Eric Weiss asked such an important question in a comment that I have decided to turn his comment into a guest post. I have moved Eric’s comment and a response to it to this post, so they can be highlighted as they deserve. Here is Eric’s comment:
I interjected a comment on a blog re: “complementarianism” versus “egalitarianism.” A responder referred me to the statement that Imago Dei has made about the issue. (FYI, Imago Dei is the Portland, OR, church that Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, attends – or did when he wrote his book.) The statement is at:
http://www.imagodeicommunity.com/information/position-papers/women-in-ministry/
and reads:
women in ministry
We are thankful that the Imago Dei community has not allowed the role of women in the church to be a contentious issue. Our culture is fighting around us for power, rights and prominence. Unfortunately, the evangelical community is also fighting over the gender issue. Sometimes, both sides seem to be angry and power hungry to win the argument.
Two main views have emerged among evangelicals. Egalitarians believe that women can qualify for any position in the church. Complementarians (formerly, hierarchialists or traditionalists) believe that men and women are equal in worth, but that God has created role differences that limit women from some ministry positions. Neutrality is impossible since every practice reflects one or the other of the two views.
We are convinced that:
(1) The issue of women in ministry is significant and must be addressed.
(2) We will not allow this issue to degenerate into divisive behavior or speech.
(3) Both viewpoints have biblical and reasonable arguments.
(4) This issue is one of the debatable issues (Rom. 14) where believers must accept each other with their differing viewpoints.
Since this is a debatable issue, our church welcomes believers of both persuasions. We will not condemn either side. We are committed to respectful discussions that edify and oppose angry arguments that divide. We recommend the book Two Views: Women in Ministry for an irenic and balanced interaction. Two evangelical organizations have formed: Christians for Biblical Equality and The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Their websites are filled with excellent literature that is biblically based.
Our Position
We want our policies to be based upon our theology, but like the church, our elders do not necessarily have a uniform understanding on this issue. So, we must all agree to promote unity (John 17: 23) with our differences and willingly follow our church guidelines.
We believe that both men and women are equally made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and equal partners in Christ (Gal. 3:28). As in the Trinity, there is equality of persons, but diversity in function. There is a relationship between the equal persons of the Trinity that includes leadership and submission. God the Father sends the Son and the Spirit (Isa. 48:16; John 5:23-36; 14:26; 15:26). The Son and the Spirit submit to the Father, but each is equally God. All believers must joyfully submit to the triune God. Imago Dei’s position is sometimes called “soft complementarian.” It is represented by Craig Blomberg’s essay in Two Views: Women in Ministry.
History has clearly shown that men often use their leadership to oppress. Many Christian men have not sacrificially loved their wives. Great harm has been done to women in the name of church leadership. Our example is Christ who used His authority to lead with love and empower the Church.
In each age God has designated men to fulfill the primary role of spiritual leadership: Old Testament priests, the twelve apostles and elders/overseers in the church. 1 Timothy 2:12 can be understood as combining the two ideas of teaching and authority. Thus, Paul limited women only from the position of “authoritative teacher,” that is, the role of elder/overseer.
The scattered biblical examples of women teaching or leading men are appropriate since they were not fulfilling the role of Old Testament priests, apostles or elders/overseers. Paul’s appeal to creation (1 Tim. 2:12-15; 1 Cor. 11:2-4) and God’s pattern of choosing men (priest, apostle, and elder), point to male leadership as trans-cultural. Christ’s gifts are equally given to men and women to build up His Body (Eph. 4:12). A woman with the gift of pastor will find many expressions, but the role of elder is limited to men. The position of deacon is for qualified men or women (1 Tim. 3:11).
Christ’s leadership of the Church models and prescribes the role of loving leadership for the husband. Wives are to submit voluntarily to their own husbands (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6). Because of the fall, the husband’s loving leadership has often been perverted into domination and the wife’s willing submission into improper servitude or a power struggle. Women in general are not required to submit to men in general (1 Cor. 11:2-4)
Our Commitment
Those who hold our position have often overlooked or undervalued the wisdom and gifts of women. So we will seek to empower women in ministry and actively listen to their wisdom. We will be advised by our wives and by a council of godly women who regularly communicate with the elders. We will admonish husbands to lead their families with godliness and love their wives sacrificially. We will seek to protect our women from abusive husbands. We will seek to honor, value and respect our women as equal heirs of God’s grace and gifted partners in the church’s ministry. We will seek to use gender language that reflects the equal value of women and men.
Our Unity
To those convinced of a different view, we value our relationship with you. We welcome continuing dialogue within the Imago Dei community asking only that no one cause division but rather love those who differ. We desire to be a church where believers of both views work in harmony. We expect everyone to keep our bond of unity in peace and love. If anyone finds that they cannot do so, we request that another fellowship be sought where those views can better serve the community of Christ. We must all hold our viewpoints humbly and appreciate the biblical arguments of both egalitarians and complementarians. This issue gives us the opportunity to show the power of living in love while holding differing viewpoints.
- – -
FWIW, as part of the discussion I was made aware of Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 network of church plants. Apparently to be an Acts 29 church, the church has to hold to the Reformed tradition and be “complementarian.” While Imago Dei is not an Acts 29 church, it supports The Table, a Portland, OR church/church plant. So I don’t know if Imago Dei’s statement puts them clearly in Mark Driscoll’s camp, or if they’re “softer” than Driscoll. A nearby (as in, less than 2 miles away) church, The Village Church, is an Acts 29 church. The pastor, Matt Chandler, came from Seattle, though I don’t know if The Village Church would be considered a church “plant,” having been SBC for years before Matt came.
- – -
Question: Is Imago Dei’s statement something that both comps and egals (or, rather, hierarchical complementarians and non-hierarchical complementarians) can live with, or is “a rose by any other name” still a rose – i.e., Imago Dei’s “soft-compism” is still unacceptable to non-hierarchical complementarians (i.e., so-called “egalitarians”) as reinforcing and maintaining unacceptable gender exclusion and gender hierarchy? I.e., does Imago Dei’s statement represent a true middle ground? Or is there no possible middle ground?
Mara’s comment:
I like your question Eric.
And I know there are some egals who could not live in this framework. And there are some who have the luxury of not having to have to live in it.
I actually do live in something kind of like this and so far it’s okay. I’m in a rural area and don’t have a lot to chose from. They (my church) recognize my gifts and want me to teach children and adults. But at this point they don’t believe in women elders.
I’m praying for that the heart of my pastor and the elders will be open to women elders eventually. They may not ever and I understand that and will have to make future choices accordingly.
My church clueless of the battle that rages between comp and egal. And my pastor teaches Ephesians 5:21 to mean that he needs to submit to his wife too. They are also supportive of the abused.
As far as middle ground. I’m not sure that’s what it is as much as something that is workable for me at the time being. That’s all I can say for it for now.
My Methodist grandparents had a Methodist preacher who became a Methodist preacher because the Baptists kicked him out of their denom. He was kicked out because he pastored in a very sparsly populated rural area and he allowed pentecostals to worship with them since they had no where else to go. This raised up my respect for this man because he was more concerned for the welfare and inclusion of fellow believers than the rigidity of men’s doctrines.
I currently attend a church that is, although it’s less directly stated–with no official document like this one provided by Eric–similar to this church in some ways. There are a variety of opinions regarding complementarianism and egalitarianism that are held among leadership and folks attending the church. But the church is led in a way that is soft complementarian (i.e., women are restricted from serving the church in certain ways), and the comp view is definitely the way the culture (openly, at least) leans (e.g., in marriage).
