A Review of A Year of Biblical Womanhood

The first thing you need to understand, before I say anything else, is this: Rachel Held Evans loves the Bible.

This point is important, because many Christians, upon learning that she is (gasp!) an egalitarian, (shock!) votes Democrat, and (horrors!) supports gay rights, tend to assume that she therefore must not take the Bible very seriously. This impression was only exacerbated when Evans announced some time back that she was going to undertake a "year of biblical womanhood" where, taking a cue from A. J. Jacobs' book, A Year of Living Biblically, she resolved to spend a year living according the Bible's instructions regarding women as literally as possible. Some Christians who do indeed hold to what they call "literal" interpretations of Scripture were convinced that Evans' purpose in undertaking this project was to make fun of them, and even to make "a mockery of God and Scripture" itself (as one of her critics is quoted as saying on p. 285).
Read more »

REPOST - Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

This post is the final one I'll be doing to tie in with "A Week of Mutuality," hosted by Rachel Held Evans this week (the week of June 4-10) at her blog, rachelheldevans.com. You can head to this link to learn more about the project. I had to think long and hard about this one, since I've already posted this list twice previously on the blog, and was reluctant to post it for a third time, as I don't think just posting and reposting the same material is a good way to keep a blog fresh and interesting. However, this week has already proven to be an exception, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that I needed to post the whole thing one more time, taking the opportunity to put the list in some context while providing a fitting closure to the week.
Read more »

REPOST - The Importance of Sharing Stories

This post was originally written in observance of International Women's Day in 2008. As with all reposts for this "Week of Mutuality" event, I have updated the material somewhat.

One thing (among many) that I learned from David Scholer was the observance that it seems "especially true" that feminists thrive on sharing personal stories, as he says when he relates his own story of work on behalf of women in church ministry, as he wrote it for Christian Feminism Today back in 2006.
Read more »

REPOST - All Translation is Interpretation

When I wrote Monday's post, I argued for a different "starting point" for discussing women in ministry than 1 Timothy 2:11-12. I left open-ended the question of "so what, then, do we do with this passage?" This post, originally written in 2006, is one attempt at an answer. As with all reposts for this "Week of Mutuality" event, I have updated the material somewhat.


When I was a student, briefly, at a Presbyterian seminary in Kentucky, my professor of exegesis constantly repeated the mantra, "all translation is interpretation." I have often found this to be true as I've learned more about Biblical studies and interpretation, but in few areas as obviously as in issues relating to gender equality.
Read more »

REPOST - The Legacy of Dr. David M. Scholer

The following is an expanded version of an article originally published in the SEMI (Fuller's student newsletter) in October, 2008, which had devoted the issue to remembering Dr. David M. Scholer. I have revised and updated it somewhat to reflect a few changes in my wife's and my lives in the past four years.
---
When I joined my then-girlfriend Michelle in enrolling in David Scholer's course, "Women, the Bible, and the Church," I didn't realize that it would end up changing my life.

It may come as a surprise to some to learn that I had never given the matter of whether or not women were allowed to be pastors and ministers a second thought until I was in college. To at least some extent, this is undoubtedly because, as a male, I have had the luxury of never having had my own potential ability to become a church leader challenged. But it’s also due to the fact that, having grown up in the PC(USA), I was accustomed to seeing women in such positions from time to time, if admittedly nothing like as often as I’d seen men in those positions.
Read more »

Starting Points

"When looking to interpret difficult passages, clear passages should help illuminate unclear ones."

How many of you have heard this bit of advice when being taught how to read the Bible? Maybe it's just my seminary education talking, but I know I've heard it an awful lot. There are definitely ways in which this is good advice. Unfortunately, I've learned over the years that determining precisely which passages are the "clear" ones that help with which other "unclear" passages is, itself, an act of interpretation. Indeed, it's a very important act of interpretation, as the passage you choose as your "starting point" has implications for a great deal of not only how you come to understand what the Bible teaches, but consequently in how you live out your walk with Jesus and the Church.
Read more »

A Case Against "Masculine Christianity"

What says "masculine"
better than the
Old Spice guy?

