Aug
15
2012
Why Is TGC Complementarian?
Probably all of us who share The Gospel Coalition's vision to renew our faith in the gospel of Christ and to reform our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures have been asked, "So why is TGC complementarian? Are you saying only those who uphold male leadership in the home and church believe the gospel?"
If you've ever wondered and asked the question yourself, we hope you'll watch this video featuring TGC founders Don Carson, Tim Keller, and John Piper. Keller opens with a hermeneutical argument about what sometimes happens when we apply arguments in favor of egalitarianism to biblical passages that relate directly to the gospel. He also explains why TGC's confessional statement and theological vision for ministry go beyond basic gospel doctrines to include such issues as gender roles. As Piper explains, TGC wants to say things that protect the gospel, display the gospel, and release the gospel for human flourishing. And our current age demands that believers model and argue the biblical case for Christ-like headship.
"We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society," Piper observes. "It has produced a brutal masculine society."
Yet the times and especially the example of our Savior demand that if we're really a "gospel coalition," then we'll forsake the temptation to speak with disdain of those who differ from us. Nor will we dictate the precise terms for how women and men will relate in every situation, recognizing differences in temperament, ecclesiology, and culture.
As the video concludes, Piper explains why TGC can't take a both/and position on gender roles. For further reading on this subject, Carson recommends the new 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 initiatives.
Why Is TGC Complementarian? from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
144 Comments
[...] 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 [...]
[...] Editors' note: Tune in tomorrow, when Don Carson, Tim Keller, and John Piper answer the question, "Why is TGC complementarian?" [...]
Loved the panel at T4G on this very issue as well. It [Comp.] is not a gospel issue per se, but it is vitally important for how we understand the Scriptures and, thus, the gospel. Appreciate continued teaching/understanding on this issue, and particularly from these men too.
Is this a gospel issue per se or not? Or perhaps relevant enough?
This is what Claire Smith have to say in her excellent book God's Good Design (2012): "If we resist God's right to rule our lives, if we doubt the goodness of his word, if we use one part of Scripture to silence another part that we find objectionable, then it is a salvation issue - because our attitude to God's word cannot be separated from our attitude towards God himself" (p234)
My father in law in a minister of the Assemblies of God. They Love the Gospel and they love the Scriptures. I have not ever heard anyone accuse them of being "liberal." They also allow women to be pastors.
According to TGC and Claire Smith, is my father in law saved? Is he a Christian?
I do not believe that Complimenterianism is a Gospel issue.
Interesting video.
I work with a student mission group which focuses on core evangelical beliefs but doesn't include gender roles, baptism, etc. in their doctrinal basis. Similarly, the evangelical churches alliance in my city does not have a position on gender roles.
I think it'd be interesting to hear TGC's views on these groups. Is it wrong to work inside those groups? Are we weakening the mission of those groups by not including gender roles in the doctrinal basis? Why would it be OK to work at a local level with egalitarian churches but not at a national level?
These are the kinds of questions that I think the video raises.
Tom, you might find Carson's two talks at the following link below helpful - explaining the flow of thought in 1 Tim 2 and its applications. As I understand it, the issue and applications are primarily within the contexts of the church and Christian family/household. That said, how egalitarianism within para-church, mission and other Christian organizations can eventually influence/impact the church and Christian family is more complex.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/03/20/carson-on-complementarianism/
Sound wisdom from these men. I think Tim Keller's point about the 'loosening' of Scripture in one part having unravelling implications for the whole is particularly helpful. One's doctrine of Scripture usually plays a significant role in these discussions.
The broader picture is of course the role we allow prevailing world views in our culture to play in our own thinking and understanding. In Judah, the kings would, whilst being generally ok, still allow the high places to remain, i.e. those instances of syncretistic worship where pagan culture influenced the Judahite cultic practice. Ahaz was one such king, and when faced with crunch time in Isaiah 7, he refused the word of God. Hezekiah on the other hand removed the high places, and when pushed, he was able to rely on the word of God as right and true. I wonder if our culture's view of gender has become a 'high place' in the modern church, which ultimately leads to rejection of the word of God when it really counts. As the chaps in this video make clear, the texts are unambiguous.
From my perspective the egalitarian position in which there is no distinguishing between roles from a practical perspective keeps us enslaved to the effects of the fall rather than enjoying the redemptive life that Christ died and rose again to achieve. Here's why I believe this is true.
When we look at the fall we should realize that it happens precisely because both Adam and Eve's God-given roles are usurped. While God approaches Adam in the garden falling the fall, Satan had approached Eve first undermining the God reflective roles of men and women. Adam had been the one who passed on the information God had given Him to Eve, thus in listening to the serpent, Eve is first and foremost rejecting what God had said. She is not trusting Him, but leaning on her own understanding and trusting the serpent. Second, she is rejecting what her husband has said. She is not trusting him that what he has said is reliable. Instead, again she is listening to the serpent and placing herself the determiner of truth and leading the relationship by handing some to her husband. This is not the role God has given her. At the same Adam also is listening, but he is not deceived by the what the serpent says. Yet he does not step up to the role to which God has called him. While Eve became deceived, Adam on other hand sinned fully knowing what he was doing. God had given him the command to pass on to Eve. He the head was given charge to assure that they followed God. However, God says "because you listened to your wife…." That is because you chose to listen to your wife, and let her lead rather than listen to me and lead the two of to trust in me…." Adam's failure was to lead in the midst of temptation. Thus, what we see is that the very first sin, the sin which creates the whole human problem, is one of role reversal. If we get this wrong as they did, then we open ourselves up to catastrophic problems just as they did! We are repeating the fall all over again!
We also see this issue of roles within the curse given by God to woman. Eve and all women's desire will be to rule over their husband. Eve stepped out from under Adam's headship and led in the relationship. Her tendency will now be the continuation of this. With the short-comings of the man, the woman will distrust his leadership and believe that she can do it better, that we need to reverse the created order of things. Yet in spite of such sinful desires within the woman, the man will rule over her. He will move in one of two directions both which will lead to the woman's slavery. He will either be domineering, forcing his will upon her without consideration of her best interest but his own, or he will become passive and she will be forced to do things that she was never meant to do and hate the man for it. Either way she ends up feeling oppressed and ruled over, which is the promise given by God.
In light of this we need to understand therefore that the gospel comes to restore this brokeness. In His life, death, and resurrection Jesus is serving his bride for her benefit. He reveals the sacrificial nature of what headship is meant to be. It is not about domineering to get our own way that all would bow to us. it is not about passivity in which that man gives up his responsibility for a life that lacks it. Rather it is a call to step up and lead with sacrificial love keeping the best interests of the one being led in mind. The problem with egalitarianism and the gospel is that it leaves us as believers still enslaved to the effects of the fall. It eliminates some of what God intended to redeem us from practically!
Jeff, my only question about what you wrote here (and what I've read from other complementarian writers) is what was the first sin? Was it role reversal or eating from the forbidden tree? I think the Bible makes it clear that the first sin was eating from the forbidden tree, which was a willful choice to disbelieve / disobey God's word. If so, then the role reversal issue you (and others) bring up is either not the issue at all or not a sin in and of itself.
How would you respond?
The first/original sin is the de-godding of God (using Carson's term) through the distrust and rejection of God's word/command. '...the serpent said to the woman, "you will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" ' (Gen 3:4-5). It was the temptation, desire, and willful act to displace God. The gender role reversal is part of a flow from this.
Anthony, I don't disagree with you. But Jeff and complementarians like Kostenberger believe "Adam and Eve ... chose to abandon their God-ordained gender roles, which resulted in their fall" (God, Marriage, and Family, 313). In other words, role reversal (or abandonment) was the CAUSE of the fall, not the result of the fall.
How can this be? Either role reversal did not take place before the fall or role reversal is not sinful in and of itself. Is there a third option I'm not recognizing here?
This sort of question arises no matter what you think the first sin was. Augustine raises it, and I'm not sure he's completely satisfied with his own answer. If we identify what the first sin is, we then can ask what caused the first sin. Was that a sin? Obviously not. But then how can something that's not sinful cause something that is? Once you settle that question, I'm sure you'll have your answer to your more specific one, but that's a much more general issue lying behind it that has nothing to do with gender issues.
In Augustine's case, he was thinking it was pride that caused the eating of the fruit. But isn't pride itself the first sin? So the eating isn't the first sin. The pride is. But what caused the pride? He says nothing did, at least no efficient cause. Its explanation is a final cause or goal that Eve and then Adam had in their wanting something less good than God wanted for them. But others have answered differently, and it's all tied up with views of God's sovereignty and human freedom, not with gender issues.
Jeremy,
I hear you. I don't agree with Kostenberger and other complementarians who say that "abandoning their God-ordained gender roles" before the Fall caused Adam and Eve to sin. I don't think gender issues are even in play in this passage. While I do agree that God created distinction in function as part of Creation, I just don't see the exegetical warrant to conclude that the fall was precipitated by a gender role issue.
That being said, I am open to correction on this. I briefly corresponded with Dr. Kostenberger about this, and because of his time constraints he was only able to point me to CBMW. But, I didn't find anything there that addressed my question.
Tom, I can't speak for others. However, in addition to my earlier comment, I take it from passages like Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1a; and 1 Tim 2:11-15 that gender role reversal, in and of itself - specifically in the contexts of marriage and church, where these passages are set - is contrary to and rejection/disobedience of God's word/command.
And, Anthony, I agree with you. That's why I disagree with those who say role reversal was the issue or cause of the Fall.
Anthony,
Like Tom, I struggle with making role reversal the central element of the Fall, rather than an element of it. I have definitely heard a lot of sermons which just eisegete the heck out of Genesis 3 to make it all about Eve not checking with Adam, etc. rather than about her willful diminishment and distortion of God's Word.
Tom, Rachael... we are on the same page on this. Blessings.
JL,
"When we look at the fall we should realize that it happens precisely because both Adam and Eve's God-given roles are usurped."
You are making an assumption here through your interpretation of the text. Assumption shouldn't take the place of facts.
"While God approaches Adam in the garden falling the fall, Satan had approached Eve first undermining the God reflective roles of men and women."
Again, you are making another assumption here. The text says nothing about why God approached Adam first though Eve sinned first. We do have the facts that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, and these tow facts are given to us by Eve herself and Paul in 1 Tim 2. Now with those facts in mind, and the fact that also Adam is blamed for sin entering into the world (Romans), it is perfectly reasonable to understand that Adam was a rebel (which Amos even says) and since he was a rebel while Eve was not since she was deceived, therefore God appraoched the rebel because as a rebel his sin was much more grievous. The distinction made here based on the facts then are that Adam was a rebel, he sinned intentionaly, while Eve was not, and there is no distinction made about "roles" since there are no facts about any such distinction.
"Adam had been the one who passed on the information God had given Him to Eve,"
Another assumption. Why is it that comp theology is almost always based on assumtion and supposed implications? Why ca'tn comp theology just look to the facts? The fact is Eve said God told her (actualy "them") not to eat. That is a fact, and there is no evidence to prove that her testimony was false - another fact.
"thus in listening to the serpent, Eve is first and foremost rejecting what God had said."
She was deceived by the serpent - she said so, Paul said so, but Adam flat out rejected God's command because he rebelled against Gid by sinning with eyes wide open. Being deceived into sinning and sinning with eyes wide open are very two different things. It's not a wonder Adam's sin nature brought sin into the world - he was a failure and rebel for crying out loud.
"She is not trusting Him, but leaning on her own understanding and trusting the serpent."
She didn't trust what God told her and the serpent deceived her. I won't post it all here, but when the story is followed closey, one can see whyt she was deceived wich included her husband's involvement.. It was a seious shame what happened to her because of the serpent and her husband (who blamed her for his own rebellion lol!)
"Second, she is rejecting what her husband has said."
You cannot make this claim without proof that Adam told her anything. The only proof we have is she said, God said and that nothings disproves her testimony. Logicaly it is not possible to get around this when the facts are on the table.
"She is not trusting him that what he has said is reliable. Instead, again she is listening to the serpent and placing herself the determiner of truth and leading the relationship by handing some to her husband."
A deceived woman gave fruit to her husband, we are not talking about some woman who knew exactly what she was doing - no that describes Adam, not her. And to call her deception "leading" is adding to scripture. Eve did not say she was leading Adam, God did not say she was leading Adam and Paul certainly said no such things. It's almmost as if you read a different book.
