Why?

Genesis 1:27
Genesis 2:24
Ephesians 5:21-33
Colossians 3:18
Titus 2:5
1 Timothy 2:9-15
1 Peter 3:5

These verses above are generally the most referenced passages involving gender roles in the church. Feel free to add passages that you think are relevant.

For some of us, the issue of gender roles involves studying Greek, which is often helpful and sheds light on many things we don't understand. Some of us do intense word studies, cultural studies, even study the theological impetus for the gender debate in order to find out what the Bible teaches. In my own experience, the question that is often missed is "why?" Why do we study a passage and debate over its meaning without pausing to ask why it's even there? While not the magic key to understanding all, finding out why the Bible says what it says certainly should be a part of the discussion.

I'll take the more controversial passages and add a why: 1 Tim. 2:12-15 (actually just the second half of the passage)
Why were women not allowed to teach or have authority? Why must they be silent? I go with Bilizikien on this one when he offers that the prohibition was situational, which seems to make sense. The text strongly indicates that women were disrupting church/Sabbath with their uneducated insights and perhaps claiming special knowledge from God. Why would you want uneducated and inexperienced women teach and preach what they do not know fully? Such women should be silent. Vs. 13 is sticky, I'll admit. But if you look at it in light of the fact that the first limitation and revelation was given to Adam, who was then should have protected Eve from deception with that revelation, then women have no business citing special knowledge from God that contradicts what God has already revealed.

This is just one way of looking at it. So, what's your why?

Complementarianism summary

Paula recently blogged a summary of her understanding of the main points of egalitarianism. Today I came across a summary on the A-Team blog and in this post I excerpt from that post. This summary is from the book Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions, by Wayne Grudem. This book has been on our blog Bookshelf and is available as a free download by clicking on the name of the book in this post and on our Bookshelf. Here is the excerpt:

The first two chapters provide a description and positive case for the Complementarian view. Following that foundation, Grudem analyzes Egalitarian arguments and objections through eleven chapters, with a concluding chapter summarizing the current controversy in evangelical circles. The following is a summary of chapter 1: A Biblical Vision of Manhood and Womanhood as Created by God, which explains six key issues revolving around creation and marriage.

Key Issue #1: Men and Women Are Equal in Value and Dignity

All discussions of gender should start here since this is where the Bible starts (Gen 1:27)

Key Issue #2: Men and Women Have Different Roles in Marriage as Part of the Created Order

Grudem puts forward ten arguments from Scripture (some stronger than others) that there was male headship prior to the Fall; thus distinct roles from creation.

1. “The order: Adam was created first, then Eve (note the sequence in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:18-23).” (p30) Paul saw this as important- 1 Timothy 2:12-13.
2. “The representation: Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race.” Eve sinned first, but Scripture says we fell in Adam- 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-49)
3. “The naming of the woman: When God made the first woman and ‘brought her to the man,’” (31) Adam named her- Genesis 2:23. Naming is a function of authority- See God’s naming creation Genesis 1:5-2:20.
4. “The naming of the human race: God named the human race ‘Man,’ not ‘Woman.’ (34)- Genesis 5:1-2 “Does this make any difference? It does give a hint of male leadership, which God suggested in choosing this name. It is significant that God did call the human race ‘Woman.’” (35)
5. “The primary accountability: God spoke to Adam first after the Fall…. It indicated a primary responsibility for Adam in the conduct of his family.” (36) Genesis 3:9
6. “The purpose: Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve.” (36) She was Adam’s helper by virtue of creation, not in certain situations, but in a normative sense. Genesis 2:18, 1 Corinthians 11:9
7. “The conflict: The curse brought a distortion of roles, not the new introduction of roles.” (37) Genesis 3:16 is not how the roles ought to be, but is how the created roles were distorted.
8. “The restoration: When we come to the New Testament, salvation in Christ reaffirms the creation order.” (40) In Christ the curse is reversed and the created roles are restored- Colossians 3:18-19.
9. “The mystery: Marriage from the beginning of Creation was a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church.” (41) Paul makes this point in Ephesians 5:31-32, and it is applied in 5:23.
10. “The parallel with the Trinity: The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflect the quality, differences, and unity in the Trinity.” (42) See issue #3 below.

This Biblical model can only be worked out when husband and wife each avoid errors of distortion in either being too passive or too aggressive with their roles. Apart from headship, the man’s responsibility is to provide for and protect his family. Apart from support, the woman’s responsibility is to care for the home and nurture the children.

