Lifeway bookstores has decided to hide behind the counter the latest issue of Gospel Today magazine because the front cover features women pastors. Click here to read the story.
Lifeway is the same chain of Christian bookstores which participates in the boycott against the TNIV Bible translation. It does not sell the TNIV because it says its gender language is not accurate, although it does sell other English Bibles which have the same gender language.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ware to Find the Image of God
Several egalitarians on this blog have repeatedly accused complementarian spokesman Bruce Ware of arguing that women are not fully created in the image of God. As a complementarian, the idea that Ware would argue such a thing is indeed disturbing, since the Bible is unmistakably clear that both male and female are completely and equally the image of God. So I dutifully went to the CBMW web-site and found an article by Ware entitled Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God.
Does Ware teach that women are not created in the image of God, or that they are somehow less fully the image of God than men? Here are a few statements from that article:
both male and female exhibit full and equal humanness as the image of God
all men, both male and female, are fully the image of God
Man and woman, then, both are fully the image of God and together share the responsibility to steward the earthly creation God has made.
the creation of male and female as the image of God indicates the equal value of women with men as being fully human, with equal dignity, worth and importance
As is often observed, since this was written in a patriarchal cultural context, it is remarkable that the biblical writer chose to identify the female along with the male as of the exact same name and nature as "man." Male and female are equal in essence and so equal in dignity, worth, and importance.
Another clear biblical testimony to this equality is seen in the position of redeemed men and women in Christ . . . These New Testament passages reflect the Bible's clear teaching that as male and female are equal in their humanity (Gen. 1:26-27), so they are equal in their participation of the fullness of Christ in their redemption (Gal. 3:28)
Scripture clearly teaches the full human and essential equality of man and woman as created in the image of God
the full essential and human equality of male and female in the image of God means there can never rightly be a disparaging of women by men or men by women. Concepts of inferiority or superiority have no place in the God-ordained nature of male and female in the image of God
Nowhere in Scripture is the differentiation between male and female a basis for the male's supposed superiority in value or importance, or for female exploitation. All such attitudes and actions are sinful violations of the very nature of our common humanity as males and females fully and equally created in the image of God
From all this, it seems clear that Ware affirms that women are no less the image of God than men. In fact, he repeats that affirmation at every possible opportunity.
Yet Ware also wants to emphasize the distinction between male and female, and it is his effort to do that in connection with the image of God which leads to statements which seem to undercut his assertion of full ontological equality.
while God did intend to create male and female as equal in their essential nature as human, he also intended to make them different expressions of that essential nature, as male and female reflect different ways, as it were, of being human. Now, the question before us is whether any of these male/female differences relate to the question of what it means for men and women to be created in the image of God.
I will here propose that it may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made image of God first, in an unmediated fashion, as God formed him from the dust of the ground, while the female was made image of God second, in a mediated fashion, as God chose, not more earth, but the very rib of Adam by which he would create the woman fully and equally the image of God. So, while both are fully image of God, and both are equally the image of God, it may be the case that both are not constituted as the image of God in the identical way. Scripture gives some clues that there is a God-intended temporal priority bestowed upon the man as the original image of God, through whom the woman, as image of God formed from the male, comes to be.
Much of what follows is relatively standard complementarian fare. Ware points to passages which speak of man's temporal priority in creation and the fact that Eve was taken out of the man (1 Timothy 2:13 and 1 Corinthians 11:8). He makes much of the fact that both male and female are called adam, a word which is grammatically masculine (a weak argument, but one which many complementarians still insist on using). He wrestles with the statement in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that man is the "image and glory of God" while woman is the "glory of man." In essence, Ware's arguments in this section boil down to this: the order of creation points to a God-ordained male headship. Not something most egalitarians will agree with, but a fairly typical complementarian view.
Ware then discusses the fact that Genesis 5:3 speaks of Adam having a son in his own image and likeness, pointing out the obvious connection to the creation of mankind in the image of God in Genesis 5:1-2. Ware makes much of the fact that Adam only is mentioned here rather than Eve, and essentially argues that the image of God is passed to children through the fatherhood of the man.
This argument is, in my opinion, clearly a stretch. Why is Seth mentioned as having been born in the likeness and image of Adam only rather than Adam and Eve together? The most obvious answer is that Seth was male as Adam was male, and so more closely resembled Adam than Eve. There is no need to postulate some notion that the image of God is transferred via the fatherhood of the man rather than the parenthood of man and woman together.
Ware then connects Genesis 5:3 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 to make the point that both women and children are made the image of God through the prior existence of the man as image of God. He then draws the following conclusion:
What this suggests, then, is that the concept of male-headship is relevant not only to the question of how men and women are to relate and work together, but it seems also true that male-headship is a part of the very constitution of the woman being created in the image of God. Man is a human being made in the image of God first; woman becomes a human being bearing the image of God only through the man. While both are fully and equally the image of God, there is a built-in priority given to the male that reflects God's design of male-headship in the created order.