"This is not the role God has given her. At the same Adam also is listening, but he is not deceived by the what the serpent says."
WHO said that she was "leading" the relationship? Paul? God? Adam?Not one word in the Bible avout that. It is a 100% lie because as a facts it does not exist in the pagaes of scripture.
"Yet he does not step up to the role to which God has called him."
More adding to scripture, since there no proof that Adam's role was to his wife. What chp and verse tells us such a thing?
"While Eve became deceived, Adam on other hand sinned fully knowing what he was doing."
I finally agree with you on something.
"God had given him the command to pass on to Eve."
Did God say to Adam, pass my command on to her? Did Eve say that Adam was suppose to pass the command onto her? Did Paul say it? Who said this to you?
"He the head was given charge to assure that they followed God."
See, here we go. You bring the term "head" ito your interpreting Gen 3. Well, if your understanding of Eph 5 and 1 Co 11 is wrong, most assurdely then your understanding of Gen 3 id wrong. But I won't go down that road on Eph 5 or 1 Co 11, not yet..
"However, God says "because you listened to your wife…." That is because you chose to listen to your wife, and let her lead rather than listen to me and lead the two of to trust in me…."
Yes, Adam listened to the voice of his wife because the scripture actualy says he did! There's a fact! :) The account we have recorded is when she was talking to the serpent, therefore Adam listened to the voice of his wife while she spoke to the serpent. Those are the very facts we do have. But again, notice while God said that he listened to his wife's voice He DID NOT say that Eve was leading the relationship or whatevere. What God said is important and so is what He did not say.
"Adam's failure was to lead in the midst of temptation."
Adam's failure was not only in letting his wife be deceived by the serpent because he knew exactly what the serpent was doing to God's command (one can follow God's words to Adam and the serpent's and see the twist the serpent did)but his failure was also in rebellion sice he knew better. And again, there's no word on him being assigned to lead her, but there is word on his failure and being a rebel, in Amos and Romans.
"Thus, what we see is that the very first sin, the sin which creates the whole human problem, is one of role reversal."
It's impossbile to read this from Genesis itself, but if one takes their interpretaions of others texts and incorporates them into Genesis then one can come to think that such is the case. The question now is, what else have you assumed from other texts and then taking those assumptions, and added them to Genesis?
"If we get this wrong as they did, then we open ourselves up to catastrophic problems just as they did! We are repeating the fall all over again!"
You conclusion began with unprovable premise and so it ends with a false note.
JL,
"We also see this issue of roles within the curse given by God to woman. Eve and all women's desire will be to rule over their husband."
The scripture clearly and plainly as light of day says that her desire would be for her husband, and since we know that she was deceived therefore not a rebel, therefore she did not have a sin nature, guess what - her desire then must be good! If her nature is still intact unlike Adam's then her desire for her husband would be a positive desire, a healthy one, though since out of his sin of rebellion or having a rebellious nature, God tells her that he shall rule over her. Ofcourse since he has a bad nature his rule would be negative.
It's amazing all the things that have been put at Eve's feet and without proof or evidece.
"Eve stepped out from under Adam's headship and led in the relationship."
Says who? Tell me who said this to you. Who told you thatshe stepped out from under Adam's 'headship'? Did God tell this to you in Genesis, and if so may you point it out to me so that I may read it for myself? Did Paul tell you this in one of his letter? Please show me where. You cannot establish this as fact without a witness. Please provide for me a witness, and ontop of that I need a second witnesses (the biblical mandate for a fact to be established). But I'll take one for now, and scripture is a great witness that testfies to what is true and what is not. Help me out here.
Red,
What you charge Jeff for doing, i.e. bad exegesis, you plainly do so yourself.
For example, "[Eve's] desire then must be good! If her nature is still intact unlike Adam's then her desire for her husband would be a positive desire, a healthy one."
Contrary to your assertion, there is really nothing good, positive, nor healthy about Eve's "desire" for her husband. The Hebrew term for “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found in the OT, but it re-appears again in Gen 4:7 (in a statement that closely parallels 3:16) -- where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain's murder of his brother, that "sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you." Sin's desire is to dominate/control Cain, but he is to master/resist it -- which he immediately fails to do, by murdering Abel (4:8). Going back to Eve, her "desire" is a desire to dominate/manipulate/control her husband, i.e. she will no longer willingly submit to his leadership but will want to rule him instead. So, from here we have the beginning of the battle of the sexes.
Your assertion that Eve "was deceived therefore not a rebel" is another example of eisegesis. Why then did God punish her if she is not a rebel?
The point is that both Adam and Eve sinned against God by not trusting and obeying his word, but instead doubted his word and goodness to them, distorted his commands, and wanted to "be like God" (3:5b).
You can and should check/consult reliable commentaries if you still think otherwise.
Anthony,
"Contrary to your assertion, there is really nothing good, positive, nor healthy about Eve's "desire" for her husband. The Hebrew term for “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found in the OT, but it re-appears again in Gen 4:7 (in a statement that closely parallels 3:16) -- where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain's murder of his brother, that "sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you." Sin's desire is to dominate/control Cain, but he is to master/resist it -- which he immediately fails to do, by murdering Abel (4:8).Going back to Eve, her "desire" is a desire to dominate/manipulate/control her husband, i.e. she will no longer willingly submit to his leadership but will want to rule him instead. So, from here we have the beginning of the battle of the sexes."
I'm aware of the Gen 4:17 theory. I've studied this debate for over 15 years. Let's not forget that the term for "desire" is also used in Song of Solomon with a positive meaning. Anyhow, none of this has to do with my original point.
"Your assertion that Eve "was deceived therefore not a rebel" is another example of eisegesis. Why then did God punish her if she is not a rebel?"
Please answer these questions:
1) Was Adam a rebel? Did he go against God willingly?
2) Was Eve a rebel like Adam or was she deceived according to her testimony and Paul's, unlike Adam who was not deceived?
3) Is there a difference in sin between one who sins out of rebellion and one who sins out of being deceived?
4) What was Eve's punishment?
Look at Gen 3:14 & 17. We see that the facts are that on account of the actions of the serpent, who deceived and the ctions of Adam who sinned without being deceived, therefore rebeled, God pronounces curses but no curses are pronounced on account of Eve's actions. Also Jesus called Satan a murderer from the beginning for what he did to Eve since it was only Eve he deceived and not Adam.
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because YOU have done this,
“Cursed are you
17 To Adam he said, “Because YOU listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
"The point is that both Adam and Eve sinned against God by not trusting and obeying his word, but instead doubted his word and goodness to them, distorted his commands, and wanted to "be like God" (3:5b)."
Yes, both Adam and Eve did sin, but my point is that they each sinned differently. Eve did not trust God at the moment she became deceived but Adam on the other hand knew better, he knew that he could trust God because he was not deceived, yet he sinned anyway. And the punishment that followed was exactly what God said would follow - death. Now to say that God added more punishment for the sin of eating is to add words to God's mouth. God added curses based on the actions of a deceiver (satan) and a rebel (Adam) but nothing Eve did brought about any kind of curse. She was not like the serpent because she was not a deceiver and she was not like Adam, a rebel. There is not a spot of proof that she had a sin nature like Adam or was like the serpent/the devil. As Jesus said, she was murdered.
Red,
Where in Scripture does it say that "Jesus said, she (Eve) was murdered"? Kindly help point me to the right passage(s).
We certainly have very different ways of interpreting and understanding Scripture - this much is very clear.
How one can apply the positive sexual meaning of the term "desire" (teshuqah) as used in the Song of Solomon 7:10, into the context of Gen 3, even if one ignores the following usage in Gen 4:7, escapes me somewhat. I'm aware that some translate teshugah as "turning", but still find the interpretation unconvincing.
We agree that both Adam and Eve sinned. Further, Adam’s sin was conscious and willful, with devastating consequences for the whole of humanity (Rom 5:12).
However, Eve's sin as a result of being deceived does not preclude her from being a transgressor/rebel against God's word and command - "... Adam was not deceived, but [Eve] was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:14, ESV). Eve was fully aware of God's command to both Adam and herself - '[Eve replied] to the serpent, "We may eat..., but God did said, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden... or you will die.'"(Gen 3:2-3). Further, "When [she] saw that the fruit... [was] pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to [Adam]" (v6).
Now, what was the temptation/inducement/motivation behind this? Is it not "when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (v5)? Even if Eve was not a rebel like Adam, she is still a rebel/transgressor against God by disobeying his command - which she knew full well - for her desire to be like God, i.e. to de-god God, was clear. Your assertion/point that Eve did not have a sin nature like Adam is a moot point, if not confusing.
Regarding Eve's punishment, if God's declaration/judgement that he "will surely multiply [her] pain in childbearing" not be sufficient, perhaps her banishment along with Adam from Eden and God's presence and eventual death would suffice as punishment? Otherwise, why also banish her if "she was deceived therefore not a rebel, therefore she did not have a sin nature"?
Perhaps my interpretation and understanding of Scripture is simply to you "[not] correct, in the very least. At most, it's not even biblically provable. It's just a theory, nothing more." In any case, I would be appreciative if you would kindly point me to the right passage(s) where "Jesus said, she was murdered" -- I'm intrigue. Thanks.
Anthony,
John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
The consequence of eating the fruit was death, as God specificaly said and Satan got Eve to eat through deceiving her, so he was a murderer. But to say that Satan murdered Adam while Adam sinned willfully against God would be nonsensical. Nothing Satan said to Eve was true, everything he said was 100% lies, but Adam knew the serpent's claims were not true because he was not deceived and therefore he was not murdered. Adam knew the serpent was lying, and ate anyway, therefore he ate out of rebellion.
"How one can apply the positive sexual meaning of the term "desire" (teshuqah) as used in the Song of Solomon 7:10, into the context of Gen 3, even if one ignores the following usage in Gen 4:7, escapes me somewhat."
How one could apply either meaning of Gen 4:7 or sos is beyond me. I never said I applied the meaning of sos. Again, Gen 4:7 and sos, have nothing to do with my point. I've no further interest in discussing Gen 4:7 or sos.
"We agree that both Adam and Eve sinned. Further, Adam’s sin was conscious and willful, with devastating consequences for the whole of humanity (Rom 5:12)."
Yes, we agree they both sinned, but they sinned differently and since Adam's sin was out of rebellion unlike Eve's, humanity was effected because of him. Humanity was effected because of a rebel who knew better the entire time and not a deceived person who did not know better while in a state of deception. Humanity was not effected on behalf of someone who didn't know the difference between truth and lies due to being in a state of deception.
"However, Eve's sin as a result of being deceived does not preclude her from being a transgressor/rebel against God's word and command - "... Adam was not deceived, but [Eve] was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:14, ESV)."
While Eve's action (eating) as a result of being deceived does not preclude her from being a sinner it does preclude her from being a rebel against God. Hosea 6:7 "And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me." Eve did not act treacherously against God, she was DECEIVED, she didn't know better while in the state of deception. She knew better prior to being deceived but once she was in a state of deception, then she did not know better. Going through her words when she spoke to the serpent, one can see the point when she began to believe the serpent's lies. And just because she knew better BEFORE she ate does not mean that she knew better WHEN she ate. A deceived person does not know better because they don't believe the truth. When Eve ate she did not believe God.
In 1 Tim 2:14, Paul makes a switch and drops Eve's name. He is not talking about Eve in v14. He is saying that the one who he does not allow to teach which is the specific woman of v11, is presently deceived, in deception and presently in sin. He is not talking about a dead person, Eve. Paul was stopping a deceived person from teaching, he was not stopping a person who was teaching the truth or a dead person from teaching. Paul didn't want the deceived woman of v11 teaching, but rather he wanted her to learn. He was not stopping the truth from being taught through women, by stopping women from teaching, but rather he was stopping a deceived teacher from teaching.
In Gen 3, Eve tells us that she had been deceived, which can be marked, in her words to the serpent. At first she knew better, she told the serpent the command God had given directly to her, then she was deceived and didn't know better, and when speaking to God, she had come out of her deception. While talking to God she no longer believed the serpent's lies. Eve didn't stay deceived, but rather came out of her deception even idtentifying who the deceiver was.
The woman in 1 Tim 2:14 is deceived at the time Paul is writing, the same one who could still be saved through the childbirth since she was alive and not dead like Eve. Paul was stopping the woman of v11 from teaching because she was deceived and in sin.