I do not understand how soft complementarianism can be seen as a compromise between complementarianism and egalitarianism.
Having said that, I want to say that I do appreciate the distinctions that have been made here regarding “hard” comp/patriarchy and soft complementarianism.
An important criterion for my church is whether they are church and marriage egal. It is not the only criterion. And reality impinges and constrains. As I can choose to live my marriage as I wish, I would choose full egal over church-only egal over soft comp over hard comp over patriarchal. And I would try to work to shift them towards egalism from where ever they were.
It’s not good enough for me. But that’s just me, right now, where I’m at. I can totally see being at a place someday where I can agree to disagree and still attend. Maybe. I’d have to know it was the community God was calling me to be in, and then I could do it.
I think my problem with it is centered almost entirely on the fact that if I’d been male, I would have gone to seminary and gone into “the ministry.” But because I was female, I never thought that deep desire was anything but rebellion, and my church backed that feeling up, with bells on.
But now, I think I missed what I was probably supposed to do… Don’t get me wrong, it’s still there, too, deep down in there, but…well, it’s now five kids and a seriously messed up marriage later and…I’m not sure if I’ll have the ability to do what I would have done back as a single woman. Maybe it will always remain there, deep inside of me unable to be fulfilled because of choices I have made.
I don’t beat myself up over it…I was doing the best I could with the knowledge I had…but I believe that I called the Spirit’s gifting “rebellion,” all because of my theological framework, and that’s not something I’d like to see perpetuated.
I want my kids to have the ability to follow their calling, should any of them be called in that same way. So it’s important to me to belong to a community that would let them. And, I think, it’s also important to me to be in a community of Believers that won’t label this thing deep inside of me as rebellion. I can’t find that in a soft comp church (though I appreciate it much more than I do a hard comp church—Imageo Dei’s statement is so awesome, in that respect!).
This is why I dearly love the little (fairly conservative) Episcopal church I am attending now, led by an elderly female who is most certainly operating in a clear gifting of shepherd. This lady rocks!
Just seeing that is, in so many ways, a healing balm for that feeling in my heart that this calling is like fire in my bones, eating me up until I obey it…I can look at her and know that there may be an expression for this calling, for me, too, someday…no rush…
Btw, I have a friend who used to attend Imageo Dei when they lived in that area and she and her family absolutely LOVED it…
PS. I’m pretty sure that Driscoll is in the more hard-comp territory. I think he’s hand-in-hand with Piper and Grudem and Ware, etc.
Imageo Dei’s stance will work fine for many comp women, who have no calling for teaching or shepherding. As far as how a couple arrange their interpersonal relationship, it really is between them and God. The only concern is when others start telling them how they must do it. Many comps claim husbandly leadership but live mutual submission. Thus soft compism can be comfortable for many egals.
The real problems arise when women have a calling on their lives to teach, preach and shepherd. Then such a church will only wound them further even though it is soft comp. The women will still experience prejudice, knowing that is not God’s way. Living with prejudice is just tough. Men get angry that a woman would dare think she can teach them and talk about putting her in her place and such. I’ve been there frequently over the past 39 years. Even women get angry because they are living ‘by the rules’ and all its difficult struggles, and resent seeing a woman who doesn’t think she has to.
When a person is called of the Holy Spirit to minister and that person has gone through the struggle of acknowledging it is indeed from God and accepting God’s call, it is a call that pulls at the very depths of one’s soul. If one does not or refuses to follow it, nothing else will do. You cannot be happy doing something else. When we follow the Lord’s Will there is a satisfaction and sometimes joy even in the midst of troubles.
believer3 wrote:
When a person is called of the Holy Spirit to minister and that person has gone through the struggle of acknowledging it is indeed from God and accepting God’s call, it is a call that pulls at the very depths of one’s soul. If one does not or refuses to follow it, nothing else will do. You cannot be happy doing something else. When we follow the Lord’s Will there is a satisfaction and sometimes joy even in the midst of troubles.
Important comment, believer3. I have seen this issue addressed by comps, including on the CBMW website and its Gender Blog. Their response is that a woman may believe that she has heard such a call, but it cannot be a legitimate call, because Scripture is clear that women cannot minister within certain roles.
So, we get back to the matter of interpretation of Scripture. Comps believe that they are right; egals believe that they are right. Comps (some, anyway) believe that egal women cannot hear the Holy Spirit to minister in roles that comps believe the Bible prohibits them from ministering in.
It reminds me of the divisions that took place during my high school years where the “tongues movement” came to mainline churches. Those who believed that tongues had ceased (typically believed to be when the biblical canon was completed) believed that anyone speaking in tongues, then, must either be self-deluded or speaking through the power of the Devil or his demons. It is interesting that that particular debate is no longer so active, although I am sure that there are still those who believe that anyone speaking in tongues today is doing so either under the power of demons or is just deceiving themselves.
Similarly, there are devout Christians, such as our brother David McKay, one of the bloggers here, who believe that Scripture “clearly” teaches that there are specific roles that women cannot function in in marriage or the church. No one on this blog should tell David he is wrong to believe as he does. I admire his courage to stay here even though, at this time, egalitarians have the most vocal voices. (David, I hope that you can continue here, because we do need to hear from you. We need to build bridges between us, however that can be done, and I am often at a loss how that can be done.)
I don’t think that we should try to build bridges on this blog by either side telling the other side that they are wrong (although I’m sure that many disagree with me, even on this). I do believe it is fine to state on this blog what each side believes to be true and why they believe that.
It is very difficult to know how to build bridges between parties who disagree. I don’t believe that it is helpful to try to convert each other to our own view. We can share what we believe. If through that sharing someone understands something in a new way, or even comes to believe that what they need to change and believe what the other side is saying, that is their choice. It is a matter of conscience.
I do know that there have been attempts by high-level biblical scholars who have different beliefs about charismatic gifts to build bridges toward each other. I wish that more of that kind of effort would take place now between people who disagree about gender matters. Sometimes I wonder if this blog is the only place on the Internet where this effort is being made, and, as you know, it’s been a very difficult struggle for us here. If the latest poll in our blog margin is any indication, we don’t have very many people left regularly visiting this blog. Many have left because they did not feel safe here. I’m sure that many in the charismatic debates have some of those discussions in the past because they did not feel safe or welcome there.
My greatest concern is how much each side in the gender debates is willing to say negatively about the other side. I don’t think it builds up the Body of Christ for us to question the commitment to Scripture of anyone who is fully committed to Scripture.
I don’t think it builds up the Body of Christ for us to question the motives of others. We all have mixed motives and often we don’t even fully know our own motives. Only God does.
Well, I’m preaching and I’m not preaching to you, believer3. I’m preaching to everyone, including myself, and I probably should reserve my preaching for blog posts!
Well, I’ll add this personal note. The very things I have said in this comment and my attempt to build bridges through this blog cause some to call me “soft,” soft on biblical truth, soft on not attacking (secular or evangelical) feminism more, etc. I have always been a conservative Christian. I am fully committed to Scripture as being my final authority for truth about faith and practice. If I weren’t, I probably wouldn’t be spending my energy in the worldwide Bible translation effort.
Accusations of being “soft” hurt; I don’t like that hurt; I don’t like to be accused of things that I believe are not true. But sometimes we just have to keep going and recognize that not every accuser is right.
