Article Series - Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia
|
Over a year ago I wrote a number of posts on the topic of Evangelical Feminism vs. Biblical Complementarianism. This post will further that discussion.
If Patriarchy was a Pre-Fall reality, then it would be present within the biblical text in some discernible form. I previously demonstrated that the 2ndcreation account (in Genesis 2) does not support such a reading, but I said nothing at the time regarding the 1st creation account in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1:26-28 describes the creation of humanity “in the image of God” and after his “likeness.” There are a number of hermeneutical and theological difficulties related to these phrases - particularly what exactly it means to be created in God’s image and how that relates to the phrase about “according to our likeness.” Couple those things also with the use of plural pronouns and you’ve got a longstanding theological and exegetical argument.
What I want to demonstrate in this post is that the structure of the pericope provides us insight into the author’s intention –that is, the way he formulates the narrative gives us insight into what he means by the mysterious phrases. More to the point, though, when we see what he means, we are also given insight into the Pre-Fall relationship between the man and the woman - one which, as I will demonstrate, is one of equality not patriarchy. This argument will, in effect,support my reading of Genesis 2 and 3 which says that Patriarchy is a result of the Fall, not prior to it - contrary to the BC position which says Patriarchy is inherent in the creation.
The Hebrew text in 1:27 reads something like this…(the word order is important – often skewed by our English translations)
“Created God humanity in His image. In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them.”
Structurally, the text is a Chiasm (an inverted parallelism) followed by a straight forward Parallelism. Notice the Chiasm 1st…
A Created humanity
B God
C man In His image
C’ In the image
B’ of God
A’ He created him
Surrounding the whole things is the Creative purposes of God. Central to the chiasm, and thus the emphasis of the writer, is the Image of God. Unfortunately, besides the fact that it is the creative act of God, no other exegetical clue is provided for us to help us discern the substance of the Image of God…that is, until the parallelism which begins with the 2nd half of the chiasm:
A In the Image of God B. He created C. Him
A Male and Female B. He created C. Them
What the structuring of this narrative suggests, then, is that whatever it means to be in the image of God, it must be fully understood in the context of BOTH male and femaleness. Man is not the image of God without woman and woman is not the image of God without the man. They are both, together, the image of God. In other words – what the chiastic structure gives emphasis to (the image of God), the parallelism gives substance to (male and female).
Now notice that there is no implied subordination within this structuring. Rather, there is implied equality. Nothing within this text points to patriarchy or male headship. The Biblical Complementarian argument fails to account for the fact that this first creation account doesn’t even have a creation order for the genders. This narrative suggests that male and female are equal before God – for they both, together stand before Him and are equally created in His image – so much for the old discussions about whether women were really created in God’s image or not.
I know that BC’s generally don’t argued from Genesis 1 to support their view, but I think this structure provides the basis for understanding Genesis 2 (by means of structural particularization: a general idea occurs first, followed by the specifics of that general idea. The specifics are understood in light of the preceding general comment) and, thus, another point indicating the essential equality of men and women - both ontologically and functionally. Indeed, they are both given dominion and told to subjugate the earth. There are no inherent difference of roles within this text.
15 Comments
I like, I dig, I have one minor problem. Again, this is just nitpicking, but in your post on the Artemis cult and other places in the New Testament, you ask the reader to bear with you as you give an alternate account, one that flies in the face of a natural reading of the texts. Here, though, you say that in order for us to even fathom patriarchy or BC in Pre-Fall, it must be obvious in the text. I just am afraid you are not giving your opponents the same space for nuance that you want to give those with whom you agree.
Now, that said, I buy what you are selling wholesale.
Thanks Honzo, I think that’s probably a valid criticism.
I would respond, though, by saying that the reason I can say ‘obvious’ in this one is b/c it’s not generally the text used by the BC’s. In other words - it’s a clearer text.
