Aug
15
2012
To My Egalitarian Friends
I know a good number of you are reading The Gospel Coalition website. Some of you have told me so, and some of you regularly comment on various postings. I'm glad. We believers are called to work together for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel Coalition is led by a group of pastors who aim to encourage the church in that calling. A good number of my egalitarian friends, motivated by that same calling, have presented me with questions like this one: "Why don't you just let go of this complementarian thing so we can all get on together with the work of the gospel? This division between us is just getting in the way."
Many times I have indeed wished this issue would "get out of the way" so that we could all "get on with it." At times I have thought we might get by with simply not bringing it up---you know, focusing on the essentials. We seem to be able to do this better with differences in baptism and eschatology, for example. Good ministry happens in all sorts of contexts. Unity and harmony are good. On we go.
It may be helpful to offer a few thoughts on why it is not possible either to "let go of this complementarian thing" or simply to leave it out of the conversation. At a recent TGC Council meeting, a panel of pastors discussed this question. My thoughts may overlap with theirs at some points. Perhaps that's a good risk, and perhaps that's even part of the point, as I add my response to these nearly exasperated questions I'm hearing. The goal here, then, is not to argue the issue itself, but rather to say why we cannot stop arguing it (and how that argument should sound).
Deeply Personal
This issue is deeply personal---as we all know. We're not talking about theoretical theological conundrums. Questions regarding womanhood and manhood touch on our most intimate and fundamental identities. It makes sense that they emerge right away in Genesis; they're primary. Men-and-women-related issues are all about who we human beings are on the most basic level---which is why they won't go away or just fade into the background. We carry them around with us all the time.
As I sat in the room at that TGC Council meeting and listened to the panel on complementarianism, I was intensely aware that what those men were discussing has shaped my life in the most personal ways---my marriage, my church life, my ministry. If I were not committed to the biblical truth and the gospel goodness of what they were discussing, it might have been hard to listen to that discussion. If throughout my life I had not been placed close to many men who know how to lead lovingly, selflessly, and encouragingly, both in the home and in the church, it might indeed have been hard to listen. I am married to a man who consistently, actively values and encourages my gifts. By God's grace I have experienced and witnessed some of the joyful flourishing that God intends through the created order affirmed by complementarians. If this were not true, it would be harder for me to hear the biblical teachings of headship and submission in marriage, for example. The teachings would still be there to be heard, and there for the purpose of Christ's glory and his people's good, but they would ask even more of me---more trust in God and his Word, by his Spirit. Clearly, these teachings ask a whole lot of men as well as women. These teachings are not about a creed we sign and then leave on the desk as we go about our business; they come with us everywhere, informing our most personal identities day by day.
It's fascinating to observe the ways in which issues of gender and sexuality dominate cultural interaction on so many levels. Entertainment and advertising industries depend on the magnetic force of sexual attraction in order to be successful. The topic of homosexuality calls to mind not just an issue or a few people but a passionate group of public contenders for rights, and countless stories of personal struggle. The global economic and political reality of abortion as a "women's issue" sits like an open sore on the cultural landscape, oozing with a multitude of sorrows. Marriage offers not only the starting point for more and more broken relationships but also the fuel for constant, growing debate. The fundamental fact that God created us human beings in his image as male and female must indeed be fundamental in significance. No wonder the New Testament writers keep going back to it. The starting point of creation offers both the deepest joy in reflecting our Creator and also the deepest potential for rebellion against our Creator. These issues and all their ramifications won't go away, because they are embedded so deeply and personally in us as God's image bearers.
Relentlessly Practical
It's also relentlessly practical, this issue. In the area of church ministry, for example, the male and female faces seen and voices heard in worship gatherings are constantly saying something to us about what the church is and how we're meant to live together. In complementarian contexts, it is noticeable and significant that only men stand in the pulpit as ordained preachers. In such contexts, of course, it is also significant to observe the number of women's faces and voices included or not included in the week-to-week work and worship of the church. For most egalitarians, however, no number of complementary women's roles can make up for the imbalance in the pulpit. To go to a conference attended by men and women where only men preach would offer in many cases not blessing but offense at a perceived hurtful, unwarranted, leftover patriarchy.
Many, including myself, often speak of wanting complementarians and egalitarians (the labels are so laborious and inadequate!) to get along better as brothers and sisters in Christ, to love and pray for each other, to serve and teach each other with respect and humility. These are good and godly aims. At the heart level, and as we speak about and to each other, we must hold and follow these aims. There is progress to be made---such as the progress that has been made over the centuries in better affirming and articulating the truth that male and female are created equally and fully in God's image---each valued and gifted and loved by God and so to be treated by each other.