Actually, Wayne, I’m personally really glad you said that, because I rarely share the thoughts I did above, because they are so deeply personal to me…I spent so many years shoving them down, assigning them to flesh and Satan and then finding out, much later while on my face bawling my head off to God about a slightly different matter, that they were from the Spirit.
Hating to be overly subjective and knowing this story may make some wince and possibly others gnash their teeth (sorry!), it happened through a clear and certain voice from that same Spirit (at least that’s what I believe). The words were something to the effect of, “Why do you call what is from Me, rebellion?” My heart sunk to my toes… If memory serves me correctly, that was the beginning prod to really search the Scriptures again and see if the egals had anything of any real substance undergirding their arguments (this is after, heh, writing papers, etc, totally destroying egal positions…)…
Okay, so, as a comp, I would have said that a demonic influence or something similar gave me that impression. Actually, that *is* what I said regarding other women who claimed to have heard from God to, I don’t know, go be missionaries without a male leader, etc… When it happened to me, though…I ate my words. Because it was God, the One I know, the One I’ve loved ever since I was three years old and first learned about Him… (either that, or boy oh boy, I am beyond decieved)…
So it’s really hard for me to open up enough to share about that bone-eating feeling of not going with this calling, because in so doing, I risk the (all–too-familiar) experience of being told I’m being demonically inspired/led. Which is painful enough after having done it to myself all these years, but now that I know differently, it feels like a precious precious baby that needs to be protected from those who would poke sticks at it…
Hence why I can’t attend even a cool soft-comp church like Imageo Dei (even though it sounds beyond wonderful and I drooled my head off at hearing my good friend’s description of what it was like there).
I could probably do it, if I was one of those women who didn’t have any calling other than those that fit nicely in the soft-comp world. But…I”m not one of those women.
So, thanks. Because while I know that some will think that I’m demonically inspired (and that’s okay, in that I understand, because I thought the same thing myself and so totally *get* why a person would think that), it’s a precious thing to me now and so at least I don’t have to hear any direct condemnation. And….I appreciate that! *smiles*
Mara,
he was more concerned for the welfare and inclusion of fellow believers than the rigidity of men’s doctrines.
We need more pastors and elders with a heart like that.
Believer 3,
Even women get angry because they are living ‘by the rules’ and all its difficult struggles, and resent seeing a woman who doesn’t think she has to.
One of the first things that put me off after our first Sunday at our current church was, “they have a lady preacher!”
I had to learn to see beyond the gender of the person teaching up front in order to be able to discern whether that was the place God wants for us or not.
My first reasons to reject that church were (I believe) wrong. Now my reasons are not prejudice or unwillingness to accept teaching from a woman.
I believe God allowed me to land in that church for reasons that may include dealing with my prejudices.
I wasn’t angry because I was living by the rules and she wasn’t, I genuinely believed she must have heard God wrong when she said He called her to begin this ministry. It wasn’t a matter of envying her freedom, but rather a conviction that she was deceived.
I especially like their Commitment
to lead their families with godliness
That sounds very good. It takes the emphasis off of the usual lead=authority (as in decision maker, last word, etc) and emphasizes the responsibility to be the one who takes initiative in godliness. lead=initiate, by example.
As someone who is more familiar with Complementarianism and believes that God has given specific instructions to husbands and to wives, but who struggles with the idea of hierarchy within marriage, I like that they are placing more emphasis on the actual written admonitions.
I’m glad they have made a statement regarding abuse, and that they are committed to treat women as fellow heirs, equal, and with a voice in church related matters.
Eric said it elsewhere, if women’s voices are heard in the church, if they are honored as fellow heirs, the men may see them as such in their marriages too.
Wayne wrote (in response to Believer3):
Their response is that a woman may believe that she has heard such a call, but it cannot be a legitimate call, because Scripture is clear that women cannot minister within certain roles.
This reminds me of a spiritual gifts analysis our church had us take recently (from Team Ministry). At the end of the test, it gives a caveat to the women who ended up with the primary gift of shepherding:
On the laity side, a much larger percentage of those taking the spiritual gifts inventory on-line are women (63.7%). Women tend to score high in the Gift of Shepherding because the characteristics of the gift of shepherding are very similar to the God-given instincts of mothering which comes natural to most women. Although many women have the gift of shepherding and it manifests itself in many areas of service, we believe women should consider this factor when evaluating whether or not they actually have the dominant gift of shepherding. They may want to look closely at their second dominant gift.
I was puzzled by this statement – wondering if they were actually saying that the women with shepherding results were deceived. Perhaps they should avoid the confusion and make a separate test for men and women?
I think they may have wanted an “out” for those females who were comp and scored high on shepherding.
Since I live in the suburbs of a large city, I have the choice to pick a fully egalitarian church. Since I have that choice that’s what I pick. Now if I lived in an area without egal churches around, I would have to accept a soft comp one. However, Imago Dei is not the type of soft comp church I would pick.
On the laity side, a much larger percentage of those taking the spiritual gifts inventory on-line are women (63.7%). Women tend to score high in the Gift of Shepherding because the characteristics of the gift of shepherding are very similar to the God-given instincts of mothering which comes natural to most women. Although many women have the gift of shepherding and it manifests itself in many areas of service, we believe women should consider this factor when evaluating whether or not they actually have the dominant gift of shepherding. They may want to look closely at their second dominant gift.
That sounds like one of those “what are your natural abilities/propensities/strengths” type of surveys/inventories. I would ask: If a person is naturally a certain way, then should such be considered a Holy-Spirit-given charism? Would considering such to be their HS-charism not imply or suggest that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to the unregenerate as freely as It does to the regenerate without differentiation?
A second thought: If this survey methodology IS considered by this church to be a valid indicator of one’s spiritual charism, then it seems that to me that they are either:
1) Saying that women who test high in shepherding are deceived if they think they should be pastors/elders, because they are confusing their natural mothering instincts with that which the Holy Spirit gives,
or
2) The answer to the question: Can/Does God gift women to be pastors/elders? is staring them in the face and they don’t like the answer, so they reject it.
Am I being too harsh and/or am I drawing wrong conclusions?
Let me mention something: I think I have abilities to teach, and others who’ve interacted with me in church situations seem to confirm/affirm that.
However, I do not know if that is my charism, though others apparently think it is. I know that this was not a new ability I received when I became a Christian, so I guess I’d have to caveat my previous post to say that I don’t know if there is a hard and fast line between one’s abilities and one’s spiritual gifting.
Would considering such to be their HS-charism not imply or suggest that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to the unregenerate as freely as It does to the regenerate without differentiation?
I don’t know if there is a hard and fast line between one’s abilities and one’s spiritual gifting.
Now, these are interesting questions I haven’t thought of before.
Maybe thinking we can test and quantify a gift from the Spirit is too ambitious!
And Eric, the two questions you posed occurred to me as well. I never thought to spin it in the more positive light that Don did.
The organization that publishes this test seems pretty mainstream evangelical. I wasn’t able to find any statements about gender on their limited website to help clarify their explanation.
After reading some of the responses here from the gals who said they absolutely could not do even soft comp it kind of sparked a realization about myself.
The very first church I was in when I gave my heart to Jesus was hard comp. Don’t know what the second church was.
The third church was egal and they encouraged me to go to their Bible college and I did. Therefore I was validated. Even as I went to churches after that which were more soft comp (I moved a lot. I’m not a church hopper)
I’ve never been accused of hearing from the devil or being deceived over my gifts of desires in ministry.
That’s probably why I’m okay with where I am. If I have to walk away in order to serve God more fully, I can do it with a confidence I received from an earlier validation.