Since Eve came out of her deception, as seen in Gen 3, Paul wasn't using her as an example for women to not teach. The universal principle of 1 Tim 2 is that deceived persons should not teach. And the context of false teachers is in Chapter 1.
Anthony,
"Even if Eve was not a rebel like Adam, she is still a rebel/transgressor against God by disobeying his command - which she knew full well - for her desire to be like God, i.e. to de-god God, was clear. Your assertion/point that Eve did not have a sin nature like Adam is a moot point, if not confusing."
My point about Eve not having a sin nature ties in with the reason why she ate, which was not the same reason why Adam ate and it also ties in with what I was originaly talking about - her desire for her husband in Gen 3. Both Adam and Eve have perfect natures upon being created, but one eats out of being deceived and the other out of treachery and rebellion. Now when we take the two facts, that one ate out of rebellion and the other out of deception and then look to Gen 3 where God tells Eve that her desire will be for her husband and her husband will rule over her we can see that her desire is a positive thing while her husband's rule a negative thing. Only Eve still had a perfect nature because she did not rebel against God, therefore there is no reason to think that her desire would be a negative thing.
"Regarding Eve's punishment, if God's declaration/judgement that he "will surely multiply [her] pain in childbearing" not be sufficient, perhaps her banishment along with Adam from Eden and God's presence and eventual death would suffice as punishment? Otherwise, why also banish her if "she was deceived therefore not a rebel, therefore she did not have a sin nature"?"
Eve's desire was for her husband, so she followed Adam out of the garden. Only Adam was kicked out. In v22 the definate article is provided and it is always provided throughout the creation and fall when speaking of just the singular man Adam. Check it out for your self. And who else but a rebel would reach out an also take from the tree of life? Rememeber, Eve is no longer deceived, she knew what the serpent did to her, she was murdered, she didn't rebel like Adam and she still has a perfect nature, so why would God kick her out? Since her nature was perfect, it wouldn't harm her to eat from the tree of life anyway and live in a perfect state forever, but it would certainly harm Adam.
Verse 23 shows that "the Adam" spoken of is just the male since he alone was taken from the ground which is also a repeat of Gen 3:19. Also Adam had to be literally thrown/driven out. And why? Because he was a REBEL, how obvious. If he wasn't a rebel he wouldn't have needed to be forced out of the garden.
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Gen 3: 19 By the sweat of your brow, you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;
"Perhaps my interpretation and understanding of Scripture is simply to you "[not] correct, in the very least. At most, it's not even biblically provable. It's just a theory, nothing more."
Here's an example for you - It cannot be proven that Eve was thrown out of the garden as Adam was. The evidence stacks high against Adam though. It's obvious he was thrown out and on so many accounts. But yet you want to theorize that Eve was thrown out too. Why bother though? What's the point? It's not a theory that Adam was kicked out, we all know that. Though the idea that Eve was kicked out too is nothing more than a theory :)
Red,
I guessed as much that you were referring to John 8:44 about Eve being murdered. My own understanding of Jesus saying that the devil "was a murderer from the beginning" in Jn 8:44 is linked to the devil inciting Cain to kill Abel (Gen 4:7 and 1 Jn 3:12) and "everyone who hates his brother is a murderer" (1 Jn 3:15) - with the control in both Jn 8:44 and 1 Jn 3:11-15 being who does one love. Nevertheless, Carson in his commentary on Jn 8:44 writes: "The devil was a murderer from the beginning, (is) probably a reference to the fall of Adam and Eve. By the success of his temptation, he robbed Adam of spiritual life, and through him brought death to the entire race (cf. Rom 5:12)" (p353). No doubt you would find this "nonsensical."
I can appreciate how you derived at some of your interpretation on Gen 3. Again, I think we can agree that both Adam and Eve sinned, and that Adam's sin was conscious and willful - thus a greater sin. However, I find your point and repeated emphasis on Eve being less culpable; her "desire" for Adam in 3:16 to be positive and healthy; and "Only Eve still had a perfect nature because she did not rebel against God" even after sinning against God, et al., to be intriguing, at best.
Your interpretation of Gen 3 and 1 Tim 2 has been revealing to me. For this I have to thank you - because it has helped me better see the robustness and integrity of the complementarian's side of the argument and exegesis (most but not all).
Both complementarian and egalitarian have different interpretation and understanding of Scripture in regard to the gender issue. I'm doubtful if there can be genuine reconciliation of the different doctrines before Christ's parousia. Still, I would hope that both sides would agree to disagree with ever more grace.
No doubt you would want to have the last word; so, I shall leave you to it, and with kind regards.
Anthony,
"Nevertheless, Carson in his commentary on Jn 8:44 writes: "The devil was a murderer from the beginning, (is) probably a reference to the fall of Adam and Eve. By the success of his temptation, he robbed Adam of spiritual life, and through him brought death to the entire race (cf. Rom 5:12)" (p353). No doubt you would find this "nonsensical."
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."
Eve saw that the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom and the reason being was because she believed the serpent's lie out of being deceived. This shows us that SHE was deceived by believing the serpent, but we don't have any evidence that Adam also believed the serpent/was deceived).
If anyone is going to claim that the serpent tempted Adam which necessitates that Adam believed the serpent's lies and became deceived then THEY MUST SHOW EVIDENCE. It doesn't matter what anyone claims if they have no evidence, period. My ultimate problem with the idea that Adam was "tempted" therefore he had to of believed the serpent is that it completely contradicts scripture.
Paul says Eve was deceived in 2 Co 11:3 (not 1 Tim 2), Eve says she was deceived (Gen 3), but no one ever claims that Adam was also deceived, in fact Paul states the opposite in 1 Tim 2 saying that Adam was not deceived, so the idea that Adam was deceived contradicts the Bible. Someone please tell me how he could have been tempted then into believing the serpent?! Yes, it's a nonsensical idea, absolutely. Help me out. What could possibly be so tempting about the serpent's words if Adam knew they were not true because he was not deceived? How then he could have been tempted in the first place makes no sense to me.
I repeat, what could possibly be so tempting about the serpent's words if Adam knew they were not true because he was not deceived? The only way for Adam to have been tempted by the serpent saying thay their eyes would be opened is if he believed the serpent and if he believed the serpent then he was deceived. If he was deceived then we have an idea/theory that contradicts Paul in 1 Tim 2.
If we find an idea that contradicts scripture then we don't have the correct understanding or idea.
If you should not respond then thank you for the discussion, Anthony :)
Red, I'll offer a final reply.
There is a difference between deceive and temptation. To mix/lump together the two without recognizing their difference is a mistake. For example, the apostle John writes: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn 1:8; cf. Gen 29:25; 1 Sam 19:17; et al). We'll be mistaken when we simply interchange the word deceive with tempt.
Importantly, we are told from Scripture that Jesus himself was tempted (not deceived) in every way by the devil during his ministry on earth, yet he did not sin - "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15; cf. Heb 2:8; Mt 4:1; Mk 1:3).
Scripture informs us that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived (Gen 3:13; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). I'm sure that Carson is not saying or implying otherwise when he wrote: "By the success of [the devil's] temptation, he robbed Adam of spiritual life, and through him brought death to the entire race (cf. Rom 5:12)" (p353).
Gen 3:1-6 describes Satan's temptation directly to Eve, but with Adam present - as indicated by "her husband who was with her" (v6). I submit that both Adam and Eve were tempted by the devil and they both fell for it, even if only Eve was deceived. Eve was tempted, and deceived, and she sinned. Adam was tempted, but not deceived, and he sinned consciously and willfully. Both Adam and Eve sinned against God by not trusting and obeying his word, but instead doubted his word and goodness to them, distorted his command, for they desired to "be like God" (3:5b). There is no biblical support, nor integrity, for your assertion that "Eve still had a perfect nature because she did not rebel against God", after she sinned! (and we shall agree to disagree on this, et al)
We are all tempted in one way or another everyday. And we are also sometimes/repeatedly deceived, often by self, through eisegesis, bad exegesis, presumption, etc., not to mentioned our own very deceitful, sinful nature (Jer 17:9; 1 Jn 1:8; cf. Rom 3:9-12).
As I said, this is my final reply; still with regards.
Anthony,
I understand there is a difference between being deceived and being tempted. The questions here though are WHAT was "the temptation" or WHAT tempted Adam and WHAT tempted Eve, and were they both tempted by the same thing or not?
"Both Adam and Eve...but instead doubted his word and goodness to them, distorted his command, for they desired to "be like God" (3:5b)."
Jesus was tempted, yes, and we are told WHAT the devil tempted him with. In Genesis we are told what the serpent tempted Eve with. We are told what the temptation of the serpent was in Genesis 3:4 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” What did the serpent tempt Adam with though?
Yes, the serpent tempted Eve directly, while her husband was with her. But do we know WHAT tempted Adam to eat? We do know WHAT tempted Eve to eat since we know that she saw that the fruit could make her wise. Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom." But the scripture does not provide us with WHAT tempted Adam to eat. I don't think we can claim that Adam ALSO saw that the fruit could make him wise. I think that a mistake is made if we make a claim they he too saw the fruit in the same way as Eve did. To me it sounds as if Carson is saying that Adam saw the fruit in the same way as Eve did and if that is the case then he would be saying that Adam too was deceived.
So was Adam tempted at all? I can go with "he was tempted to disobey" but I cannot say WHAT exactly tempted him, other than rebellion since he did not look at the fruit in the same way that his wife did, and reason being because he was not deceived like she was.
So while I'm NOT okay with claiming that Adam desired to be like God because then I would have to think they he believed the serpent just like Eve did, I do feel fine however claiming that he desired to eat the fruit, or was tempted to eat the fruit because he certainly wasn't forced to eat it and because we know that he dealt treachedously with God, and I also feel fine claiming that he desired to disobey simply because he was as a rebel. And in this way then, I am fine with saying that he was "tempted" to eat. Adam was tempted to eat because he was a rebel.
What the serpent had said to Eve was a lie. It was a lie that they could become like God since God doesn't know evil in the way that the serpent was saying he did. Eve believed the lie, Adam did not, so it still makes no sense to me how Adam could be tempted by the lie if he didn't believe the lie and Genesis does not tell us that he believed the lie.
Hope this explains where I am coming from.
Thank you, Anthony for the dicussion. I enjoyed it :)
Anthony,
For a different argument on the definition of "desire" and the curse, see Wendy Alsup's piece here: http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2012/04/somewhat-scholarly-analysis-of-genesis.html
I and a lot of other complementarian women view this as a better interpretation that gets to the heart of both the curse, and the consequences of the more "traditional" interpretation of that verse in terms of womens' marginilization in comp. churches.
The problem, per se, isn't that TGC is complementarian. The problem is the continual lack of graciousness to those who disagree. And that's what this video sadly fails to address. It starts from Piper's earlier statement that egalitarians are going to get the gospel wrong, or Keller (who I generally respect) asserting that the gospel is somehow so weak that it needs to be "protected" from egalitarianism, to Carson claiming that anyone who dares apply hermeneutics to 1 Tim 2 is deliberately and willfully contradicting God (funny, I'm sure all three gentlemen apply plenty of hermeneutics to that whole "saved through childbearing" thing). And that last accusation is repeated time and time again, unchecked, by everyone on down to the commenters on this site.
I'm torn. On the one hand, I wish they leaders would stop saying this. On the other hand, if they really believe that egalitarians are getting the gospel wrong, leaving it unprotected, and shaking their fists at God...perhaps they should just drop the cognitive dissonance and admit the logical conclusion of those statements: that egalitarians are not, in fact, actually Christians. As asinine as it is for some here to excommunicate egalitarians via comment, at least there's a certain honesty in that.
Contrary to what is alluded to in this video, and to what Kathleen Nielson explicitly states in hers, many of us don't want this issue to "go away" or for TGC to "drop it." A little Christian charity would be enough.
Also, as an egalitarian in a complementarian church who submits to that structure, I resent the defensiveness embedded in the notion that anytime the two groups come together, complementarians always lose. But then, I seem to be invisible in the TGC paradigm (doubly so as a single woman).
Hi Megan,
Apparently you didn't watch (or listen to) the video. Dr. Keller does directly speak about graciousness. Further, I don't believe that there is a lack of graciousness by complimentarians but I would insist that there is such a lack among the "egalitarians". I think the mischaracterizations of the conversation in your post, complete with sarcasm and arrogance and a complete lack of charity while hypocritically demanding it for your position, are eloquent testimony to that.