Practically speaking, it's challenging to work out these good aims. The world of publishing is one place that constitutes fertile common ministry territory, so long as we can bring up gender issues with concern for biblical truth and respect for each other. Shared ministry and worship make cooperation not impossible but certainly more difficult. The prospect of ongoing worship together, for example, is problematic not simply because we might regularly offend each other in relation to this so-personal issue. Is it not true that, for ongoing communal worship of complementarians and egalitarians, someone's conscience must be violated? Could an egalitarian in good conscience "let go" of the gender issue and sit happily under the preaching of only male pastors? Often, in my experience, when such combined groups come together for regular worship, it is the complementarians who, in order to participate fully, must condone practices they believe are unbiblical. ("What about going to chapel when an ordained woman preaches?") The group that has removed distinctions will with more practical ease call for uninhibited unity. The group that affirms distinctions as biblical will cherish the flourishing life cultivated by those distinctions and will not be willing to relinquish them. The complementarians will be the ones seeming to embrace outdated obstacles to progress, while they believe they are celebrating blessed, centuries-old truths that can be discarded only at the church's peril.
Ultimately Biblical
In the end, this is a biblical issue. There are those of course who do not make biblical faithfulness central in the ongoing discussion. But for those who do, it is painful to disagree exegetically about an issue bearing such personal and practical ramifications, when so many different voices are affirming love for the Lord and his inspired Word, as well as a desire to see that Word proclaimed with gospel faithfulness to the ends of the earth. Neither complementarians nor egalitarians are living out their theology sinlessly; there is no earthly utopia that will offer final proof. Neither is there any example of sinful perversion of a biblical truth that will discount the actual truth. (The heartbreaking, awful fact that some parents sinfully abuse their children does not negate the truth that children are to obey their parents.) Certainly we all need to aim for less finger-pointing and more prayerful humility in both discerning and living out Christ's call to reflect him in our marriages and our churches. If we do indeed believe that God's Word is the unerring light to our paths, we can do nothing but keep listening to it and studying it with all our energy, asking God through his Spirit to guide us in its truth. We can be both unashamed and gracious in teaching and obeying what we understand this Word to say clearly---and extremely careful about what it does not say.
Complementarians find Scripture to speak clearly and cohesively from beginning to end on the subject of human beings as male and female created equally in the image of God and with distinct roles relating to marriage and the church. The prominence and pervasiveness of this strand of Scripture's teaching, even more than strands like those of baptism modes or eschatological views, make this a biblical issue that merits and even requires regular attention and discussion---especially in light of contemporary challenges to centuries-old understandings. The fundamentally crucial issue for all of us in these matters must be to hear and obey the Word of God.
So to my egalitarian friends I would say, "Yes, we need to get on with it!" All of us still imperfect believers need to let go of "every weight, and sin which clings so closely," as Paul says, in order to run the race set before us with endurance to the glorious end. Finally, even though this issue will not go away, we must indeed get on with it, by the Spirit and according to the Word. There is much gospel work to do.
34 Comments
[...] book God's Good Design by Dr. Claire Smith. We also invite you to read the new article "To My Egalitarian Friends" by Kathleen Nielson, TGC director of women's [...]
"The goal here, then, is not to argue the issue itself, but rather to say why we cannot stop arguing it (and how that argument should sound)."
It's an admirable and worthy goal.
Particularly this aspect: "The fundamentally crucial issue for all of us in these matters must be to hear and obey the Word of God."
Of course, egalitarians also believe we are hearing and obeying the Word of God.
Of course most evangelical egalitarians who are committed to inerrancy believe this, but those of us who hold complementarian convictions find too many very clear and explicit passages (1 Cor. 11, 1 Tim. 2, etc.) to allow us to move on this issue. The arguments from the other side of the issue feel like a serious twisting of Scripture, a distortion for the sake of cultural accomodation. I'm not saying that is the intent, but it is very much what it looks like from our perspective. To be charitable, we can say it appears to be an sincere and unintentional distortion of Scripture to accomodate cultural norms. Those of us who left mainline Protestant denomonations saw too much of that kind of thing to justify everything from abortion to homosexuality. The egalitarian arguments seem too similar to us - to me, at least.
What you say is very gracious and generous towards egalitarians. I wish I could say the same when it's the other way around.
Also, your words are particularly meaningful precisely because of your gender. You say things that would not be as well received had they been coming from a man, sadly.