I can only imagine how devastating it would be to have people accuse me of rebellion when, in fact, it was the leading of the Spirit.
I think there is a lot of good in the statement: they have gone out of their way to be biblical and conciliatory. I think they have succeeded more with the first than with the second, because if what they say is true, then the contrary position is not also biblical.
does Imago Dei’s statement represent a true middle ground? Or is there no possible middle ground?
I don’t think there’s a middle-ground theologically. But my husband and I (being egal) are for the most part comfortable in our comp church because the gender issue is a non-issue. Very little about it comes from the pulpit.
We are uncomfortable now and then when interacting with various church members, but have decided that (since we can’t find a better church) the gender issue is not the most important factor for us. It was a big factor in our previous church, however, because compism was very important – taught, lived, and breathed.
The egal churches in our area (that we know of) are theologically unsound in some important areas. What to do?
EricW wrote
‘I don’t know if there is a hard and fast line between one’s abilities and one’s spiritual gifting.’ I don’t think there are. After all God gives us our natural abilities and the opportunities to develop them. What distinguishes a spiritual gift, I think, is the outcome. If God uses something that could be described as an ability (eg the ability to teach) to build up the body of Christ then I think that would be the indication of a spiritual gift. This is why if no members of the body think we have a particular gift then we might need to rethink whether or not we do. Unless they are reaching that conclusion because of our gender. I think also that having a passion for exercising that gift and finding joy in doing so would be indications.
I preach regularly at church and it gives me great joy. I love it. But also people indicate that God is using what I say. Some of the feedback I get shows the effect of my years of teaching – the fact that I am easy to listen to, easy to folow, clear and can explain things. All these are very important skills in teaching High School Physics! The students are confused enough without the teacher adding to it
But in terms of being able to exercise that gift the experience as a teacher wasn’t enough. God had to take away the great fear I had of getting up in front of a group of adults and speaking (kids were fine). I used to shake doing a Bible reading.
But on the topic of this thread: I found the statement by Imago Dei encouraging and, as others have observed, it would probably make it an OK environment for some/a lot of egal woman provided she didn’t feel called to be an elder. I wasn’t sure if their position would allow women to preach.
One thing that struck me as very helpful was the acknowledgement that
‘3) Both viewpoints have biblical and reasonable arguments.’
Coming from where I do (or did) this is refreshing. I studied at an Anglican (Episcopalian) evangelical theological college that seemed to be uniformly comp. As far as I know I was the only one in my year, or any year that thought otherwise. And I only came to those conclusions part way through my time there. But the question never seemed to be debated. We never heard any opposing arguments that were biblical. One student there said he hadn’t had time to look into it and his ‘default’ postion was comp. I found that I tended to know their arguments better than they did! And the general feeling was that if you took the Bible seriously then you would agree them.
As for whether Imago Dei’s position represents a true middle ground – I don’t think there is such a thing. Either you do let a woman preach or you don’t. Either you let a woman (appropriately gifted and trained) to lead a congregation or you don’t. I can’t see how there can be a middle ground. What would it look like?
On the other hand I think this postion is one which can foster relationships between people with differing views that honour God. Which is always a good thing.
On a true middle ground, or, er, a true-er middle ground, I like what the Evangelical Covenant denomination does. They say that the comp/egal debate is a secondary debate and prove-able with Scripture either way, so they don’t make it an object worth dividing over.
From what I’ve gathered, churches in their denomination can be either comp or egal—the only deal is that they promise to respect the other churches who choose differently. Some are headed by females, some not (more soft comp in flavor, like Imageo Dei’s version of soft comp) but they all agree on The Main Thing. I really like that. That’s something I can work with…
Either you let a woman (appropriately gifted and trained) to lead a congregation or you don’t. I can’t see how there can be a middle ground. What would it look like?
Those are my thoughts, too. As to what a middle ground would look like, maybe tag-team preaching, with a man and a woman alternating sentences.
Molleth,
I am a long-time member of the Ev. Cov. church and yes, they do stress “majoring on the majors,” so to speak, but they are egal. I actually didn’t know this until recently! And honestly, I don’t agree with some of their exegesis and defense of women in ministry
But that’s okay. Here is their “resolution” on women in ministry. (They call their central points of belief “affirmations,” and further positions approved at annual meetings, “resolutions.”)
Hi Bonnie. What arguments used by the Ev. Cov Church for women’s ministry do not persuade you?
I haven’t read all of the comments yet, and I would like to give my thoughts on this statement, but am I reading correctly that they allow women to be deacons and pastors, but not elders?
BTW, I just adore Craig Blomberg. I’m going to have to read this book now, thank you for posting about it.
Hi Bridget. I like the name of his church. [The Scum of the Earth]
Bridget:
Be sure to get the revised edition (2005) ISBN-10: 0-310-25437-X, not the 2001 first edition, of Two Views On Women In Ministry
Added to my Amazon wishlist, EricW. I’ll probably pick it up when we get our tax return.
David, I no longer have most of my sources in front of me; they were borrowed. But, in the one I am looking at at the moment (“A Biblical and Theological Basis for Women in Ministry”), I am not satisfied with the proposed meaning of “head.” I also think that Paul’s appeal to creation and the creation order in I Tim. 2 and I Cor. 11 are inadequately dealt with. That said, though, I need to study these matters further.
What I found when I was non-egal was that the majority of egal arguments did not make sense to me. I have had to go back and study things I had read a few years before to see what now make better sense.
I am very grateful to the counselor who told me he thought I should study this area more. I had gone into his office 100% sure that I was right in being non-egal and I came with the same assurance. But I had promised to look at the other side seriously in their own words and that is what God used to eventually change me. But I had to be faithful and study.
One way we can trick ourselves is to listen to some arguments, find the weakest one, dink that and feel we have disposed of the whole shebang. What we need to do besides dinking the weakest one is consider the strongest ones, the ones we do not know how to answer. Since a paradigm shift is involved, it will be expected to take some number of anomalies acknowledged before a shift is even possible.
Since a paradigm shift is involved, it will be expected to take some number of anomalies acknowledged before a shift is even possible.
Good point.
John Stackhouse makes similar observations.
In Finally Feminist, his view is that neither “side” satisfactorily and definitively answers every single question – thus the value in continuing to search and sift the evidence.
And in Humble Apologetics (excellent book, by the way) he writes that people convert because of a preponderance of evidence or “warrant”, not because of one point. We shouldn’t expect people to to change their entire worldview just because we can “catch” them in one or two inconsistencies – inconsistencies which may or may not matter to them anyway.
When I meditate on why God gave us the Bible God gave us, I can see he did NOT give us a list of 100 or 1000 things to do, which God could have done.
What God gave us is a collection of different literary forms, each form needing to be read in a way that respects its own form. And while there are rules and guidelines imbedded in the narratives, much of the Bible is NOT rules and admits to different interpretations.
One thing this does is means the Bible text continues to be discussed, which is something I think God wants.
But another thing is that part of the test of being a believer is to accept other believers who do not see things the same as you do.
Some googling led me to this blog on Women in Ministry:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/
I’m going to have to make 2 additional posts, at 1 link per post, to complete what I’m saying here (WordPress rejects/suspends 2+ links in a post)
A post at that site commented on authoritarianism in churches, specifically Mars Hill:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/01/15/they-are-sinning-through-questioning/
Which led me (via a comment) to this quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, The First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (John Knox, 1558):
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
It’s… well, read it for yourself.
Don, I’m trying out the new comment threading feature. Let’s see if it works here.
