to a blog post 42: Can you respect scripture and allow women to teach, lead, minister? I wrote:

   ‘Yes I totally dislike these labels. I propose a change. Instead of “complementary” let us use “insulting” for the position that denies women their God given role. (NB Warning, this was a poor attempt at humour).’

6. Joe Says: 30.09.08 at 2:35 pm

   I can’t call myself a distinguished theologian, but in my study of the biblical texts that seem to concern this issue, it appears that to some level, a woman’s authority over a man is divinely limited. I arrived at this conclusion after a study on 1 Timothy 2:12. In my research in this passage as well as other related ones, I found that, generally speaking, Egalitarians identify these as being culturally bound - much like the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 which speaks of shaved heads and head coverings. I disagree with this because Paul in the next verse points back to creation making this a argument from the created order and thus, not culturally dependent but rather universal. Obviously this has some profound implications in our ecclesiology which some find unpalatable. There are many things in scripture that are unpalatable - suffering for the cause of Christ, giving up worldly pleasures, etc… but the fact that it’s difficult doesn’t make it any less binding.

   In regards to this specific post, the fact that Adrian learned something from Wendy doesn’t necessarily make him inconsistent - there are many different ideas on how the complementarian view is fleshed out. But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that it does make Adrian inconsistent; does that make the complementarian view wrong? No more than the fact that worldly Christians existing makes Christianity wrong. The fact that some complementarian somewhere, somehow is inconsistent doesn’t negate the validity of the belief.

   Having said this I can consistently affirm that I have a profound respect and love for women - the church would not function properly without them because God created women (and men) to perform roles within the body of Christ (as he does elsewhere in life). As with other difficult commands in scripture I simply trust that we will be most blessed and happy when we operate within our created specifications.

   As Christians we are called to live lives set apart for Christ. Part of this is investigating scriptures with all diligence. I believe that in regards to this issue I have done that but I accept the possibility of being wrong. If someone can show me biblically that I have a fallacious view than I would be grateful - better to be corrected than to persist in foolishness. Until that point I must struggle with and strive for what scripture calls me to be and how to live as I understand it regardless of what popular trends hold sway.

7. ed Says: 30.09.08 at 2:52 pm

   Thanks Joe for your respectful and thoughtful response.

   Regarding the head and hair thing, Paul actually uses very strong language that is similar to his reference back to creation and the created order. Check this out:
   “13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”

   So it seems in the case of head coverings, he’s doing a very similar thing to his commands concerning women. He sounds pretty strong and certain here. It’s not just one church he’s regulating, but all of them. I understand your hesitancy regarding women holding authority over men or teaching them because of certain verses. The Bible seems to make a clear command about it. But in one instance Paul says women shouldn’t speak in church, and in another he has regulations for how men and women prophesy in church. In addition, we have a Biblical precedent for female prophets, not to mention that the heralds of the Resurrection were women. The latter isn’t exactly teaching, but in a culture where the testimony of a woman was not valid in court, Jesus is making a strong statement.

   NT Wright has a convincing discussion of the context of Paul’s restrictions on women here: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm. For more on a complementarian who became egalitarian see: http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-13-No-2/Editorial-A-High-Profile-Conversion-to-Egalitarianism.

   Regarding Warnock. I’m not saying that he invalidates complementarianism as a theological view because he basically violated its principles. I’m saying that he’s proven egalitarianism to be correct since he has unwittingly recognized that women have something to teach him.

   I appreciate your generosity and humility here. We need that in this discussion. It’s not something to divide over. However, I do believe we are dealing with a matter of injustice toward women, even if complementarian Christians are trying to simply obey scripture. I’ve been there myself, but now on the other side of this issue and hearing from women, I’ve seen just how much damage has been done to marginalize women. If we place women below men, instead of in their God-given position of equality as image bearers of God with men (Genesis 1:27), we are degrading them. It is often not intentional or mean-spirited, but our words unfortunately fall flat if we make women less than men. I don’t state that out of anger toward anyone, but as a voice for the women who I’ve seen struggle through this. It’s a tough spot to be. Thanks for adding your thoughts to this discussion.

8. Athena Says: 30.09.08 at 4:04 pm

   The main issue in this kind of a debate is whether women hold authority over men not the issue of whether a man can learn anything from a woman. Another issue is the part of God’s image that women bear is not the part that would be appropriate in most leadership positions. But the part of God’s image that men bear does…Yes we are both equal in God’s eyes and we both bear his image but as a simple glance at nature and history will show, those aspects of God’s image are not reflected identically in both men and women.

9. ed Says: 30.09.08 at 4:58 pm

   Athena, thanks for weighing in here.
   According to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 women are not allowed to teach men or to have authority. So teaching and authority seem to be tied together. I grew up complementarian, and it always seemed to have the two tied together. What kind of authority can a woman have in the church without some kind of empowerment to instruct others in what is and isn’t biblical?