Key Issue #3: The Equality and Differences Between Men and Women Reflect the Equality and Differences in the Trinity

See 1 Corinthians 11:3, “’head’ refers to one who is in a position of authority over the other, as this Greek word (kephale) uniformly does whenever it is used in ancient literature to say that one person is ‘head of’ another person or group.” (45-46) So the principle of headship and authority did not begin with the advent of theology, but is rooted in the eternal relationship between the persons of the Trinity. Contra culture, authority can be (and is in this case) a good thing.

Key Issue #4: The Equality and Differences Between Men and Women are Very Good

Since the equality and differences are part of the created order, God’s judgment that it is very good applies (Genesis 1:31) This order is fair because God it is God’s decision, not that of sinful man. Because God is all-wise, this order is also the best for us.

Key Issue #5: This is a Matter of Obedience to the Bible

“I think… God has allowed this controversy into the church to test our hearts. Will we be faithful to Him and obey His Word or not?” (53)

Key Issue #6: This Controversy Is Much Bigger Than We Realize, Because It Touches All of Life

This summary does not include complementarian beliefs about the different roles men and women have in the church. These beliefs can be summarized, I believe, with the following statement:

Only men are ordained by God to have authority roles in the church. Women must not function in any role in the church where they would have authority over men or teach men.

Feel free to comment in case anything was left off either of these two summaries, or in case anything was worded in a way that does not reflect your understanding of complementarianism.

How can we improve?

My dream for this blog was that it could be a safe place where all opinions about the roles of women and men in the home and church could be expressed safely, without the negativity of dialog stoppers, such as sarcasm, ridicule, insults, questioning of competency to speak, etc.

We've had some helpful posts and good comments. But we have also had many exchanges which have not lived up to the biblical ideal of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). I realize that negativity is common in discussions about men's and women's roles. But I really want to believe that it is possible to rise above what is common and have more respectful exchanges. If we listen better to each other, respect each other more, we can, at minimum, learn what each person believes and what they base their beliefs on. I have found that when I understand what another person believes and why they believe it, I often have more respect for that person, even if I still disagree with their conclusions.

One of the reasons I thought of starting a blog like this is that some other blogs that post on these topics do not allow any comments. I do not consider speculating about motives to advance dialog, so I won't speculate about why they do not allow comments.

I believe we should take the risk of having comments. We really can learn from each other. We may not convince each other but we can grow as people, yes, as Christians, in the process even if we do not convince someone to believe as we do.

Another technique used on some blogs is to moderate all comments. We could do that here, as well. Comment moderation slows down dialog, but it does raise the level of discourse if no comments are approved which are not respectful or kind. Comment moderation requires that one of the blog administrators be available to approve comments. When administrators are gone to meetings or on trips, comments do not get approved quickly unless the number of administrators is increased.

So far, egalitarians seem to outnumber complementarians on this blog. As I noted in a comment, I have tried hard to balance things out by recruiting bloggers from both sides of the debate. I do not know why our complementarian bloggers have not written much lately. I do know that two of them, at least, have been, or are about to be, involved in conferences, so that would keep them from blogging. I hope that they can return energized and ready to post from their point of view.

Growing pains are inevitable, especially when something is new such as this blog. It takes time to increase the number of visitors. It takes time for self-moderation, group moderation, or administrative moderation to bring an atmosphere to a blog where those who are not posting feel safe to comment without fear of being put down.

1. How we can improve the level of exchanges on this blog?
2. What communication techniques have you noticed that help improve dialog?
3. Would you all prefer that we go to comment moderation?

Separate but Equal

First, I would like to recommend Mike Aubrey's blog for tight academic argumentation in the egalitarian domain. There is a good discussion here about how complementarians are trying to fill some logical gaps. This is something that egalitarians are very familiar with as we work through first one passage and then another and return to our understanding of redemption.

In this post, Mike mentions that one commenter responded to the phrase "equal but different" with this remark. (see the World on the Web, comment #2) The entire comment thread is fascinating.

“Separate but equal” is a colloquial phrase ridiculed for good reason. I am, personally, baffled by the idea of a Christian woman (or a woman engaging any of the three great monotheisms).

Why embrace a theology (or any other set of ideas) that makes a nonsensical claim to one’s perpetual second-class nature?

Here is the origin of the term separate but equal.

My Egalitarian Summary

Well, I finally finished my (first draft of a) summary on what I believe the Bible teaches about women. It's kind of long so I put it in my own blog Here. I did try to be brief but I don't think I could have written less without leaving out something important. As it is, I feel it still needs more work, but I wanted to post it before the "chart" thing got too old.