I heard someone who was being interviewed on NPR (I don’t recall when) who had converted to Judaism who said that Judaism is…pretty accepting of more than one interpretation of a religious text.
I wonder whether that is true. Because I note there can be so much judgment in the Christian world over whether someone is *really* saved, as they believe in Christ, yeah, sure, they put their faith in Christ, but they don’t believe in “x”. (So they aren’t believing in Christ in the right way, so to speak.)
I don’t feel called to be a minister or an elder, but I believe that a belief in complementarianism affects how men and women view the worth of women, in possibly subconscious ways that make women easier to discount. That’s why I find it tough to be in a soft-comp church, even though I don’t feel gifted to serve in any way that is restricted for women.
I heard someone who was being interviewed on NPR (I don’t recall when) who had converted to Judaism who said that Judaism is…pretty accepting of more than one interpretation of a religious text.
It’s true. I have a son-in-law who is attending Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. He has studied Jewish interpretation and there are often many different interpretations, sometimes all considered valid. Sometimes one interpretation is mystical, within the Jewish mystic tradition. Another interpretation may reflect one kind of rabbinical style, while yet another interpretation may reflect a different rabbinical style.
There does seem to be an acceptance of a variety of interpretations, at least among the less conservative branches of Judaism.
And…I see that Wayne includes the “women in ministry” site I mention in his blogroll here. So I’m being somewhat redundant. Oh, well, it’s Saturday – the day of rest and the day to turn off one’s brain for a spell.
The rabbi, Geoffrey Dennis, at the nearest synagogue to us, Kol Ami (Flower Mound, TX)
http://www.kolami-tx.org/
told me he recognizes that because they are the nearest synagogue for people north of Dallas, they try to accomodate persons from various/varying Jewish traditions, even though they’re technically Reform. The rabbi himself is a convert from mainline Protestantism. When I’ve visited, they’ve read from more Hebrew than I experienced growing up in Reform and Conservative congregations, but they also had a woman cantor. I attended a Torah study class there one Saturday with a friend who needed to make such a visit for his seminary class, and it seemed the discussion was pretty open re: interpretations of the text.
They also seem to be following Protestants in having “contemporary worship” services:
Alternative Shabbat Service
If you need to add more exuberance to your Friday night worship, come to the new Alternative Service now being offered on the third Fridays of the month. This service will be offered in addition to our Family Service and will begin at 7:45 on select third Friday nights. An Oneg Shabbat will be provided prior to services. Babysitting will be available. We hope the new format and our existing services will provide you with a variety of worship alternatives and that all persons’ needs will be fulfilled. If you’ve enjoyed the songs offered at the Shir Exuberance service, scroll down for a list of titles and composers.
On February 20th, Susan Colin and the Shir Exuberance Band will lead us in worship through song and instrumentation. And, on April 17th, Rabbi and Nikki Cohen will lead us in a “Meditative Shabbat.” As of now, there is no Alternative Shabbat Service planned for March.
Okay, well, I’ll just assume that I’m reading correctly that they allow women to be pastors and deacons, but not elders.
I find their position almost delightful; I’ve never heard of someone allowing women to be pastors but not elders. Pastor seems like a bigger job to me. I also get really tired of complementarian dismissal of the office of deacon as merely a “serving” role and therefore irrelevant to the argument for women’s leadership; I thought all leadership roles were ultimately acts of service to one’s brothers and sisters in Christ. So, seeing complementarians acknowledge that women were deacons in the Bible and the early church and that this is significant is a great step forward to me.
Their logic for their soft complementarianism is rather iffy. If they find it significant that only men were priests in the Old Testament, shouldn’t they find it significant that the priesthood belongs to all believers (men and women) in the New? Their assertion that only men were apostles completely ignores the debate on Romans 16:7, and saying only men were elders ignores epigraphical title data from the early church naming women as elders.
I also notice that they say nothing about the role of prophets in the Old Testament, which both men and women could be and a role in which women were known to exert strong authority over men (Deborah, Huldah). I don’t believe for a minute that prophets were ecclesiastically subordinate to priests. All of the data in the OT points to it being the other way around; it’s the prophets who lead the people and chastise and rebuke the priests. So, I’m sad to see the continued downplaying of the significance of women prophets. Perhaps that’s why they do allow women to be pastors, even if they don’t say why?
I find that the interpretation of scripture they’re using is not incorporating all of the data from the Bible and the early church, but I’m tickled that they make such a bold attempt to find middle ground. I could live with attending such a soft-c church.
Bridget Jack Meyers Okay, well, I’ll just assume that I’m reading correctly that they allow women to be pastors and deacons, but not elders. I find their position almost delightful; I’ve never heard of someone allowing women to be pastors but not elders. Pastor seems like a bigger job to me.
Bridget:
I’m not sure that Imago Dei’s (ID) statement about women pastors is what you’re suggesting it might mean. ID writes in their women’s ministry statment (the document that started this thread):
ID seems be saying that a “woman with the gift of pastor will find many expressions” – i.e., be enabled and empowered and encouraged in her gift at ID – but I don’t think that gift includes being a church “pastor” – i.e., one who can teach/preach from the pulpit (or stage, if they just use a wireless mike and the pastor/teacher walks around pulpitless, with Bible in hand) or one who has full pastoral authority.
As you can see/read from ID’s statement about elders/overseers, any woman “pastor” is under the authority of a man and exercises her pastoring authority in a somewhat reduced or emasculated (pun intended – couldn’t resist!) fashion:
http://www.imagodeicommunity.com/information/position-papers/elders-overseers/
One thing this does is means the Bible text continues to be discussed, which is something I think God wants.
But another thing is that part of the test of being a believer is to accept other believers who do not see things the same as you do.
Amen!
(I like this feature!)
Despite their claim to be “soft comp,” is ID’s position, in light of their statement about elders/overseers, that much different from plain old “comp”?
If they’re not letting women be pastors, then they’re just plain ol’ comp in my book. Deacon isn’t much of a concession, and saying that they believe women can have “the gift of pastor” and not actually be pastors is misleading.
I don’t feel called to be a minister or an elder, but I believe…
This is where I’m at, chai, thanks for saying this. Though I am not seeking high-office church leadership, I nevertheless find it difficult to interact with comp. men in some instances because I sense that they might be filtering the things I say through a certain lens.
saying that they believe women can have “the gift of pastor” and not actually be pastors is misleading.
Exactly. If God didn’t mean for women to serve in that capacity, would He give them that specific gift? As discussed earlier, “spiritual gifts” would seem to be given by God specifically for the the edification of the Church. In other words, something to be used.
At the very least, they should call it the gift of something else to avoid the apparent inconsistency.
Which begs the question: “What’s the difference between soft-comp and hard-comp?”
“One way we can trick ourselves is to listen to some arguments, find the weakest one, dink that and feel we have disposed of the whole shebang. What we need to do besides dinking the weakest one is consider the strongest ones, the ones we do not know how to answer. Since a paradigm shift is involved, it will be expected to take some number of anomalies acknowledged before a shift is even possible.” [Don]
Hi Don
When we participated in debating at school, we were told to present the other side’s strongest argument and then demolish that.
But I don’t see any strong *biblical* arguments for Egalitarianism as presented here and by CBE.
It seems to me that Egalitarians begin in the current period and want to reinterpret the Bible to be in harmony with our prevailing culture.
What do you think are the strongest biblical arguments for Egalitarianism?