In a footnote, Ware again asserts that by pointing to this "built-in priority" he does not intend "to communicate any sense of greater value, dignity, worth, human personhood, or sharing in the image of God that the male possesses over the female."
In all this, Ware seeks to establish the notion that male headship is part of the created order and a fundamental aspect of our nature as male and female. That, again, is a fairly typical complementarian assertion. Yet his linkage of this assertion to the image of God is disturbing, in spite of the fact that he repeatedly asserts that men and women are fully and equally image of God. Ware wants to say that while we are both image of God, we express the image of God differently as male and female. But by using terms like "mediated" and "derivative" to describe how woman reflects the image of God, he sounds too much like earlier theologians who asserted that "the woman herself alone is not the image of God" (Augustine) or that "as regards the individual nature, the woman is defective and misbegotten" (Aquinas).
Once again, Ware clearly and repeatedly repudiates such notions of female inferiority, but he still wants to affirm some measure of male priority in the image of God. In essence, he is coming dangerously close to making an ontological distinction between male and female.
Yet even as I write that, I'm not sure Ware would see the distinction he is making as an ontological one. After all, he might protest, we affirm the full ontological equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; yet we also affirm that the Son is "begotten" of the Father and that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son (or just the Father in the Eastern tradition). If these distinctions do not negate equality of essence, then perhaps it does not follow that Ware's emphasis on Adam and Eve's distinct origins necessarily negates the essential equality of the sexes.
At one level, Ware is doing what theologians often do: namely, affirming two seemingly paradoxical notions without necessarily resolving the paradox in detail. Just as we affirm that God is completely sovereign, yet in such a way that he is not the author of sin or one who does violence to the will of his creatures, so Ware is trying to affirm that man and woman are both fully and equally the image of God, while nevertheless asserting that the distinction between men and women is somehow rooted in our very nature and the way we bear the image of God.
The challenge for me is that I can accept that Ware means what he says about the full ontological equality of women, but I'm not sure what to make of his distinction. Saying that man and woman bear the image of God in different ways certainly goes beyond "functional subordination," and it's hard to see how it is anything less than an ontological distinction. Is there some middle category between ontology and function? Or is this a working out of Ware's assertion that "function always and only follows essence"?
The first half of Ware's article is a long and somewhat abstruse discussion of different views of what the image of God is. Ware begins with "structural views," which identified the image of God as some attribute which was unique to humanity (such as reason or the possession of a soul). He then moves on to "relational views," which saw the image of God being reflected in the nature of our relationship to God and to each other. Ware then discusses and promotes a view he calls "functional holism," which sees the image of God as expressing the totality of what humanity is, what we do, and how we relate to one another. Ware summarizes this view as follows:
The image of God in man as functional holism means that God made human beings, both male and female, to be created and finite representations (images of God) of God's own nature, that in relationship with him and each other, they might be his representatives (imaging God) in carrying out the responsibilities he has given to them. In this sense, we are images of God in order to image God and his purposes in the ordering of our lives and carrying out of our God-given responsibilities.
I think this notion is the key to understanding the distinction Ware is trying to make. He is essentially trying to affirm that men and women are both fully human and fully image of God (ontological equality), but that we cannot accurately represent God ("image" God) unless we are rightly related to him and to each other. Thus, Ware's emphasis on the distinction in the way men and women have been created is meant to show that "functional subordination" is just as much a part of what it means to be made in the image of God as is "ontological equality." This view also relates to his view of the Trinity, which I haven't even begun to examine yet.
So where does that leave us?
First, I think we can safely say that Ware does not, in fact, teach that women are any less created in the image of God than men. When he uses terms like "mediated" and "derivative," he does not mean "diminished."
Second, I think we can all agree that Ware is arguing that gender distinctions go beyond mere differences in role, and are rooted in the created order. Most complementarians believe that to some degree or other, and most egalitarians view that notion as incompatible with ontological equality. Ware's view is that ontological equality and functional subordination are both fundamental to the nature of the Trinity, and that being created in the image of God means that they are both fundamental to the nature of humanity.
Third, Ware seems to have a knack for saying things in a way that is sure to offend the sensibilities of most egalitarians. When Ware uses "mediated" and "derivative" to describe how women bear the image of God, does he not see how most egalitarians (and many comps for that matter) will naturally hear "diminished"? Is Mr. Ware so obtuse that he does not understand how inflammatory such terms will be to his theological opponents? Or does he simply not care? Whenever I read Ware, I do not come away convinced that egalitarians are reading him accurately; but I do come away feeling like Ware has framed things in a way which is sure to infuriate them. If Ware wants to communicate with egalitarians, he needs to stop trampling over their hot-buttons.