With Genesis 2, I ask that they bear with me precisely b/c there is so much controversy surrounding it - thus, what seems obvious to one person may not be obvious to everyone. That, and in the previous arguments I said that my goal was to demonstrate, not just that I thought the BC’s were wrong, but that the Egalitarians could have a legit reading of each text, too.
So, the difference lies in both the clarity of the text, the controversy around it, and the modern assumptions about it which seem ‘obvious.’
But, yeah, I will consider what you said - maybe I’m not giving my opponents enough wiggle room.
I’ve thought about it for a day or so, now, and I think you’re right. I want to give others the chance to defend their position without making it sound like everything must be lined out systematically or it simply can’t be true. I give myself that leniency, I will afford them the same. I’ll change that sentence in the next day or so. Thanks for that ‘heads up’ about how that sounds and what it might communicate.
How’s the new wording?
Tom,
I think the new wording works well. You allow for other possible interps, but you don’t delve into the wishy-wash - any interp is ok - language.
Thanks for the enjoyable article Thom, and thanks for the link Henry (I’d write more, but I’m pirating our neighbor’s internet until thursday, so I’m trying not to spend too much time slowing down their internet).
I’m not sure what you mean by patriarchy or subordination. Those are certainly not words I would encourage complementarians to use to describe their position, so perhaps it’s not complementarianism you’re arguing against but something more extreme. A quick look through your previous posts suggests that you’re working with a fairly extreme version of complementarianism, if it’s complementarianism at all. As you present the view you argue against in post #2, you describe it as thinking that men are superior to women, something complementarianism by definition denies (”equal in nature but different in roles” is the motto). In the helper post, you speak in the comments of male rulership in the family, which is also nothing like what I see as the standard complementarian view of male authority. Men are told to love their wives sacrificially, not to rule them. Women are told to submit to their husbands actively, not to be ruled by them passively. So I suspect you’re working with a straw version of complementarianism.
But I’m going to assume you mean complementarianism as your target and point out several things that I’ve seen in the Genesis text that do seem to me to indicate something like complementarianism. I think there are several signs within the text of Genesis that are more likely if complementarianism is true.
One is that the woman is created for the man. We never see a statement about man being for woman. I’m not entirely sure of all that we should make of that, but it’s clearly an asymmetry between man and woman in the text, and that’s not egalitarianism in any absolute sense. We might make different things of it, and your complementarian interpretation isn’t the one complementarians usually take, but it does involve difference of roles with equality of nature. (One thing you ignore in that post is that, while servanthood is leadership of a sort, the Bible never says women can’t lead men. What it says on the complementarian intepretation is that they shouldn’t be teaching or having authority over men. A servant takes the other person’s desires and will as authoritative, and thus a servant mentality inherent in the idea of helping fits nicely with what complementarians say about women’s submission to their husbands and women and men’s submission to their male elders).
God holds the man responsible for disobeying his command. He assigns a punishment to the snake and to the woman (along with a blessing for the woman), but he speaks to the man when he mentions the command and disobedience to it, and the command is only mentioned as being given to the man. It’s as if the command was given to the man, and it was his responsibility to keep it and to teach it to the woman, with final responsibility resting on Adam (but responsibility still lying with Eve, since she faces a punishment).
I’ve seen someone convincingly lay out a chiastic structure for chs.2-3 that divides up according to who is speaking. I wish I remembered the details, but he drew another conclusion about the authority relations from that structure.
Thanks Jeremy, I appreciate your thoughts – they were clear and gracious. I apologize for any previous statement that may have sounded ungracious to the BC position in my posts from a year ago. The Lord has done a lot in me over the last year, so hopefully I can dialogue on this topic more graciously.
I’ll give it a go here:
First, let me justify my use of the word “patriarchy.” Russ Moore, Biblical Complementarian and professor at SBTS said in this article, that the word patriarchy is not negative, but should be embraced by Biblical Complementarians. He says, “If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, Moore said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.”
Thus, as I noted in one of the previous threads – I use it how he uses it. I do not intend to be pejorative in my employment of the word – I simply have scholarly support, from the BC side which justifies my use of the word.
