Intellectuelle   Gender issues

I am starting a series of posts to discuss arguments being presented by prominent figures in the church today on the topic of manhood and womanhood.  I believe that there is great need for more conversation, not that there hasn’t been a plethora already.  But I have seen little that rings absolutely true, and have yet to find a prevalent model that I can wholeheartedly support.  I am not, I repeat, not, trying to set myself up as an authority.  I aim to think through some things and offer my thoughts for whatever they may be worth.  (If I can’t do that, I might as well quit blogging, or writing and speaking altogether.)  I aim to discern, not to judge.  So I ask that whoever reads what I write consider the truth or falsehood of my claims merely for what they are.    

So in the end, this whole controversy is really about God and how His character is reflected in the beauty and excellence of manhood and womanhood as He created it.  Will we glorify God through manhood and womanhood lived according to His Word?  Or will we deny His Word and give in to the pressures of modern culture?  That is the choice we have to make.

I do not know the context from which this quote is taken, but, as it stands alone on the homepage of the CBMW, I will address it as such. 

In my view, the controversy is not about God and His character as expressed in gender-specific ways; it is about the ways in which men and women see fit to understand manhood and womanhood.  If Grudem is suggesting that the final word on the matter is God’s design for man and woman, and that His character is evident in the godly expression of both manhood and womanhood, then I agree.  However, I don’t think that manhood and womanhood themselves hang in the balance.  What does hang in the balance is Christian charity, unity, and godly character.  What really matters is how we stand before God and live out our lives with one another.  What matters are the auspices under which interpretation of Biblical texts is made, and the manner in which disagreement over these texts is handled. 

Does anyone else see similarities between the gender debates and the YEC/evolution debates? Note this from Young Earth Creationism Makes Life Difficult for Everyone at Christianity Today:

Creationist geologists are now numerous enough to fill a large meeting room and well educated enough to know that in rejecting the geologic timeline they are also essentially taking on the central tenets of the field. Any “evidence” presented at the conference pointing to a young earth would be no more convincing than voodoo or alchemy to mainstream geologists, who have used various radiometric-dating methods to establish that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

The scholars defending the traditional views of Scripture interpretation similarly seem to refute “new” evidence as faulty, ipso facto. Whether it all actually is faulty or not I’m not in a position to say. (Then why bother to say anything, since I haven’t any scholarly authority? Well, if Luther [and Calvin] were right, and priesthood resides in every believer, then enough can be gleaned by any believer from an as-honest-as-possible translation of the Bible that that person may gain sufficient knowledge of spiritual truth to properly guide his or her life.)

Would the scholars agree with this? Not, I suppose, if they consider themselves elite:

I believe that there has been a progression -- a series of covenants, a progressive revelation -- in the history of God's relationship with mankind. We are still in the most recent revelation, that of Christ: the New Covenant. God Himself has been the same all this time, although, while His dealings with mankind have in some ways remained the same, in other ways they have changed.

There are many references to Old Testament scripture in the New Testament, notably Jesus’ words and Paul’s. Jesus quotes it to show that He is the fulfillment of prophecies, and Paul refers to it to show Christ's fulfillment of prophecy and also how life in the New Covenant relates to life in the Old.

But John Piper, speaking of marriage, says that Paul used Scripture the way Jesus did – as prophetic:

I was reading the introduction to the book of Ephesians in a friend's New King James Version Open Bible, copyright 1975, and found these words:

The theological themes stressed [in Ephesians] are these:

(1) Divine election. ...

(2) Reconciliation. One of the great themes of Ephesians is that the barriers are broken down -- first between man and God, and then between man and his fellowman. Paul saw that Christ was the one who broke these barriers down. First, between Holy God and sinful man by becoming man. Second, between the races by bringing together in his body (the church) all the races as one new mankind! Third, between master and slave by placing us all on equal footing as servants of Jesus Christ. Fourth, Jesus broke the system where man dominated the woman, male and female were equal before God.