Finally, I'm not even sure I believe in the kind of "softly-softly" approach advocated by Dr. Keller in the video. I believe in graciousness toward people but not for wrong ideas, especially ideas that attack the veracity of God's Word. In my experience, as someone who has been forcefully harangued by feminists professors and accused of psychological problems for holding to the Biblical position by others, I don't believe that subtly will make an impression or be respected. I believe the Bible-believers need to speak up forcefully and clearly about the issue and I applaud the GC for taking their stand. Other ministries that do not take that stand will find themselves undermined by the disdain for the practical authority of scripture that the worldly feminists smuggle in with their "egalitarianism."
Well said, pastor John Carpenter.
No. Not well said. He's simply proving Megan's point. We want the egals to be gracious because we think they're wrong, but we justify our own rudeness, harshness, and in many cases outright lack of understanding toward others. Megan, I think Mr. Carpenter is part of the problem and I will wholeheartedly apologize on behalf of complementarians for his lack of grace toward you and other women here.
John,
It's clear that you had past bad experiences with egalitarians (or "feminists" as you persist in pejoratively calling them), and in multiple threads you've insisted on reading that baggage into any comment that any egalitarian makes, regardless of whether it's actually there or not. Thus, it's not surprising that you read arrogance into my comment, regardless of whether it's actually there or not. Your scorched earth style of arguing does not serve you or your position well.
I'm not arrogant. I'm not anything other than genuinely put out that men who have done, and will continue to do much for the gospel--men who I respect--have instead decided to pour considerable time, resources, influence and intellectual capital into making sure that my faith is always viewed as somewhat less than worthy simply because I embrace a different perspective on gender roles.
John,
This reply, and your many other comments, absolutely do personify the ungracious spirit Keller warns against; they do little to advance this discussion, and much to harm it. I and others would be blessed if you'd consider Prov. 10:19 and just take a break for a while.
Amen, Rachel!
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring, correcting his opponents with gentleness."2 Tim 2:24-25.
"In my experience, as someone who has been forcefully harangued by feminists professors and accused of psychological problems for holding to the Biblical position by others, I don't believe that subtly will make an impression or be respected."
John, I'm sorry that you had to endure such an experience. Thanks for holding fast to God's Word in the face of such egalitarian harrassment.
Puleez. Harassment? Surely you gest?
Megan and Rachel, I appreciate both of you and I'm a complementarian. I apologize for this harsh treatment from men who are called to much better behavior toward their sisters in the Lord.
Lou G.,
Do you deny Pastor John Carpenter's experience when he wrote:
"In my experience, as someone who has been forcefully harangued by feminists professors and accused of psychological problems for holding to the Biblical position by others, I don't believe that subtly will make an impression or be respected."
Of course not, but no one here has been guilty of that. So he's overlaying his past experience with these harsh feminist women onto every woman or man who shows a tinge of egalitarianism. That's not really very helpful. (and also seems to display a spirit of bitterness and unforgiveness that he, as a pastor in the church, might want to look into).
Looking at John's comments, he seems to be the sort who does nothing but haranguing and accusing.
Well said Megan.
I full agree with this article, however, I do not see where Megan has been arrogant or ungracious in her post. The hardest part about speaking about these things online, is that you cannot see peoples emotions and sometimes its hard to tell where they are coming from. I believe that there is arrogance and "lack of graciousness" on both sides. My person experience has been that many egalitarians see one's unwillingness to compromise in an area, as arrogance. Like, saying that I fully side with complementarianism because I believe it is the right way, is me being arrogant... while all egalitarinist would desire that I agree fully with them. We can't confuse arrogance with confidence. No one ever thinks that they are wrong. I am fully confident that this is the way.. that complementarianism reflects Christ in the best way possible. If you disagree and choose to live your life that way, then thats okay. But... it affects everything... so almost every piece of advice that I give regarding; raising children, disagreements with spouses, or even womanhood will stem from this. No matter how graciously put, the disagreement itself can be an offense and therefore look like arrogance.
I am a complementarian. But what is interesting to me is that I don't see a lot of practical differences between healthy egalitarian marriages and healthy complementarian marriages. Has anyone else noticed this?
Brad I think you bring up a good point, practically on a day to day basis a Christ centered complementarian marriage looks very similar to an egalitarian marriage. A complementarian male will desire to love his wife like Christ loved the church, he will not assert his leadership over whats for dinner and what they will watch on TV (based upon his own preferences). It always boggles my mind when people try to make complementarians out to be a bunch of overbearing chauvinistic white males who hate women. Real biblical complementarians will have a high respect for women, and will desire to bring joy, hope, peace and love to them through their leadership.
This is an interesting observation.
Adrian Warnock in denouncing Jared Wilson & Doug Wilson's claim that male authority and female submission are "erotic necessities" in the marital bed writes, "...I believe that even outside the bedroom a good complementation marriage should to the outsider look very much like a good egalitarian one." adrianwarnock.com “your-authority-ends-at-the-bedroom-door-doug-wilson-jared-wilson-and-rachel-held-evans-controversy”
Mary Kassian concurs. girlsgonewise.com “mutuality-is-the-cha-cha-of-complementarity” comment section
If complementarians are not functioning hierarchically but functioning with a mutual and reciprocal responsibility to love, respect, sacrifice, serve, honor, care for, guard, etc. then certainly they will appear to be healthy functioning egalitarians.
Russell Moore recently rebuked complementarians for being functional egalitarians and made a call for a return to patriarchy. There is clearly something Moore and those who agree with him are calling for to deter complementarian marriages from functioning as healthy egalitarian marriages.
The GC recently ran an article claiming functioning egalitarians are "dysfunctional complementarians" explaining that a non-hierarchical marriage is "an unbiblical reversal of the creational norm." thegospelcoalition.org “debatable-is-complementarianism-another-word-for-patriarchy”
Questions it seems hierarchical-complementarians or patriarchal proponents need to ask are:
What specifically can dysfunctional complementarians do so as not to appear as functional egalitarians? How, specifically, can we ensure the hierarchical structure in our marriage is not lost on a watching world? our children? fellow believers? What should we wear or what practices should we implement to ensure that the hierarchical structure and male authority is prominent? What should dysfunctional complementarians do so as not to appear to "disdain authority" and be mistaken as functional egalitarians?
I would commend any of the books written by J. Ligon Duncan on the topic of men and women in the church and in the home. He is very clear and biblical with regard to male elder rule/head of household and appropriate women's roles, without reading in patriarchy's negative aspects.
One thing I've noticed recently is that the female plenary speakers at TGC's women's conference were largely from the PCA. Compared with the SBC and Baptists in general, the PCA is a very, very small slice. Yet, generally their women are empowered to flourish in all spheres of life, and by extension I'm not at all surprised at the richness that they brought to the conference.
Duncan is excellent example of teaching that addresses complementarianism, male and female roles, and the outworking of the scriptural teaching - from beginning to end -- in the church, the home and society. In fact, I read that leaders in the SBC had recently contact the PCA's Education and Publication ministry to obtain the Biblical Foundations Cirriculum on which the PCA's model for women's ministry is based. Check him out. I think you'll like it. And may also be interested to know that most of his material was co-authored with Susan Hunt, who has been an icon for teaching on women's ministry for as long as I can remember.
My take is that the SBC is sort of new to complimentarian doctrine, compared with the PCA, which had to draw the lines several decades ago when they broke off with the mainline PCUSA. So, you have scholars like Duncan who have battled all the angles for decades and who have gone thru the growing pains that the YRRs are just now confronting themselves with. Just my observation.
Great observations about the denominational nuances. I've seen the same things, but I would never have been able to pinpoint it like you have.
Really appreciate this video because it begins to address a lot of the questions that I have as a self-identified complementarian woman. It piqued so many different responses in me, but I'll offer just one.
Keller is spot on in his analysis of how gender issues relate to a larger hermeneutical approach and the danger of misunderstanding the Gospel, but I wonder if we could turn the tables on ourselves for a minute. Because I think we can be just as guilty of this as complementarians.
Isn't it possible that as we (even inadvertently) make male/female dynamics THE defining paradigm of our churches and homes, we will by necessity abuse texts of scripture that don't fit our cultural norms (like Deborah, Philip's daughters, etc)? When we insist that headship is THE defining structure of reality, emphasizing authority over love or grace for example, we too will get the Gospel wrong because we have failed to let the Scripture speak fully and completely. Hermeneutical bias goes both ways.
This from a SAHM who affirms the headship of her husband.
Good words. Again, I note that the discussion jumped immediately to roles as a function of gender/marriage/church. It seems like there's some conflation there that could lead to extreme arguments around leadership being exclusive to men in all circles, rather than just the church.
Once again, I'm hoping for a discussion that considers the complementarity of men and women to reflect character of God in way that doesn't supercede roles, but it is rather the foundation on which those roles (which are seasonal) are expressed.
Without complementarianism, TGC will morph into this view of the Gospel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM9Y5S3UYi8
This comment is very confusing to me. She is preaching a gospel of redemption.. what are your qualms with her sermon?
I have no agenda here, but have an honest question:
If complementarians believe that male headship/female submission as Carson, Keller, and Piper describe it is built into creation as God's perfect will for gender relations-and was built into creation before the fall-how do they see this playing out in the final resurrection and new creation.
While I realize that no one knows the details of how the new creation will function, wouldn't their logic necessitate the idea that even in the new creation, male headship would be the paradigm?
Again, I am not being argumentative, I have simply never seen this issue addressed and would be interested to hear someone address it.
EMK,
I can only guess, but since there will be no marriage / families in the new creation and the church will be united with its head in Christ and have no need to elders / pastors, there will be no need for complementarianism.
Just a thought.
No need for complementarianism? No marriage? There will indeed be marriage: Marriage between Christ and the church. Complementarianism will be fulfilled, as the Church meets and submits to Christ, her husband.
"Complementarianism will be fulfilled, as the Church meets and submits to Christ, her husband."
Mackman,
I've actually read an egalitarian who wrote an argument that Jesus Christ submits to the Church. It's been a couple of years since I read that article, but I think it was by a Lutheran affiliated with CBE.
Christ never submits to the Church. He lovingly cares for her and sacrificed himself for her, which Paul explicitly links to the husband's role in marriage. To say otherwise is to blatantly disregard Paul's words on the matter, as well as to distort the very idea of authority and submission.
What I find most disheartening in all this is the lack of understanding that there are many women (and men) who do not fall neatly into either camp. As a result, we feel increasingly alienated from the church.
I have no interest in being in a mainline denomination. I believe in the authority of the Scriptures and am unwilling to compromise on the essentials of the faith.
But I am also unwilling to be in a church where a woman cannot even read Scripture and freely utilize her gifts. (And I'm not talking about being a senior pastor.) My husband and I do not see "joyful flourishing" of women in such places. I read over and over again that this is supposed to happen in complementarian churches, but I don't see it. Instead, I see a slippery slope that leads to women being more and more restricted and marginalized.
So where do I raise my daughter? I won't raise her in a church that doesn't preach the Gospel and doesn't believe in the authority of Scripture. Nor will I raise her in a church where she does not see women actively participating in the life of the church, including during the weekly service.
I wish people at TGC and those who comment here could look beyond the angry feminist egalitarian stereotype and realize that there are MANY of us who aren't anything like that but who have deep concerns with complementarianism and the way it usually plays out. We do not wish to abandon the Gospel. We are not interested in twisting Scripture to suit our own needs. The more I study the Scriptures the more I question if the complementarian view is correct. I think there is much that its proponents ignore or explain away. It would be much easier for me to simply accept that it is true. But I can't. There is too much that doesn't make sense to me. It is not as straightforward as comps seem to want it to be.
Frankly, what concerns me more than anything is someday I am going to stand before my Lord and Savior and give an account for how I used the gifts He gave me (discernment, leadership, and teaching). I answer to Christ, not leaders of a movement or a website.
It truly has gotten to the point where I wonder if my husband, my daughter and I would be happier and more spiritually fruitful if we simply left the institutional church.
Thank you for writing, Sarah. Based on how you described yourself, you might have really enjoyed TGC's women's conference. Or you might enjoy our upcoming national conference, too, if you're interested in connecting with and learning from thousands of other women finding outlets in the institutional church to exercise gifts such as discernment, leadership, and teaching.
Thanks for your reply, Collin. But honestly I would never fit into a conference like that (nor would other women like me). That was the point of my original comment. It isn't a lack of education or understanding of these views. Spending more time with complementarians is not going to solve my problem.