Moore, it seems, would like to revive the word: “Moore pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.”
Which leads me into my second point….
In the same article (and I assume Moore represents the majority opinion – not least of all b/c no scholar from the BC camp came out against him that I’m aware of) Moore says that male headship/patriarchy is not merely about teaching and having authority. Rather, he says it extends to decision making – decision making which should not involve the “process of negotiation or mutual submission.” For that, he says, is what our forefathers would have called “feminism.”
Next, I fully understand and respect that BC’s say that women are equal to men in nature, but have different roles. Indeed, as I said in this post, there are certainly ways in which God has gifted people differently, to fulfill different roles. A difference of roles does not necessarily imply inferiority.
However, I fear that it often works out that way in practice within male/female relationships. I fear that often that kind of rhetoric is just an underhanded way of reinforcing traditional gender roles – which often dehumanizes the wife by taking her voice out of the equation….as Moore even said, it is feminism to negotiate!
Finally, as I said in post #2, I don’t think women are restricted from teaching and authority. I take that passage quite differently. But I would note that I’m not necessarily attempting to tear down BC arguments (though some of that is there). Rather I’m attempting to demonstrate that Egalitarians can also have legitimate readings of those same texts – indeed, in one post I even cited NT Wright who was saying something similar to my argument.
All that said, if you don’t agree with Moore, that’s your prerogative. But I think his use of patriarchy and his practical application of the BC position is a scholarly and undisputed (at least as far as I can tell from those scholars who agree with the BC position)….then again, I’m Southern Baptist, so maybe I give to much credence to his voice in the larger evangelical world. If so, I apologize….sincerely.
Now, on to your analysis of Genesis 2:
First, let me say that I’ve not looked at Genesis 2 in a while, so I may be a bit rusty. After all, it’s been a year since that post and this one is about Genesis 1. Consequently, I observed that none of your criticisms came from my analysis of Genesis 1 in this post – should I take that as you agree with my exegesis?
Second, I agree that the woman was created ‘for’ man according to Genesis 2. But what does that ‘for’ mean? What was she created ‘for’ him for? Contextually she was created to be his ‘helper.’ As I argued in that previous post, I do not believe that ‘helper’ implies submission or male-headship. One Jewish scholar I spoke with even translated the word ‘adversary’ – implying that she was created to keep the man in check – to constructively criticize him. That may be too far, but I just wanted to point out that submission or headship is not implied in her being created ‘for’ him, and there are ways of rendering the word which moves away from our submission-laden understanding of ‘helper.’
Next, in Genesis 3 I agree that God comes to the man, first. That is observationally evident. Did he do so because the buck stopped with the man? I don’t think so, I think he came to the man first precisely b/c when the original command was given, the woman hadn’t been created yet.
However, surely you must concede that it is not inherent within the text to suggest that the man was the one ultimately held responsible. For everyone faced punishment! God was no respecter of persons or genders! In other words, what I see is equal punishment – though varying based on the person. There is no necessarily implied gender based hierarchy of accountability. To be gracious – I do understand why BC’s see a gender based responsibility, but I think they see it b/c of their previous assumptions about male-headship and not what is explicitly there in the text. Indeed, I think you concede the point on some level when you say, “It is as if…..” But I could be reading too much into that statement.
Finally, brother, let me just say that though I do not agree with the BC position, I hope I have been more gracious in my response to it then I was a year ago. I truly believe that BC theology leads to a silencing of women’s voices (in the home and church) and thus I truly believe it is hurtful. At the same time, I want to be gracious and loving in my discussions with fellow brothers and sisters – for there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong about all of this. I hope I have responded to you in a way that is respectful and gracious.
Anticipating your thoughts,
Tom
Right, I know some complementarians use the term. I just don’t recommend it, and I wasn’t sure what elements you were importing into it. I listed some statements that made me worry.