So far so good. Continuing:

Last week, I wrote the following note at the end of my post, Unpacking male headship...part I:

I don't disagree with everything [John] Piper says in the message [quoted in the post], but I do believe that he makes marriage too dependent upon Christ in terms of chronology as well as the Trinity. Did the entire OT point to Christ? In some ways, yes, but not entirely in terms of time. A new-covenant chronological snobbery is not warranted, for it suggests that everyone who believed in times B. C. was somehow less realized than those who believed A. D. Yes, God revealed more of Himself A. D. than He did before, or, rather, drew mankind closer to His bosom, but I'm not sure that we can say that this imparts a superiority to this age. I don't know that superiority of the age matters in terms of Christ; it just is what it is. There were great godly men and women of old as well as of new, and all have fulfilled God's purposes and achieved salvation.

I need to finish this thought. Paul starts out his letter to the Ephesians by praising God the Father who redeemed us through the blood of Christ for "the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him [Christ] with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ..." (Eph. 1:7-10, NASB)

Why did Adam eat the forbidden fruit?

The answer commonly given comes from Gen. 3:17 by way of Pauline interpretation: he listened to Eve. Eve was deceived by the serpent and therefore ate of the fruit, and Adam listened to Eve and ate of the fruit as well.

But why did he listen to her? Is it her fault? Is it his fault? Is it the serpent's fault?

The serpent beguiled Eve. She listened to the serpent instead of obeying God. Adam listened to Eve instead of obeying God. All three were cursed. Note that, when God asked Adam whether he'd eaten of the tree of knowledge, he blamed Eve (Gen 3:12). When God asked Eve what she'd done, she blamed the serpent (v. 13). So God cursed first the serpent, and then Eve, and then Adam. Is there significance to this order? Was it first the serpent's fault, and then Eve's fault, and then Adam's?

In Romans 5:12-19, we read that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression (disobedience), not through either the serpent or through Eve. Does this mean that original sin is imputed to Adam, and that he is responsible for that sin? (In I Corinthians 15:22 Paul says that "in Adam" all die.)

I've gotten a bit discombobulated in my writing on gender issues; my life has been a bit out of whack lately and I've lost the organization of thought as to where I was going with it (and can't find a few of my books). No doubt I will get it back eventually, but in the meantime I want to respond to a post at CBMW on the true meaning of "headship" (part one).

The post includes an essay by Dr. John Mark Reynolds on how "headship" cannot mean "source" or "origin" because of the generally-understood meaning of the term "headship" at the time Paul was writing, credited to Plato's writings. [correction: What Dr. Reynolds said was not that "headship" cannot mean "source" or "origin," but that kephale as used by Paul cannot be said to definitely not mean "authority." My apologies for the misrepresentation.]

I have no problem accepting that "headship" means "seat of authority," especially religious authority. I have no reason not to, and indeed no desire not to. Where I think the discussion goes south is in the understanding of just what type this authority is, and what it looks like in real life.

As Ilona said, what's at stake is a "worldly," or fleshly, understanding of headship and authority as opposed to the one informed by the Word, whether it be the gospel, the Scriptures, or the Word from the mouth of a true believer, via the Holy Spirit.

What is the religious authority of a man?

Or rather, which of the following makes a female person less womanly?

a) wearing pants
b) having a "strong" personality (not to be confused with rudeness)
c) having athletic ability, or being physically strong, or built like a Mack truck (take your pick)
d) wearing her hair short
e) working outside the home
f) being good at carpentry
g) preferring crafts, nature study, mechanical things or other such things to dolls (in childhood)
h) not wearing makeup
i) being homely
j) having small breasts
k) not caring for lace
l) not caring to cook or bake (though obviously doing it anyway, so as not to starve)
m) being infertile
n) being amenorrheic
o) being homosexual
p) being a liar
q) cheating
r) stealing
s) gossiping
t) being purposely seductive of someone other than a marriage partner or serious prospect
u) being envious
v) backbiting
w) murdering
x) neglecting spouse or children
y) being slothful
z) abusing drugs or alcohol

Darn, I'm out of letters.