Please forgive me for misunderstanding, Sarah. I'm not sure what you mean with language like "freely utilize" in terms of gifts if you still restrict women from the senior pastorate. Since you have problems with both "sides" of the debate, I'm not familiar with how you determine what Scripture teaches about roles in the local church. Even among complementarianism there is wide variety of practices, as Keller points out in the video. I've never attended a complementarian church that would restrict women from reading Scripture (or leading worship in song or filling any number of other public roles in a Sunday service). You specifically mentioned your three gifts as teaching, leadership, and discernment. I cited the women's conference as an example where thousands of women who share those same gifts discuss how they "freely utilize" them for the greater good of the body of Christ. They don't serve as pastors or elders, but thankfully God has entrusted the rest of us in the church (I'm neither an elder nor a pastor) to do the work of ministry, too.
Hi Collin,
Thanks for your reply.
My issue is that I find neither the complementarian view or the egalitarian view completely convincing.
I find the complementarian view too restrictive based on what I see in the Scriptures. Looking at the entire NT in terms of what Jesus and Paul did as well as what they said/wrote... If they were here with us today, I simply don't see them putting restrictions on women today that complementarians do.
On the egalitarian side, I haven't read anything yet that completely convinces me regarding the "roles" of pastor/elder. What I'm currently think through is whether the problems with this issue has more to do with the way we "do church" today than anything.
I hope that helps explain a bit. It's hard to address such a huge topic in a few paragraphs (as you well know!).
Warmly,
Sarah
I really identify with a lot of Sarah's comments above, except that my husband and I don't have any desire to leave "the institutional church."
I want to raise my (as yet nonexistent) children in a church environment where women and men are both respected, discipled and encouraged to use their gifts to build up the church, serve the community and reach the lost. I hear some complementarians talk aobut how women shouldn't use their gifts in any public way in the church (including public reading of scripture, prayer, leading worship, etc). I've experienced the church environment for more than a decade where my love for my church existed alongside the uneasy feeling that something was wrong with me because I was excluded from discipleship training and many types of opportunities to use my gifts (as were other women). Women who facilitated in small group settings were "assistants" and men were "leaders" (we wouldn't want to call a woman a "leader," except in very narrow contexts). While the pastor told me that both could be considered "deacons" biblically, the men were clearly more deacons than the women because the pastor would train them, seek counsel from them and invest in them in ways that he didn't with the women who served similarly.
The focus of my marriage is loving unity, along with mutual service and respect. A "he leads and loves, she submits & respects" paradigm is not fundamental to our partnership.
Yet, at this point in my study, I also don't think that the eldership is open to women. I'm absolutely committed to the authority of scripture and want the gospel to be paramount in my church community, preaching, service, etc.
I'm hoping that in the new church I'm part of many of those dreams will be realized.
Sarah,
I don't know about happier, except per se it shouldn't necessarily be your goal in the first place, but if by "institutional church" you mean what I think, no, you could not be more spiritually fruitful. I urge you to realize that.
I also think you should consider the possibility you are imposing some false choices on yourself, e.g. between a church "where a woman cannot even read Scripture" and a mainline church that compromises the essentials of the faith. I've never been in a church that forbade women reading Scripture and I've been in some pretty conservative churches. For that matter not quite all mainline pastors or congregations make the compromises you rightly fear. There are options. Dropping out of The Church is not one of them.
John Piper stated that he would not allow a woman to read Scriptures from the pulpit. I know there are many church leaders who believe the same way. And if they don't now, they will be impacted by sites like TGC and videos such as the one above. I've seen moderately conservative churches move to becoming increasingly more restrictive toward women's functioning in the church. It's like churches are racing toward one end of the spectrum or the other. While they discuss in the video the variety of ways that complementarianism will play out in different churches, from what I've observed churches are becoming more restrictive.
I think church options depend on where you live. Where I live, the choices are generally very liberal or increasingly narrow complementarianism.
No, I could not drop out of The Church if I wanted to. I am eternally secure in my place in The Church because of the blood of Christ and the grace of God that was bestowed on me. But I think there are many people dropping out of the local, institutional church because they can find no place to rest and serve. If a couple is not full on complementarian, how would they fit into a church where their views are seen as a threat to the Gospel (as explained in this video). If my husband and I basically have an egalitarian marriage, how would we be free to be ourselves if we know the leadership would consider our views a threat to the Gospel? Why would we knowingly put ourselves in a situation where we know that our views will be seen as a threat?
And while happiness should not be anyone's ultimate goal in settling in a church home, I do not think it is wrong to expect to be happy in a church. Who in the world would want to be in a church where they were unhappy?
Hey Sarah,
Do you have any idea where Piper may have made the comment about women reading the scriptures in a mixed congregation?
I'm not trying to quiz you, I'm just genuinely surprised. A link if possible would be great. It would be of great help if you can remember.
Thanks
Hi Steve,
Here is Piper discussing his views on this. (You'll have to fix the link. I don't want this to end up in moderation.)
http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew
And here is another well-known writer/blogger (Tim Challies) who holds similar views:
http://www.challies. com/articles/men-women-the-public-reading-of-scripture
Warmly,
Sarah
Steve,
My reply showed up below. Scroll down. :-)
You've described my concerns exactly. I too want to hold faithfully to the word of God and I find myself essentially complementarian because of that. But I'm increasingly frustrated with a "complementarianism" that isn't Biblical, that unnecessarily erects hedges about the law, and creates an atmosphere that doesn't support women as equal heirs of grace.
When complementarianism becomes first and foremost about "roles" or authority, ministries can easily adopt an attitude of, not where CAN we use women without overstepping biblical command, but of how do we PROTECT the Scripture from women. It's subtle and my guess is that most men don't even recognize the difference because it's not directed toward them. (I picked up on this even in the video. In discussing headship, Keller inadvertently described it as "forbidding women to teach"--and yet, I really agree with Keller's larger approach.) But when the issue is reduced to this application alone, your sisters feel alienated and tainted. And you end up with applications like restricting women's involvement in public worship and men leading the women's bible study because of "headship" issues.
I do understand that there are a variety of positions within complementarianism, and I'm grateful for TGC's commitment to women writers and speakers. I just wonder if maybe we'd better make sure WE'RE being Biblical first before we engage egalitarians for their lack of commitment to biblical teaching.
I don't understand the argument you're trying to make, Hannah. This one video doesn't speak definitely on every issue of complementarianism—only why TGC takes this stand. If you want to know more of what we think, we have an entire women's conference with the intent of inspiring and equipping women to love, live, and teach the whole counsel of God in their churches, families, friendships—every sphere of life. The national conference does likewise. So does this site on a daily basis. Also, the comment you quoted from Keller seems to be a paraphrase of the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12, so I'm not sure why you find it problematic. ALl that said, I feel ill-equipped to engage this issue in a public forum when I can't discern the experiences of others, because those experiences determine why certain articles and comments strike us so pointedly. Thank you for engaging, as always, Hannah.
Maybe I need to clarify.
When I say "complementarianism," I'm speaking about the broader movement, not simply how it is practiced here at TCG. I greatly appreciate TCG's engagement and mentoring women writers and speakers and this is one place where I do not feel slighted. As well, I love the Kellers' reasoned and (in my opinion) thoroughly Biblical understanding of male/female dynamics.
I always enjoy watching them together as a couple--there is respect and deference and gifting going in both directions and I think it serves as an incredible model of the unity that is the result of gracious complemenetarity.
Having said that, I do think that, generally speaking, complementarianism very quickly becomes reduced to discussions about headship and what women can and cannot do. And while I understood Keller's quote to be a paraphrase of a clear Biblical prohibition, my concern was about the (albeit unintended) rhetorical effect of equating headship with "forbidding women from teaching." This is a concern because headship and complementarianism are about so much more and if we REDUCE it to simple keeping women in their place (which I don't think Keller was intending), we have a problem.
Complementarianism, by definition, must concern itself with the limitations placed on BOTH men and women, the responsibilities of BOTH, the full humanity of BOTH, and the beautiful congruence that occurs when we understand our gender as much part of our gifting as our personality or intellectual capacity.
This is a complementarianism that I long for, but one that I don't think we have yet achieved.
Colin - when the TGC promotes a conference 'with the intent of inspiring and equipping women to love, live, and teach the whole counsel of God in their churches, families, friendships—every sphere of life' - the question has to be asked: why on earth would women need a separate conference for them?
If women are not getting this within the normal church life that includes normal conference life then, why not? What is it about complementarianism that makes it necessary to create a sub culture for women alone? Why are their spiritual needs not being met alongside those of the men in their church? Why should they have to separate from men in order to discuss how their gifts should be used?
If the reason they have to meet separately from men is because their needs are not being met within the normal context of their church or usual conferences then something is badly wrong in the churches.
The TGC should be urging churches to be places where each gender is taught alongside the other as a matter of course (our spiritual needs are really not that different and where they are, we need to know about it) rather than promoting a two tier system which is what it is doing by promoting women only and men only conferences and ministries.
In my experience, anyone with vague leanings towards egalitarianism tend to find the emphasis on women only conferences and ministries unhelpful. If you see church as a family where all are included it feels profoundly unnatural to separate off into gender groups.
I'm not Collin, but with his permission I'll take a stab at answering, because I was at the conference.
This conference was not about creating a separate subculture, but about modelling a way for women to teach one another that is absolutely on par with how men teach one another.
One of the most wretched consequences of "leaky complementarianism" (AKA patriarchalism) has been the church's benign or active neglect of teaching women deep theology, and connection of that deep theology to the realities of every day life. Women have "settled" for "ducks, bunnies and teacups" teaching about little more than nineteenth century domestic hobbies and endless cycles of moralistic sentimental recitings of Proverbs 31 and Titus 2. (I truly believe that this is one of the main reasons for the decline of American Evangelicalsim in the 20th century - an entire generation of women raising an entire generation of Americans on this nonsense because they weren't taught any better).
This conference not only exposed the toxic shallowness of that approach, but modeled an entirely different one - women standing and (oh heck, I'll say it) preaching from the whole counsel of God about the person and work of Christ in all of Scripture.
It doesn't replace what happens on Sunday collectively- but it enriches it, because in a single-gender setting, the women who teach are free to speak more specifically about the details of womens' life in a way that would either be irrelevant, distracting or even inappropriate in a mixed setting, and show how they relate to the gospel.
The best example I can refer you to is Paige Benton Brown's session on Solomon's dedication of the temple. It was a masterpiece.
Agreed! 100%. Thanks, Rachel. We watched Paige's talk about a week after your conference, and I agree that it was a true masterpiece. Most of the "leaky complimentarian" churches that you reference would never allow for such a beautiful flourishing of a women's gifts to serve the body of Christ so powerfully among other women.
Rachael,
This is such a fantastic observation! I never really connected "leaky complementarianism" to the dumbing down of women's ministries. I've always assumed the "ducks, bunnies, and teacups" approach was an issue that women had brought upon themselves. But you're absolutely right: if women are simply Victorian prototypes, then why bother to teach them theology? The men in their lives can do their thinking and believing for them.
I didn't make it to conference myself but I've been blessed by the video and audio, and I appreciate TGC's commitment to propelling women past the niceties of polite Christianity.
Whilst I am very glad that you are getting great teaching - I don't doubt for a minute that very gifted women preachers were present - you don't answer the questions I pose regarding why women aren't being exposed to what you term 'deep theology' in a mixed setting so my arguments about a separate subculture stand.
What exactly is being taught that can't be taught in a mixed setting? What are these subjects that are deemed inappropriate for men to hear? The truth is there aren't any. Men who stand up in church should be teaching the whole church and that includes women just as much as men. If men are unable to teach what you term 'deep theology' or make the practical applications of such theology to women then something is very wrong with complementarian pastors.
By accepting the need for separate teaching you are effectively saying that your teaching needs are not being met within the mainstream church therefore you need another 'place' for women and thus the subculture is born.
I can't help but wonder if the promotion of women only ministries are more about allowing women with clear gifts of leadership and preaching to flourish as, in a complementarian setting they would be either forbidden or seriously limited in using them. By creating a little world within a world for such gifted women it keeps them from rocking the complementarian church too much and also is a device to keep them within it. One result is a deeper divide between the genders and that isn't something any church should be promoting or applauding. This is not a long term healthy situation and it is another way of keeping women silenced within mainstream church.