Hey there,
I think soft comp and hard comp are both complementarianism, and that’s why I said I can’t understand the concept of a soft-comp church being viewed as a compromise between complementarianism and egalitarianism: It does not compute. Some other folks have done a great job of voicing specific concerns that we share.
I’d guess molleth could probably flesh out what patriarchal Christianity is, best (IIRC, you have mentioned somewhere or other that you have had experience with it).
But if I were to make other guesses, I’d guess that a hard-comp church is more likely to have complementarianism preached from the pulpit, and is less likely to recognize Phoebe as a deacon, so probably does not have any female deacons. If there are women serving in the church who do have the recognition of a title, they probably serve women and/or children, or are a secretary or assistant of some sort. They may consider an egalitarian view anti-scriptural enough to consider it a salvation issue.
A soft-comp church probably addresses complementarianism less often (if ever) from the pulpit, and would be more likely to have female deacons (although they may call them “deaconesses”). They may consider an egalitarian view to be in error, but not necessarily a salvation issue.
I could be completely wrong. Most of my experience has been in soft-comp churches.
Thank you for the input on my musing about Judaism.
A soft-comp church probably addresses complementarianism less often (if ever) from the pulpit…
This goes hand-in-hand with some of what I’ve seen . . . whether and to what extent the teaching extends into family life. In a hard-comp church, I witnessed comp teaching being consciously implemented in the families, discussed among members, etc.
It’s so hard to tell much from a statement like this. I liked the explicit statement about protecting women from abuse – that sort of intentionality is rather rare. I also liked the explicit reference to a council of women besides their wives to whom they would look for input on body life. My church lacks that and the pastor’s wives, in my observation (and I could be wrong), are hesitant to comment on church governance matters. Maybe they comment to their own husband’s occasionally, if they see something as particularly important but I don’t know that they would feel free to comment to another pastor. They are also very intentionally not trained theologically, so it seems like it would be easy to “pull rank” on them if they disagreed with something the pastor’s decided. I don’t know if that happens, it’s just a danger that seems obvious to me.
In short, I could go to that church, based on this statement alone (I don’t know if I’d be OK w/ other things about it – I wasn’t the biggest fan of Blue Like Jazz).
I think Imago Dei (whose name I love, BTW) would be more open to women in ministry than my church (which I do love, though it is more hierarchial in it’s complementarianism than I prefer). I like that they include women in the diaconate. My church does not do so explicitly, though they see a role for the wives of deacons as “helping” in the ministry of their husbands and they give single male deacons female “assistants.”
There is a relationship between the equal persons of the Trinity that includes leadership and submission.
This is the reason I would never attend Imago Dei if I had no choice but to attend a comp church. I would never attend any church that doesn’t hold the historic view of the trinity, where all three persons of the Godhead are always in total agreement. Since they are always in agreement, there is no leadership and submission between them.
David McKay:
What makes a Biblical argument a strong Biblical argument? The number of verses marshalled in its favor? Jesus countered the Sadducees’ Torah-based belief against the resurrection with a single verse. Paul (and subsequently Luther) rested his doctrine of justification by faith on a verse from Habakkuk, a verse which could also be translated/interpreted to mean that the righteous person will live because of his faithfulness to God or in keeping the Law. I.e., one could make a “strong Biblical argument” that Paul misused/misinterpreted/misapplied Habakkuk 2:4, esp. since there are many Biblical verses supporting keeping the Law as the way one pleases God and is righteous.
[Rabbit Trail: Interestingly, the author of Hebrews uses the LXX version of Habakkuk 2:3-4 in Hebrews 10:37-38 (with maybe a bit of LXX Isaiah 26:20 as the lead in?), which differs significantly from the Hebrew text, and adds the word "my" to the second half of 2:4. Could this also be evidence that Paul didn't write Hebrews?]
So … what makes an argument “Biblical,” and what makes a Biblical argument “strong”?
So can anyone explain to me what exactly are the varying degrees of complementarianism? This post leaves me feeling a little confused.
Seems like you either think women can be pastors and elders or you don’t.
I guess my main point was that it’s likely that comps of all stripes won’t believe that God gifts and calls women to be elders or pastors, but that soft comps may accept that women are gifted and called to serve in the church in other ways.
Such as serving the church as deacons. Possibly women in soft comp churches may also serve communion, as liturgists, maybe as leaders or co-leaders in “small groups”. Hard comp churches likely will not permit women to serve in any of these ways, but certainly not as deacons.
David,
I welcome you to demolish any of my arguments as you see fit.
I think it’s, boiled down, the degree to which women are excluded. Some only exclude women from some things, others from more things, etc… But I could be wrong, so someone correct that. This is just my experience.
One (very) soft-comp church I was in had women in just about everything, excepting the senior pastor and “elder” positions. Women taught and led things all the time.
Another church I was in, hard-comp, wouldn’t let women lead the music time, kind of winced if women were teaching high school boys (made it clear that it was not to be normal activity), and made a point of putting a man in charge of superintending the Sunday School program, etc.
G’day History.
In Scripture Christ willingly submits to his Father. But the Father never submits to the Son.
There is a reason for the terms Father and Son. Both have unique functions, though both are equal and eternal.
Even after the resurrection and Christ’s exaltation, after he has put down all his enemies [whom the Father has placed under his feet], Jesus hands the kingdom back to the Father. See 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
The passage concludes with
1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
David:
IIRC, I read somewhere that the phrase in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed “of whose kingdom there shall be no end” was added to counter those (perhaps the Arians?) who used 1 Corinthians 15:28 to argue for the lesser nature of the Son. Perhaps the Creed’s authors used Isaiah 9:7 to argue for Christ’s eternal kingdom and reign.
There is a reason for the terms Father and Son. Both have unique functions, though both are equal and eternal.
And that is exactly what I was taught in my church and all my theology classes at Bible school. I still believe it. Comps make it clear that they do believe that the Father and Son are ontologically equal, that is, fully equal with regard to their natures. But they fill different (complementary) roles. And some comps, such as Wayne Grudem, claim that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. Eternal subordinationism is something which the Church has addressed during its councils. To egalitarians, of course, it sounds like doublespeak to say that someone is, in nature, fully equal, but not equal in rank or role. It doesn’t sound at all like doublespeak to comps.
I think that if we can accept that each side is sincere (and has biblical passages for support) in believing in either temporary or eternal subordination of the Son, we can make progress toward bridge building, but not agreement or consensus which we will probably never achieve, just as we have not achieved consensus or agreement on a number of issues.
What especially bothers each side is that the other side calls them unbiblical. I think if we could begin to stop doing that and recognizing the Bible passages that each side uses to support its beliefs that we will have made progress in bridge building, while not compromising our beliefs one whit.
I’m hesitant to discuss the Trinity in any depth until I spend some time reading the Cappadocian Fathers. Whether I’d agree with their conclusions or not, I know that our 3 years in the Eastern Orthodox Church was the first time in my nearly thirty years as a Christian that I’d really encountered a kind of Christianity in which the doctrine of the Trinity was not merely a one-sentence statement of “What We Believe” (on the order of the ETS Doctrinal Statement that “God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory”), but a belief that formed and informed everything the church believed and did.
Hi Eric
You’ve posed some good questions here. Someone once asked “How many times does the Bible have to say something for it to be true?”
I’m sure the right answer is: Only once
However, the Bible does hammer some things home, over and over. Is this because God knows we need to hear it many times to accept it? Or is it because successive generations in biblical times needed the same warning or promise?