In the end, Ware's teaching about the image of God is a highly nuanced theological argument which, frankly, is easily misunderstood. To me, this is the greatest area of concern. It is too easy to assume Ware's language of derivation implies some kind of diminishment, and few people will really take the time to analyze all of Ware's caveats and qualifications. As a theologian, Ware crafts his arguments carefully, and clearly repudiates what most egalitarians accuse him of affirming. Unfortunately, Ware seems to be a poor popularizer of his own theological views, and much gets lost when he tries to communicate with non-specialists. He does not seem able to anticipate how some of his arguments will be understood by the average pastor or layperson, much less by the average egalitarian. The end result is that some comps may misunderstand his teaching on the image of God as implying that men are inherently superior to women; while some egalitarians will use it to prove that comps in general and CBMW in particular do indeed teach that women are less "image of God" than men.
In this post, I've tried to interact with Bruce Ware's teaching on men and women in the image of God carefully and critically. Ware has become such a polarizing figure for some egalitarians that I don't expect them to be very satisfied with my critique. Some will no doubt think me too sympathetic or naive to see the clear implications of Ware's teaching. But reading between the lines is not the same thing as reading critically. Judging from what Ware has actually written, egals and comps should be able to agree with Ware's affirmation that women are fully the "image of God." Where all egals, and some comps, will disagree with Ware is in his affirmation that male headship is an important aspect of what it means to be created in the image of God.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wow, this blog is something else!
I'm wrung out. I've worked hard this week. I had a sugar slump (hypglycemic) tonight. And I had a number of private email exchanges today with a member of this blog's community about things I was not aware of but needed to become aware of, even things I have said of done with a pure intention but came across hurting others. Those exchanges were draining, but necessary. We really do need to listen to each other. We need to hear where we are hurting. We need to be quick to listen and slow to, hmm, I forget, my brain is so drained, what comes next, slow to anger or slow to answer?
Anyway, I want to affirm each one of you who are trying so hard to help this blog be a place where we can express our differences and still love each other. Well, we hope for the love, anyway. We may not always like each other, but we can choose to love each other. I believe that's a biblical position.
I appreciate John Hobbins' repeated reference to practicing 1 Cor. 13 in a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is comp or egal. That really is what Christ has called us to, a life of love for each other in the Body of Christ, and especially toward each other in the most intimate relationship, that of marriage.
Sometimes I almost feel despair about this blog, wondering if I have been quixotic in my hopes that it could be a safe place for different sides in the comp vs. egal debates to express their feelings and biblical (and other) support for them. And then I see some comments that give me hope again that our efforts, with all of our mistakes (mine included), may make this a safer, or at least healthier, place than ones where only egals get to post or only comps get to post.
And then there are those who are hurting so deeply. Do they belong here in this blog company? It's a serious question. I would hope that someone they can find a place of refuge and comfort here, the loving shoulder of Jesus and his followers to lean upon. And when they make over-arching statements that we want to question logically, what are we to do? Should we try to logically reason with someone who is in deep pain due to a family crisis, to try to get them to see that an ideological or theological is not to blame for everything. Spouses make choices. They may refer to their ideology to bolster their choices but if their choices are unbiblical, no matter how much they cite their idealogy does not make their abusive behavior righteous. All leaning comp teachers that I know of have, at least more recently, recognized that they need to speak out against abuse. And egal teachers need to speak out about the sins which tend to crop up in egal contexts. (I didn't do a very good job on that one in my post awhile back, even though I tried hard to show the possible problems that can associate with either ideology.)
I think that egals outnumber comps here, altho I am not sure. If we judged only by answers to poll questions in the margin, it would appear that comps are in larger numbers. But I think that comps don't feel very welcome here. (I know so, actually, from a variety of evidence, including public comments and private email I receive.) Egals might--I only say might--not feel much compassion for comps here since there are comp blogs and discussion groups which are very mean to egals. I know. I've tried to enter their discussions and even though I have not argued strongly for either position, any questioning of the comp line can be enough sometimes to be banned from their territory. But that kind of treatment does not justify retaliation in kind. We are not called by Jesus to even the score. Instead, he calls us to love, yes, love our enemies, and sometimes comps and egals do become enemies. Jesus didn't call us to like our enemies, but he did call us to love them. And I'm guess that if spend enough time trying to listen well to our enemies and respond lovingly, we might even find that we can like some of them!
OK, it's a rambling post tonight, but I felt such a need to share these things on my heart.
I am sorry to each of you for not being a perfect blog host. I have tried hard to help this be a safe place to post. We moderate comments now. And that helps. But things still slip through the cracks and will continue to do so. I won't be perfect but I will continue to try to make this blog a place where you can say what you believe. And I can only appeal to each of us to try to be as gracious as possible toward those with whom we disagree.