In what is only the latest in a long series of comments by Christian leaders advocating for the supremacy of men over and against women, John Piper has recently explicitly said that he believes that "God has given Christianity a masculine feel." Now, when he says such a thing, I do not imagine that he would actually say that he believes men are "superior" to women. The usual complementarian line, which I understand Piper to embrace, says that the genders are equal, but that they merely have different God-given roles. That said, it's difficult to read a belief in a "masculine Christianity" without feeling like a belief in male superiority is actually at play, whether Piper acknowledges it or not.
Read more »

Obsessions, Distractions, and Allowing People to Serve

A couple of days ago, Scot McKnight posted an article about the consecration of women bishops in the Church of England. Naturally, this is causing the usual consternation among those who don't believe that God wants women to serve in church offices (much less the really high ones!). The article discusses some of the usual responses: some people are leaving the church (it specifically notes how some bishops and priests are taking the Catholic Church up on an offer to allow them to transfer over to Catholicism, but I'm sure that many Anglicans are leaving for other denominations, and some members are no doubt leaving altogether under some "I can be a better Christian without the church" mindset), while others are choosing to "fight from within." It's a familiar pattern by now.
Read more »

Scot McKnight on Junia - Part 3

As I wind down my reflections on Scot McKnight's discussion on Junia last week, I recognize that the topic of Junia is one that generates a fair bit of discussion in academic circles. Having talked about Junia's place in the early church, and how other women in Biblical history have similarly had their contributions silenced and forgotten, it's appropriate to ask "so, what do we do about it?"
Read more »

Scot McKnight on Junia - Part 2

Having established the back-and-forth of Junia's history of gender-swapping and whether or not s/he was an apostle, Scot McKnight, speaking to an audience at Fuller Theological Seminary last week, suggested that Junia has been silenced by elements of the church. As I mentioned on Monday, the title of the lecture was "Junia is Not Alone in the Church." Junia is not the only woman of significance to the church, and Junia is not alone in having been silenced.
Read more »

Scot McKnight on Junia – Part 1

Long-time readers know that I've followed Scot McKnight's blog, Jesus Creed, for several years now. So, naturally I wanted to see McKnight in person when he came to Fuller last week, sponsored by our school's continuing education department (and by the Burner Blog, which is produced by that department).

McKnight spoke on two occasions during his visit. The first was during our regularly-scheduled weekly chapel gathering, at which he spoke on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Although this was a challenging message worthy of commentary, I'm going to instead focus on the evening event, during which McKnight spoke about Romans 16, and specifically about the apostle Junia. The title of the lecture was "Junia is Not Alone in the Church."
Read more »

The "Secret Theology" of Women

I recently had the opportunity to be part of group of Fuller students and staff (specifically, those of us who serve either as "Ambassadors" for the seminary or who write for the Fuller Blogs site — now finally with new posts again after being down for two solid months due to technical problems) who were invited to have lunch with Fuller President Richard Mouw. During the hour, we were invited to offer our perspectives on the seminary and ask questions about things that interest or concern us. I took the occasion to ask Mouw about Fuller's ongoing commitment to women in ministry.
Read more »

Women's Equality Day

When I first mentioned that "Women's Equality Day" was coming up on August 26th, a few of my friends rightly noted that one can't just fight for women's equality on only one day.  It's an issue that will always be with us until and unless such equality is achieved.  I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion.

Even so, it is appropriate that a day exists to especially remember that this is an issue that needs continued attention.  August 26th was chosen because it is the anniversary of the signing of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I think it's important to note that, although the 19th Amendment is often referred to as having "given women the right to vote," the language of the Amendment itself doesn't talk about "giving" rights, but rather it says that those rights (assumed to be pre-existent) "shall not be denied or abridged."  A right should be understood to be inherent.  Otherwise it's just a privilege.

Now, there is a proper school of thought as to whether or not voting is a "right" or a "privilege."  I'm not looking to get into that here.  I am asserting that if it's a right for anyone, it should be a right for all.  Although a number of states had already granted full or partial suffrage to women by this time, the 19th Amendment finally recognized that for the United States as a whole in 1920 (For those who care, the 19th Amendment was ratified about a week earlier, on August 18th.  The signing date is simply when that adoption was certified by the then-Secretary of State).

Obviously, passage of the 19th Amendment didn't come easily.  The names of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton have passed into legend on account of the struggles they faced in rallying public opinion to their cause, and both passed away before seeing their dream of women's suffrage become a reality.  And a number of states not only voted against the ratification of the Amendment back in 1919 and 1920, but many didn't come back around to vote in favor of it until many, many years after it had already become the law of the land (the final state to do so, incidentally, was Mississippi in 1984.  Note that Alaska and Hawaii, both having become states well after the Amendment was part of the Constitution, have never had to vote on the Amendment at all).

Of course, suffrage is but one element of the larger struggle for women's equality.  In honor of this event, a number of blogs will be devoting some time today to discuss the issue in various ways.   For my part, I am doing a special one-day promotion on Women's Speaking Justified.  Today only, you can download the e-book for free!  No money required, just follow the on-screen instructions at Lulu.  If you would prefer the physical version, the price on that is reduced, too (plus, you might be able to find a code through RetailMeNot that you can use at Lulu.com and get a lower price, but that's outside of my control.  I think "BACKTOSCHOOL" for 20% off should work.).  This offer is only good today, August 26, 2010.  Prices will return to normal afterward (although the links will remain live, especially that RetailMeNot link, so you might still be able to get a good deal).