I think an argument is biblical, if it expresses what the Scriptures say. For that reason, I can’t see how the material at cbmw.org and http://www.cbeinternational.org can both be “biblical” as the Imago Dei statement says. At least not where they make conflicting statements. No doubt some of what they say would be affirmed by both sides of the debate.
I think a strong biblical argument is one that is not based on only one or a small number of texts, and can be shown to be in harmony with the teaching of the Bible as a whole.
I see Complementarianism, as I understand it, as bringing out of the Scripture what is plainly there.
I see Egalitarianism as expressed here and on the CBE website as imposing a contemporary grid on the Bible and reinterpreting its apparently plain statements.
G’day Wayne
Can you explain
1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all
in such a way that the Son is not voluntarily subordinate to the Father?
In Scripture Christ willingly submits to his Father. But the Father never submits to the Son.
Yes, I saw that this was in the ESV study Bible. Is this intended to be a model for marriage?
David,
In Scripture Christ willingly submits to his Father. But the Father never submits to the Son.
Are you saying that this is analogous to husbands and wives? That wives are to submit to husbands and not vice-versa? And so, wives submit to husbands who submit to Christ who submits to God?
Wayne — do some comps really claim that God and Jesus have complementary roles?
I see Complementarianism, as I understand it, as bringing out of the Scripture what is plainly there.
After reading Recovering Biblical Manhood (the whole thing) and other similar writings, I thought very much as you do. “It’s so obvious!”
One thing I’ve realized, however, as I’ve continued to study this issue is that, if we are to get anywhere in the discussion, we must acknowledge that either side must acknowledge that there are hard questions.
There are plenty of verses in the Bible that look “plainly egalitarian” and comps have to explain those verses just as egals have to explain the “plainly complementarian” verses.
There came a point when I realized that the paradigm I was using did not satisfactorily fit the Biblical evidence and my conscience required me to start digging around for a better paradigm.
Disliking some of what I saw in comp practice is not why my paradigm has shifted – not any more than the atrocities of the crusades cause me to question Christianity. Injustices give us good food for thought – but we both can acknowledge that sin is just plain sin.
Off the top of my head, here are some of the hard questions comps must answer because they are not clearly complementarian in Scripture:
1. Why does Ephesians 5:21 notapply to husbands, too? Why are husbands excluded from this command?
2. What about 1 Corinthians 7:4? Here we have an example of the wife having authority over the husband – his body, to be specific.
3. What about Deborah? Since the straighforward reading of the text indicates Deborah judged all the people, comps commonly say one of three things: 1. she only judged women (which is not in the text); 2. she was only a prophetess (an extra-biblical denigration of the status and authority of prophet); or 3. Deborah only “led” because there were no men good enough (also speculative and not supported by the text)
4. What about the infamous Junia?
Well, actually my list is really long, so I’ll stop here. I’m sure other egals have lists, too. I don’t want to argue these verses here. My point is simply that, from my judgement, the comp position is not plain throughout scripture. I acknowledge that egals have their own set of hard questions to answer.
I desperately hope that we can move further in the discussion and edifiy one another by honestly and circumstpectly discussing issues, verses, and paradigms without dismissing outright others’ thoughtfully-held paradigms as unbiblical and ridiculous. I know there are plenty of blogs available to either side for venting frustrations. However, I appreciate this blog for its unique ability to help me understand and ponder the thoughtful and specific points made by both camps – and everyone in between.
1 Corinthians 15:28 must be reconciled with/informed by other verses, such as:
Matt. 28:18 – And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
Col. 2:10 – [Christ] is the head of all rule and authority.
Phil. 2:8 – And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. [eternal or temporary?]
Heb. 5:7-9 – In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to himwho was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him. [again, eternal or temporary?]
Eph. 1:22 – And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church. [Is there an exception to ALL things?]
It would be quite difficult if not impossible for a husband to live out laying down his life for his wife (sacrificial love) without serving, without submitting in any way. Most husbands I know do NOT know what their wives need, want, or desire without their wives giving them strong direct ‘clues’.
“Don’t hint honey, just tell me what you want”!! How many times have women heard that?
Wayne — do some comps really claim that God and Jesus have complementary roles?
I think so, Bonnie. I googled on some key words to try to find statements from others that are in line with what I have often heard about the complementary roles of the persons of the Trinity. Here is one of the summaries I found:
“The Father architects. The Son accomplishes. The Holy Spirit applies.”
Here is a paragraph which is commonly taught by complementarians. I heard this same teaching a year or so ago when my brother took me to his church to attend part of The Truth Project seminar, a ministry of Focus On the Family:
“in the relationship between man and woman in marriage we see also a picture of the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity. Paul says, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Here, just as the Father has authority over the Son in the Trinity, so the husband has authority over the wife in marriage. The husband’s role is parallel to that of God the Father and the wife’s role is parallel to that of God the Son. Moreover, just as Father and Son are equal in deity and importance and personhood, so the husband and wife are equal in humanity and importance and personhood.”
Nick Norelli has blogged a review of Bruce Ware’s book on the Trinity and his claimed parallel human complementary relationships. In chapter 1 of Ware’s book he notes ten reasons to marvel at the Trinity. The last two reasons are:
“9. The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the authority-submission structure that exists eternally in the three Persons in the Godhead. [p. 21]
10. The doctrine of the Trinity–one God existing in three Persons in the ways we have described–provides one of the most important and neglected patters for how human life and human relationships are to be conducted. [p. 21-22]“
Some food for thought from Basil and Ambrose:
I Cor. XV. 28. On the Subjection of the Son.
“If the Son is subjected to the Father in the Godhead, then He must have been subjected from the beginning, from whence He was God. But if He was not subjected, but shall be subjected, it is in the manhood, as for us, not in the Godhead, as for Himself.”
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VIII. Basil: Letters and Select Works. (2). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
- – -
161. How, then, do we speak of His subjection? The Sabellians and Marcionites say that this subjection of Christ to God the Father will be in such wise that the Son will be re-absorbed into the Father. If, then, the subjection of the Word means that God the Word is to be absorbed into the Father; then whatsoever is made subject to the Father and the Son will be absorbed into the Father and the Son, that God may be all and in all His creatures. But it is foolish to say so. There is therefore no subjection through re-absorption. For there are other things which are made subject, those, that is to say, which are created, and there is Another, to Whom that subjection is made. Let the expounders of a cruel re-absorption keep silence.
162. Would that they too were silent, who, as they cannot prove that the Word of God and Wisdom of God can be re-absorbed, attribute the weakness of subjection to His Godhead, saying that it is written: “But when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him.”227
163. We see, then, that the Scripture states that He is not yet made subject, but that this is to come: Therefore now the Son is not made subject to God the Father. In what, then, do ye say that the Son will be made subject? If in His Godhead, He is not disobedient, for He is not at variance with the Father; nor is He made subject, for He is not a servant, but the only Son of His own proper Father. Lastly, when He created heaven, and formed the earth, He exercised both power and love. There is therefore no subjection as that of a servant in the Godhead of Christ. But if there is no subjection then the will is free.
164. But if they think of this as the subjection of the Son, namely, that the Father makes all things in union with His will, let them learn that this is really a proof of inseparable power. For the unity of Their will is one that began not in time, but ever existed. But where there is a constant unity of will, there can be no weakness of temporal subjection. For if He were made subject through His nature, He would always remain in subjection; but since He is said to be made subject in time, that subjection must be part of an assumed office and not of an everlasting weakness: especially as the eternal Power of God cannot change His state for a time, neither can the right of ruling fall to the Father in time. For if the Son ever will be changed in such wise as to be made subject in His Godhead, then also must God the Father, if ever He shall gain more power, and have the Son in subjection to Himself in His Godhead, be considered now in the meantime inferior according to your explanation.
