Hermenuetics

Comments

Thank you, thank you Dr. Webb. I agree to a point -- though in the home I think it works best for all involved if the man is the head of the house (but as Jesus it he Head of the Church -- Jesus sacrificed and served the church. He wasn't and isn't a dictator). I have for years thought this "a woman shouldn't teach a man" wrong thinking because then why are we letting women be college professors? God doesn't separate knowledge into sacred and secular as we do. I have read that the real interpretation of this verse that is the one so many base their whole "Women be Silent" theology on should read Wives shouldn't teach their husbands. And I think this is true -- at least in my home. The male ego is often fragile and if I appear to be above my husband in something he is inadequate in he takes it personal. It works a lot better if I don't "teach" him at all. It is better to let God do the teaching work.

That verse in Timothy should be balanced with the one where Paul says there is neither male nor female.

Posted By: Jane Hinrichs | August 22, 2011 12:54 PM

Great interview, and I am really looking forward to the complementary (pun fully intended!) second half tomorrow.

I recently finished I Suffer Not A Woman by Richard and Catherine Kroeger, a study on 1 Timothy 2 that comes to egalitarian conclusions. I've read plenty from complementarians and authoritarians, so it is interesting to read interviews like the one you have here. It's refreshing that reasonable and reverential arguments can be presented from the various positions. In my view this should not be an issue of fellowship, but of humility and mutual edification in seeking the meaning of scripture.

Cheers,
Tim

Posted By: Tim | August 22, 2011 1:04 PM

I don't think Dr. Webb's comment concerning women being deceived deals with Paul's point correctly. Dr. Webb indicates that the reason women were deceived in ancient times was due to a lack of knowledge by women that doesn't exist today. Eve's decision had nothing to do with a lack of knowledge, but had everything to do with the inherent difference in the way God created men and women. In the complementary relationship God created one gender to be a natural leader and the other to be a natural follower. In order to follow there has to be a trust factor - and I think women are more trusting by nature, which raises the vulnerability to deception. Being more trusting is a great strength, but also has a downside. This potential for being deceived presents a great danger when it involves doctrinal matters (and false teachers who deceive is a major topic in 1 Timothy prior to this statement). This is not to say that all men are good leaders who can't be deceived - or that many women are not good leaders or can all be easily deceived. It is not about any given person's abilities, value or worth. It is about God's design - which is inherently complementarian.

And because in context it has to do with leadership in spiritual and theological matters, there is not a necessary direct implication regarding public office or business management, etc. Men and women both bring their inherent strengths and weaknesses to bear - and sometimes the ability to be more trusting can outweigh potential negatives. In theological matters, it does not.

Dave James
www.biblicalintegrity.org

Posted By: David James | August 22, 2011 1:06 PM

Is it ironic that only men are speaking for both sides of the debate?

Posted By: Morgan | August 22, 2011 1:07 PM

I find it unfortunate and typical that two articles about gender debate in the Evangelical church would be written by men. Kind of says everything right there. I wish I could say I'm surprised that you don't have an article by a woman about a topic that concerns us so directly. Nice that Dr. Webb at least gives us some credit.

Posted By: Karen O. | August 22, 2011 1:13 PM

School faculty members are required by law to report suspected child abuse, yet they are allowed, by law today in 19 U.S. predominantly Southern "Bible Belt" States, to inflict physical Pain as punishment on school children with legal impunity and absolutely no safety standards, training, testing or certification to protect students!
Recently, Texas Governor Perry recently signed HB 359 and North Carolina Governor Perdue signed SB 498 Giving Parents the Right to Prohibit Corporal/Physical PAIN as Punishment of Their Children in Schools!
Corporal/Physical Pain as Punishment is Illegal in Schools in 31 U.S. States and All U.S. Prisons.
Research consistently finds that Corporal Punishment is harmful to the healthy development of children and is an impairment to the learning environment. Over 50 National Children's Health and Education organizations are opposed to school corporal punishment of students.
School paddling is discriminatorily applied to boys, minorities, disabled and low income students.
If school employees hit students with wooden paddles in public, they'd be arrested for assault as would any parent, police officer, lawmaker or U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
School paddling injuries result in several thousand students seeking emergency medical treatment annually and puts school districts at risk of lawsuits paid for by taxpayers in those communities.
Please add your voice to the National Campaign to End School Paddling of Students at Unlimited Justice founded by Billionaire Fashion Designer and Education Reformer Marc Ecko.
Check out free online resources for all child caregivers ­"Plain Talk About Spanking" at http://www.nospank.net/pt2011.htm , sparethekids.com and dontbeatblackkids.com.