My First e-Book: Women's Speaking Justified With Modern English

About 7 years ago, when I audited David Scholer's "Women, the Bible, and the Church" class at Fuller Theological Seminary, I was actually somewhat surprised to learn that the debate about whether or not women should be ordained in Christian churches wasn't an entirely 20th century phenomenon. I had always assumed that it arose out of women's rights movements such as the suffrage movement that gave women the right to vote in 1920 (in the United States, that is).  In fact, the question of whether or not women have the right to be church leaders (especially in ordained positions) has been going on for many centuries.

Indeed, I suppose that I shouldn't have been so surprised.  Why would some of the ancient church "fathers" (and, let's face it, the earliest church leaders were primarily men) have engaged in such aggressive attacks against women as church leaders if there weren't in fact women who were arguing for their rights to such positions?

One example that Dr. Scholer mentioned in class was a work by the so-called "mother of Quakerism," Margaret Fell.  The work had the full title Women's Speaking Justified, Proved, and Allowed of by the Scriptures, All such as speak by the Spirit and Power of the Lord Jesus.  (Actually, there's a subtitle, too: And how Women were the first that Preached the Tidings of the Resurrection of Jesus, and were sent by Christ's own Command, before he Ascended to the Father, John 20. 17.)  Long, fully descriptive titles like this weren't at all uncommon at the time, but it should be no surprise that most people today simply refer to the work as Women's Speaking Justified.

I didn't actually have a chance to read Women's Speaking Justified at the time, but about a year later, it was included as required reading for another professor's course, and since I'm the person that usually assembles course readers, I had access to the material.  Since the work was written in 1666, and is thus in the Public Domain, I made an electronic copy for myself, and tried to read it.

I say "tried to read it" because, at the time, I found the 17th century English too difficult to read on a casual basis.  It took a later commitment to work through the difficulties of archaic styles and fonts (which use that strange "s" that looks more like an "f" that seems to show up in works of the 17th and 18th century.  Anyone who's seen a copy of the original Declaration of Independence will know what I'm talking about), and Fell's tendency to jump right into a scripture quote without informing the reader by using quotation marks (which weren't in consistent use yet in 1666).  I eventually decided to take it upon myself to create a "modern language" version, so that others who might be interested in this historically significant document (besides Margaret Fell's own notoriety, the work is significant if only because it proves that people were making biblically-based arguments for women's ordination earlier than the 20th century).  Some months later, after I had finished the project, the professor who had been using Women's Speaking Justified asked if he could use my version for his class, rather than the version he had used previously.  I agreed, and the project was praised for helping several of the seminary students understand Fell's work much more readily.  In fact, because I had gone to the trouble of including the original text in an opposing column alongside my "updated" version for comparison, some of the students were able to help me fix a couple of small typographical errors that remained at the time.

And that was it for a few more years.  I recently have decided to try my hand at e-publishing, and this work seemed to be a good place to start, since I believe that it has a natural audience of people interested in issues related to women's ordination, not to mention the work's place in Protestant history, and hopefully my efforts will remove some of the barriers to reading Fell's writing that have historically prevented more people from doing so.  The file may be purchased and downloaded at Lulu.com via this link.

On President Carter's Decision to Leave the Southern Baptists

Back when I was in college, and was still under the care of the Presbytery of Louisville (now called "Mid-Kentucky Presbytery"), I had a generally supportive group of liaisons and other members of the Committee on Preparation for Ministry. Because I didn't actually live in Kentucky for most of that time (I was already a student at Montreat College when I started), we had to make special arrangements to make sure that I was getting all the care and training that I needed in the Presbyterian tradition — specifically, the PC(USA). I used to joke that their main fear was that I was a closet Southern Baptist.

For those that know me today, that statement needs unpacking. Although Montreat College is affiliated with the PC(USA), it is very much in the "south," and I always had the impression that there were more students there who were Baptists than those of us who were Presbyterian. Although we had some significant disagreements on several issues, I came to view my friends with respect, and I did, in fact, attend worship at Southern Baptist churches on quite a few occasions.

One of those areas of disagreement — and hopefully of a good amount of reasoned discussion — was the area of women in ministry. Although I confess that I wasn't then as solid in my affirmation of the right of women to all areas of church service as I am today, I grew up accepting that women were able to become elders and pastors. No doubt many of my college friends think that, if I wasn't at least mildly disobeying God for my acceptance of women in ministry then, I'm definitely in full-blown rebellion now. This recognition saddens me deeply, but I remain convinced that the Bible doesn't mean what they think it means when it comes to God's opinion on the matter.