165. But what fault has the Son been guilty of, that we should believe that He could hereafter be made subject in His Godhead? Has he as man seized for Himself the right to sit at His Father’s side, or has He claimed for Himself the prerogative of His Father’s throne, against His Father’s will? But He Himself says: “For I do always those things that please Him.”228 Therefore if the Son pleases the Father in all things, why should He be made subject, Who was not made subject before?
166. Let us see then that there be not a subjection of the Godhead, but rather of us in the fear of Christ, a truth so full of grace, and so full of mystery. Wherefore, again, let us weigh the Apostle’s words: “But when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him: that God may be all in all.” What then dost thou say? Are not all things now subject unto Him? Are not the choirs of the saints made subject? Are not the angels, who ministered to Him when on the earth.229 Are not the archangels who were sent to Mary to foretell the coming of the Lord? Are not all the heavenly hosts? Are not the cherubim and seraphim, are not thrones and dominions and powers which worship and praise Him?
227 1 Cor. xv. 28.
228 S. John viii. 29.
229 S. Matt. iv. 11.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters. (304). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Wow, Eric. Those are so interesting.
Having grown up with the doctrine of eternal subordination (though it was not called that), I was astounded (absolutely astounded) a couple years ago when I started researching the concept for myself and found that E.S.S. was(seemingly, at least, based on everything I could find) resoundly repudiated by Christians through history…until recently.
It is in all of my Bibles at 1 Corinthians 15:28, but I think some folk are reading more into this than is there.
I think sometimes we say to one another
“If you say *this*, then you must also be saying *that*.
Randy Davis, a thoughtful Southern Baptist Louisiana pastor, argued cogently against eternal generation and eternal subordination of the Son at the Yahoo theology group.
I think some folk give more credence to the creeds on the trinity than to Scripture. We have to remember that the trinity is a later development and is not directly taught in the Bible.
We steadfastly hold to the doctrine of the trinity, but must look back to Scripture to check if it is saying what the creeds are saying.
Randy has just about persuaded me that the creeds teach eternal generation, but the Scriptures do not. But I can’t see how to make sense of the passage in 1 Corinthians if the Son does not willingly submit to the Father, as the passage seems to say unambiguously.
I agree zhouya.
Informed by, reconciled with, but not nullified by.
Concerning Ephesians 1:22. There is an exception. The Father is not under the Son. Scripture itself says this in 1 Corinthians 15.
1 Corinthians 11 tells us the Son is under the Father.
David,
In Scripture Christ willingly submits to his Father. But the Father never submits to the Son.
Do you think this is the model a Christian husband should aspire to?
Wayne, thanks so much for posting the link to Norelli’s post. He seems to see the same things I do — the problems with “supremacy” language used of the Father, the Father-Son relationship being analogous to the husband-wife relationship, and thinking of the Trinity in terms of rank.
It seems to me that the point of John 14:31, of Jesus doing His Father’s will, is so that the world would know He loves the Father. The authority of Jesus’ that He speaks of earlier in the chapter is authority to do good works. And the good works, which are examples of keeping His commandments, are proof of love. Those who love prove this love by loving. The authority over those who love is love; the authority over those who do not love is judgment.
This is another way in which the authority relationships between the Father-Son and husband-wife are not analogous. God the Father would never authorize Christ to do anything contrary His will. Would He authorize a husband to do to anything contrary to His will? I wouldn’t think so, yet husbands, being human, are not perfect like Christ.
I also find it hard to believe that God would require wives to submit to non-love on the part of their husbands (other than to remain faithful and loving toward him), or require believers to submit to a pastor who is in error, or to a government coercing citizens to sin. Both Romans 13 and I Peter 2 speak to obeying ruling authorities that are good, not evil. God gives us governmental authorities for our own good and for the sake of good, but of course these authorities are sometimes (often?) corrupt. What then? Are we to submit anyway and become martyrs? Is this what is meant by I Peter 2:18-20?
Are you sure? 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that God is the kephalê of Christ. It doesn’t say that “the Son is under the Father” (the words “Son” and “Father” are not even used in this passage). Doesn’t one have to first assume or conclude that a kephalê relationship is an over-under relationship to say that “1 Corinthians 11 tells us that the Son (Christ) is under the Father (God)”?
I think a possible problem with viewing kephalê as being hierarchical is that Paul’s analogizing or ordering then seems to become inconsistent, for if every man is said to be “under” Christ, why does he then seemingly leapfrog over Christ and say that man is the image and glory of God? If a woman is the glory of her kephalê, why is man not said to be the glory of his kephalê, but is said to be the glory of Christ’s kephalê?
Do you accept or reject the filioque? I.e., which doctrine of the Trinity do you steadfastly hold to?
On the passage in I Cor. 15, I believe it says what it says, but I wonder, what does it mean? Is it an outright statement of rank, or does it have a larger, more specific meaning? The passage is about being raised from the dead. Christ is the first-born of the dead raised to life, upon which fact our entire faith rests (v. 17). In v. 27, Paul explains that “all things” means all things except the Father; Jesus’ subjection to the Father completes the loop, so to speak, completes the resurrection. Things have come full circle, and are finalized. Otherwise the dead are in limbo
And we will all reign with Him forever. Does it matter what exactly the order of ranking is, when all will be glorified and perfect? I don’t think so. The problem with authority in a fallen world is that it is abused. Does God ordain abuse? Yes, in some instances, I think He does. But if He ordains all abuse, then Martin Luther is not the hero we think he is. He stood up to the Pope.
I see comp. doctrine as abstracting “authority” from what that authority means and what it’s for. I don’t believe it should be abstracted and idolized itself, as if rank or rule itself is all that matters.
Hi Eric
Scripture teaches that the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, if this is what you are talking about.
I’m not sure if the Spirit “proceeds” from them, though. Is that Scriptural, do you think?
[...] McKay muses [full comment here], Randy Davis, a thoughtful Southern Baptist Louisiana pastor, argued cogently against eternal [...]
The “orthodox” (or I could say “Orthodox”) doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is that the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The filioque addition states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (the meaning of filioque).
The “West” – i.e., Roman Catholicism and Protestantantism – accepts and confesses the filioque. The East does not. (At least formally; there is a range of opinion, from viewing it as largely a semantic disagreement to calling the filioque the sum of all heresies).
So … does the doctrine of the Trinity you hold to conform to the filioque version or the non-filioque version? I.e., what is the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Is there a double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, or does the Spirit proceed simply from the Father? Inquiring minds want to know!
Regarding “proceeding from”… J. Oliver Buswell in his Systematic Theology (1962) mentions that we get this idea of generation or “proceeding from” from the word which we translate in English as “begotten”. He argues that this word is mistranslated:
Careful lexicographical studies prove beyond a question that the word monogenes is not derived from the root gennao, to beget or generate, but is derived from genos, kind or class. The word therefore means “in a class by himself,” “the only one of his kind,” or in other words “unique.” The French Bible correctly reads “son fils unique” for our English “his only begotten Son.” The word “unique” would not be euphonious in English in John 3:16, but that would be the correct reading.
[Scratching my bald head]
Eric, how has my answer that
Scripture teaches that the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son
not answered your question?
Am I missing something? [besides hair]
[...] Complegalitarian for the Imago Dei church statement on [...]