Complementarity Without Hierarchy...

I picked up a book I've been looking to get for awhile (thanks to a gift card for the Western Seminary bookstore from my friend John Johnson!)

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy by Pierce and Groothius.

This looks to be an encyclopedic treatment of the subject and a serious companion/rejoinder to Piper and Grudem's book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (it's funny- with the former, they've clearly copied the style of the latter- the two look like they belong together on the shelf... very, uh... complementary)

I know that until I committed to rethinking the issue, I had never picked up and read (that I remember) anything on the issue other than texts by Complementarians. Why would I? What I had been taught was the biblical position and so reading anything else from any other point of view was simply a waste of time... and in the back of mind, a dangerous playing with "liberalism."
Of course reading books like Sumner's Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership, and Webb's Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis showed me that nothing could be further from the truth.

So, here's my request to all the Complementarians out there. This is HUGE issue for the church right now, and is only going to get bigger in the coming years. One of the problems with debate in the church is that so few accurately understand much less represent the views of those they are in debate with.

I think you owe it to yourself to understand this issue from a variety of perspectives. Owning and actually a reading a book from a perspective other than your own (I know many have done this... this advice is for those who were like me and studiously avoided it...) will be good for you.

Will you commit this next year to doing a bit of reading on this subject? From a perspective other than your own? Even if your views remain unchanged, your understanding of the issue can only be enhanced, along with your empathy for those on the other side of the debate.

Comments

[stephen shields]

i will. I intend to read books on both side of the issue.

bob, one way in which you can help is to gather links to the best titles (you've listed a few) on both sides of the issue and post them on your blog!

[ryan]

Bob, I just wanted to say I think the best book out there on the topic, which accomplishes the task of seeing and exploring both sides of this issue, is the 2005 edition of "Two Views on Women in Ministry." It includes articles by Dr. Blomberg, Schriener, Belville, and Keener. All the articles are good (I personally found Blomberg's to be the most ocmpelling, especially noting the fact that he secretly wishes the Bible would allow him to be an egalitarian) but check the book out the interactions amongst the scholars is like being able to sit at the table with some people far smarter than most of us.

[matt]

I'm sorry Bob, but I couldn't quite tell. Where do you stand on Webb?

[drew]

Man, if Jesus would have only picked one female apostle we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Andrew]

Drew,

Could it be that there's a reason he didn't?

[Rachel]

I relate to what you said, Bob. Prior to reading a book by Rebecca Groothius about ten years ago, I had never been exposed to biblical egalitarianism. I had been raised in the church and taught complementarianism, though they didn't call it that then. I had read many books with the hierarchial view and believed it was the only biblical interpretation. I didn't know that evangelical feminism even existed till I happened upon the Groothius book.

[jason]

Well, female "apostles" are mentioned in the New Testament, aren't they? And what use do most Protestants have with the apostolic role, anyway? Most seem to use it only to establish the canon of scripture, and then it's off to the races.

[Randy Ehle]

Jason, to the best of my knowledge there are no female apostles in the NT, though women are numbered among the disciples. (A common mistake, I've found, is that we think of Jesus having had only 12 disciples; in fact, he had many more, and chose 12 from among them whom he appointed as apostles. Granted, at least Matthew continues to refer to "the 12" as disciples.)

[bob]

Jesus had women he intentionally allowed to sit in the place of disciple (the whole point of the Mary/Martha narrative in Luke 10)
Junias is mentioned at the end of Romans as both a female and a disciple- early church Fathers such as Origen and Jerome understood her to be both woman and apostle.
John Chrysostom said: "'Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles': To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."

Another way to look at this-
Jesus had not a single Gentile disciple. Clearly- the place of Jew versus Gentile in God's plan was a HUGE issue in the early church. Jesus went out of his way time and again to go to Gentile territory and speak to Gentile people, angering the religious authorities.

The logic that says that since Jesus didn't appoint any women among the 12, he must not want women in ministry is analogous to saying that since Jesus appointed no Gentiles among the 12, He must not have wanted non-Jews in ministry.

[jason]

Not to mention the reality that it would have been rather, ahem, scandalous for a woman to go marching about Judea with 11 mangey fellas and an itinerant prophet. Makes me think Jesus didn't want to ruffle every feather.

[bob]

Jason- you are right, I think. Which seems to be the way in Scripture... pushing the bounds of what is the cultural norm always, but not to the point that it's so completely outsized that people have no reasonable hope of handling it... but always pointing us towards the ultimate kingdom reality.
For more on where that happens all through Scripture, particularly in regards to women and slavery, check out Webb's book.

Matt- sorry I wasn't clear- I LOVED Webb's book. I'm sorry to have seen it disparaged by some (*ahem* Driscoll! *ahem...) because on many levels it's an amazing book- on the hermeneutic level, on the issue of women in ministry, in helping us understand why, at least to our eyes, the OT feels so different than the NT...