   I see your point about the image of God, but if I can tease it out a little… You find that women have the image of God, but they are somehow inferior to what men have? I’m not choosing the words you would choose, but I’m trying to dig into the implications. “Different” or “not identical” quickly becomes “inferior.” Women and men have their differences sociologically and biologically, but I don’t see how we can make judgments over who bears what part of God’s image and who gets to have the superior end of God’s image. It strikes me as too far a leap.

   In addition, if we’re boiling this down to authority over men and go with complementarianism, then God clearly violated this with Deborah as the judge and Huldah the prophetess whom the king sought out for direction. Scripture presents a complex picture here, but it just seems far more likely that Paul was regulating something in the Ephesian church that we’ll never quite understand on this side of heaven, while the broader picture in scripture presents the ideal of women on an equal footing with men, even though the culture of the Bible was predominantly patriarchal.

   Of course, thanks to Paul we’ll be writing, blogging, and commenting on this until the end of time.

10. Joe Says: 30.09.08 at 5:07 pm

    Ed,
    Thanks for your gracious response!

    I appreciate your insights into the 1 Corinthians 11 passage, though a quick 2nd read of that chapter seems to do more to convince me of my original position. The whole point in the passage as it relates to the physical practice of head-coverings stems on a statement in verse 6 - “But since it is disgraceful for a woman [or wife; depending on the translation] to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” And then in verse 10 “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head…” I apologize for posting snipits of text as the context is important but I just want to bring out a couple of things in this passage - first, that per created order, women are under the authority of men and, second, that symbol of authority in that day was the head covering. The passage goes on to say that men and women are interdependent on each other (woman was made from man and now man is born of woman). Here’s the important distinction from the 1 timothy passage that I was thinking of in my last post - we have an important cultural tie here - shaved or uncovered heads were disgraceful (namely because of the temple prostitutes). So in today’s context the uncovered or shaved head isn’t necessarily disgraceful. The principle of authority (as in 1 Timothy) is there, but will look different based on the cultural context.

    Basically what I’m saying is that in that context we have an example of a warranted appeal to culture as to why women don’t necessarily have to cover their heads today. This appeal doesn’t seem applicable in the 1 timothy passage. As to the other passages regarding women prophesying along with men I believe that the consistency there is issue of authority - I haven’t done a comprehensive study but from the passages that I have, it seems that in most, if not all, of those cases, the authority structure remains consistent, just fleshed out in various ways.

    I haven’t been able to check out those articles that you posted yet but I will certainly look into them! We certainly agree on the equality of men and women as both bearers of God’s image. Marginalization and injustice towards women has been a historic problem with the church and is absolutely unacceptable - especially in light of such radically pro-women instruction in scripture! It seems that our point of disagreement is whether distinct roles (as opposed to value) in church governance constitute such injustice. It would seem to me that historically the injustice that women have experienced is largely due to an unbiblical view of the value of women rather than the role. I really don’t think the two can be equated. Are not the father and mother in a parenting relationship equally important and valuable? Yet they certainly have distinct roles physically (which we really can’t change - unless the movie Junior comes true). If God designed it this way physically, is it really any kind of a stretch to believe that it is that way spiritually? I honestly don’t think so.

    I am encouraged, however, that we can dialogue amiably about such a heated issue. I’ll take a look at those articles - who knows, perhaps it will prove more biblically sound.

11. Joe Says: 30.09.08 at 5:24 pm

    Looks we were posting simultaneously - that’s an interesting point that you bring out with Deborah the judge - I’ve heard other complementarians connect the male authority figure with Barak, but I haven’t studied that passage. I’ll take a look at that!

12. Joe Says: 30.09.08 at 5:39 pm

    Quick unrelated note:

    My sister clued me onto your blog - I really appreciate what you’re doing with it! I honestly think it has eternal value in the kingdom of God.

13. Athena Says: 30.09.08 at 5:54 pm

    I fail to see how “different” aspects of God’s image all of a sudden become “inferior” or “superior.” I believe that it comes down to what humanity and society consider inferior or superior roles. Christ both taught and served, so if he gave one task to one sex and the other task to the other sex, then who are we to call one greater or lesser than the other.
    I do appreciate your comments on the horrible atrocities that have been done to women in the name of Biblical texts and that is something that as a woman I am hoping to avoid. Personally this was a very difficult issue for me to grasp, being called into full-time ministry. And it is still a challenge.
    I am running out of time and must conclude this post. It is refreshing to hear how the view is from the other side of the table and I am glad we can challenge each other on this issue.

14. ed Says: 01.10.08 at 6:02 pm

    Thanks Joe and Athena for following up. I do look forward to hearing what you think of those two articles I referenced. I won’t rewrite why I disagree with your takes on Timothy and Corinthians, but I will say that if you are right and women are not allowed to have authority over men, then we need to talk about why God would appoint a female judge, female prophets, and (at the end of Romans) a female apostle named Junia.

    If Paul is in line with God’s desire to keep women away from authority positions over men, then it’s hard to make sense of these other points in OT revelation. I admit that either way we slice these passages, we have to make some pretty tough interpretive calls, but I simply can’t get past Deborah, Huldah, and Junia.

Leave a Reply