Let us be slow to try to win a logical argument. Let us be quick to try to hear the heart of the person who is writing. Let us risk speaking more in "I" terms rather than "you" terms. I know it hurts when you are criticized for sharing your story in "I" terms. I know that pain very well. But I believe that a fair number of people will respect "I" stories and not shoot you down, but will empathize even if they disagree with an ideological connection you believe is part of your story.
I admit that sometimes I wonder if it is worth keeping this blog going. But if I were to shut it down, it would be giving in to the belief that Christians can't love other enough to hear each other, and, then, loving state where we disagree but do so with great respect. I still want to hold on to the belief that it is possible for the world to know that we are followers of Jesus because we love each other.
Good night, sisters and brothers. I must get some rest.
Anyway, I want to affirm each one of you who are trying so hard to help this blog be a place where we can express our differences and still love each other. Well, we hope for the love, anyway. We may not always like each other, but we can choose to love each other. I believe that's a biblical position.
I appreciate John Hobbins' repeated reference to practicing 1 Cor. 13 in a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is comp or egal. That really is what Christ has called us to, a life of love for each other in the Body of Christ, and especially toward each other in the most intimate relationship, that of marriage.
Sometimes I almost feel despair about this blog, wondering if I have been quixotic in my hopes that it could be a safe place for different sides in the comp vs. egal debates to express their feelings and biblical (and other) support for them. And then I see some comments that give me hope again that our efforts, with all of our mistakes (mine included), may make this a safer, or at least healthier, place than ones where only egals get to post or only comps get to post.
And then there are those who are hurting so deeply. Do they belong here in this blog company? It's a serious question. I would hope that someone they can find a place of refuge and comfort here, the loving shoulder of Jesus and his followers to lean upon. And when they make over-arching statements that we want to question logically, what are we to do? Should we try to logically reason with someone who is in deep pain due to a family crisis, to try to get them to see that an ideological or theological is not to blame for everything. Spouses make choices. They may refer to their ideology to bolster their choices but if their choices are unbiblical, no matter how much they cite their idealogy does not make their abusive behavior righteous. All leaning comp teachers that I know of have, at least more recently, recognized that they need to speak out against abuse. And egal teachers need to speak out about the sins which tend to crop up in egal contexts. (I didn't do a very good job on that one in my post awhile back, even though I tried hard to show the possible problems that can associate with either ideology.)
I think that egals outnumber comps here, altho I am not sure. If we judged only by answers to poll questions in the margin, it would appear that comps are in larger numbers. But I think that comps don't feel very welcome here. (I know so, actually, from a variety of evidence, including public comments and private email I receive.) Egals might--I only say might--not feel much compassion for comps here since there are comp blogs and discussion groups which are very mean to egals. I know. I've tried to enter their discussions and even though I have not argued strongly for either position, any questioning of the comp line can be enough sometimes to be banned from their territory. But that kind of treatment does not justify retaliation in kind. We are not called by Jesus to even the score. Instead, he calls us to love, yes, love our enemies, and sometimes comps and egals do become enemies. Jesus didn't call us to like our enemies, but he did call us to love them. And I'm guess that if spend enough time trying to listen well to our enemies and respond lovingly, we might even find that we can like some of them!
OK, it's a rambling post tonight, but I felt such a need to share these things on my heart.
I am sorry to each of you for not being a perfect blog host. I have tried hard to help this be a safe place to post. We moderate comments now. And that helps. But things still slip through the cracks and will continue to do so. I won't be perfect but I will continue to try to make this blog a place where you can say what you believe. And I can only appeal to each of us to try to be as gracious as possible toward those with whom we disagree.
Let us be slow to try to win a logical argument. Let us be quick to try to hear the heart of the person who is writing. Let us risk speaking more in "I" terms rather than "you" terms. I know it hurts when you are criticized for sharing your story in "I" terms. I know that pain very well. But I believe that a fair number of people will respect "I" stories and not shoot you down, but will empathize even if they disagree with an ideological connection you believe is part of your story.
I admit that sometimes I wonder if it is worth keeping this blog going. But if I were to shut it down, it would be giving in to the belief that Christians can't love other enough to hear each other, and, then, loving state where we disagree but do so with great respect. I still want to hold on to the belief that it is possible for the world to know that we are followers of Jesus because we love each other.
Good night, sisters and brothers. I must get some rest.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why I'm cool with it
In formulating an explanation to the questions on my previous post, I discovered that it was getting lengthy. Rather than put it in the combox, I've posted it below as a separate blogpost.
To sue, bonnie, lin, and molly,
You all seem to be asking the same question, so I'll respond with the best answer that represents my viewpoint. A caveat, though: most of you already know I'm not the CBMW kind of Comp. I take a position that is much more generous towards women's roles in life than, say, Wayne Grudem. I don't believe that one must be as strict as he to be a Comp. Therefore, my views only represent me and not the more famous Comps out there...at least not yet.