[ryan]

Bob I think the idea that Jesus did not have a female apostle was because that would have passed some cultural line that was too much is a little weak. After all look at his birth, it could not have been more culturally upsetting and scandalous. If Jesus was not afraid to come to earth to a teenage Virgin and put her in a situation that would possibly cause her to be stoned, and his mom and dad to would face the snickers of sneers of the community his entire childhood I do not think he would have hesitated to appoint a female apostle if he wanted to.

If Jesus did not want to push the cultural envelope he just would have waited till Joseph and Mary's wedding night and then dropped the whole, "you are going to bear the son of God" thing. No he went right in the face of the culture about as strongly as possible and I think this was much more extreme than not wanting to have a female apostle.

Then there is also the fact that all through out Jesus' ministry he did not really have high regard for cultural norms (eating with prostitutes, hanging out with women, telling off religious folk, and claiming to be God. I just think we should give Jesus a little bit of credit and not make an argument from silence and maybe accept that fact that Jesus did not will to have a female apostle. Cheers!

[bob]

No. I don't think that quite captures it.

Jesus both pushed and respected cultural boundaries. He paid the Temple tax, even though He stated He didn't need to. Yet He didn't force His disciples to wash their hands. He allowed women to sit at his feet in the traditional posture of a disciple. He largely followed the rabbinic traditions and took males as traveling companion disciples.

Ryan- do you believe slavery is inconsistent with the Gospel? If so, why?
And why does the NT not more strongly condemn it?
If Jesus truly came to set the captives free, as He said in the synagogue of His hometown, then why does He/Paul not simply do away with slavery? If God wants to set the captives free, and free the oppressed, then why in the world does Paul tell slaves to obey their masters? Why does Paul not simply tell Christian slave owners to free their slaves?

When you are able to answer that question, many others in the NT, including why Jesus had no females among the 12 at least, becomes more clear.

And again, there was a female apostle, at least if you believe Paul in Romans 16, and many early church fathers on the subject of Junias.

[ryan]

Bob I think you raise some good points but it does not change the fact that the birth of Jesus was about as scandalous as one could have imagined and not only crossed cultural sensitivities but nearly led his parents to a premature divorce and the stoning of his mother. I just see this as much more radical than having a female apostle, especially since women were already traveling with Jesus.

I believe the slavery question is distinct from the previous point but it is a valid question that all of us have to wrestle with. Talking with a few NT scholars in the last couple of years I have asked them that exact same question, and time and again I have been told by them to remember that when I hear the word "slavery" I think of what went on 150 years ago here in America where people were savagely taken from their homeland treated as animals and property and merciously abused. I abhor this and I think Paul would have as well. But we can not read our understanding of slavery on to the culture in which Paul spoke in. Many people found themselves in slavery because they ran up debts they could not pay and were forced to work them off, more like an indentured servant. Others in slavery were treated well by their masters and often seen as part of the family. The point is we can not impose the slavery that is of American History unto that of the biblical period. I think this is were Webb goes wrong as he sets up a straw man by speaking of a slavery as if the slavery of the civil war period was the same as biblical times. Needless to say I do not want to be dogmatic and claim with absolutness I know what Paul thought and felt, but I sense he would not have had much trouble mustering up the confidence to speak against the slavery in his context if he felt so led to do so.

Last about Junia. I do not dispute that Paul in his closing greetings of Romans 16 set out to celebrate the contributions of women. Nine of the twenty-six people listed are women, several described as having worked with Paul "in the Lord" demonstrating how valuable they were in Paul's ministry. There are two people listed, Andronicus and Junia as being "outstanding in the eyes of the apostles." Some commentators speculate that they were husband and wife. But clearly neither was part of the twelve, and we must remember that Paul uses "apostle" to refer to a spiritual gift as well, similar to our modern use of "missionary." Moo's commentary on Romans does an excellent job of laying this out. Cheers.

[bob]

Cheers indeed!
And many things about Jesus were scandalous. Including his treatment of women. But to say that since he didn't appoint any women among the 12, that therefore x,y and z is exactly what you have argued against- an argument from silence.
I realize there's more to the argument than "Jesus had no female disciples" but honestly- it's the absolute weakest of all complementarian arguments and should absolutely be dropped from the list.