Posted By: Julie Worley | August 22, 2011 1:36 PM

As a Christian man, I really respect and deeply identify with Russell Moore's egalitarian position and I think it is the correct scriptural interpretation. I have a very bright daughter who is a natural leader and I will fiercely defend her opportunities to lead. One third of the leaders Paul greets in Romans 16 were women. The complementarian position is most often identified with conservative or fundamentalist denominations, however, I belong to a conservative pentecostal denomination that was founded by a woman and ordains women, the Foursquare Church. The Assembly of God church also ordains women. There is neither Jew nor greek, male nor female in Christ".

Posted By: rick | August 22, 2011 2:31 PM

Thanks for your comments!
Rick, just to clarify, today's interview was with William Webb--tomorrow's is with Russell Moore.

Posted By: Rachel Stone | August 22, 2011 2:47 PM

N.T. Wright does, I think, a better job of defending the leadership of women in the church biblically. See http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

Posted By: Patrick Narkinsky | August 22, 2011 2:53 PM

I so appreciate Dallas Willard's intro to the book HOW I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP by Alan Johnson.

Yes, it is a bit odd that this on-the-table issue is often addressed by men. I'm thinking that perhaps it's because until recently, most graduates of seminary and theological school were male.

Many of us have been sh-sh-sh-ed along the way. We've had to make a choice. Be filled with frustration, hurt, and feelings of disrespect, or move ahead and trust that God will provide opportunities for us to serve - with or without a job description.

He is able to use our giftedness, to make our callings come to pass.

Posted By: Llinda Stoll | August 22, 2011 4:25 PM

I appreciate this topic being addressed, but I really would have liked women to have been interviewed. Why weren't women interviewed?

Posted By: Jane | August 22, 2011 5:18 PM

I am a member of a mainline church. The senior pastor of my church is a woman. She has multiple degrees including a Ph.D. She is a brilliant preacher as well as a good church administrator. The gender prejudice which shows up in Paul's writing was based upon a cultural attitude held at that time, not upon anything theological. Women in the apostolic times often hosted the earliest home churches. There are the famous stories of Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene. To say that women should not lead in the church in every way is ridiculous and is a sign of men wanting to be in control of everything, even the church.

Posted By: Larry in Dallas | August 22, 2011 6:58 PM

Good question re: why were men interviewed on the question of women in leadership?

I chose to interview William Webb because I find his redemptive-movement hermeneutic especially compelling and interesting as it applies to Scripture more broadly. I admire his work and was eager to bring it to our audience. That he is a man is incidental to the important theological work he does in service of the church.

As for choosing Russell Moore to represent complementarians, I chose him because I think he has a particularly gracious spirit and tone in his discussions of what can occasionally be sensitive issues, and because he has a wide recognition and appeal. Again, his being male is incidental.

I'm sorry if that choice--to interview two men--comes as a disappointment to some. I am grateful to both men--Dr. Webb and Dr. Russell--who were willing to answer my questions and represent two sides of a sometimes-contentious issue with grace and respect.

Posted By: Rachel Stone | August 22, 2011 7:06 PM

I presume that those distressed because the two interviewees are men do not adhere to egalitarianism?