My short answer to the question: none of the above make a woman any less a woman, or less womanly. Some of the above make a woman not a very good person. Some of them are indicative of a woman being less than she can be, or less than one might say she was purposed to be...the question is, which ones? Some of them are part of what being a woman may be, legitimately, regardless of what kind of a person she is. Again, which ones, is the question.

From the CBMW website:

Is the Bible clear? It certainly claims to be. By God's grace, it is the Word of God that helps simple people like me become wise: "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple (italics mine, Psalm 19:7). The Bible must be understandable because it imparts understanding to simple people (Psalm 119:30). Further, God's words are assumed to be accessible in Deuteronomy 6:6-7 where all parents are commanded to teach them to children and discuss them throughout the daily activities of life. Therefore, seminary can be helpful, but is not required to understand the Bible.

From the NIV Translators’ Preface to the Comparative Study Bible:

There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible...As in other ancient documents, the precise meaning of the biblical text is sometimes uncertain. This is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts than with the Greek text. Although archaeological and linguistic discoveries in this century aid in understanding difficult passages, some uncertainties remain.

...Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task.

The Bible does not claim to be clear, and none of the examples cited above prove so. The message unto salvation and a transformed life is certainly clear, and the basic nature and status of both God and man are clearly presented. But much of the remaining Scripture is less clear. I believe that these things are of lesser importance, and not necessary for salvation nor crucial for right living. Paul does say that all Scripture is God-breathed and good for teaching, reproof, etc. (2 Tim 3:16-17), yet I don't believe we can infer from this that it is all completely accessible to everyone.

And if it's not, then we need scholars and seminary-trained pastors and the like to attempt to explain these passages to the rest of us (which they do). And if that's true, then it's not all "simple" enough to be understood by even the simple.

(Further note: You might say that I'm focusing on the "empty" portion of this not-completely-full "glass," whereas David Wayne at Jollyblogger looks at the portion that's "full." :-) )

(and Bonnie on exegesis and consistency of argument...I hope)

I would like to respond to the opening portion of Wayne Grudem’s
“An open letter to egalitarians” from 1988, revised 2003, in which he presents six questions to egalitarians and then responds to answers submitted by Linda Belleville. Unfortunately, imo, the way the first two questions are framed, and Grudem's responses, show how turned in on itself some of this discussion has gotten. I will address the first question (briefly) in this post, and the second in another post.

The first question:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for "head" (kaphale-) is used to say that person A is the "head" of person or persons B, and means what you claim, namely, "non-authoritative source"?

Grudem sets up this question to ask for “references to persons referred to as ‘kephale’ where they are in non-authoritative positions,” to counter a position that would assert that neither gender has authority over the other based upon the use of “kephale” in the Scripture passages in question (mainly Eph. 5:22-23). But Grudem’s question and his subsequent comments do not establish what that authority actually is, or what being the head actually means, which is necessary for the proper understanding of verses discussing man-woman relationships in which the word "kephale" is used. The verses Belleville gave in answer reference Christ Himself, but two of them refer to Him as head of the Body in the anatomical sense, where He is the head and the church is other parts – ligaments, joints, etc. (Eph. 4:16, Col. 2:19). This may have connotations of authority or it may not; if it does, it is important to know what those connotations are.

Grudem says, “Wherever person A is called ‘head’ of person (or persons) B, person A is in a position of authority over B.” He does not seem to allow that "authority" may indicate “authoritative (or guiding) influence or power” rather than a position of authority over, in terms of rank or hierarchy. He also does not supply any verses which refer directly to Christ's authority. The few mentions of His authority are found in the gospels in reference to His teaching and spirits (Mark 1:22, 27; Matthew 7:29) and execution of judgment (John 5:26-27).