God bless you.
'Often, in my experience, when such combined groups come together for regular worship, it is the complementarians who, in order to participate fully, must condone practices they believe are unbiblical.'
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this. It is exactly the same problem that faces an egalitarian who worships with complementarians. To participate in regular worship with complementarians is to collude with the exclusion of women from leadership. This is as unbiblical, and therefore unacceptable, to an egalitarian as it is to a complementarian to allow a woman that kind of role.
I had once hoped that there would be a way in which the two views could be held together in one church but now I don't think that there is. Each position is held with conviction and sincerity but they are not compatible. The best we can do is strive to respect each other's position and assume the best of each other. Sadly, even that seems hard to do sometimes.
Al,
Concerning what you said about having no women on leadership, you seem to presume that Egalitarians think that the LACK of women in leadership is in of itself unbiblical. This is not the case. Rather, they presume that if a woman is called and gifted, she should be allowed to be in leadership. It is an option, not a biblical requirement, to have women on leadership.
I think the greater issue is whether people with opposing convictions should worship with each other. If an issue (and I'm assuming open-hand issue) is dividing to the point of complete separation, I question whether it is the position being worshiped rather than Jesus.
I agree with your conclusion. Respecting those who disagree is essential to the Body of Christ. But I think we should feel the freedom to worship Jesus Christ with all believers. Muscle should not separate from bone because doing so is self-centered and harms the body as a whole. Yes, they are different, but they should seek the same end: the worship and glorification of Jesus.
Yonaton - the deliberate exclusion of women in leadership because of their gender is unbiblical to an egalitarian. To worship in the context of a church that has chosen to follow a hermeneutic that deliberately and consciously excludes women from serving in all areas of church life is to follow a hermeneutic that is unbiblical and sets the tone for the whole context in which worship takes place. I know that the omission of women from leadership positions may seem less of a problem to complementarians find it impossible to include women who but that is to ignore all the implications of such an approach for egalitarians. The failure to understand this, once again, highlights the failure of complementarians to understand the position of egalitarians on this. It is not about wanting inclusion of both genders it is about wanting to be biblical.
Yes, it is about wanting to be biblical. Galatians 3 says all are sons and as sons receive the full inheritance of a son. This means that women cannot be excluded from their inheritance, since the gifts (of being Pastor or teacher, and of leading)are given to them. Their rights cannot be taken from them. Male sons cannot take away the rights of female sons, just as Jewish sons cannot take away the rights of Gentile sons. Women have full inheritance to the privleges as men do, so it's only an option for men to learn from women, to be guided by them, or to be kept same under them. Women's inheritance of sonship can only be taken from them if they allow it.
Galatians isn't just about salvation, but rather also what we all inherit from our salvation - sonship. And as sons we all inherit the gifts and the exclusion of women from using their gifts is a matter of taking away their inheritance.
You cannot use one passage of Scripture- which says nothing about gifts of leadership, teaching and preaching- to contradict other passages of Scripture which do explicitly mention those gifts and roles. If that is what Paul meant in Galatians 3, then he directly contradicted himself in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2. Paul cannot mean in one passage the opposite of what he says in another.
Uh, no, Jason. I didn't touch on 1 Co 11 or 1 Tim 2. In fact, when read properly, one can readily see that Paul stops one deceived woman in 1 Tim 2 and that it cannot be proven that he stopped more than one woman - this is a indisputable FACT. And there is no hierarchy in 1 Co 11 since theos is used to mean the Godhead, not the Father and can be supported contextualy whereas trying to force fit "the Father" in place of theos throughout the passage makes for nonsensical reading.
Also the passages that list the gifts naturaly do not exclude women.
I'm not going to lie, I'm just happy to see a TGC post that allows that egalitarianism is a Biblical perspective.
I don't think anyone is saying that.
The final point of the article was how complementarianism is "ultimately biblical". That's a positive statement, but it's to the exclusion of it's opposite.
[...] Good Design by Dr. Claire Smith. We also invite you to read the new article “To My Egalitarian Friends” by Kathleen Nielson, TGC director of women’s [...]
[...] is how the complementarianism vs. egalitarian debate should be [...]
Okay, Al. Show us where it is biblical. Show us one time where an elder or pastor is a female. Show us where is says to entrust the word to faithful women, who then would pass it on to other faithful women. Show us one time where God says it is okay for a woman to have headship over a male. Show us where the curse that said the woman would want mastery over the man, but that the man would rule over her is negated or taken back. Show us where the Scripture says to lay hands on a woman. And don't use the Galatians 3:28 default, because that has to do with equal footing in regards to salvation and inheritance, not equal footing in roles in the church.