One line of argument that I almost always find irritating is when one side accuses the other of being more influenced by modern secular culture than by the Bible. For one thing, I feel that this attitude assumes a naive attitude about Biblical interpretation, as if it were possible to understand the Bible completely separate from the cultures in which is was written and in which it is read today. For another, it seems to assume that, if we were really serious about seeking God's will, we would all come to the same conclusions about what the Bible means for our lives, and for the lives of our churches.

Through a Facebook friend, I learned a couple of days ago about former President Jimmy Carter's recent decision to cut ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter made the decision to leave the denomination he has been a member of for "over six decades" primarily because of their continued stance on the subservience of women. It's not like this stance is anything new, and Carter's position against this teaching has been known for quite some time. Indeed, Carter has increasingly distanced himself from the denomination for years now, although retaining a few ties. I take it that he has simply come to a place where, having tried to remain a voice of opposition from within the Southern Baptists for so long, he has come to a point where he feels that he can do more by leaving and making it clear why.

In his statement, Carter does discuss the fact that the Bible can be used to defend equality for women just as readily as it has been used by some to argue against it, but it is clear enough that the bulk of his argument comes from instances of discrimination throughout history around the world. I can already hear my conservative friends argue that Carter is allowing "the world" to influence his understanding of the Bible. To that, I can only say, "Yes. He is. And good for him!"

As important as biblical primacy is, this is simply one of those areas where we have to accept that neither side is ever going to win any arguments on the basis of the biblical witness alone. David Scholer always used to open his class on women and the Bible by noting that "starting points" are very important. Accepting the exegetical principle that "clear texts illuminate unclear texts," some people start by suggesting that some texts are "clear" that other people suggest need context to be properly understood. We can go back and forth on that, and never get anywhere, no matter how honest our intentions to follow God.

So, when President Carter appeals to the ways in which religious arguments have been used throughout history to subjugate women, in an attempt to demonstrate how evil such a use is, I say "Thank you!" The Bible has at least as much to say, if not many times more, about God's desire to help those who are downtrodden. When we look at the ways in which people have been abused, specifically in the name of God, I have no doubt that God weeps bitterly. I want to say "Thank you" to Jimmy Carter. I know that this decision has been a painful one for you, Mr. President. I hope that people's eyes and ears are opened by it.

International Women's Day - The Importance of Sharing Stories

Today is the annual observance of International Women's Day. Since March 8th falls on a Sunday this year, it seems especially appropriate to reflect on the issue of women's rights in regard to the Christian faith. Of course, I probably would have done this (and have) in other years anyway.

This is the first International Women's Day to pass without David Scholer, who was very outspoken in defense of the ability of women to serve in all ministries of the church. As he himself observed, it seems "especially true" that feminists thrive on sharing personal stories. Here is David's story of his association with this issue, as he wrote it for Christian Feminism Today a couple of years ago.

There is a common criticism that sharing such stories can be too "irrational," or not "impartial" enough, and thus should not be allowed to affect one's interpretation of Scriptural teachings, especially when it comes to issues of what women are allowed to do as Christians or what church offices they are allowed to hold. There is something I want to affirm in that criticism, in that the temptation to read into the Bible only those teachings one already believes in (and "explain away" the ones one doesn't) can be very strong. Indeed, it is a temptation that all Christians face. But I cannot affirm the conclusion that to share one's story is inappropriate. The Bible itself is full of such stories of personal experiences with God. I would go so far as to argue that most of the Bible is, in fact, story. A comparatively small portion of the Bible is straight "teaching" (or "doctrine," if you prefer) or some other genre (such as poetry and song). There is a good deal of overlap, to be sure. Prophecy, for example, often occurs in the context of the prophet sharing his story. Doctrine occasionally is taught within a "story" context. The point is, studies of the Biblical texts definitely suggest that telling the story of the people of God is a primary, if not the primary, method of how the text communicates who God is and what God has done for us, both in ancient times as well as today.

Within those Biblical stories, often set in a patriarchal culture, are many stories of women who went against the grain of that patriarchal culture. More often than not, these women are not chastised for this action, but are in fact praised for it. To suggest that these stories of women doing acts of ministry, proclamation and, yes, obedience are mere exceptions to the rule God would have for us today do not take these stories seriously enough, it seems to me. It is Deborah's story that is told in the book of Judges, not her husband's, and she who held the office of "judge" and is said to be "leading Israel" (or "judging Israel," depending on your translation). The book of Esther tells how one woman risked death by performing a very non-patriarchal action (going to speak with the king without his request to see her), and was rewarded for her bravery. Jesus affirmed Mary's choice to sit and listen to his teachings, not Martha's choice to prepare supper. Even Timothy (who received a letter of which much has been made against the idea that women should be allowed ministerial positions) is said to have come to faith as a result of his mother and grandmother, not his father.