I explicitly reject the idea that complementarianism requires rejecting any notion of negotiation. In particular, if a husband wants to love his wife as Christ loved the church, he will indeed be willing to sacrifice for her, and negotiation may just be a matter of figuring out which things will be sacrificed. If a wife seeks to submit to her husband, she will accept what he says, but that doesn’t preclude asking for things any more than our submission to God should preclude asking for things, something he tells us to do!
So I suppose that’s a view to argue against, but be aware that many complementarians will do so as well, and thus the arguments against it aren’t arguments against complementarianism but rather against a particular view that some complementarians hold.
I won’t say I’ve never heard of Russ Moore, but I can’t say I’ve done more than heard of him. He’s certainly not central to complementarian biblical scholarship. I would say Andreas Kostenberger, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, and Craig Blomberg would be more representative of the best of complementarianism. Wayne Grudem is central also, although I wouldn’t put him among the best of its defenders.
You ask if I agree with your exegesis on Genesis 1. I hesitate on one point, but I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong. What I agree with is that both man and woman are fully in the image of God and are fully equal ontologically. What I hesitate about is that the image of God includes man and woman if that means man wouldn’t have been in the image of God if woman hadn’t been created (and vice versa). I think the full image of God is present in both men and women, and I don’t think we have half of it in each sex. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying, so I call it a hesitation. But I do think the idea of a partial image of God in women or lack of it entirely among women is impossible to fit with the text. I’m not sure who you’re arguing against, though, because as far as I know every complementarian agrees with egalitarians on this.
I don’t think it’s impossible to find a reading of Genesis that fits egalitarianism. I do think there are suggestions of different roles, including the man being held to account more directly and being taken as representative of the married couple. Part of this is because of the chiastic arrangement, and part of it is because God chose to give him the command and to speak of the violation of the command to him. He certainly does punish all three of them, but it’s to the man that he addresses the command and addresses his primary discussion of the command’s violation. You’re right that this can be fit to egalitarianism, but I think it’s suggestive of something involving authority. I don’t think there’s a knock-down argument from this passage the way I think there is with other passages. But your challenge was to find complementarian ideas present in the text, not to find knock-down arguments that the text has to be read that way. I do think they’re present there. I don’t think I have knock-down arguments to prove it.
Thanks Jeremy. I appreciate your thoughts and humility. I hope my response is equally thoughtful and gracious…
First, no I’m not saying that there’s only half the image of God in the male and half the image of God in the female. Rather, I’m saying that God created us as a human community - and that human community displays His image. As to whether each of us individually displays the image of God - I dunno. I don’t know that that’s a question the ancient writers were asking. What I do know is necessary, from the text, is that whatever the image of God is, it is partially in relationship to a gendered, sexed community.
Second, I agree that there’s no knock-down argument for either side regarding Genesis 2 and 3.
Next, I understand that both sides say “ontologically equal, but different roles.” But I think we mean very different things by that.
When I say that I mean that the difference of roles is solely based on the gifting of the Spirit and has nothing to do with gender or sex - “women and men are ontologically equal, but have differing roles based on the gifts of the Spirit given to individuals.” Yes, Paul wants to maintain gender distinction (he’s not advocating uni-sex congregations), but those gender distinctions do not involve a hierarchy or roles which allow certain people (men) to have power (teaching, preaching) over other people (women).
However, I know that’s NOT what the BC position says. Women are to be in submission in home and church b/c God created them in such a way (”for man”) that they are to fulfill specific roles - role which do not include pastors, teachers, and the heads of homes.
What’s interesting to me is that, for all the rhetoric of equality, this is exactly where ‘equality’ breaks down. The BC position excludes women, not based on their gifting, but based on their gender, all the while saying, ‘We believe they are equal.’ But they’re not equal - b/c they’re allowed to have every position except the ones that would give them power - and where there’s a power differential based on gender, we have inequality.
It seems odd to me to say that they are ontologically equal, but then exclude them from a position in the church based something so core to their existence. To me it’s almost like the segregation rhetoric in the middle decades of last century: “Separate but Equal.” The whites could claim the black were equal through all kinds of rhetorical maneuvering, but at the end of the day, the whites and not the blacks were given the positions of authority and prestige.