Morris - your need to have the egalitarian biblical viewpoint explained to you is reasonable but this isn't what this article or subsequent replies have been about. If you have never looked at the egalitarian hermeneutic then look for posts and sites where they are being addressed and engage there - there are plenty of them.
I can only assume that you object to Nielson's stance which appears to accept that this is an exegetical matter for egalitarians as well as complementarians. If you have a gripe with her viewpoint being wrong then address this and address her.
I am merely pointing out what an egalitarian may believe - there is little point in engaging with people of differing views if you don't understand what they actually believe.
I have read and studied many egalitarian arguments and they all are based on sloppy exegetical practice that I would reject no matter the issue.
"And don't use the Galatians 3:28 default, because that has to do with equal footing in regards to salvation and inheritance, not equal footing in roles in the church."
It is the inheritance of sonship that makes male and female "roles" non-existant. All are sons, therefore may exercise any gift they receive or enjoy their privledges in the Kingdom. As sons, none are male and female.
as little as i like any appeals to pragmatism, has a denomination that has embraced egalitarianism ever become more conservative in their overall theology? My observation is that there is an almost universal slide towards liberalism once egalitarianism is embraced.
I think it was grudem who said (paraphrasing as best i can from memory) that if you can reinterpret the bible so that women are able to lead men spiritually, then you can interpret anything any way you like in the bible.
in that case you might as well throw the bible away as it's just a template to post-hoc justify whatever it is you've decided to do anyway.
Andy, do some research on the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC). It might meet your criteria. They had women preachers many decades ago.
Warren, I had a look at their website and they seem sane enough. It's a pity that their statement of belief cites verses to back up most of their positions, but if you skimmed across it, you'd not realise that women could be ordained, or on what theological basis they landed there.
Why do you suppose that if you pulled together a list of theologically liberal church groups, you'd find most ordaining women? That's the trend I've observed in my corner of the world.
Andy - there are plenty of egalitarian churches who are not liberal but you are right that those that are liberal are also egalitarian.
I think that one of the things that sometimes happens is that those who are convinced of egalitarianism are not made welcome in the conservative evangelical churches - in fact, there is significant hostility in some (not all of course) and this attitude often pushes such people out of their fellowship to find a church in which they are not treated as theologically suspect. As liberal churches will welcome them with open arms there is an easy home there.
I think it is one of the reasons why many evangelical egalitarians (and we do exist - like complementarians we are on a wide spectrum!) read sites such as TGC and Piper, Carson, Keller etc because, whilst we disagree with their stance on women's roles, we appreciate their biblical teaching in so many other ways and we really don't want to lose our love of scripture and sound doctrine - we fear falling into liberalism. It is not always easy reading because many of us dislike feeling 'out of fellowship' with other believers simply because of our views on egalitarianism - personally I find it very painful at times - but if it keeps us sharp theologically then it is worth it.
Andy, you said:
"Why do you suppose that if you pulled together a list of theologically liberal church groups, you'd find most ordaining women? That's the trend I've observed in my corner of the world."
By this same logic I can say that most churches that practice fundamentalism, American-patriot idolatry and racism are often times complementarians. It works both ways brother. Both sides, can and often do esteem this exegetical issue over the Gospel or at the very least it gets MORE attention than the unifying theme of the Gospel. Both parties can easily become distracted and this can and often does lead to a "slippery slope" of liberalism (AND FUNDAMENTALISM).
Surely on this we can agree...
Al,
I have looked at the egalitarian hermeneutic, which is why I asked my questions to you. Your refusual or inability to respond to the questions, plus your smug reply are answer enough.
Morris
Kathleen Nielson,
I would like to address two things you said that got my attention today.
"I am married to a man who consistently, actively values and encourages my gifts. By God's grace I have experienced and witnessed some of the joyful flourishing that God intends through the created order affirmed by complementarians."
I don't doubt that this is true, and am thankful that you feel so blessed, but I would argue for those women who do not feel as blessed as you do. I would contend for those who are not allowed their full inheritance of sonship, Galatians 3. And I would also argue because as you say, "In the end, this is a biblical issue."
"For most egalitarians, however, no number of complementary women's roles can make up for the imbalance in the pulpit."