Certainly, there are many more stories of men to be found in the Bible. This is to be expected, given the patriarchial culture. The existence of the stories of these women, told without negative judgement, is an indication that the culture of partriarchy is not intended to be normative for us today. Faithfulness to God's will is the important thing, and far from being criticised as being against that will, women's activity on God's behalf is affirmed as part of what God wants to do for God's people, whatever culture women (and men!) of God find themselves in. Praise be to God for the testimony of these faithful women!

UPDATE: 3/9/09 - I haven't been very good about linking to other people who have participated in the International Women's Day blog event. My apologies. You can get a list from Julie Clawson's site. In particular, I'd like to call attention to Scot McKnight's post (which was posted fairly late in the day, so I think a lot of folks missed it), which details biblical evidence for the existence of Junia, a female apostle.

The Legacy of Dr. David Scholer

The following is an expanded version of an article written for this week's SEMI (Fuller's weekly student newsletter), which has devoted the issue to remembering Dr. David Scholer.
---
When I joined my then-girlfriend Michelle in enrolling in David Scholer's course, "Women, the Bible, and the Church," I didn't realize that it would end up changing my life.

It may come as a surprise to some to learn that I had never given the matter of whether or not women were allowed to be pastors and ministers a second thought until I was in college. To at least some extent, this is undoubtedly because, as a male, I have had the luxury of never having had my own potential ability to become a church leader challenged. But it’s also due to the fact that, having grown up in the PC(USA), I was accustomed to seeing women in such positions from time to time, if admittedly nothing like as often as I’d seen men in those positions.

But when I went to college, I went to a small Christian school in the mountains of North Carolina, and I soon learned that this was an issue of major controversy among some of the students and professors there. Apparently there’s this passage in I Timothy that explicitly prohibits women from such positions of church leadership. Having identified a call to church ministry by this time, I was committed to learning more about the Bible and taking its teachings seriously. This new revelation was a bit disturbing, and I knew that I would have to work at understanding how churches such as the one I’d grown up in could justify what appeared to be gross violations of such teachings, but knew that there must be more to the passage than what appeared at first glance. After all, “she must be silent”? Even at my college, no one really seemed to be arguing for that. Most were talking instead about church leadership.... And how did these admittedly more conservative believers reconcile Paul’s teaching that he didn’t “permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” with the fact that some of our professors at college were, themselves, women?

Of course, I’m fully aware now that those who argue that God does not permit women to positions of church leadership have answers to questions like these. And I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I'd become a bit skeptical of more “liberal” denominations such as the PC(USA) while in college, and even when I first came to Fuller to work on my MDiv. But I never was fully convinced by those answers. Something just didn’t seem right about it all.

Several years into my studies, I met Michelle Baker, and we began to date. If anything, it seemed that the church that she attended in high school was even more conservative in regard to their teachings on women in ministry than my college was. But whereas I, being male, had the luxury of taking my time to explore the ramifications of these teachings, Michelle was attacked at her very core. Indeed, to this day she often says that this church “made her into the feminist she is today.” And while I had found myself under the influence of teachers more conservative than those I’d grown up under, Michelle was now in an environment with teachers more progressive than her former leaders, and was desperate to be told that it was okay to be who she was, with the gifts and talents that she believed God had given her.

It was almost a year into our relationship when Michelle enrolled in “Women, the Bible, and the Church.” I was nearly done with my own degree, but being a full-time employee of Fuller, I took advantage of the free audits granted to employees in order to attend the course with her. While in college, I heard quite a bit about why women shouldn't be ordained, but I was anxious to hear how a scholar who believed that women could serve in all forms of church ministry dealt with the biblical texts. Would he just “throw out texts he disagreed with,” as many conservatives seemed to accuse such scholars of doing, or would he be able to explain how certain texts perhaps might not mean what they seemed to at first glance?

This isn’t the place to get into the teachings themselves, but suffice it to say, I came out of the course satisfied that Dr. Scholer did take the teachings of the Bible seriously, and that God was perfectly fine with women serving in leadership positions within the church. I also came out of the course having impressed Michelle, having taken her concerns on this issue seriously.

We happened to be taking the course during the time that David first found out that he had prostate cancer, and the announcement of his condition to the class near the end of the quarter was one of the first times he had "gone public" about it. Immediately after the quarter ended, David went on medical leave to begin a round of chemotherapy designed to eradicate the cancer. Several months later, he returned to his office duties on campus, weakened from the ordeal, but with every reason to believe that the problem had been taken care of. In the meantime, Michelle and I had gotten engaged, and with the assurance that David was feeling better, we asked him to officiate at the wedding, an offer he was happy to accept.