Posted By: Karen Swallow Prior | August 22, 2011 9:49 PM

I am thrilled to see this topic addressed. As a physician (still occasionally witnessing gender barriers in the medical field), partner in an egalitarian marriage, and daughter of a female pastor/leader/minister, these issues are dear to my heart and heritage. I think having men speak to this issue is particularly vital since evangelical men have historically been the source of the vast majority of the teaching on this topic, at least within the church. In fact, men who hold a complementarian perspective may not receive teaching from a women sharing the egalitarian views (making the male perspective essential).

However, those looking for outstanding female perspectives, check out CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality, led by President Mimi Haddad) and writer/blogger/speaker Rachel Held Evans.

Here's to my hope and prayer for a future that encourages all believers to walk in their gifts and callings as leaders, teachers, etc. based on their faith and qualification and not their gender.

Thanks again for addressing this topic.

Posted By: Jaclyn | August 22, 2011 9:54 PM

I just want to thank the men who are posting here with pro-female comments. They have true Christ-like attitudes. I've been bombarded lately with complementarian male attitudes, and I was frankly scared of becoming cynical when it comes to Christian men. You have helped to restore my faith. Thanks!

Posted By: P. | August 22, 2011 10:08 PM

I'm unsure if two posts in an interview fashion constitutes a debate (plenty of heated and insightful gender discussions have been on this blog). But I'm always glad to see people talking about this issue, as it is important to me.

My wife and I wrote an article and took a different approach on 1 Tim 2 that has more cultural import into Ephesus. They believed women were born first (Artemis born before Apollo) which is why Paul counters it that Adam made before Eve. It was a demotion of female usurpation, not an excuse for male usurpation (as it is commonly read). Hence why Paul says a few verses earlier, he does not permit a woman to teach and usurp authority over a man. He isn't saying women shouldn't lead or teach (for we see them elsewhere in Scripture doing this very thing). He's saying usurping others (which includes men over women and women over men) isn't the way of the Messiah. Apparently in Ephesus, Artemis followers thought women were the authority and could be over men and this trickled into the church. We don't get such strong language in the letters to the other cities on this topic. We draw so much gender stuff through Timothy and Ephesians, the two books for Ephesus culture.

Anyway, our article (to read more) is at http://unmuted.soulation.org.

Looking forward to Moore tomorrow (though we already know what he will say... :)).

Posted By: Dale Fincher | August 22, 2011 10:35 PM

By the way, what rarely comes into the debates is, what I believe, is the heart of the real issue... not the role of women, but what is proper masculinity. Men are rarely examined on the pagan beliefs they import into these topics. In all the surveys I do speaking to men's groups (including those that read all the "biblical men's literature" out there, most believe, unawares, that the Fruit of the Spirit are female qualities. That alone should give us pause that something is dramatically amiss. But as long as the men in charge only have to focus on where to place women, well, then the discussions just continue to sound like a merry-go-round...

Posted By: Dale Fincher | August 22, 2011 10:39 PM

ah firing Dr. Webb one of the many poor choices *cough* Heritage College and Seminary *cough* I mean a particular seminary in southern Ontario has made.

On a side note all staff and faculty at that school must now sign and agree tothis to work at that school, no word yet if students have to sign this to be enrolled.

Posted By: Allastair Keddy | August 23, 2011 1:38 AM

While I respect that Dr. Webb is sincerely trying to work through the meaning of the Biblical texts about women, in my opinion, his redemptive movement approach merely white-washes the worst examples of the treatment of women in the Old Testament. There is nothing at all "redemptive" about much of the treatment of women in the Old Testament, and treating it as "redemptive" is just revisionist history making excuses for the inexcusable. Sadly, this sort of whitewashed revisionist history is becoming the hallmark of evangelicalism. See, for example, David Barton, Eidsmoe, Moore, etc.