Thus, though I have a lot of respect for my BC friends (and hope I am responding to you respectfully), I think the position is contradictory.
Indeed, before the 1970’s, no one was even arguing that way. Everyone on the ‘traditional’ side of things argued for the superiority of men and the inferiority of women. While I severely disagree with this position, I at least think it’s not contradictory.
I have much more to say, but this is getting long and no doubt I will have another opportunity to dialogue with you.
In the grace of Christ,
Tom
Actually, there are three different views within complementarianism. One of them is the view you express, which is that God created men and women differently and therefore gave them different roles. Another is that God decided on a purpose for gender distinction, including different roles, and then built differences in tendency into male and female. The third is that there is no difference in nature at all and that God merely set up role distinctions to make a point and chose men for one and women for the other, without anything in men or women that grounded such a choice. I believe the first may be the majority view among complementarians (and I’m not sure about that), but it’s definitely not universally held. Scott Baugh defends the second view, and D.A. Carson defends the third. I’m sure I’ve seen others holding those two views as well, but I don’t want to name names if I can’t remember for sure who held what view.
I would approach the power issue very differently. I think it’s a big mistake on the part of mainstream egalitarianism to frame the issue in terms of power. It seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of I Corinthians 12-14 to worry about who serves in what ministries in terms of who has the most power. That’s exactly what Paul seeks to undermine in all his teaching on the subject, especially in those chapters but also in Ephesians 4, where he does acknowledge the core role of the apostles while recognizing that all are united and equal in Christ. Paul insists that differing gifts (which not all complementarians accept) and different roles are not the grounds for crying out that one receives unequal treatment. It’s not about power.
The issue of segregation isn’t parallel, for at least three issues. One is that segregation didn’t allow interaction. Complementarians don’t disallow interaction and the breaking of unity in Christ. That was the most awful sin involved with segregation, and that unity is still not being observed in many ways as a result. Another difference is that we have NT examples of blacks in church leadership. The complementarian position is that we don’t (and apostleship isn’t an office when it refers to someone other than Paul and the 12) with women and that we have explicit teaching explaining why. I would also argue that race is much less part of God’s intent to begin with than biological sexual difference.
Also, I can’t accept the argument that role distinctions not based on differences in nature are wrong. I don’t think there’s a difference in nature between the persons of the Trinity, but there are clear roles in scripture for the different persons. In the end, even though the Father exalts the Son, he’s still subject to the Father (see I Cor 15), and you never see the Father submitting to the Son. That doesn’t make the Son inferior ontologically.
It would be helpful if I knew which of the three views you adhere to. I understand that the BC position is not monolithic – I was just tackling the first one b/c, as you said, it seems to be the majority opinion.
I’m not surprised to hear a BC adherent approach the issue of power differently – especially a male one. (I’m not trying to be contrary here, I’m just saying that it is often those with power who don’t think power is the issue at stake.) But the issue of power per se is not what’s at stake in I Corinthians 12-14 – it’s the abuse of spiritual gifts. To be sure, the abuse of spiritual gifts produces power differential, but that’s exactly what Paul wants to correct. Furthermore, as I Corinthians 12-14 is about the abuse of spiritual gifts, I think its important to note that the power differences were based on the presence of absence of spiritual gifts (as I argued above), not one gender or some other issue related to the core of a person’s being.
Furthermore, I would argue from the larger context of I Corinthians that power IS what a lot of this is about – Wayne Meeks argues, and I think most scholars agree with him, that many of the problems in the church are related to the power differential between the rich and the poor. Paul wants the rich to stop abusing their privilege – exerting their power.
I would argue something similar for Ephesians 4. The positions of authority are still God-given, and are not based in something inherent within the person. If the issue between the BC’s and the Egalitarians came down to this – who God has gifted – then I would say, yes, we need to acknowledge that God has gifted us differently and called us to different things. However, that is not the issue – BC’s say that women can’t hold positions of authority (power)…period. BC’s do not argue from gifting – they argue from sexual differentiation. This is clearly different than what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 4.