The question is, 'in the Complementarian view, if creation roots male authority over females, which then prohibits women from having spiritual authority over men, then why would Complementarians accept women in civil authority, which seems contrary to the creation design?'
I think this question contains some erroneous assumptions.
1. Creation roots male authority over females,
1A. One assumption is that this "authority" encompasses all of existence, specifically that females are under the direction of males in every aspect of life without limits. In which case, that's a form of omnipotence, not authority. I cannot find any evidence where such unlimited power is mandated in scripture as God's will. Indeed, you know the well the examples to the contrary where women are in authority, so I don't need to list them here.
1B. "Male" authority? I've said this in a previous post as well that God didn't create a female for Adam, but a wife. I hope the meaning of this is not lost on anyone, that Eve was created married. There is no male and female as two separate entities that eventually got married only because there was no one else around. We cannot assume, therefore, that such a thing as "male authority over females" applies as a general state of affairs. The so-called "authority" that we often speak about in creation exists primarily in a marriage relationship (if it exists that way at all; see 1C), and I believe that it should only apply within marriage-related contexts (more on that later).
1C. Authority. This word has never been defined for the comp/egal debate ever to the point where both sides agree what it entails and encompasses. I think we all just assume that it means
- the husband is the boss/calls the shots for all decisions
- the husband is in control of the wife (and the rest of the family)
I believe that our assumptions are only partially true, but whether we can genuinely call it authority remains to be seen, when I'm done with it. In general, I prefer "spiritual leadership" or "head" (it's entirely biblical) to describe the relationship. Take Eph. 5:22, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." Here's the breakdown:
- the husband is not the Lord, but God commands wives treat their husbands with the kind of submission as if they were submitting to the Lord (which is also true)
- a relative position of respect and deference that wives should give their husbands as a moral act, not a compulsory act
- such deference is not given to any other man
- a position that does not entail a right a husband must maintain by force in general; indeed, it is not an inherent right to leadership but one based on the context of Christ and a wife's moral submission (and only under these circumstances)
- a position where wife and family are under a huband's care, not under his control; having said that, there are instances where a husband can and should act in the best interest of his family to avert danger or harm and to promote godliness.
(If you think this last one is a loophole, it isn't. If a husband chooses to abuse those under his care, that is not acting in the best interest of his family, which means there is no support from God for his actions. What to do about it is a separate issue we can discuss some other time.)
2. which then prohibits women from having spiritual authority over men,
2A. I don't think the argument can be made this way. Indeed, when we get to this content, it is usually 1 Tim. 2 that gets whipped out (not Genesis 2-3). Paul doesn't say that women shouldn't have any authority whatsoever over men, but in a leading/teaching capacity in the church. Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason points out that our translation of "man" and "woman" in this passage is in other places rendered "husband" and "wife." I think he makes a good case that women can, indeed, lead, teach, and have authority in some capacity in church, so long as that authority doesn't trample on the marriage relationship as I've described above. That is a principle.
The actual context in 1 Tim. 2 is sketchy. Why did Paul say what he did? Why didn't Jesus say anything like that? Why does he talk about braided hair and jewelry right before that? Why, why, why? I think we are not answering "why," so we are not arriving at an agreeable hermeneutic on this passage. In my mind, Paul is addressing 'problem women' in the church where Timothy is leading, and that his solution is for such women to get silent and show that their husbands should set them straight. Such should apply to all problem women, yes?
2B. So can women lead Bible studies in mixed company? Yeah.
2C. What if a woman's husband is in the Bible study? I think we take this business of Bible studies too seriously/formally. Everyone is learning together in an informal setting which isn't a uniquely church activity. A better question is 'Can a woman be her own husband's seminary professor?' which is a true authoritative position. We simply use other words, like conflict of interest. For every situation between these poles, I think Christian freedom should dictate what each couple does.
2D. So can women be pastors? If, by that, we mean the official person with ultimate responsibility for directing a congregation spiritually, organizationally and personally into the lives of churchgoers, then no. However, I wouldn't exempt women in being a part of the process by which all of that takes place. I know you must be asking why, so here's my rationale:
Eph. 5:22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
According to this scripture, Christ's relation to His Church is pictured in the husband's relation to the wife. Scripture specifically names the husband (not the wife) in the place of Christ in the picture. The marriage unit picture is, therefore, foundational to the makeup of the Church (afterall, the family is a microcosm of the Church). So, the human people that must lead and direct the Church should be men--they are a type of husband figure for the church body. Wives and women occupying this particular position in church do not fit this biblical picture. It is not that there is anything wrong with women so much as having a woman take directive leadership of the Church changes the image of the Church that God wants to portray. It is undeniable that a woman head pastor of a congregation changes the picture given to us in Eph. 5, not to mention that such a position of authority would throw her marriage into conflict of interest with her husband (if she were married).