I don't see why these issues are still being debated in a mainstream evangelical publication such as CT. We don't continue to agonize over the verses concerning slavery and racial superiority. At some point, that debate was closed. More than a decade in the new millenium, this debate about the role of women should be over as well.

Any reading of the Bible that rejects the full egalitarian understanding of women is just as noxious as a reading of the Bible that rejects the full equality of the races. We long ago acknowledged that "separate but equal" was morally and legally bankrupt because its claim to "equality" was a lie. The complementarian paradigm of "different but equal" is morally and legally bankrupt for the same reason.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | August 23, 2011 6:24 AM

Christian Lawyer, I have to disagree with your claim that Dr. Webb's work is mere 'whitewash' and 'excuses for the inexcusable.' Indeed, seen against the backdrop of Ancient Near East culture, many of the Bible's troubling texts do begin to seem redemptive. They're NOT redemptive absolutely--they MOVE the culture from where they are (awful) to a better place. (Hence, redemptive-movement hermeneutics.) I think Dr. Webb has done an admirable job of wrestling with the Bible's trouble texts, in Slaves Women, and Homosexuals, in his section on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology, and in his forthcoming book from IVP, Corporal Punishment in the Bible.

Posted By: Rachel Stone | August 23, 2011 6:40 AM

I really appreciate Dr. Webb's interview. I actually think the fact that they come from a male makes them even richer. Sometimes the egalitarian view is perceived to be held primarily by feminist women striving for power. His voice is a good demonstration of how that is not accurate. And, I think the interviewers decision to interview two people whose voices she felt were strongest for the subject, regardless of gender, demonstrates a strength of character on her part.

I find myself resonating with Dr. Webb's term of "complementary egalitarianism.” I think it is important to acknowledge that there are differences between men and women, while also asserting that this does not need to be interpreted as differences in leadership ability or roles.

One point that he makes that I think is key to this debate is the the importance of a consistent hermeneutic. For instance, the reviewer who believes it is an important point that Eve was deceived first would need to reconcile why so many other places in the Bible then speak of sin being transferred through Adam. (Furthermore, I would challenge that they sinned simultaneously, Eve as a sin of commission in eating the fruit and Adam as a sin of omission in not stopping her, since it appears he was standing nearby).

Does Dr. Webb have any longer books or articles on the subject? I'm guessing some of the short-comings seen by a few reviewers have to do with limited space in a blog post interview.

Thank you for these interviews. I think choosing to interview people from both sides of the debate is an important example of how we need to lean to disagree agreeably.

Posted By: Stephanie Spencer | August 23, 2011 6:45 AM

Dr. Webb somehow is willing to assume his interpretations do not suffer from the same problems that he identifies in the complementarian view. Culturally, the world has changed and therefore his interpretation is correct. He can use the term "complementary" but others misuse it. The topic is much more nuanced than this discussion. The dogma of this position certainly needs balance. I trust that tomorrow's discussion will do that.

Posted By: Jack Kremers | August 23, 2011 9:53 AM

Well, I've been told that my marriage of equals in unbiblical. Hogwash. My husband and I choose to view one another as coworkers in our household, holding joint decision-making "power." We love and respect one another enough to honor one another's point of view. I've had people ask, "Well what about when you can't agree? Who gets the deciding 'vote'?" I can say that in 10 years of marriage, that situation has never occurred. We've prayed and talked until we were in agreement on all decisions. A Christ-centered marriage does not require one person to dominate the other. "Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend." ~Camus

As for church, I would challenge anyone to find a man who never in his life ever learned from a woman. Apollos learned from a woman.How, then, are women eternally prohibited from teaching? In most patriarchal churches women are allowed to teach Sunday school classes for adults. They are allowed to teach children, the most impressionable and vulnerable of the Body of Christ! But to stand up in church and teach a lesson is verboten? I think that the cognitive dissonance people must experience who hold that position must be incredible.