Shortly after we got married, we found out that the doctors had discovered that small amounts of David's cancer remained, and that it was considered "incurable." If the timing had been just a bit different, we probably wouldn't have imposed on David by asking him to officiate a wedding while fighting cancer. I think he would have considered that a loss as much as we would have, and we thank God that the timing worked out like it did.

It is a statement of the obvious to say that David left a legacy felt by many people. Michelle, who served as a TA for David on three separate occasions, and is currently in the process to be ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church, joins the legions of women who have been given encouragement and strength to follow their calling into ordained ministry. But on a more personal level, David and his wife Jeannette have left a legacy of friendship. In the six years that David lived following his initial diagnosis, Michelle and I were able to enjoy "hymn-sings" in their home, got to hear many stories of David's experiences in ministry and in academia, and enjoyed talking about other shared interests, such as a mutual love of books. There were hard times, too, such as time spent with David in the hospital during the recovery from his most recent surgery just over a year ago, a time David himself described as "going through Hell." But when David told us during one such visit that he was not embarrassed for us to see him even at these lowest of times, we knew that we really were accepted as an informal part of the Scholers' extremely large "family" of friends. Even in the midst of such suffering, David gave us an amazing gift. We will always be thankful for that.

Do You Deny the Authority of Scripture?

I try, for the most part, to avoid overtly controversial issues here, but one issue that I have been unapologetically vocal about has been the right of women to serve in all forms of church ministry. As one friend commented in a Facebook chat some months ago, this is not the position of the vast majority of Christians (that is, if you make sure to include all Christians everywhere in the world, and not just those of us in the western world). Nonetheless, this is one justice issue that I try to be consistent in defending.

It should therefore be no surprise that I don't generally think very highly of the works of Wayne Grudem, who seems to have made it his professional life's mission to argue why the Bible doesn't allow women to serve in certain forms of church ministry. What I sometimes have trouble conveying to my friends who disagree with me on this matter (especially if they agree with the works of Grudem) is that my issues with Grudem go beyond just my disagreement with his position, but also to the way in which he tries to make his point.

But while I often stumble or get tongue-tied on this matter, Kevin Giles clearly has no trouble at all. I posted this review Giles wrote in response to one of Grudem's recent works a few days ago on my Facebook profile (having discovered it through Jesus Creed), so perhaps a few of you have read it already. It's a rather longish profile: about 4 pages long. I don't really expect most people — especially non-scholars, to be all that interested in reading through the complete analysis of Grudem's book, but Giles does a very nice job of explaining why Grudem's interpretation is not to be equated with "what the Bible teaches," and he does so in a very thorough manner. What Giles says in his opening paragraphs conveys in a fairly broad way what I have sometimes struggled to convey, so here's just that portion copied for your perusal:

...The fundamental seismic fault in the author’s thinking is that he cannot differentiate between the interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself. For him, if anyone rejects his interpretation of the key texts on which he and other hierarchists base their case for the permanent subordination of women, then that believer is by definition rejecting the authority of Scripture. What this means is that the methodological challenge to interpret Scripture rightly in its given historical and cultural context and to apply what is said rightly in another historical and cultural context is solved by assuming and asserting that “my interpretation” tells you exactly what the Bible says. When an author claims that one’s interpretation of God’s word is God’s word without any caveats, then, by implication, one is claiming to speak for God. The author is asserting that what he says the Bible says is what God says, and, thus, if you disagree with him, you are disagreeing with God....

As long as hierarchists argue in this way, there is no possibility of finding common ground on the question of the status and ministry of women. To begin an honest and open dialogue, we have to agree that the issue is not the authority of Scripture, but how Scripture is to be interpreted and applied. Evangelical egalitarians do not reject the authority of Scripture; they reject an interpretation of the Scriptures that suggests that God’s unchanging ideal is the subordination of women.

I've said this a number of times, and I'm sure I'll say it again: it's one thing to have a disagreement, but one needs to learn how to engage those disagreements in a civil manner. Accusing your opponent of denying the authority of Scripture fails to do exactly that, especially when the person you're debating is another Christian scholar. Also taken from Giles' review, here is a list of Christian scholars that Grudem has accused of denying Scripture's authority:

John Arnott, Jack and Judith Balswick, Linda Belleville, Gilbert Bilezikian, Darrell Bock, Clarence Boomsma, Peter Davids, Craig Evans, Gordon Fee, R. T. France, J. Lee Grady, Joel Green, Rebecca Groothuis, Stanley Grenz, Stan Gundry, Mimi Haddad, Jack Hayford, Bill Hybels, Walter Kaiser, Craig Keener, Richard and Catherine Kroeger, I. Howard Marshall, Alvera Mickelsen, Roger Nicole, Grant Osborne, Alan Padgett, Ronald Pierce, David Scholer, Aída Spencer, Sarah Sumner, Anthony Thiselton, David Thompson, Ruth Tucker, William Webb, and Don Williams.