3. Why would Complementarians accept women in civil authority?
This is a fair question. On the surface it seems to make sense that if our theology of men and women were universal, then it would naturally extend from the Church arena into all other arenas in life. This is the view that Patriocentrists take, and so they oppose any position where a woman might find herself in authority over men. But I've already made a case that it isn't really a theology of merely "men" and "women." However, besides being impractical to the level of absurd in some cases, it ignores the fact that no other arena besides the Church is built on a relationship between husband and wife and what it means (Christ redeems His Church), at least none other came to mind. That is why I said in my previous post that we do have separate realms on an existential level. Even with something as big as government (some would say especially the government), the primary function of which is not about and does not speak to the unique marriage dynamic that is set up by God to reflect Christ and the Church).
So back to Sarah Palin being a governor and possibly VP. I am way cool with it. As bonnie commented, "the fact that many complementarians are endorsing Sarah Palin for VP indicates....At the very least, [Complementarianism] is facing redefinition." Yeah, I'm cool with that too.
/big grin
To sue, bonnie, lin, and molly,
You all seem to be asking the same question, so I'll respond with the best answer that represents my viewpoint. A caveat, though: most of you already know I'm not the CBMW kind of Comp. I take a position that is much more generous towards women's roles in life than, say, Wayne Grudem. I don't believe that one must be as strict as he to be a Comp. Therefore, my views only represent me and not the more famous Comps out there...at least not yet.
The question is, 'in the Complementarian view, if creation roots male authority over females, which then prohibits women from having spiritual authority over men, then why would Complementarians accept women in civil authority, which seems contrary to the creation design?'
I think this question contains some erroneous assumptions.
1. Creation roots male authority over females,
1A. One assumption is that this "authority" encompasses all of existence, specifically that females are under the direction of males in every aspect of life without limits. In which case, that's a form of omnipotence, not authority. I cannot find any evidence where such unlimited power is mandated in scripture as God's will. Indeed, you know the well the examples to the contrary where women are in authority, so I don't need to list them here.
1B. "Male" authority? I've said this in a previous post as well that God didn't create a female for Adam, but a wife. I hope the meaning of this is not lost on anyone, that Eve was created married. There is no male and female as two separate entities that eventually got married only because there was no one else around. We cannot assume, therefore, that such a thing as "male authority over females" applies as a general state of affairs. The so-called "authority" that we often speak about in creation exists primarily in a marriage relationship (if it exists that way at all; see 1C), and I believe that it should only apply within marriage-related contexts (more on that later).
1C. Authority. This word has never been defined for the comp/egal debate ever to the point where both sides agree what it entails and encompasses. I think we all just assume that it means
- the husband is the boss/calls the shots for all decisions
- the husband is in control of the wife (and the rest of the family)
I believe that our assumptions are only partially true, but whether we can genuinely call it authority remains to be seen, when I'm done with it. In general, I prefer "spiritual leadership" or "head" (it's entirely biblical) to describe the relationship. Take Eph. 5:22, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." Here's the breakdown:
- the husband is not the Lord, but God commands wives treat their husbands with the kind of submission as if they were submitting to the Lord (which is also true)
- a relative position of respect and deference that wives should give their husbands as a moral act, not a compulsory act
- such deference is not given to any other man
- a position that does not entail a right a husband must maintain by force in general; indeed, it is not an inherent right to leadership but one based on the context of Christ and a wife's moral submission (and only under these circumstances)
- a position where wife and family are under a huband's care, not under his control; having said that, there are instances where a husband can and should act in the best interest of his family to avert danger or harm and to promote godliness.
(If you think this last one is a loophole, it isn't. If a husband chooses to abuse those under his care, that is not acting in the best interest of his family, which means there is no support from God for his actions. What to do about it is a separate issue we can discuss some other time.)
2. which then prohibits women from having spiritual authority over men,
2A. I don't think the argument can be made this way. Indeed, when we get to this content, it is usually 1 Tim. 2 that gets whipped out (not Genesis 2-3). Paul doesn't say that women shouldn't have any authority whatsoever over men, but in a leading/teaching capacity in the church. Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason points out that our translation of "man" and "woman" in this passage is in other places rendered "husband" and "wife." I think he makes a good case that women can, indeed, lead, teach, and have authority in some capacity in church, so long as that authority doesn't trample on the marriage relationship as I've described above. That is a principle.
The actual context in 1 Tim. 2 is sketchy. Why did Paul say what he did? Why didn't Jesus say anything like that? Why does he talk about braided hair and jewelry right before that? Why, why, why? I think we are not answering "why," so we are not arriving at an agreeable hermeneutic on this passage. In my mind, Paul is addressing 'problem women' in the church where Timothy is leading, and that his solution is for such women to get silent and show that their husbands should set them straight. Such should apply to all problem women, yes?