The Bible clearly states that women prophesy in the church service. To prophesy was to speak aloud the word of God to the congregation. How does this square with the idea that women are to be eternally silent? Women are allowed to sing in church. Many churches allow women to PRAY aloud in church, and to share a "testimony." What a fine line to walk for patriarchalists! And the line is different for practically each person who espouses it! Is the Bible that inconsistent? Who draws the "correct" line?

This is a complex issue that requires an examination of the whole of scripture rather than "proof texts" and an understanding the context in which each book and verse was written. As one of my seminary professors repeated to us constantly, "Context, context, context." I think that hierarchalists/patriarchalists willfully choose to ignore context. There are some who engage in "loving leadership," and others who use their ideology as justification for abuse.

It is my firm belief that God's original intention for marriage was egalitarian. I believe that pre-curse, Adam and Eve were equals, told equally to rule the earth and subdue it-- God's proclamation of the consequences of their sin is descriptive, not prescriptive. As people who no longer walk in the flesh but the Spirit, we should seek to live ABOVE the curse, not within it.

Based on the very long comment, I've probably said what I have to say and won't need to comment on part two ;-)

Posted By: Robyn | August 23, 2011 11:26 AM

Nicely put, Robyn.

Cheers,
Tim

Posted By: Tim | August 23, 2011 12:21 PM

@Stephanie-You make a great point in your paragraph beginning with "One point..." It would seem they were both deceived and certainly Adam wasn't a very good leader.
@Jaclyn-Hey, dear, glad to see your comments!

Posted By: Lane | August 23, 2011 2:31 PM

It's both disingenuous and uncharitable for Dr. Webb to paint all complementarianism with the broad brush of so-called "partriarchalism" and "hierarchalism". There are lunatic fringes on both sides of this argument. But I didn't read Dr. Moore relabelling egalitarians "matriarchalists".

Posted By: Rachael Starke | August 23, 2011 4:12 PM

@Rachel Starke that is because egalitarians are not matriachalists. To define them as martriarchalists is to mis-interprete what they believe. It may be mis-interpreting some complementarians to label them as patriachalists, but a large percentage fit and embrace that term.

Posted By: Adam Shields | August 23, 2011 5:03 PM

Thank you Robyn! And of course thanks to Rachel for reporting on this.

btw...many complementarians are that in name only. They're practicing egalitarians in their marriages except maybe when it comes to women in office.

Posted By: Sally | August 23, 2011 8:03 PM

@Adam - what percentage is large, and who measures it? Is there some kind of census that gets filled out?? By whom?

This is what utterly frustrates me about this debate. Until you can articulate the other side's position in such a way that the other side agrees with your definition, meaningful disagreement is impossible.

As Sally alludes, just as many complementarians define their position along the lines of intersecting circles or orbits - equal in weight and value, different in sphere. Consequently, I think we should call ourselves egalitarians too, because to do otherwise is to ministerpret what we believe.

Posted By: Rachael Starke | August 23, 2011 10:24 PM

I recently had a discussion with my senior pastor about this issue. He went back to his master's course letters and brought out a sheaf of papers entitled "Women in Ministry" which was purposed to support female pastors.
After reading that sheaf, and conversing with my pastor, who, by the way, holds a Master of Divinity and a Bachelor of Theology, I found that all the best and brightest minds of the entire denomination, 15 theological seminaries world wide, could come up with was "The Bible says women should keep silent in the church, but does that mean women should keep silent in the church?"
After my first reaction, I set out to answer all the points in the paper, which, sadly, consisted of nothing more than points of "Well, the Bible says you shall pick up snakes and drink poison, so does that mean we should be playing with snakes and drinking poison?" I told him to try it and see what happened.
The long and the short of it is this: The Father used many things to introduce Holy Spirit to the world during the first century. Things we haven't seen since. We don't speak with tongues every time someone repents and is baptized. We don't have 4 prophetesses in the same family, let alone all women. We don't have the Gifts of The Spirit on our sleeves and around our necks like they did. We don't have every pastor, missionary, and witness raising the dead and healing the sick like they did.
Once it was understood that the Holy Spirit was here, and the New Testament was complete, most of those expressions stopped. God still is in the miracle business, but nothing like in the first century, and there hasn't been anything like it since.