If you're OK with that then fine but you should at least appreciate why someone with egalitarian leanings is not going to find such separation of the genders an acceptable compromise.
Al, thank you for your excellent comment. I especially agree with your next to last paragraph. I cannot picture Jesus or Paul suggesting that we set up separate conferences, tracks and opportunities for women.
And if women are more easily deceived (as is so often argued by complementarians) then why in the world would you let them teach other women? But that doesn't seem to be the case, does it? Even gifted women preachers are clearly evident by those who claim to be complementarians.
Warmly,
Sarah
Great reply, Rachel. I'm looking forward to listening to some of that conference.
Thank you, Rachel. I'd simply add that women are more than welcome to attend TGC's national conference, and thousands of them do so. We don't host a conference only for men.
@Colin - I know they are welcome to attend the national conference but no women exercise their teaching gifts in that context and women say they need a separate conference that is gender exclusive. The questions I raise remain unanswered.
Actually, many women taught workshops during the last national conference. Check it out. They will do so again in 2013.
@Colin - it was my impression that the women teaching in seminars/workshops are teaching in sessions meant for women only. If this is not so please correct me, but if my understanding is correct then their contribution is still limited to teaching the women only and part of what is seen as important 'extras' to the main event.
Which of course leads back to my earlier questions: why do women feel that they need additional teaching of what Rachael Starke terms 'deep theology' above? Why are women not getting the theological teaching they need in the mainstream teaching that is given by men for the whole church or gathering? Why do women feel they need this extra teaching at all? Who are complementarian pastors addressing when they speak? Are they only addressing the men?
These are important issues. If women in complementarian churches are feeling marginalised to the point of requiring their own special conference/teaching events then shouldn't this be addressed in their churches and by confronting and challenging pastors who are not being sufficiently inclusive in their teaching?
Have churches really become places where men are taught well but not the women? If this is not the case, then why are women exclusive teaching events being promoted and seen as necessary?
Some of the sessions are only for women, some are also open to men. So you are mistaken. You're making a lot of accusations about conferences you haven't attended, churches with which you're not personally familiar, and motives you can't possibly understand.
(Replying here in the hopes that it goes to the right place)
Collin, respectfully, I'm taking Al's questions as an attempt to understand, not accuse. I'd love to read a follow up piece comparing/contrasting perspectives on gender-based ministry of comp churches vs. egal ones. In fact, I think Tony Reinke had begun some thinking out loud on this subject at his own blog. I and many women like me (grateful supporters of TGC and its growing work for women) can attest to the truth of what Al's asking about - many churches and seminaries have relegated womens' ministry to target topical issues like marriage/mothering and home care, centered around the latest famous lady's book and splashy study materials, regardless of how shallow/poor the content is.
Al, to your central question, the reason I benefit from "women only" teaching and ministry is the same reason someone who is, for example, a doctor or a politician, would benefit from being taught in some way from someone in that field - there are shared experiences, shared trials, shared questions, etc. Not to mention that Paul clearly calls older women to teach younger women what is good (Titus 2:3). Again, it's not about compensation for some kind of deficiency in a pastor's preaching, but in the enrichment and extension of it. It feels like you may be playing into some of what I'm told is a caricature of the egal position - that there are essentially no distinctions at all between the genders, and thus no need for any type of gender-specific ministry or teaching of any kind.
Rachel, I think that is indeed a caricature of egalitarianism. My church is very egalitarian and we have activities just for men or just for women. We also have things for children, teenagers, young adults, parents, older people, etc. These all have much value.
Egalitarianism is not about the denial of gender - it's about denying that there are pre-ordained roles for the genders, and in particular rejecting (on sound Biblical grounds) the belief that women cannot have positions of authority over men.
@Rachael - thank you very much -I am most definitely not trying to criticise but to understand and I appreciate your response which is very helpful. I think a comparison between the egalitarian and complementarian gender-based ministries would be interesting as well - I suspect they have a lot in common with each other.
Many egalitarian churches also have gender specific ministries because, as Ian rightly says, egalitarians do not deny gender differences - the issue is about roles. The complaint many egalitarian women make about their women specific ministries is that they are fluffy and shallow. Certainly the ones I have been to have left me asking why bother with separate ministries at all in the egalitarian world? All the teaching that I need I get in the churches and conferences open to all - usually men are teaching/preaching/leading with a signficant smattering of women who contribute as well. But there are clearly a large number of egalitarian women who are advocates of women only ministries - I still haven't got my head around why they feel they need them in their context but they do and it is interesting that your response is very similar to the responses I have heard from them.
@Colin - I am asking questions that you have not answered so I have asked them again. That is not making accusations - it is attempting to ascertain the truth of a position. I read that the sessions taught by women were only open to women about a year ago on this site - it was in response to a man objecting to allowing women to teach at the TGC conference at all. I can't recall who answered that question - obviously they got it wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
You clearly think that I am hostile to you and have made sweeping and inaccurate assumptions about my background and experience. I am sorry that I have caused you to feel this way as I am not at all hostile to you.
I am left a little baffled by your claim that there are motives here that I 'can't possibly understand'. I am not sure to what this refers or why you feel the need to throw this particular criticism at me or how this is relevant to the 'conversation' at all. Should I not ask questions of you? Should I not point out when a question has not been answered?
Surely it is in the asking of questions to establish the clarity of a situation that motives are revealed and better understood. We don't have to agree with someone in order to understand their viewpoint but we do sometimes need clarity to ensure we properly understand. It would be a great shame to conclude that an egalitarian or a complementarian is incapable of understanding a motive simply because they have a different hermeneutic. If that is indeed the case, not only do we have to belong to different churches we might as well stop trying to understand each other as well.
I will make no apologies for asking questions and I will not apologise for pointing out that those questions remain unanswered. There is no other possible way to ascertain motives without a response. In this case, Rachael has given me her response and that is good enough for me. It is a shame that you were not able to respond likewise. A male perspective would also have been helpful.
Your questions don't correspond to any of my experience in churches or TGC, so that's why it's difficult to answer. I have served in many churches with good teaching for both men and women. The women don't feel like they need separate ministries so they can finally get some decent teaching, as if men have been ignoring them. They just enjoy good teaching, the more the better, and they can discuss and respond in ways specific to women in a women-only context. Like I said, I'm just passing along what they tell me.
Just an aside: It's fascinating to me how much each of our individual experiences with complementarianism is influencing our understanding of it--which again proves that
1)There are a variety of expressions and it would be helpful to clarify exactly which complementarianism TGC embraces.
and
2)We are teaching MORE by how we choose to put it into practice than how we define it on paper.
I'm not quite sure, Hannah, what more it would be helpful for TGC to release on the kind of complementarianism we embrace. Ca you clarify? We cover the basics of the issue in the foundation documents. We released this video to answer the question of why we take a stand. And we host a women's conference among other events that try to put the views into practice and encourage women to know God's Word, apply it, and teach it to others. But as Keller says, it's not our place to enforce on churches the precise terms of implementation. There is significant variety in ecclesiology, personality, and geography among our council, and their different expressions of complementarianism reflect that diversity. I suspect our readers share this diversity, which is why they try to pull us in different directions, depending on their experience and concerns.
Maybe, it's more a question of TGC publicly defining their complemenetarianism not only in relationship to egalitarian abuses but of defining it in terms of complementarian abuses as well. I appreciate the variety of TGC and trust me, I DO NOT think it would be healthy to start pointing fingers and criticizing specific ministries or people--that undercuts the whole concept of being a COALITION. Still, I do think TGC is in a position to add to the conversation in a robust, biblical way by highlighting not only why they are NOT egalitarian but also why they are not highly patriarchal; to not only to point out where egalitarians wander from Scripture but where complementarians can as well. (I'm thinking about principles not practices.) In the end, it's simply a matter of warning about ditches on both sides of the road and clearly designating a path that stays as true to the whole of Scripture as possible.
Collin,
I watched the video again and listened more closely this time. :-/ Keller did equate headship with "forbidding women" but in the greater context he was very clear that this must work in connection with specific cultural and ecclesiological considerations. Sorry for the mix up--hope it won't become proof of patriarchy's concerns that women be kept silent. ;-)
I see incredible arrogance in the speakers. They SAY we need to be nice, but they they also SAY that the Bible CLEARLY says gender hierarchy, if you do not believe in gender hierarchy then it affects the gospel. Such is slander to all the incredible believers that are also egalitarian and TGC should stop making these claims and repent.
They are very very similar to the slaveholders before the Civil War that formed the SBC and PCA. They said being a slaveholder was OK and if you did not believe that, then you were attacking the gospel; if you do not believe me, read what they wrote defending slavery.
Don,
It is not slander if it is true (and not necessarily even if it is false. If you believe that what they claim is not in fact true your task is to show how they are incorrect, not merely how irritated you are with them.
Sarah, you pose an interesting question about women reading Scripture from the pulpit. I wonder what TGC would say about the role that Huldah, the prophetess, played in educating Josiah the king, Hilkiah the high priest and four other males regarding God's word?
If you read 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34, you will learn that those six males were seeking validation of The Book of the Law that was founc in the temple during Josiah's reign. They were seeking the truth from God's word. They could have sought this verification from Jeremiah or from Huldah's husband, Shallum. But, instead they sought it from Huldah.
This tells me that gifting is more important than role definition. It also tells me that authority is determined by truth and that truth, no matter the source, is just that - truth. God chooses who he will to deliver his message. Above all, God is truth.
Now, on another note ... I was raised Catholic (altar boy, choir boy, my dad went to church every morning at 6 AM before going to work). He often took me and my brothers and sisters with him on days other than Sunday. I am a Christian because of my Catholic background.
After college my wife and I were members of an authoritative male-shepherding church in the Chicago area. When we moved to Minnesota we joined a very large independent male-led church. We were very active members in each one. Intuition and reading God's word told me that something wasn't quite right.
So when we made another job-related move, we joined an Evangelical Covenant Church. We have been members with ministry for the past 15 years. I have found the Evangelical Covenant denomination to be energizing, inspiring, challenging, evangelistic and lovers of God's word. They are mission-oriented to both other lands and the the troubled and recovering individuals in our town. And, yes, they are egalitarian.
I right this so that you will not be discouraged with 'The Church', but that you might find a place that loves you, challenges you spiritually and where you might not feel judged.
And for the record, I know there are complementarian churches like that, as well.
Hi Martin,
My husband and I were part of an Evangelical Covenant church for a season and there were some really wonderful people there. I also had the opportunity to teach adult (mixed) classes there which were very well received. We've moved and distance doesn't make it an option any longer.
I appreciated your thoughts on giftings being important as well as the truth. Your views sound very similar to my husband's in that respect.
Warmly,
Sarah
As a man married to a lady who is a minister I am obviously going to disagree with much that is said here, but that is alright,I know what to expect.
I know the position that the TGC takes in this issue and by inference what they think about me, someone who many of you will
believe is living contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
What I do find hard to accept however is the way that the gospel is somehow being linked to this issue. A statement like
'He also explains why TGC's confessional statement and theological vision for ministry go beyond basic gospel doctrines to include such issues as gender role'
in my opinion this flies against the clear teaching of a book like Galatians in which Paul fights against this sort of thing.
'In Christ Alone my Hope is Found!' as the hymn goes, not 'In Christ Alone and if you also hold fast to TGC Confession of Faith'
I can't in good conscience adhere to TGC confession of faith. Does this mean that I am not in?
"I can't in good conscience adhere to TGC confession of faith. Does this mean that I am not in?"
I can't in good conscience adhere to the Islamic tenets of faith. Does this mean I am not in?
wow
John Piper sees the area around the pulpit during worship as a place of authority and thus women are not allowed to preach, pray, or read Scripture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew
But then in a confusing and contradictory piece, he says that sometimes it is OK for a man to be taught by a woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyT2fDrb0vo&feature=endscreen&NR=1
These videos, which are only a couple years old, are just one more confusing piece of the current complementarity puzzle. At one time I would have fully embraced the basic tenets of complementarianism, believing it to sincerely be a perspective on how men and women, together, "fill in each other's cracks" in ministry, using their gifts together. I would have found D.A. Carson's article on this website yesterday to be an honest view of "patriarchy." But I think there are too many people, men and women alike, speaking on behalf of complementarity who have completely opposite views. Take a moment and look at how confusing these are:
http://www.thatmom.com/2012/07/13/will-the-real-complementarian-please-stand-up-2/
Hi Steve,
Here is Piper discussing his views on this. (You'll have to fix the spaces in the links. I don't want this to end up in moderation again.)
http : //www. youtube. com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew
And here is another well-known writer/blogger (Tim Challies) who holds similar views:
http : //www. challies. com/articles/men-women-the-public-reading-of-scripture
Warmly,
Sarah
And here is a thought-provoking response to Piper's views on women not reading from the pulpit. (Again, please fix the link.)
http: // www. searchingtogether. org/blog/?p=155
Warmly,
Sarah
Dave, the gospel is not "somehow" being linked, rather the speakers explain how it is being linked, and acknowledge that it is an indirect link, but they see a link nevertheless. And do you really think a "theological vision for ministry" should never go beyond the basics? The speakers also explain why they think it is important to do so on this issue. Finally, I don't think anyone was saying you would be "out" in the sense of being out of The Kingdom. Maybe you would be out of TGC, (though not for me to say), but then, what place would a non-egalitarian find in your congregation?