That's a lot of names! And they come from a fairly wide span of interpretive perspectives. I'm confident that some of my more liberal friends would see at least some of them as too "conservative" for their tastes. I can't claim to be familiar with all of these people, myself, and so won't argue that I agree with all of them. That's not even the point. The point is that I do know the perspectives of quite a few people on this list. Some of them are personal friends, or are professors that I've been privileged to work with. Even when I disagree with them on some issues (as I do on occasion), I would never dream of accusing them of "denying the authority of Scripture"! That would be a huge insult to people who have devoted their lives to the task of studying Scripture and making its teachings available to other church leaders. For most, if not all, of these scholars, they would ask "why would I do this if I didn't believe in the authority of Scripture?" (I'm aware of some scholars of biblical material that are not, themselves, Christians, and who would not affirm the Bible's authority. I'm sure they have reasons for why they do what they do. But I'm also pretty sure that none of these non-believing scholars are on Giles' list.)

My own denomination, the PC(USA), is involved in a different kind of interpretive debate right now: whether or not practicing homosexuals should be allowed to be ordained as pastors The debate is threatening to tear the denomination apart, and indeed a number of churches have left the denomination already (including the one that I used to attend while in college). Many of those who are against such ordination argue that the issue is one of "correct" Biblical interpretation, and I am not sure that I disagree with them. However, I do think it goes too far to accuse those who argue for the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians of "denying the authority of Scripture." The same argument has been used, and clearly continues to be used, of those who believe that women should not be ordained (indeed, Grudem apparently argues in another book that the ordination of women is a step toward the inevitable ordination of practicing homosexuals, a process preceded only by what he describes as "abandon[ing] inerrancy." Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler also calls these two issues "closely linked"). We must be careful of the accusations we make toward others, let we be accused of doing the very same thing ourselves by those who disagree with us on other interpretive matters. There's no such thing as a truly "objective" reading. All Scriptural study involves interpretation.

Still a Ways to Go

A friend of mine just came back from a visit to Duke University the other day. She informs me that, when about to meet with one of the professors there, she perused the comics that were posted on his door, and came upon a certain familiar Top Ten list. This, in and of itself, wasn't so surprising. The list has circulated the internet a few times before I ever got it, and did so a few more times after I posted it for an International Women's Day event last year (side note: March 8 is right around the corner again. To learn more about International Women's Day, follow this link), and it subsequently appeared in an edited form in the Christian Century. What was surprising was that the list was credited to this blog. Once again, I'm amazed at the recognition that particular piece got. I wish I could take proper credit, but as I've said earlier, I got that from Dr. David Scholer, and he himself didn't actually write it, but got it elsewhere. Each of us has made an edit or two to fit our own purpose or context, and no doubt this will continue elsewhere. Anyway, this helped my friend to make a connection with the professor (whom she had not previously met), and I'm certainly happy about that.

While driving to work with my wife this morning, we were talking about some recent events that make it look like we're actually moving backward, rather than forward, when it comes to treating women with respect. For example, during a sermon my wife had to listen to while serving as a Teaching Assistant in a Homiletics class, one person made several particularly sexist comments that needed to be addressed, one smugly suggesting that his wife "didn't yet know" that certain housekeeping-related wedding gifts were intended more for her than for him. For another example, one of the contestants on last night's Survivor, while going off on a tirade, berated certain men for being too "sensitive" and specifically said that it was behavior that he'd previously seen or expected only in women. Let me tell you, his quickly adding "no offense" to his remarks did absolutely nothing to lessen the offensiveness of them.

Most people simply do not realize how deeply ingrained some of these sexist attitudes are. I can hear the responses already: "but men and women are different." Yes, they are. That does not make it acceptable to make statements about a person's behavior on the basis of that person's gender. If you are berating someone for behavior, specifically calling attention to the fact that you expect that behavior in women, how does that not berate women in general (even if said behavior is more common to women, which is debatable)?

I wish I could offer some kind of "magic solution" to this problem, but obviously it's not that simple. But I would definitely encourage people to stand up against people who make sexist statements like these. It's just not right, and only proves how far we still have to go before people are truly accepted for their own talents and abilities, rather than for expected stereotypes based solely on their gender.