Posted By: David | August 24, 2011 4:39 AM

@Rachel that is exactly my point. I know of no one that identifies themselves as egalitarian that would accept the term matriarchalist. But some that that embrace the term complementarian would embrace the term patriarchal. You cannot complain that others are not understanding you if you are resisting understanding them.

Posted By: Adam Shields | August 24, 2011 9:09 AM

@David, there is a lot more that what you have been shown then. I think one of the better books is "How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership". There are 22 chapters by 26 different Christian leaders about how they went from a more complimentarian to a more egalitarian position. Some of them have a lot of biblical struggles that they talk about, some are more cultural issues that they have to work through, some have other issues. It gives a wide range of reasons from solid Evangelical Christians. It may not convince you, but it cannot be simply dismissed it as weak hermeneutical work.

Posted By: Adam Shields | August 24, 2011 9:49 AM

The gender issue vis a vis the church is just another intramural issue that does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Were the Church persecuted and also NOT BORED with ordinary mission, it would be a non-issue...

Wasted time. Wasted energy. These issues are important when you treat Christianity as a form of recreation or as a hobby...which most "Church leaders" and "thinkers" do...

Posted By: Empiricus Logicus | August 24, 2011 12:23 PM

David James, I think you are providing an excellent example of a subcultural presupposition when you opine that women ARE more trusting and more prone to being deceived. Those who thinking they are strong in a particular way should take heed lest they fall. And those who think it is someone else who is likely to be deceived (and not themselves) based on nothing but gender, may be succumbing to a dangerous deception.

Posted By: EMSoliDeoGloria | August 24, 2011 3:56 PM

I will take no sides here simply because, as a woman who has been married for close to 60 years, and has heard it all. I find both sides to be inconclusive as far as truly helping me. The difficulty of being a Christian woman is harder and much more frustrating than the majority of men care to even think about. And I emphasize. No, I do not believe that the majority of men want to address how demoralized we are as Christian women by their actions toward us. Through the years, as a wife, mother and church member, I have been tossed about by men in a manner that has left me insecure at best. This whole discussion not only sounds like a merry-go-round as Dale Fincher says, it does nothing to address what is a tragic truth. The divorce rate in evangelical Christian circles is no less than marriages following the rules of satan's world. If men would stop spending so much time trying to tell women where there place is, and more time on learning their responsibility toward others, especially toward the women who are their wives and church workers there would be less divorces and splits in the church. Try reading the book of Ephesians and apply it to yourselves with a contrite heart, instead of just picking out the verses that might apply to a woman. You may think I sound like a bitter woman. No that is not my problem. I am crying out to you men to hear the word of the Lord and realize that when you find your place, then and only then will a woman have no trouble finding hers. I grieve for all my sisters out there who are trying so hard to be what God wants them to be while men are walking about in strength under a deception that they feel cannot touch them.

Posted By: Anonymous | August 24, 2011 6:46 PM

Anonymous, that divorce rate is just not really true. It sounds good. But as Bradley Wright and others have shown, Christians who attend church on average of at least once a month, have a divorce rate of about 1/3 lower than the national average. But self identified Christian that do not attend church at least once a month actually have a divorce rate about 20 percent higher than the national average. So when you just look at self identified Christians (and the same holds true if people self identify as Evangelical) the numbers look like they are the same as the rest of the population, but they are in fact very different when teased out.

Those that self identify as Christians but do not attend church are an important field of ministry, but without even a small about of church relationship are not really a good sign of what is in the church.