I am interested to hear what TGC thinks about how culture in the last 30-40 years has influenced the meaning of biblical femininity and as a result what being a woman means in our current society. This is a question brought up by what Piper said about changes in biblical masculinity based on the past 30-40 years.
Some objections and arguments against:
1. In order to even be a complementarian, you must already "loosen" your understanding of the overwhelming majority of what Scripture says about women, so the hermeneutical objection makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot take stipulations such as the requirement for women to wear head coverings when in fellowship with other believers, or the myriad of Old Testament laws prohibiting many different behaviours of women and interpret them as contextual, but then say that a contextual interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is to undermine the sanctity of Scripture and indirectly attacking the Gospel. Such a position is horrifically inconsistent and, dare I say, completely bereft of intellectual integrity. Either all of Scripture is open to question, or none of it is. You cannot draw a line saying, "Okay, we can question these passages as much as we like, but 1 Tim 2 is above hermeneutics."
Not to mention the fact that this perspective presupposes that complementarianism is correct. Suppose you are wrong? Suppose that 1 Tim 2 is actually contextual? Are those who take it as universal then attacking the Gospel by reading things into God's Word that aren't there?
2. Egalitarianism is Biblical. I want to hear complementarians say that. They don't have to say that it is the MOST Biblical position, but there needs to be the confession that, yes, there is more than one way to understand Scripture. If you think that complementarianism is the most valid way of understanding Scripture, I have no issue with you. But if you think that it is the only way of reading Scripture, and that egalitarians are people who simply disregard Scripture so that they can live their lives the way they want to, then please, PLEASE, educate yourself.
I would say that the lion's share of modern Biblical scholarship is egalitarian. This does not mean that egalitarianism is correct; that would be logically fallacious. What it does mean, however, is that any individual who would see egalitarianism as being unBiblical is theologically illiterate.
3. Linking any issue of minor doctrine (by minor I mean: Anything not appearing in the Nicene creed) to the Gospel, even if indirectly, is bullying, pure and simple. I have no doubt that they are well-intentioned, and even believe that they are sharing the truth of God, but the end result is men and women of faith being manipulated into choosing complementarianism because they are misled to believe that to do otherwise is to threaten the Gospel - and, given the frequency with which evangelicals confuse the Gospel with soteriology, one's salvation.
I am familiar enough with these men to believe that they are of good heart, and seek to honour God, and it is for that reason alone that I am withholding any claims of blasphemy - what I would usually level at those who attempt to (ab)use the cross in order to push their own views of minor doctrine. However, suffice it to say that I am both surprised and disappointed by this turn of events.
What troubles me the most is that I already know several complementarians who are attempting to make their beliefs into "A-level" doctrine. They do not need this encouragement. I am very nearly at the point of wiping my feet of the neo-Reformed movement, and it is only their work for the cross (I had originally said Gospel, but as I said above, TGC and others like them seem too concerned with soteriology to give a full Gospel message) that keeps me begrudgingly within their circles.
Ryan: "Egalitarianism is Biblical. I want to hear complementarians say that."
Does the following article meet your request?
Article XVI
We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the Church, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the Church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.
We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any Church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.
Er, no, not really. Should it?
T4G folks affirm Article XVI.
Anyways, Oneness Pentecostals insist that Oneness Pentecostalism is biblical. They probably want to hear neo-Reformed Complementarians say that.
If Oneness Pentecostals wipe their feet off from the neo-Reformed Complementarians, what is to be done?
What does T4G have to do with any of this?
And the rest of your post is a red herring. I think that you're trying to establish some sort of notion that you can't please everyone? But we're not talking about Oneness Pentecostalism, we're talking about egalitarianism. If you feel there's any specific reason why egalitarianism should not be recognized as a Biblical position, start with that.
There's a bit of a relationship between T4G and TGC.
Yeah, I know that, but what I'm saying is, unless I'm being particularly dense, there's nothing in Article XVI that mentions anything about egalitarianism being Biblical. If anything, it's the opposite.
Again I'm a bit puzzled as to what point you're trying to make with all this.
Ryan: "I think that you're trying to establish some sort of notion that you can't please everyone?"
Yes. Not even God "pleases" everyone.
The thread has already provided several examples of displeased egalitarians.
Do you have any direct rebuttals to offer to my initial arguments?
Complementarian Kathleen Nielsen says it's ultimately a biblical issue in her recent essay:
To My Egalitarian Friends
I'll take that as a "No," then.
Ryan,
1. When the video discussion is titled "Why is TGC Complimentarian" it shouldn't be a big suprise to find that the panel presupposes that complimentarianism is correct. Not sure I understand the criticism on that point. Perhaps 1 Corinthians 11 (I assume that is your reference) should indeed be revisted by all. However it is quite possible to understand the particular outward expression of male headship to be culturally contextual while acknowledging the fact of it to be applicable across time and culture. In any case, taken as a whole 1 Corintians 11 is rather an odd choice of scripture to call as a witness in defense of gender egalitarianism.
2. After this paragraph it's odd that you should speak of bullying and manipulation in the next. Think about it.
3.I do think the panel did a good job of explaining the circumstances that make this issue a higher priority than other minor (to use your term) doctrines.
The point I was making with the first argument was that if it is permissible to understand 1 Cor 11 and the myriad other passages in Scripture limiting the acts of women as being contextual, then it is also permissible to understand 1 Tim 2 as contextual. I am not arguing that the contextual position is therefore the most accurate, but rather I am arguing that to cordon off 1 Tim 2 as some untouchable ground, where anyone who doesn't take it at face value is undermining the authority of Scripture, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As for the issue of presupposing complementarianism, I am not surprised whatsoever. The point I was trying to make, however, is that you cannot articulate that egalitarianism is a threat to the authority of Scripture, as they have, unless you presuppose the truth of complementarianism.
Another way of putting it would be this: They say that they are using complementarian theology to protect the Gospel, but in all honesty it seems more as though they are using the Gospel to protect complementarian theology.
2. I will admit that I was upset when I wrote the post and so my wording was far more harsh than it ought to have been, and I apologize for that. However, the central point remains: Many egalitarians are doing their best to faithfully follow Scripture. There is a vicious caricature amongst some complementarians which has reared its ugly head multiple times amongst TGC as well which seems to believe that egalitarians are people who simply do not like what the Bible has to say and so ignore it. While this is no doubt true of some egalitarians, it hardly describes the lot of us.
The fundamental problem is that it points to a certain arrogance amongst some complementarians, who believe that their method of reading Scripture is the only way of reading Scripture. I am opposed to that not just because I am an egalitarian, but also because to me that eliminates conversation, eschews unity within the Body, and limits the genuine attempts of believers to know God by forcing them to accept one interpretation that may or may not be correct.
I will say that I, myself, was once a complementarian, and it was reading and study of the Scriptures that pushed me over the edge to becoming an egalitarian. I do not expect this to convince others that egalitarianism is true, but it is part of why I tend to take offence at those who claim egalitarianism is an existential rejection of the "obvious truths" of Scripture.
3. I have two objections:
First, I was not entirely satisfied with the job they did. Carson seemed to be articulating that the reason why this issue is a higher priority than others is because it is more culturally relevant. He even made reference to baptism, and seemed to be saying that some centuries back, where baptism was a major dividing issue, they would not have been able to uphold an openness of doctrine towards baptism the way they do today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm inferring from this is that were gender roles not a hot-button issue, they would be willing to include both egalitarians and complementarians in TGC.
The problem is, this doesn't really mesh with the idea that egalitarianism is an attack on the authority of Scripture.
The second issue I have is, even assuming, for argument's sake, that they did establish that gender roles was a higher priority that other minor doctrine, they certainly did not establish that gender roles is a major doctrine. Unfortunately, when you consider something to be an attack on the Gospel, even indirectly, you are putting it in the position of it being major doctrine - on the same level as the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Neither complementarianism nor egalitarianism fit that bill.
Ryan,
"forcing them to accept one interpretation that may or may not be correct."
And this is part of my biggest problem with complementarian theology. It may not be correct, in the very least. At most, it's not even biblicaly provable. It's just a theory, nothing more. And I'm personaly bothered by the way it's treated, or spoken of - as if it were otherwise.
Thank you, Ryan, for articulating some of my concerns so well.
Ryan: "Egalitarianism is Biblical. I want to hear complementarians say that."
Me: "Anyways, Oneness Pentecostals insist that Oneness Pentecostalism is biblical. They probably want to hear neo-Reformed Complementarians say that.
If Oneness Pentecostals wipe their feet off from the neo-Reformed Complementarians, what is to be done?"
Ryan: "But we're not talking about Oneness Pentecostalism, we're talking about egalitarianism."
The underlying principle is the same: The insistence that their doctrinal position be recognized as "biblical."
As I articulated in my first point, if taking a Biblical statement on the role of women and interpreting it as contextual makes a position unBiblical, then complementarians are every bit as unBiblical as egalitarians. We both do the exact same thing, egalitarians just take it one or two passages further. For complementarians to agree with that is fine. For complementarians to call that an attack on the Gospel is not.
These discussions leave me thinking that Keller's warning in the original discussion is very important. That is; we don't see this as a primary Gospel issue.
However, the desire to "protect" what is the central content of the Gospel in the end pushes more peripheral or secondary issues to the centre. I find it hard to see why defining the roles of men and women is seen as a more necessary issue than some others that Carson lists. Water- Baptism and Church Governance are important yet secondary. The issue of how men an women relate in marriage, community and church is very important- yet secondary. As soon as you make it a paty of how you co-allign in the Gospel, it becomes cebtral and primary.
[...] 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 [...]
If one assumes both views are biblical and embraced by people who love Christ and see the Scriptures as their authority, then I think it is prudent to ask about the potential long-term outcomes of each. One of the questions I come back to time and again when thinking about these issues is this...
Which view will bring about the greatest harm to the church and individuals if it is wrong?
IMHO the complementarian view is by far the most damaging if it is wrong. It limits half of the church and prevents women from "flourishing" (the latest positive spin word in complementarian circles) in their God-given gifts.
I don't agree with the comment in the video (I think it was Piper) that the problems with our society all stem from a lack of complementarianism and egalitarianism run amok. Our society has not been shaped the past few decades by Christian egalitarians who are mutually serving each other out of love for Christ. It has been greatly impacted by feminism to be sure. But secular feminism and Christian egalitarianism are NOT the same thing. Secular feminism is not about serving each other with the heart of Christ. If our culture has been shaped by anything Christian, it has been male-led movements that have done nothing to really change marriages or the church and have continued to marginalize women. Christian women don't need to be empowered by secular feminists. They need to be empowered by their brothers in Christ.
Do people really believe that if the church adopted egalitarianism and encouraged women to utilize their gifts freely alongside their brothers in Christ that the church would somehow fall apart? Seriously? When you see the gifted women out there using their gifts in complementarian circles you really think the church would be completely damaged if they spoke that same message to a mixed group on Sunday morning?
Warmly,
Sarah
Professor D.A. Carson lovingly said:
"Be very strong and clear on what the Scripture says. Try to work out the applicability fairly and even-handedly within the context of your local church. But don’t turn that into the new legal structure for all Christians such that this is where you draw your line of demarcation. In other words: get the center right and think center-bounded set. Don’t fudge on what the Bible says!
. . . If you come to the conclusion that that best articulated and sophisticated, knowledgeable exegesis of Scripture, carefully thought-through, can be graced with the word “complementarian”; if you come to that conclusion–stop apologizing for it. In other words, at some point you have to say, “This is for your good, it is for my good, it is for the church’s good, it is for the culture’s good. . . .”