Note: I want to amend the above statement, after the fact, and say that Jesus' authority is not as insignificant or incomprehensive as my statement may have implied. My mistake originally was to check Strong's concordance under "authority" instead of using a Greek concordance to search for the word exousia. Jesus has authority to heal and to forgive sin (Luke 5:24), and Matthew 28:18 indicates that He has been given all authority in the heavens and the earth. My apologies for incompletely representing Jesus' authority originally. Note, however, that this does not change the evidence for my originally-stated views.

Of authority, Jesus says, "...whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant..." Matthew 20:20-28.

Grudem is basing his claim that "head" denotes authority upon indirect evidence. He infers it. He also asks, “Does she [Belleville] believe that Christ has no authority over his church? This is unlikely.” But he asks this question in a public paper without asking her himself first. I say that we must determine what the authority, if any, Christ has over his church actually is (Ephesians 1) directly from Scripture before we do it by inference.

In a previous post, I discussed Wayne Grudem’s first question from the opening portion of his “An open letter to egalitarians” regarding the word “kephale.”

In this post, I’d like to look at the second question:

Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for "be subject to" (hypotasso-, passive) is used to refer to one person in relation to another and does not include the idea of one -directional submission to the other person's authority?

Where the Bible says that wives are to "be subject to" to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and implied in Eph. 5:22, 24), you tell us that the verb "be subject to" (hypotasso-, passive) is a requirement for both husbands and wives -- that just as wives are to be subject to their husbands, so husbands are to be subject to their wives, and that there is no unique authority that belongs to the husband. Rather, the biblical ideal is "mutual submission" according to Eph. 5:21, "be subject to one another," and therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husband's authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Eph. 5:22, 24).

But we doubt that this is a correct interpretation of Ephesians 5:21, because we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotasso- (passive) refers to a person or persons being "subject to" another person, and where the idea of submission to that person's authority is absent. In every example we can find, when person A is said to "be subject to" person B, person B has a unique authority which person A does not have. In other words, hypotasso- always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority.

My question is, why do we need an example of non-“one-directional submission”? It would be more accurate, I think, to speak of mutual one-directional submission. And to merely speak of “one-directional submission” (i.e., what the wife is to do) on its own without presenting it along with its complement, giving up one’s life (i.e., what the husband is to do), is to make an academic exercise that is not relevant to the meaning of the passage being argued.

Justinian I, powerful emperor of the Byzantine Empire, ruled from 527 to 565 A. D. His reign was marked by the rebuilding of the Roman Empire, unification of its code of law (the Corpus Juris Civilis), and construction of the Hagia Sophia. He is considered a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Though a peasant by birth, Justinian was adopted into the aristocracy by his uncle, Emperor Justin I, himself having achieved class rank via merit rather than by birth.

Justinian pursued Theodora, an actress (according to Procopius, although this is disputed), after spotting her by the roadside. She was equally taken with him and the two were allowed to marry. Four years later, Justinian succeeded the throne.

In every way her husband’s peer, Theodora helped him with nearly every duty and undertaking of his office. She was herself a self-starter, having used her talents, attributes, and intelligence to support herself before meeting Justinian (Procopius). As empress she is credited with persuading Justinian to step up and quell the Nika riots, which likely saved both his reign and the empire.

But here’s the kicker: the two had no children, and Theodora is said to have been a supporter of abortion (Procopius). Does this mean, perhaps, that she aborted any children she may have conceived by Justinian? I don’t know. But if she did, would her contributions to the empire in partnership with her husband be therefore illicit? In some ways, perhaps, but not entirely. If she’d had children, she would’ve been less able to work with him in the ways that she did, but not entirely unable. And as an empress she would have been able to secure help with their children. And whether she'd had children or not, she still had the talents and abilities given her by God.

Even Billy Graham tributes his wife with being a full-fledged partner in his ministry, though she did not travel with him but remained home with their five children, and later had her own ministries. She, like Theodora, was a strong, smart, talented woman whose talents complemented her husband's such that his ministry (and hers) were really theirs. They were one in both marriage and ministry.