Posted By: Adam Shields | August 24, 2011 7:45 PM

I grew up in a mainline church .... all the sermons about wives began with Eph.5:22 .... verse 21, which explains all that follows was conveniently forgotten.
Even now those committed to the "complementarian" (I put this in commas because it is an oxymoron - their position is hierarchical patriarchy)explain this verse away - it doesn't apply to what follows (?)they say.
I have had a long and happy marriage (we are reaching the 50 yr mark) and what we have practiced is the mutual submission of Eph.5:21 - frankly, that is what love does.

Posted By: Dinah | August 24, 2011 7:45 PM

"Were the Church persecuted and also NOT BORED with ordinary mission, it would be a non-issue..."

I tend to agree. Read the history of the 1900's women's missionary movement, and study the current situation in the underground church in China. God uses women in ministry wherever the church will let Him; and wherever the church has a genuine need, she has historically not been too proud to accept the ministry of anyone who is willing and gifted-- men and women alike. It's when the church is established and starts thinking about respectability and order, that the men take over and tell the women to go back to their "real" place in the nursery and kitchen.

Posted By: Kristen Rosser | August 25, 2011 12:46 AM

@Empiricus Logicus
As long as members of the Body of Christ are denied full participation in that organism by other members, this is, and will continue to be, a highly relevant issue.

I do tend to believe that, if a woman is prohibited from fufilling her calling, that God intends for her to go elsewhere in order to be obedient to that to which he has called her. God will not be thwarted.

Posted By: Robyn | August 25, 2011 11:34 AM

An impressive contribution to a common nonsense of modern-American creative theology, serving certain demands of the society, Dr.! A very scientific-like language, though...the issue of slavery is "touched" also, although silence about the horrific cost of famous "civil cultural encounter" is wisely kept. A Ukrainian (well, a undamentalist) preacher, seems, must bow down before the titled phenomena of a powerless "gospel".

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | August 25, 2011 5:16 PM

I would like to argue that the terminology of complementarianism does provide a way forward. If we start with the concept of complementarianism rather than the specific issue of gender, and we were to look to the Bible for where we could understand this, I think the natural place we would look first is 1 Cor 12. The complementary roles of the parts of the body, literally in the examples of eye and ear, by implication also of the people in the church, imply a degree of hierarchy. The crucial thing is that the hierarchy is controlled by gifting and context. This latter means that the hierarchy is fluid. When the issue is seeing the eye rules the ear; when the issue is hearing it is the ear that rules. In the specific gender debate, this is observed by all. As age or illness changes our gifts and capabilities, responsibilities get switched and nobody to my knowledge resists this. A married man reduced to a inarticulate person unable to feed himself must relinquish some of his responsibilities whatever his take on hierarchy between the sexes. And his wife must assume them whatever her take. So the real problem with the "hierarchialist" approach is not that hierarchy is proposed but that they affirm an unrealistic level of rigidity ignored in some circumstances even by them. The danger of the "egalitarian" approach is that the reality of hierarchy, that is the need for submission, is downplayed.

Posted By: Timothy | August 27, 2011 2:58 AM

Several years ago, as a fairly new and young widow, I left a conservative evangelical church which did not allow a woman any leadership position. I left it for a mainline church which encouraged women to serve as pastors, teachers, deacons, leaders. My evangelical church told me that, as a woman, I should ask my husband if I had any questions about theology or church practice. As I explained to the pastor in my exit interview, that left me out twice, first because I was a woman, second because I had no husband. I was told, "Well, we'd make an exception for you!" I was also in a small group for newly single women in my conservative evangelical church. The group had to be facilitated by a man, which, needless to say, greatly inhibited the discussion. Evangelical churches are constraining an immense pool of talent and power by not allowing women an equal opportunity in ministry. And I do not believe they are being Biblical. I could never regularly attend a church which does not have women serving on their church board. It was very meaningful to me to be served communion by a woman and to hear women preach from the pulpit and lead discussion in adult classes When I seek spiritual counseling from a pastor, I find a woman to be more understanding and empathetic.