God knows the design. He knows what he is doing. And so you cannot use your culturally-located questions to become a back-door way of saying that you’re uncomfortable with exegesis. That it seems to me, leads to distortion in every domain."
Amen, Dr. Carson.
The argument in favor of male leadership as an alternative to male abuse or irrelevant passivity is profoundly unsettling. Anecdotal support from observations of culture and society, though having some support in recent sociological studies, do not really strengthen the argument. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/
Instead, they raise very difficult questions. Is maleness so fundamentally flawed that only servant leadership over women can rescue it? There must be a better answer.
[...] The Gospel Coalition: Why is TGC Complementarian? [...]
You will find this section in 5:50 and following. It reveals traditional baggage and assumptions which the speakers wish to avoid. The full context is important, but one phrase, "Men are wired to lead. They will lead badly or they will lead humble and godly ways which is why egalitarianism does not work."
I’ve watched the video and I have to say that the views expressed in it disturb me greatly. I’m working on a general conclusion, but here are some thoughts on a few specific points that I noticed.
Tim Keller said that the egalitarian position requires a “loosening” of your approach to scripture, which he regards as unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous.
I found this somewhat ironic as his paedobaptist views require a considerable amount of creative thinking which strikes me as being very loose indeed. I am sure that many Baptists (maybe even John Piper himself) regard paedobaptist theology as more eisegesis then exegesis – some have even called it sin or heresy. As I have said before, it seems hypocritical to accept the supposed “loosening” needed to justify paedobaptism is acceptable but reject the supposed “loosening” needed to justify egalitarianism.
Piper said TGC wants to protect, display, and release the Gospel. Let me respond to the last two.
Displaying the gospel. The gospel is a gospel of equality - everyone is a sinner and everyone needs Jesus. There are no exceptions - it encompasses rich/poor, black/white, male/female and every other way of categorising humanity that we can devise. Yet complementarians add a “but” - we are all equal before God BUT God has given men and women specific roles - men are to lead and women are to follow. I believe that this is an incorrect understanding of the Bible. I would suggest that it correctly reflects the gospel if we drop the “but” and say that men and women are equal before God both as sinners needing a savior, and also in every other aspect of life, work, and ministry (other than the physical differences, of course). By having full gender equality within the church, where men and women have equal opportunity to lead as well as to follow, we embody the glorious gospel truth that all are equal in the sight of God. So I would argue that egalitarianism is a far greater display of the gospel than the complementarian position, which restricts the role of half the church.
[I am aware that complementarians say that different gender roles do not amount to a denial that all are equal before God. I disagree with this (it reminds me of the Orwellian phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others") but don’t have time to address it now. But it has to be the case that the egalitarian position - equality before God, equality in life, and equality in the church - is far simpler and clearer than the complementarian position - equality before God but different gender roles and restrictions on what women can do. An egalitarian church models our equality before God in the way that participation and ministry are equally open to all.]
Releasing the gospel. By way of example, I personally know nine ladies who are serving as ordained ministers. They are on the front line - leading churches, preaching, teaching, counselling, and discipling. There are obviously many more like them. Their callings have been tested and confirmed at many stages and they have passed rigorous theological and pastoral training courses (and yes, they are all bible-believing evangelicals). How can anyone claim that the gospel is somehow being “released” by adopting a theology that prevents women like this from ministering? I’m sorry, that is wrong. We release the gospel by releasing every member of the church to proclaim it, whether it is talking to our work colleagues or preaching on a platform. The news of the greatest event in history - the resurrection - was released by women to men. We should follow this example and let today’s women whose lives have been transformed by an encounter with the risen Jesus share this good news to the world without restriction. That is a much greater release of the gospel that the position adopted by complementarians.
So I would conclude that egalitarianism does far more to display the gospel and to release the gospel than complementarianism.
"The news of the greatest event in history - the resurrection - was released by women to men."
Ian, I love this line.
Thanks, Grateful, I was a bit worked up when I wrote that paragraph as I was thinking about how insulted my friends would feel if someone told them that the gospel requires them to abandon their vocations.
To me the resurrection story is also an example of women teaching men, although some no doubt will disagree. But if God can entrust women with telling men about something as important as the resurrection, it seems a bit strange that silencing women in the presence of men is seen by many as a non-negotiable part of the gospel.
'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to to heal the brokenhearted , to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.' Lk 4: 18 - 19.
I cannot but think that this also applies to the hand that women had been dealt as a result of the Fall and the fact that women were the first witnesses of the Resurrection and the first proclaimers to the disciples is a pretty powerful statement in itself.
Exactly, Al. Please also see Wade Burleson's recent blog on this subject, which includes an exposition of the story of Anna from Luke's gospel.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/08/it-honors-christ-and-is-biblical-for.html
Mackman: "Christ never submits to the Church. He lovingly cares for her and sacrificed himself for her, which Paul explicitly links to the husband's role in marriage. To say otherwise is to blatantly disregard Paul's words on the matter, as well as to distort the very idea of authority and submission."
Hi Mackman, an avowed egalitarian professor disagrees with you and explicitly argues that Christ does submit to the Church, and he's published a book titled:
As Christ Submits to the Church: a Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission.
By Alan G. Padgett.
A critical evaluation of this egalitarian work:
Book Review: As Christ Submits to the Church
(Forgive me if this has already been raised).
A question for anyone who was at the Women's Conference in Orlando in June. Just curious: Did Keller, or Piper sit in on any of the plenaries that were "preached" by women (Kathy Keller, for example?).
I wasn't in attendance, but have watched the video of Carson's preaching from Revelation, in which he refers to Kathleen's "sermon" (She preceded him in the "pulpit.") Either he sat in or read her sermon in advance, profited from it, and considered it of sufficient authority to refer to it himself.
[...] video by The Gospel Coalition explains the question: Why is TGC complementarian? In the [...]
Well, at least this is closer to the heart of the matter. Help me out here. I Corinthians, Paul argues male headship from culture. In Timothy, he argues from the order of creation and sacred history (Eve was deceived; whatever that means is less important).
If we cannot apply to modern society something (male headship) that was consistent (with notable exceptions) throughout 4000 years or more of the writing of Scripture, what does that mean? How many other issues? How is this different from saying our culture has moved beyond Paul? As to the third category, different interpretation, one needs to explain why Paul based his argument on the order of Creation and sacred history without saying he was wrong in his argument. I have not seen that done effectively. I am open. I think we largely believe what we want to believe, and not what we logically believe, myself included. Maybe it is more honest to leave innerancy and find a new doctrine of the authority of Scripture. That is where I am in my struggle.
If the correct interpretation cannot be applied to today, then there are many other issues. Start with homosexuality and premarital sex and from there to divorce. More central to TGC, eternal damnation of the majority of human kind and the absolute necessity the punishment of sin (Hell or Penal Substitution). Henri Nouwen has taught me as much as anyone about the Gospel but denied hell, expiatory atonement and the OT god [sic]. You find this more in his lectures on the Return of the Prodigal. This is no longer the Gospel of the TGC.
Add to this Romans 8, that all non-regenerate are at the core rebels against God. There is an absolute distinction between those who have the Spirit and those who do not--regeneration. Gandhi sinned against knowledge and therefore had a heart in enmity with God. Zacharia holds Nouwen was one of the greatest modern saints, and I know of no one more influential in the thoughts of Keller and Piper than C. S. Lewis. But neither of these fit within the TGC view of Biblical Authority or atonement.
Yet, until I understand how to interpret Paul to Timothy in a way that affirms Paul was correct and not male headship, I do agree that this is a watershed issue for TGO. I am less certain what to do about it.
You raise some good points. But it's not just about 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians. Even if I assume the complementarians' interpretation of those passages, there are enough female leaders/teachers in the OT and NT that need to be explained as a contradiction to the complementarian interpretation. This is the issue for me. Looking at the whole of Scripture, there are some parts that more easily support a complementarian position and there are other parts that more easily support an egalitarian position. My main issue with TGC's position is that they make this a black and white issue as if complementarians have no hard passages to overcome. This is flat out false. Even the issue of women speaking in church, how do we deal with Paul's statement that women should be silent in relation to his other statement about women prophesying and praying in the community? It's just not as easy and clear cut as TGC wishes to make it.
Jer, with reference to Paul in 1 Cor 14:34-35, note that this is the third in a series of corrections - he deals with tongues and prophecy first. Both these address disorderly speech in meetings. So I'd suggest the the third correction, about women, also refers to disorderly speech, specifically to women gossipping, chattering, or interrupting. It doesn't mean women mustn't keep silent in church (and how many would take that strictly literally?) but that women mustn't disrupt the meeting (same for men!). This is totally compatible with 1 Cor 11. Also, if you take "brothers" in verse 26 to refer to the whole congregation of men and women (just as mankind generally refers to men and women) then again this verse is an affirmation of orderly participation from both genders.
Egalitarianism is far more compatible with the doctrine of the internal consistency of the Bible than complementarianism. As you say, the latter needs a lot of arm-waving to make the numerous exceptions fit.
EJT,
In 1 Timothy 2, I believe Paul addresses the issue of female converts who were formerly priestesses in the cult of Diana. They had wealth, high social status, and dressed to excess (hence 1 Tim 2:9-10). I think just one of these (the woman referred to in 1 Tim 2:11-15) had a habit of disrupting teaching sessions in the church, usurping the authority of the teacher, taking over the lesson, and presenting her own ideas. But she was a new believer who did not understand the faith, so she had to learn (quietly and in submission). The reason why creation is mentioned in 1 Tim 2:13-14 is that a traditional Jewish explanation for the fall is that Eve sinned because Adam didn't properly teach her God's instructions. Paul is saying this woman needs to learn the things of God or the same thing will happen - she'll sin because of lack of teaching. The language used in verse 12 carries the sense of "I am not now permitting a woman..." - a time-limited restriction to address a specific situation, not an eternal prohibition.
The creation story does not include male headship - it implies equality (Genesis 1:26-30). The term "helper" used of Eve in chapter 2 is also used of God throughout the OT, so no lower status is implied.
For a detailed exegesis of 1 Tim 2 by John Zens, author of the excellent "What's with Paul and Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background to 1 Tim 2", click this link:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/04/are-sisters-free-to-function-by-jon.html
Regarding 4000 years of consistent male headship, could we not also say that there have been 4000 years of slavery before we realised it was a sin against God and man. How long was it until women got unrestricted rights to vote? 19th amendment was passed in 1920. For 1500 or so years the doctrine of justification by faith was lost. Whilst obviously tradition is useful, history teaches us that it's not necessarily correct. Our protestant philosophy has never been to accept the status quo, but rather test everything against the Bible. And if we conclude the traditional understanding of the Bible is wrong (as Luther did, and as the abolitionists did) then our beliefs and practices have to be reformed.
[@TGC moderators, feel free to delete my first post as I have modified it somewhat and reposted below. Thanks.]
@EJT, You raise some good points. But it's not just about 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians. Even if I assume the complementarians' interpretation of those passages, there are enough female leaders/teachers in the OT and NT that need to be explained as a contradiction to the complementarian interpretation. This is the issue for me. Looking at the whole of Scripture, there are some parts that more easily support a complementarian position and there are other parts that more easily support an egalitarian position. My main issue with TGC's position is that they make this a black and white issue as if complementarians have no hard passages to overcome. This is flat out false.
Furthermore, TGC’s answer to why complementarianism is a defining tenet of TGC is worrisome. Carl Trueman has an excellent exposition on this very topic: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/08/confused-by-complementarianism.php
It really comes down to, is complementarian/egalitarian theology an essential part of the gospel? Trueman makes a good case for why it isn’t and why it muddies the waters if it is on equal footing with the gospel.
[...] been participating in a discussion at The Gospel Coalition on Why Is TCG Complementarian? There is a video and post that generated a good deal of discussion and some truly excellent [...]
"We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society," Piper observes. "It has produced a brutal masculine society."
I find it strange that I would need to inform Dr. Piper that the world is fallen. Gender hierarchy persists because the world is fallen. Abuse persists because the world is fallen. We can't completely escape this particular fact, but because of Christ, we can push to overcome it.
When we continue to hold onto gender hierarchy, we are letting the old, fallen creation win.
[...] Why Is TGC Complementarian? – The Gospel Coalition Blog Piper nailin’ it again. [...]