I’ve read the paper at CBMW by Wayne Grudem entitled,
“The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21" (pdf) and can respond better now than I did in my previous post because there is more material there to work with (that explains what he meant in the article I critiqued).

I now understand what he is saying about hypotasso in Ephesians 5:21: he is saying that hypotasso alleion doesn’t mean “be subject everyone to everyone" (alleion means "one another") as the word "alleion" means in John 13:34, for example, but means “some to others” as it means in Rev. 6:4, Galatians 6:2, and I Corinthians 11:33. He says that, in the latter passages, it would be impossible for everyone to do to everyone whatever "alleion" (one another) refers to, so it must mean "some to others." He says that it must mean "some to others" in Ephesians 5:21 because not everyone can be subject to everyone else at the same time, and, in fact, only wives, children, and slaves are told to "be subject" (submit).

He also tries to show that hypotasso means “submission to authority” because wherever it’s used, it refers to submission to authority. Luke 2:51, Luke 10:17, Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1, and I Peter 2:13, for example. Some of his examples refer to authority but I'm not sure that they all do. (Is it possible to be subject to someone without being subject to their authority?)

Grudem says that, because hupotasso means "submit to authority," and Paul can't be telling husbands, parents, or masters to submit to the authority of their wives, children, or slaves respectively, then "hupotasso alleion" in Eph. 5:21 must mean "submit, one to another some to others" rather than "everyone submit to everyone."

I still disagree with him. Here's why:

A January 29, 2008 press release issued by a church within our small town included the following:

"__ __ Methodist Church has chosen to celebrate "Reconciliation Sunday" on February 17, 2008 at the 10 a.m. worship gathering in their sanctuary" (street address follows). "In order to celebrate our ministries of God's love and justice for all people, we chose this day to specifically celebrate reconciliation between the church and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community.

We are saddened by spiritual violence that is often inflicted on our LGBT brothers and sisters in the name of God. We know that our taking this stand may risk relationships with others, but we feel this is the most faithful interpretation of the entire scriptural (sic) witness. We deeply desire to stand in solidarity with all oppressed persons as we witness to God's radical hospitality and inclusive love."

A "revised mission statement" adopted in December 2007 follows, stating that this church seeks to "actively embrace" and "fully include all persons in the life of the church," (quotations in original) "regardless or race or ethnicity, ability level (mental or physical), age, living situation or employment status, sexual orientation and/or gender identity, veteran status, educational background, or political preference."

Is this a biblical "mission statement" or a socio-political one?

While we're on the subject of questions, here are a few more (I'm sure you can add several):

What is "spiritual violence"? How does as Christian "celebrate reconciliation" as noted above? What does that mean? In context, does "celebrate" translate into accept, condone, tolerate, or something else? What constitues an "oppressed person" and why? Based on what? What is "God's radical hospitality and inclusive love"? Statements like "the entire scriptural witness" seem to imply that something has been omitted or overlooked previously - like what?

What do you think?

I’d like to comment on another article that can be found at the CBMW website, written by Steven Tracy. His views are characterized as “soft” complementarian and offered as an example of “reasonable” complementarianism to those who complain that complementarianism promotes tyrannical husbands. I have read several of his articles and appreciate a good deal of what he has to say. However, he makes many of the same errors that the “harder” complementarians do, which I will attempt to show in this post.

(Based on my past posts and comments plus this one, you may wonder whether I’m CBMW-bashing. Well, you could call it that, but my aim is to critique. Or, perhaps more accurately, to deconstruct. As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe in the complementarity of man and woman, in the headship of the husband, and that woman was made for man from man and is his glory. But, I do not see these things in the way that the complementarians I’ve read do.)

In ”I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship”, Tracy makes some great statements about “loving equality,” but mixes them in with language that does not, ultimately, grant this loving equality. In other words, some of his statements contradict others. He seems to truly want to support loving headship yet also to hold on to patriarchal ideas, maintaining an incorrect definition of male headship and saying that it (the definition) doesn’t really mean what it really means...as if he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He seems to want to soften the abuses themselves in advocacy of a kinder, gentler male headship, which is really a kinder, gentler male dominance.