Basically, I tried to look at the big picture and not get too bogged down in the minute details, while at the same time addressing the key passages used by both sides of the comp/egal debate. As I say in the article, books have already been written about those details, and I just wanted to summarize my overall view.

Majoring in Submission

The Constructive Curmudgeon (Doug Groothuis) blogged today on Majoring in Submission. It's timely to link to his post given the discussion on submission we have been having here on the Complegalitarian blog. Doug points out that a World On the Web (WoW) article left out a critical part of what his wife, Rebecca, had submitted to WoW when it quoted her about a new homemaking major for women at a seminary. Here is what was omitted:

The Genesis creation account never says the woman was created to serve and obey the man. When God formed the woman out of the man, the man did not see her as his subordinate. No, the man identified the woman as one who was like him—in contrast to the animals, over which woman and man had joint authority. Yes, the woman is a help (Hebrew: ezer) to the man, but God is also an ezer to humans; yet God is not subordinate to humans!

The idea that God created the woman to serve the man and the man to have decision-making authority over the woman logically entails that women are not equal but are necessarily and intrinsically inferior to men (see Discovering Biblical Equality, chapter 18).

“Equal but different” makes a good slogan, but it doesn’t make good sense.

HT: Mike Aubrey

Schaeffer on Utopianism

What if just for one split second we were to imagine that there was an authority - submission relationship in the garden as Challies believes. Let's do away with 1 Cor. 7 and think of what it would be like if there was only one will in the garden - the man's. Because after all it was a perfect authority - submission relationship. Adam was perfect and knew perfectly what would please Eve. Eve was perfectly submissive and only wanted what Adam already knew that she wanted.

What on earth would that have to do with how we conduct ourselves in a sinful and imperfect world, where Adam doesn't have the remotest idea what the other person wants, and Eve doesn't either.

Here is Francis Schaeffer on living with sinful reality.

Equally as Christians, sin in our lives is also a serious business. We are never merely to explain it away in ourselves, in our group, or in our family.

On the other hand, knowing that all men are sinners frees us from the cruelty of utopianism. Utopianism is cruel, for it expects of men and women what they are not and will not be until Christ comes. Such utopianism, forgetting what the Bible says about human sinfulness, is hard-hearted; it is as monstrous a thing as one can imagine.
---
The Christian understanding of men is not just theoretical. Christians should also be able to show more understanding to men than can either the cynic or romantic. We should not be surprised when a man demonstrates he is a sinner because, after all, we know that all men are sinners. When someone sits down to talk with me, I should convey to him (even if I do not express it in words) the attitude that he and I are both sinners.

And immediately, when I communicate this perception, a door swings open for dialogue. Nothing will help you as much in meeting people, no matter how far out they are or how caught up they are in the modern awfulness, than for them to perceive in you the attitude "we are both sinners."
---
Utopianism is terribly cruel because it expects the impossible from people. These expectations are not based on reality. They stand in opposition to the genuine human possibilities afforded by the realism of the Scripture.

Utopianism can cause harm. In the home, in the man-woman relationship, nothing is more cruel than for the wife or husband to build up a false image in his or her mind and then demand that the husband or wife measure up to this false romanticism. Nothing smashes homes more than this. Such behaviour is totally contrary to the Bible's doctrine of sin. Even after redemption, we are not perfect in this present life. It is not that we avoid saying sin is sin, but we must have compassion for each other, too. Francis Schaeffer. No Little People. 2003.

What man really thinks he is perfect enough to have someone submit to him without it being suffering? Recommend submission if you will but realize exactly what you are saying.

And here's a quote from C. S. Lewis, in an essay on "Equality," written in 1943:

I am a democrat [believer in democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. . . . I find that they're not true without looking further than myself. I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters. ("Equality," in C. S. Lewis: Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, ed. by Lesley Walmsley [London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000,] p. 666). Cited by John Piper.

Possibly both Schaeffer and Lewis believed in male authority. I really don't know. I do know Schaeffer looked downright spiffy in his Swiss mountain climbing knickers. (That's American for pants that end just below the knees for all you Brits.) I think my only interaction with him was pointing out where the toilets were. I'm not sure. I lived in Switzerland for a year and he came and went from our Bible School every so often. But he didn't expect me to give the bathroom directions in a particular way so as not to compromise his masculinity. (Sorry, I know I am supposed to be good here - but I am a sinner.)