I agree that my parallel with segregation fails on some levels. I will acknowledge that and not use it again – thank you for pointing this out. I would press the issue just a bit, though. You say that BC’s don’t disallow interaction. I guess that depends on what you mean by ‘interaction.’ When Southern Baptist seminary’s are firing female teachers (who aren’t even teaching Bible classes – but are teaching languages), I think we’re excluding them from ‘interaction.’ I’m not saying that you, Jeremy, hold that this is appropriate – I’m just pointing out how this is working out practically – and not even on a popular level, on a scholastic level!
Furthermore, I think we do have NT examples of women in church leadership. Paul tells tells us in I Cor. 11 that women pray and prophesy in public services! I have also argued that the issue in I Timothy 2 is women abusing their positions in sermonic rhetoric. We also have Priscilla who is apparently the leader of her household and a good teacher. Also, though I don’t need the Junia argument (which I think you’re referring to in your comment about apostleship), I think the fact that she is great among the apostles is saying a lot about her leadership in that church. (I think it is important, though, that you acknowledge that your distinction between THE apostles and the apostles after them is not one necessarily delineated in the biblical text. I’m not saying I disagree with you, but I don’t think there is a clear scriptural warrant for this statement. I think the distinction is more functional for your argument, though.)
Finally, in response to your comments regarding the Trinity: I do not deny that the Son is subordinate to the Father – temporarily (and I think this is the issue at hand). In fact I do not have a problem with the idea of submission and neither do other Egalitarians – we’re not Radical Feminists. Rather, the issue is Mutual Submission. So, yes, Christ submitted to the Father in his temporal, earthly role. But to say that Christ was eternally subordinate to the Father boarders on, if not falls into, the ancient Trinitarian heresy of Subordinationism. So long as women submit to men willingly and temporally – then I don’t have a problem with submission. But I would also say that men should willingly and temporally submit to women. Paul tells us to “submit ourselves to one another.”
You’re right – the Father never submits to the Son. At least, Scripture never says it that way. But it would make the Son ontologically inferior if the Son was eternally subordinate to the Father instead of temporally submissive. Again, we need to avoid the Trinitarian heresy here.
Again, I hope my thoughts have been clear. I am glad we have been able to discuss this civilly. That has not always been my experience with this topic.
I’ve seen women complementarians make exactly the same point. Paul isn’t just confronting the abuse of spiritual gifts, either. That’s the impetus for his discussion, but he spends much time simply giving his theology of unity in Christ as one body and the many functions that all have importance even if they don’t all have the same prominence.
I tend to think the Carson and Baugh views are both plausible. I don’t think the first is biblically plausible. The difference between the second and third is basically an empirical matter. I do think we can see differences, but the question is always whether they’re nature or nurture, and it’s notoriously difficult to know which is the case on this issue, because the social forces that affect what scholars now call gender (as distinct from sex, as much as I don’t like using those terms for it) can operate early enough that there aren’t good experiments to show much. But I don’t think what can be shown to be different would be a good basis by itself of instituting gender roles like the ones I see in the scriptures, and I think that’s enough to rule out the first view pretty clearly. It’s not enough to rule out the second or third, since neither of those views bases gender role differences on natural differences between men and women.
Wayne Grudem is as representative as you can get of the more conservative complementarians among evangelicals, and he’s on the record in favor of women teaching in seminary, even in biblical studies and theology classes. He doesn’t think it constitutes the authoritative teaching of the church, since scholarship involves a lot of built-in correctives, and academic teaching and authority isn’t the same as teaching a congregation in an authoritative way. I tend to disagree with Grudem on most in-house complementarian debates, but I think it shows how isolated the incident you mention is that even Grudem thinks that’s too extreme. That position still doesn’t approach segregation, but it is too extreme for most complementarians.