Right, reason being, we understnad that women are being excluded from thier full rights as "sons" in the Kingdom. Galatians tells us that all are sons through salvation. Because of our salvation, based on faith we are all no longer Jew, Greek, male and female, but "sons." And for this reason we egals believe that women have the same rights to exercies their gifts as men do. Galatians doesn't do away with our differences of the flesh, but it does do away with the inheritance of only the male. Only the free born male could inherit in the Old Covenant, but in the new, all are "sons" and therefore have full rights to all privledges of the Kingdom.
I've heard many comps say that they know women who can do a much better job at teaching then the men they know, yet their complementarian position denies these women from teaching men in certain contexts. My point is that obviously women are given the gift of teaching. And my problem is that because complementarianism disallows women from using their gifts for men, therefore it takes away from women what rightfully belongs to them. Women have a right as "sons" to teach, (and pastor and lead etc.) and it is the choice of the male son to learn from her or not.
All saved, no matter Jew, Greek, male and female are sons and have the right to their inheritance through faith. It is a right that no one can take from any other.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice this.
Red,
We have not received the inheritance, yet. We are joint-heirs with Christ, and He has not yet recieved what was promised (Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 12:2, among a myriad of other verses)and when He comes down to receive the kingdom in the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, then we shall receive it with Him; and rule and reign with Him as He will rule the world from Jerusalem.
The context of Galatians 3:23-29 is that we have not received the fullness of our sonship, yet. As I mentioned above, Christ has not received the fullness of the promise, yet. We have clothed ourselves in Christ and are united with Him, but we are not fully like Him, yet. We are heirs according to promise, the promise(s) given to Abraham and his seed (Christ) in Genesis 12:1-3, Genesis 14:14-18, 15:7&18, 17:8-9; and explained in Galatians 3:16. Israel has never occupied all of land that was promised, it is yet to be fulfilled by the Messiah, when He comes to rule and reign over it all. See also Hebrews 11:8-9, 39-40.
So, again, do not pull Galatians 3:28 out of context and use it as your default. Keep the verse in context, not only with Galatians 3, but with the overwhelming weight of other Scriptures, of which I have only given a smattering.
Wait, Morris, without investigating into all you have said, just because we have not received the FULL inheritance doesn't mean that therefore women are not to exercise the gifts given them or are not given the gifts. Eve partial inheritance would mean - exercise your gifts.
I'm glad you are aware that the promise given to Abraham was also given to his seed (singular) - Christ.
I do believe that I recall Jesus saying 2 things - one the kingdom is here and two it is inside you.
We are all called to exercise the gifts we are given within the limits Scripture establishes. To seek to exercise any gift outside of Scriptural limits is antinomian and disobedient.
Jason,
Establish that scripture says what you think it does. Simple thing to do, right?. I know for a fact that you cannot.
For example, 1 Tim 2 could never be used to establish the idea that Paul stopped more than 1 woman from teaching.
Jesus commanded, love thy neighbor as thyself, anything less is disobidience. But you would have us believe that he seperated male from female, Jew from Greek and slave from free when he gave this command, no? It really doesn't mean to love thy neighbor as thyself, does it - not to you. That's True disobedience, to Christ.
[...] This video by The Gospel Coalition explains the question: Why is TGC complementarian? In the article, a number of documents and articles are also referenced. I’d like to point you particularly to the one by Kathleen Nielson, who wrote “To My Egalitarian Friends”. [...]
Belief is both light and strength. Yes, one who acquires true belief may challenge the whole universe and be saved from the pressure of events in accordance with the strength of his belief. Saying, “I place my trust in God,” he travels through the mountainous waves of events in the ship of life in complete safety. He entrusts all his burdens to the hand of power of the Absolutely Powerful One, voyages through the world in ease, then takes his rest in the Intermediate Realm. Later he may fly up to Paradise in order to enter eternal happiness. Otherwise, if he does not rely on God, rather than flying, the burdens of the world will drag him down to the lowest of the low. That is to say, belief necessitates affirmation of Divine unity, affirmation of Divine unity necessitates submission to God, submission to God necessitates reliance on God, and reliance on God necessarily leads to happiness in this world and the next. But do not misunderstand this, reliance on God is not to reject causes altogether; it is rather to know that causes are a veil to the hand of power and have recourse to them. Knowing that attempting causes is a sort of active prayer, it is to seek the effects only from Almighty God, recognize that the results are from Him alone, and to be thankful to Him.
This article is written with unusual grace & kindness. 2 ingredients pretty much missing from most of the responses. The issue is neither going away nor being resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The 2 camps are going to have to learn how to bear & forebear, something the Lord does with each of us on a regular basis.