2B. So can women lead Bible studies in mixed company? Yeah.
2C. What if a woman's husband is in the Bible study? I think we take this business of Bible studies too seriously/formally. Everyone is learning together in an informal setting which isn't a uniquely church activity. A better question is 'Can a woman be her own husband's seminary professor?' which is a true authoritative position. We simply use other words, like conflict of interest. For every situation between these poles, I think Christian freedom should dictate what each couple does.
2D. So can women be pastors? If, by that, we mean the official person with ultimate responsibility for directing a congregation spiritually, organizationally and personally into the lives of churchgoers, then no. However, I wouldn't exempt women in being a part of the process by which all of that takes place. I know you must be asking why, so here's my rationale:
Eph. 5:22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
According to this scripture, Christ's relation to His Church is pictured in the husband's relation to the wife. Scripture specifically names the husband (not the wife) in the place of Christ in the picture. The marriage unit picture is, therefore, foundational to the makeup of the Church (afterall, the family is a microcosm of the Church). So, the human people that must lead and direct the Church should be men--they are a type of husband figure for the church body. Wives and women occupying this particular position in church do not fit this biblical picture. It is not that there is anything wrong with women so much as having a woman take directive leadership of the Church changes the image of the Church that God wants to portray. It is undeniable that a woman head pastor of a congregation changes the picture given to us in Eph. 5, not to mention that such a position of authority would throw her marriage into conflict of interest with her husband (if she were married).
3. Why would Complementarians accept women in civil authority?
This is a fair question. On the surface it seems to make sense that if our theology of men and women were universal, then it would naturally extend from the Church arena into all other arenas in life. This is the view that Patriocentrists take, and so they oppose any position where a woman might find herself in authority over men. But I've already made a case that it isn't really a theology of merely "men" and "women." However, besides being impractical to the level of absurd in some cases, it ignores the fact that no other arena besides the Church is built on a relationship between husband and wife and what it means (Christ redeems His Church), at least none other came to mind. That is why I said in my previous post that we do have separate realms on an existential level. Even with something as big as government (some would say especially the government), the primary function of which is not about and does not speak to the unique marriage dynamic that is set up by God to reflect Christ and the Church).
So back to Sarah Palin being a governor and possibly VP. I am way cool with it. As bonnie commented, "the fact that many complementarians are endorsing Sarah Palin for VP indicates....At the very least, [Complementarianism] is facing redefinition." Yeah, I'm cool with that too.
/big grin
Sunday, September 14, 2008
the dangerous middle ground where Palin, Mohler, and I occupy
This is hardly a cheering endorsement from Mohler, though it certainly is an acknowledgement that not all wives and mothers are called to stay at home. It is, however, a clear admonition to not view her as a normal women. She is an exception, like Esther or Deborah, period. She is not so much an example to be followed as she is an exception to the general rule. (molly)
...
Mohler has a consistency problem with this one because Palin professes to be a Christian. Mohler/CBMW teach that Christian women have a 'role'and all that entails that we have discussed here ad nauseum. :o) However, they are also saying that we can separate the civil and spiritual realms for women in leadership. That does not seem to be a problem except that Palin is a Christian woman. Is anyone else not seeing this conumdrum for CBMW? How can they separate the civil and spiritual realm with a Christian woman? You can't. Christians don't have 'realms'. (lin)
...
It is clear that the non-egals want to have their cake and eat it too. (don)
Is CBMW being inconsistent, many ask?
I think it depends on the person speaking. Doug Phillips seems to believe he is more consistent than Al Mohler, but I don't think that matters in light of his views. When you believe that a woman is created for no other purpose than to be a babymama-housekeeper, you've effectively dropped out of reasonable conversation altogether.
Is complementarianism in trouble because of Sarah Palin?
That's funny, and the answer is no. Let me point out that Richard Land (complementarian) was one of the first people to propose naming Sarah Palin for McCain's VP early on in the campaign.
Do I have a problem with consistency as a complementarian?
Well, if I make the kind of errors I've read so far from both egals and patriocentrists, yes. But I haven't. In this previous post, I argued that it is perfectly consistent with my views on Complementarianism that a woman could be a leader in any civil realm she chooses.
To the issue raised that Christians (and certainly complementarians) don't have separate realms, vis a vis a Christian/spiritual realm to a secular realm (and the accusation that complementarians are trying to split life into these two realms): I would contend that this is an incorrect framing of the issue, which is then, incorrectly trying to expose inconsistency in complementarianism.