For example,

...physical and sexual abuse by men is shockingly prevalent in our culture. Abusive men often cite male headship/female submissiveness to justify their abuse. Ultimately, this is based on a perverted assumption of male superiority....Sadly, these Christian men grotesquely distort biblical headship. Male headship defined as harsh authoritarian domination of an inferior is destructive heresy that may lead to sinful and immoral actions. The Trinity teaches us that headship and submission are founded within an intimate love relationship among equals, not coercive domination by a superior.

I am surprised that he says harsh authoritarian domination may lead to sinful and immoral actions...does he really mean this? It IS sinful and immoral, and most definitely leads to more sinful and immoral action. Destructive heresy is sinful and immoral! (And destructive, and heresy.)

He also sets Trinitarian theology as the model, or example, of relationships among people, but I think this is a mistake (as is its reverse), because the analogies do not hold; they cannot be completed as dialed. There are too many differences between the Godhead and people. Only if Scripture explicitly lays out such analogies or equations may we adopt them, in the specific ways they are laid out. (For example, God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. This is a specific equation.)

Tracy asks,

Continuing my comments on ”I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship” by Steven Tracy from part I, Tracy writes,

Delegated Authority

In John 5:21-24 we find startling statements about the manner in which the Father delegates authority to the Son. Jesus echoes the ancient Jewish belief that the Father has authority over life and death (cf. 2 Kings 5:7; Job 1:21; Ps 104:27-30) by asserting "the Father raises the dead and gives them life." But Jesus then issues a completely unexpected declaration-"even so the Son gives life to whom He wishes" (v. 21). The assertion that the Messiah would have the authority to raise the dead was unknown in ancient Judaism.25 In v. 22 Jesus further demolishes the Jewish understanding of the Messiah's authority, by declaring "not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." In the Old Testament the Lord God is said to be the eschatological judge (Gen 18:25; Joel 3:2; Ps 82:8), but since Christ is ontologically one with the Father, he is given the full authority to judge. Christ explains the basis for the Father giving Him authority to judge in John 5:27-"because He is the Son of Man." The title "Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite self designation, and probably comes from Daniel 7:13-14 which describes a Messiah figure from heaven who is given everlasting "dominion" or authority, and is served by all the nations and peoples.

John 5:27 – “He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” Was this authority delegated, or given, and is there a difference? I say that there is, and that the authority was not delegated, but given. Delegation, as I understand it, implies that the delegate answers to the one who delegates.

Does Jesus answer to the Father? If God gives Jesus authority to execute judgment, does this mean that God the Father still has the final say? Does He have oversight? Can He examine a judgment that Christ has made and say, “No, Son, I think you’re wrong on that one; do it different next time.” Or does Christ have authority – perfect authority, wholly given, because He is Son of both the Father and man, and therefore in the perfect place to judge?

And, if we parallel man-and-woman or husband-and-wife to God the Father and Christ, does this then mean that women have been given all judgment? No, of course not. The parallels are limited.

We clearly see here that the Father's headship over the Son does not preclude the Son having great power and authority. In fact, since the Father and the Son are equals and in intimate relationship, we should not be surprised to find the Father sharing his authority with the Son (cf. Luke 10:22). Sometimes complementarians seem to believe that unless husbands and male elders wield absolutely all authority in the home and in the church, male headship is compromised. This is not what the headship of the Father over the Son teaches us. In fact, the delegation of authority within the Trinity should challenge us to exercise biblical headship by making sure that women are truly being treated as equals by being given authority in various spheres of life and ministry. Feminists have long argued that male headship necessarily denotes inequality. Christian men who insist on maintaining a monopoly on absolutely all domestic and ecclesiastical authority validate this misconception, and distort the example of headship within the Trinity.