I think it’s clear in the NT that every believer is a leader in the church in some sense, since everyone is gifted and thus has service to perform. Prophesying and praying publicly are clearly biblical for women, and any complementarian who denies that is reaching. But most complementarians don’t have a problem with that. Prophesying is evaluable (in fact Paul insists that it be evaluated in I Cor 14), so it’s not authoritative teaching. I wouldn’t see prayer as any different. The main debate, as I see it, is whether the elder position should be held by women and whether they should teach in an authoritative way over men. (Even moderate complementarians allow both of these, as long as the head elder is a man. Craig Blomberg and Gordon Hugenberger hold such views. I’m not convinced at this point, but I’m open to that.)
A lot of work has been done on the issue of subordinationism. I’ve seen arguments from egalitarians who claim that the position I’ve outlined is the same one as the heresy of subordinationism, but when I’ve looked at the details they’ve either misrepresented the complementarian view, or they’ve misunderstood what the heresy actually said. In classic terms, the complementarian view is simply recognizing the Economic Trinity, and I think the egalitarians who deny this are denying it. I’ve discussed this issue at length <a href=”http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2006/05/subordinationis_1.html”>here</a>. My position in response to Rebecca Groothuis, who gives a similar argument to one of yours, is <a href=”http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2006/05/functional_subo.html”>here</a>.
I think the details become important very quickly once you start getting into these precise debates involving heresy and orthodoxy.
Thanks for the reply, Jeremy.
First, let me be clear – I didn’t mean that Paul was “just confronting the abuse of spiritual gifts.” Indeed, I tied to the larger issues of disunity grounded in economic disparity and the power issues related to it. I agree, the issue isn’t just the abuse of spiritual gifts. Indeed, this is a symptom of the larger problem. And I agree, Paul is arguing for unity in the midst of differing spiritual gifts which bring greater and lesser prominence. But, again, the issue is spiritual giftings and power, not gender and power. I think there’s a huge difference. No sane egalitarian argues that there aren’t power differentials. The issue is why? I don’t think Paul sets power differentials either in Corinthians or anywhere else based on gender alone.
Second, I’m glad to hear your skeptical of Grudem. I’ve repeatedly found his scholarship lacking in that he seems to always bend the evidence in his direction. When I was a BC, I often found this very frustrating. I was trying to confirm the truth of my position with good scholarship, and Grudem kept, I felt, manipulating the evidence. Gordon Fee and Ben Witherington have both taken him to task for this, from the egalitarian side.
You’re also right about the extreme nature of the SBC’s complementarianism. It is just always fresh on my mind since that’s my denomination.
I agree that prophesy is evaluable. And I agree that it’s not the same thing as teaching. But that doesn’t mean its not authoritative. It is – if someone brings a word from God, it has authority inherent within the message, not the messenger. This is an act of authority.
Also since when is teaching or preaching not evaluable? Just b/c there aren’t direct commands to evaluate it, doesn’t mean its not evaluable. It could merely mean Paul wasn’t have a problem with this particular gift. Just a thought, I’m not trying to make a definitive statement.
My emphasis was on prophesy, not prayer. But I might add that there are few times when I see women publicly praying in BC churches. Just an observation.
I’m familiar with Blomberg’s argument, and have some sympathy’s with it. I think he’s a fine scholar and a good Christian. I, obviously, go further than he does on this issue, but I think he’s got a good moderate stance that is respectable.
As for the Trinity…
Please understand that I wasn’t saying you were espousing heresy. I hope I didn’t come off as saying that. And I agree, this issue gets a lot more complicated when it comes to this level. A good book on this topic, from an egalitarian perspective is Kevin Giles “Trinity and Subordinationism.” I’ve only read excerpts, and no doubt, BC’s will disagree with his analysis. But I think he’s on to something.
Again, I hope you didn’t think I was accusing you of heresy. I was just suggesting that we need to be careful when we starting taking things to this level.
Cheers, to you, brother,
Tom