The idea, 'There is no separate spiritual realm and secular realm for the Christian,' is a theological proposition about how we should conduct ourselves with Christlike integrity wherever we are (not an existential proposition). Al Mohler is not making a contrary theological claim to that. Instead, he is making a simple modal distinction brought up by the case of Sarah Palin. In short, she can wear that hat (whether governor or VP or whatever). As to whether or not there exist separate realms, of course there are--we don't live under a theocracy afterall, and we don't demand that our government be ruled by the Church. This is an argument against a position like Doug Phillips'. That anyone can construe this to be a problem of complementarian proportions is ridiculous.
Is Gov. Palin the exception? Yes, in the sense that I think most women don't have the ability to do what she is doing, including myself. I can hardly find time to read a book much less occupy a public office. But also no, in the sense that she is an exeption because she is exceptional, not because she's bending some rule somewhere to get where she is (which is otherwise closed to women). There is no such rule that prohibits women from exercising public office. Any woman who has the skills to govern effectively and still regard her husband and family properly should be afforded the opportunity to exercise those skills, regardless of whether she is a Christian or not. (I would add, especially if she is a conservative Christian, but that is my bias that we don't need any more liberal pro-abortion politicians hostile to Christianity here in this country). Marilyn did make this point in the combox (much better than I, I think).
For those of you who are salivating at the idea that the issue of Sarah Palin proves that complementarianism as a system of thought is wrong need to aim your guns elsewhere, because you've really missed the point. Some hard complementarians/patriocentrists, like Doug Phillips, are certainly wrong in their views, but their problem isn't complementarianism. It's the refusal in their own hearts to see the full humanity of women.
...
Mohler has a consistency problem with this one because Palin professes to be a Christian. Mohler/CBMW teach that Christian women have a 'role'and all that entails that we have discussed here ad nauseum. :o) However, they are also saying that we can separate the civil and spiritual realms for women in leadership. That does not seem to be a problem except that Palin is a Christian woman. Is anyone else not seeing this conumdrum for CBMW? How can they separate the civil and spiritual realm with a Christian woman? You can't. Christians don't have 'realms'. (lin)
...
It is clear that the non-egals want to have their cake and eat it too. (don)
Is CBMW being inconsistent, many ask?
I think it depends on the person speaking. Doug Phillips seems to believe he is more consistent than Al Mohler, but I don't think that matters in light of his views. When you believe that a woman is created for no other purpose than to be a babymama-housekeeper, you've effectively dropped out of reasonable conversation altogether.
Is complementarianism in trouble because of Sarah Palin?
That's funny, and the answer is no. Let me point out that Richard Land (complementarian) was one of the first people to propose naming Sarah Palin for McCain's VP early on in the campaign.
Do I have a problem with consistency as a complementarian?
Well, if I make the kind of errors I've read so far from both egals and patriocentrists, yes. But I haven't. In this previous post, I argued that it is perfectly consistent with my views on Complementarianism that a woman could be a leader in any civil realm she chooses.
To the issue raised that Christians (and certainly complementarians) don't have separate realms, vis a vis a Christian/spiritual realm to a secular realm (and the accusation that complementarians are trying to split life into these two realms): I would contend that this is an incorrect framing of the issue, which is then, incorrectly trying to expose inconsistency in complementarianism.
The idea, 'There is no separate spiritual realm and secular realm for the Christian,' is a theological proposition about how we should conduct ourselves with Christlike integrity wherever we are (not an existential proposition). Al Mohler is not making a contrary theological claim to that. Instead, he is making a simple modal distinction brought up by the case of Sarah Palin. In short, she can wear that hat (whether governor or VP or whatever). As to whether or not there exist separate realms, of course there are--we don't live under a theocracy afterall, and we don't demand that our government be ruled by the Church. This is an argument against a position like Doug Phillips'. That anyone can construe this to be a problem of complementarian proportions is ridiculous.
Is Gov. Palin the exception? Yes, in the sense that I think most women don't have the ability to do what she is doing, including myself. I can hardly find time to read a book much less occupy a public office. But also no, in the sense that she is an exeption because she is exceptional, not because she's bending some rule somewhere to get where she is (which is otherwise closed to women). There is no such rule that prohibits women from exercising public office. Any woman who has the skills to govern effectively and still regard her husband and family properly should be afforded the opportunity to exercise those skills, regardless of whether she is a Christian or not. (I would add, especially if she is a conservative Christian, but that is my bias that we don't need any more liberal pro-abortion politicians hostile to Christianity here in this country). Marilyn did make this point in the combox (much better than I, I think).
For those of you who are salivating at the idea that the issue of Sarah Palin proves that complementarianism as a system of thought is wrong need to aim your guns elsewhere, because you've really missed the point. Some hard complementarians/patriocentrists, like Doug Phillips, are certainly wrong in their views, but their problem isn't complementarianism. It's the refusal in their own hearts to see the full humanity of women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