[ryan]

bob I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point because I think it is a strong argument. That is why President's and the makeup of their cabinets has always been long scruitinized by pundits and seen as important, because who we select matters. Think about it if Bush or any other president had no women or minorities it would be very valid to point this out. And honestly we all know that people would and I think it would be a fair critique about what he thought and wanted. There is no way they would get away with the logic your applying to Jesus, and just be able to say well it does not communicate anything so the point should just be dropped. This is also why affirmative action is such a hot issue, because it is about selection and the message sent in the selection matters. I do not think Jesus having no female apostles is an argument from silence because it is a fact, and the fact conveys information. All we can do is accept that information and live with what it communicates, and I believe it tells us that Jesus being God and able to do what he wills chose for reasons none of us fully understand to not have a female apostle.
respecfully,
ryan

[bob]

So, again... Gentiles should not be in church leadership?
At least by this argument you'd have to say there's at least one strong biblical argument against it?

I didn't say it communcated nothing. My point is that there's a difference between the information itself and what YOU say it communicates, the conclusions some draw from that information.

I agree- Jesus had no women disciples among the 12. I also agree he had no Gentiles among them either. Nor any slaves.

So what does that tell us?

I disagree that there were no women disciples. Clearly there were. Also, there was at least one woman "apostle."

The first deacons were specifically men. They were told to choose "men." But before too long, there were women deacons. What happened? What in the church's understanding changed from Acts 6 to later?

Jesus had no women among the 12. There's the information. What it communicates is not nearly as clear as some would make it out to be.

[ryan]

I agree bob and I do not want to be guilty of reading to much into it. "first to the Jew then to the gentile." I do not think I said Jesus had no female disciples (mary and martha) my point was that he had no female apostles in the defintion of the twelve and paul. In reality we can argue these questions all day but it really comes down to Eph. 5:22-23 and 1 Timothy 2 and how one will interpret those passages. I have read Webb's book and am currently re-reading it right now, but I think Driscoll might have a point here the book does promote a method of theological evolution, and many reputable scholars would agree with that conclusion (Moo, Blomberg, Schiener, Carson, Molher) and so forth. I do not claim to have all this figured out, and still continue to have personal conversations with guys like Dr. Groothius on the subject but I am not prepared to make the hermenutical leap that Webb calls for.

[bob]

I hear that, and that's fine. I just want us to be really careful with our arguments and language. I think there's plenty of good reasons to argue from the text for complementarianism, without needing to go to what Jesus didn't do.

And while I would say that it's correct to say that there were no female apostles among the 12, when you broaden it out to Paul, Rom 16 seems to argue against that.

Good discussion!

[ScottB]

ryan - don't you think we make that same hermeneutical leap all the time? I mean, Paul was big on circumcision. For the Galatians, he argued that to accept it was to deny the gospel. But I don't hear a lot about circumcision these days. In fact, I feel it's a safe bet to say that nobody even connects it with the gospel. That, in spite of Paul's "clear teaching" that if one allows himself to be circumcised then the gospel is of no value.

Now, I know that's not all Paul says about this point - but that's exactly what those of us who hold to an egalitarian viewpoint would say about the question of gender roles. What constitutes "theological evolution"? Is it simply a matter of saying that what was once said is all that can ever be said? Or is it a matter of reading all contexts - both the cultural context of scripture and our own context - and determining what the Spirit both has said and is currently saying?

[ryan]

ScottB I think you are right we should never stop evaluating what the application is for us today, from scripture. But I believe there is more to the story that was occuring in Galatia that we have to take into a account. Commentators and theologians have agreed that a group of Jews, professing to be Christians, had come to Galatian after Paul planted churches there, promoting the beief that circumcision as the sign of initiantion into keeping the Mosiac Law was a requirement for salvation. Paul will refer to this group and their practices as "Judaizers (2:14).

So when you make the arguement that Paul equated circumsision with denying the gospel you are leaving out some very important info. Such as who he is talking to, and the circumstances of the setting. As always the end goal of hermeneutics is to, "arrive at the meaning of the text that the biblical writers or editors intended their readers to understand" (Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard).

So yes I would argue that what was once said, if prescriptive is that that can be said. This is the whole argument around the homosexual debate in Romans 1:26-27. I know that one can argue that 1 Tim. 2-3 were situational but I do not believe that to be the case. If so than Paul saying all women should not teach because a few elitist women were being disruptive was quite sexist, and extreme.

I would also point to Eph. 5:22-23 where we see the combination of "submit" (from hypotasso) and "head" (from kephale) makes it difficult to envions there is not some type of authority involved. And contrary to some hyper complementarians Paul does not envision unqaulifed submission by any means. Rather Paul uses words like "honor" and "obey". The point is that with his commands to husbands (vv. 25-28), Paul radically redefines marital hieracrchy in terms of sacrifical, self-giving love-- the equivalent to Jesus' teaching of servant leadership (Luke 22:24-30) We see here that the husband is supposed to love in giving of himself just as Christ did for the church. This picture that Paul is painting for us is not something that needs to be placed on a redemptive tract, because it is a complete picture of Jesus' relationship to the church. To say that something needs to be added on here violates the goal of hermenutics that I spoke of earlier.