Rebellious Streak

Among the many different hats I wear from time to time is the hat of a proofreader for the seminary's weekly newsletter, called "the SEMI." Next week's issue will focus on the issue of abuse (many different forms thereof). An article on spousal abuse was written by Dr. David Scholer, who teaches regularly on the issue of women in ministry, and who I consider a close friend. The following is an excerpt from the upcoming article:

...of course, I know of virtually no Christian male leader who talks publicly in support of spousal abuse, but there are (far too) many who teach a submission that never takes account of this reality and who counsel women who receive abuse that it is their biblical duty to endure it. I remain struck by the fact that John Piper and Wayne Grudem’s 1991 book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism barely addresses the issue of the abuse of wives. Given the Fourth Affirmation in the official statement of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood about the way that men have abused their God-given authority over women (according to that view), one could expect that their magnum opus might have a chapter on spousal abuse. Alas, there is none. There are three isolated pages in the over 500 page book that briefly mention the abuse of wives. The book has just been reprinted (2006) with a new preface, which comments on what complementarians (formerly traditionalists) need to be concerned with now fifteen years after the book’s original publication. There is not a single word about spousal abuse.

A bit of context: Dr. Scholer is what we like to call an "egalitarian." That is to say, he affirms the rights of both men and women to all roles within the Christian church. Piper and Grudem consider themselves "complementarians." They argue that God calls men and women to different, but "complementary," roles within the Christian church, based upon the natural differences between men and women. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is considered the quintessential text of their organization, the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" (CBMW).

But this blog entry isn't really about the evils of spousal abuse. I'm certainly not looking to accuse "complementarians" of advocating spousal abuse, even if I might suggest that they (as with so many of us in our society) turn a blind eye to it too often. But I'm sure that Piper and Grudem are as opposed to abuse as anyone else with a sane mind.

But my work on the SEMI issue on abuse led me to a related topic when it comes to gender issues. What actually struck me about Dr. Scholer's article was his comment about an "Affirmation" of CBMW against such spousal abuse. I got curious to see the actual text of the affirmation, and finally found it. The affirmation in question reads:

The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

• In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
• In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

Very affirming of "proper gender roles," to be sure, but likewise clear that abuse is wrong. I reject that assertion that for women to "resist limitations on their roles" is a sin, but that's the egalitarian in me talking, and gets a bit more to my point (yes, I do have one!).

I did a bit more research, and found an exposition on this statement (note: the link is to a PDF file). In talking about that last point, it repeats the assertion that the "root problem" is "a sinful resistance to biblically prescribed roles." I've often heard the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with the CBMW does so out of "sinful resistance." It should be no surprise that I find the suggestion more than a little offensive. In my conversations with "complementarians," I often try specifically to make the case that we believe what we do, not out of a sense of "rebellion" against God's word, nor out of a desire to make God's word say something other than what it really does, but because we truly believe that God's word, rightly interpreted, means something far more open than what people like the CBMW think it does. In regard to the issue of spousal abuse, it gets us nowhere if a complementarian affirms that abuse is a sin, but refuses to listen to an egalitarian's suggestion that a wife has the right to do something about that sin, accusing the egalitarian of rebelling against God's will for submissive wives.

A recent post on the blog for "Christians for Biblical Equality" (CBE, an organization that might be described as the Christian polar opposite of CBMW) says it this way:

If I were to talk to the most ardent of the hierarchalists, I might hear that I’m an evangelical egalitarian simply because I’m rebellious or I might be accused of rejecting the authority of Scripture or I might have been “feminized” (whatever that actually means). As a matter of fact, I’ve heard these very accusations time and time again. In some cases, it is believed that evangelical egalitarianism is simply a disguise for the conspiracy of liberalism among evangelicals.
I don’t like those broad labels and accusations which have no basis in reality, at least, for me. Perhaps I’m an egalitarian because I’ve seen it in God’s Word after years of struggling with the idea and after years of seeing abuses in the church and in our seminaries. At any rate, if the hierarchalist is willing to get to know me a little better as a person before making up one’s mind about me, I am willing to get to know him or her as well.

I should be clear here that I believe that the writer refers to other kinds of abuse (i.e., non-spousal) when he uses the term "abuse" in the above quote. His point is simply trying to keep an open mind, and trying to get past the knee-jerk labels. I have attempted to be as fair in my own dealings with "complementarians" (I think few people would call themselves "hierarchalists," and so I avoid that term), no doubt with varying degrees of success. I don't really expect to "convert" too many such people from interpretive views they've held for most of their lives (in most cases). But if I can at least convince them that I'm not exercising a "rebellious streak," then at least we can agree to disagree with intellectual integrity.
And that's really my point: there are some serious issues to be discussed, and I'm not foolish enough to think that everyone will agree on such substantive issues. But if we can at least avoid the accusations and accept that there's an honest attempt to follow God's will, maybe we can work together to reach some solutions.