Posted By: anonymous, too | August 27, 2011 5:32 PM

Thank you for this article. I had the privilege of taking Dr. Webb's courses in both Hermeneutics and Language Tools and Exegetical Methods at said particular Seminary and was blessed with Dr. Webb's passion for Scripture and it's interpretation. I highly recommend you read his book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals to get a fuller picture of his redemptive movement hermeneutic than you can get from this very well done but brief interview. I was very sad to hear that he had been fired from my alma mater but glad to know he is still teaching! Blessings Dr. Webb!

Posted By: Amanda Mustard | August 27, 2011 10:26 PM

Very good article. I support the complementarity of leadership, I think those traditions or cultural way historically imposed by custom or no longer goes.

Posted By: Julio | August 28, 2011 1:01 AM

That this blog is subtitled a "blog for women" in itself suggests that women are second class citizens, making "helpful male" academics vying for the egalitarian mantle willing accomplices in the denigration of women... It's like saying we need to help "third-world countries" and insist that we are not being ethnocentric in the process of naming them as such. Having a separate blog for women selects out women for special ideational protection and dichotomizes and polarizes the discussion. To select out women for special classification apart from a normal blog only reinforces the subtlety of second-class-ness.

Moreover, I'd like a psychological evaluation of men who propagate egalitarianism just to see if they are not actually afraid of their wives, of women in general, or are suffering from the results of an over-bearing mother...This has nothing do with whether or not egalitarianism is true, but honest motivations for being any "thus and so" must be addressed.

In case there is any mis-perception, I myself am an egalitarian...

Food For Thought

Posted By: Empiricus Logicus | August 28, 2011 9:40 PM

I believe the focus of this issue has become a bit skewed both in this discussion and regarding this issue in general. It seems that many have focused on the issue of teaching as the primary “motivation” for the directive regarding a woman’s place/position in ministry (specifically as it relates to men) and that this issue (regarding teaching men) is simply “paired” with that of authority (over men). I don’t believe the fact that these two issues are discussed in the same passage (Timothy 2) is incidental/coincidental but directly intended to be part of a greater directive on women’s behavior in general.

From verse 8 onward there is a steady stream of instruction regarding women’s conduct as it relates specifically to her appearance (respectable apparel, modesty and self-control, attire) and then immediately followed by (what I believe is key) the “proper” way a woman should “profess godliness—with good works” (verse 10). Is the topic not then expounded immediately (verse 11) by stating clearly how a woman should learn “…quietly with all submissiveness…”? Then, and only then are we given the direct/explicit teaching that a woman should not be permitted to “…teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet...” which is the culmination of the attitude/practice of “submission” explained and detailed in the preceding verses.

I think the confusion/misinterpretation comes primarily from the misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the term “submit”/”submission”; nowhere in this passage are men instructed to force women into submission but rather the instruction/teaching is geared toward women conforming their conduct to reflect how a “godly woman” should appear and act. Paul does exercise his own authority in the matter (due to his position as apostle) stating (verse 12) “…I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet...” and proceeds explain his reasoning (using the first man and woman as an example [Genesis 3:16] – which tends to lend credibility to the argument that this problem stems from that initial “curse” and resultant relationship). The submission mandated here is one that is “self-imposed” and may be likened to the submission of our will (all Christians – man and woman alike) before God.

One last issue I noticed while reading comments in response to both of these articles is that regarding “mutual submission”. At least one commenter used Eph.5:21 as a justification for this “mutual submission” in the marriage relationship when it is clearly referring to members of the body of Christ in general. The statements immediately following (verses 22-33) specifically reference either “wives” or “husbands” with different directives for each and there is no reference that tells husbands to “submit” to their wives but rather great teaching regarding how to love her and foster the “self-imposed” discipline of “submission” in his wife’s life as it is likened to how the church (depicted as a wife) is brought into submission under Christ’s loving authority (not brought into submission by force).

Posted By: Moses | August 29, 2011 3:33 PM