Last, Webb's book speaks of three topics that can not be equated. Slavery is a horrible institution created by man. Homosexuality is a perversion of the created order (Rom. 1:26). Women are neither, rather they are image bearer's of God that do not need a redemptive hermenutic applied to them. Therefore I conclude that what the New Testament taught on gender and roles is more than sufficent for us today.
Whew!
ryan

[ScottB]

ryan - I agree completely with what you say here:

So when you make the arguement that Paul equated circumsision with denying the gospel you are leaving out some very important info. Such as who he is talking to, and the circumstances of the setting. As always the end goal of hermeneutics is to, "arrive at the meaning of the text that the biblical writers or editors intended their readers to understand" (Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard)

My point is that when I read complementarian interpretation of key passages - such as the rest of your comment - I see exactly what you're chiding me for, namely ignoring cultural context, specifically that of the paterfamilias in Roman society. My point is that I can follow your own hermeneutical stance and arrive at certain conclusions about circumcision. That nobody does makes me frankly suspicious of complementarians' claims to be following the "clear teaching" of scripture.

For the record, I don't think Paul's arguments about submission are necessarily on a redemptive trajectory either. I think they're far more radical than that, and in fact, I think that Paul would roll over in his grave if he thought they were being used to justify hierarchical relationships in homes and in churches. I think that Paul was such a radical egalitarian that he could ask anyone, including women, children, and slaves, to submit to one another and give up their own rights - even though those groups were thought to be without any moral sense whatsoever. Paul treats them as moral agents and, more than that, asks them for the sake of the gospel to set their own rights aside - without ever denying that those rights were theirs to claim.

[Rachel]

I really like the subtitle of the Pierce and Groothius book "Complementarity Without Hierarchy." I think it really emphasizes how egalitarians value the uniqueness of both male and female as reflections of God's image. And hopefully it will help to retire the tired old assertion that egalitarians believe that men and women are not different. (Is there ANYONE who actually believes that?)

On the above reference to "kephale"...I heard a sermon several years ago by a retired minister Dr. Jack MacArthur. His sermon was entitled "The Role of the Christian Husband" and it was surprising egalitarian for an elderly pastor from the Conservative Baptist denomination. He said that the word "kephale" could be literally translated as "foundation stone" or "pillar" - the support under a building to hold it up. He said that the husband was called, not to be the "boss" of the family, but to be the foundation of the family.

[ryan]

ScottB I hear what you are saying and respect it, but I just do not think the text supports your interpratation of Eph. 5. Paul finishes in vv. 31-33 by drawing the analogy between the relationship of the husband and wife and the intimacy of Christ and the church. Both of which were designed at creation (not culturally) to be undissolved unions exhibiting unwavering loyalty and love. Therefore Paul is maintaining the husband's authority/responsiblity by basing it in the "new creation" model of Christ's love for the church. At the same time he gives it a radical new look by presenting it as a self-sacrifice for one's wife by means of that very same model. This fits with the domestic code of Colossians and makes it not cultrally contingent or related to paterfamilias of Roman times, but rather a beautful picture that emulates the relationship that Jesus has with his bride, the church.

Yet the idea of Paul being a "radical egalitarian" is hard to see in view of all his letters (1 cor. 11, 1 tim. 2-3, Col. 3, Eph. 5). Even Webb would argue to the contrary and see Paul as a complementarian who set up teachings that would evolve/redemptively aim toward higher eithics. In the domestic code of Ephesians, and Colossians we see three relationships going on; husbands/wives, slaves/masters, parents/children. All three of which are unique and different in some respects. But as Peter O'Brian points out in his commentary on Ephesians objections to the abiding applicability of this material usually fail to see that in Christ "There is not striving for equality in the sense of equal plenitude of power, but rather an equality based on loving and serving one and other." So to those who come to domestic code and say "we have abolished slavery, we should also abolish submission in marriage, it is important to realize that the institutional equivalent to slavery would be marriage itself, which presumably would would not want to do away with! Also most egalitarians do not insist or advocate we do away with submission and obedience from the commands to children.

Where I think you and I disagree scott is on our view of rights in conmparison to roles. God has given us all rights, but these right s do not supercede the roles in which he has also ordained.
respecfully,
ryan

[bob]

"Therefore I conclude that what the New Testament taught on gender and roles is more than sufficent for us today."

Pshaw! You don't conclude that!
No one who doesn't keep women silent in the church gatherings, or forbid them wearing gold and braiding their hair can say REALLY say that. Everyone except strict literalists understands some measure of context or of redemptive movement, including (I'm assuming) you.

We just differ on HOW MUCH.