Does the Father share His authority with the Son, because they are equal and love each other and He’s a really nice Dad? I don't think so.

To conclude my commentary on ”I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship” by Steven Tracy,

A final aspect of male headship, which is subsumed under honoring, is protection. While protection is not explicitly noted in John 5:18-24, it is a logical application of loving and honoring. Furthermore, in eschatological contexts the Father does empower and protect the Son. This is particularly seen in Psalm 2 and 110, which speak of the Father's empowerment of the Son to triumph over his enemies. Is the protection of women explicitly linked to male headship in Scripture? Absolutely, for this is a dominant biblical theme. In our fallen world where power is often abused, God calls his people to protect the vulnerable and create justice for the oppressed (Prov 24:10-11; Is 58:5-10; Ezek 45:8-9). Men are particularly called to protect and care for women and children (Deut 25:5-10; Isa 1:15-17; Jer 22:2-3), for this is how God himself exercises his power and authority (Deut 10:17-19).

I do not see that Psalms 2 and 110 speak of the Father’s protection or empowerment of the Son. God says that He will give the Son the nations as an inheritance and destroy His enemies. He has installed His King upon Zion: God has given Christ His dominion. I don’t think this is analogous with empowerment.** Nor can a man give a woman her dominion, but he can allow it to her, or hinder it.

Nor do I see protection, either explicit or implied, in the texts Tracy lists. I see provision, justice, and speech on behalf of widows, orphans, strangers, and crime victims, and exhortation to wrong no person. Can a man really empower a woman so that she can triumph over her enemies? Or can he provide for her, do right by her, and speak on her behalf, so that she can be herself, uninjured and unhindered, powered as she is?

Conclusion

While feminists are correct to highlight the widespread abuses of male power and authority, the solution is not to reject God ordained gender roles but to clarify them. 1 Corinthians 11:3 provides the best imaginable corrective to distortions of male authority by defining human male headship in terms of the Father's headship over the Son.

I agree with the first sentence quoted. However, I Corinthians 11:3 does not spell out what it means that God is the head of Christ, it merely says that He is. Later in the passage it says that woman originates from man, not vice-versa; and I believe we can also say that Christ originates from God. (In this instance, it seems that there is support for an understanding of "head" that connotes "origin.") We also read that man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man. Does headship also confer glory upon whomever is under it? (Note that I separate being under a husband's headship from being under his authority.)*

It seems to me that “gender role” is pretty simple: husbands are heads of their wives as Christ is head of the Church, and wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord. That’s the Scripture (Eph. 5); let’s not add to it (or deny it). Nor start with a premise and try to find Scriptural support for it. We must take our premises directly, precisely, and explicitly from Scripture.

**addendum: Upon thinking about this further, I see the need to adjust this statement. If by "empower" we mean simply "give power", or "invest with authority," then yes, the Father does and will empower the Son. However, if "empower" takes on the more contemporary sense of "enable" or "permit", then I would not say that the Father empowers the Son. And I do not think that a husband has the power or authority to give power or invest his wife with authority of himself; nor does any man have such power simply by being a man. He may, however, have it by virtue of his earthly authority or job position that he is in. Likewise, any permission he may grant to another, be it woman or man, is not his own to grant, but insofar as he is submissive to the Father in Christ, it is God's permission that he permits. It comes down to who owns who: God owns both men and women; men do not own women.

(This is a critique of Russell Moore's paper, titled "After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Gender Debate," originally posted on the Complegalitarian blog. Click the first link to read the entire paper.)

To begin, Moore discusses a book in which its author points out that conservative Christian homes exercise a "soft patriarchy" and fathers have a certain "softness" about them that is, from what I gather, a big plus in the lived-out harmony of the family. Moore goes on, however, to then point out studies that accuse "softness" of being the result of influence by society's pervasive secular feminism.

"One of the most important pieces of sociological data in recent years comes from the University of Virginia’s W. Bradford Wilcox in his landmark book, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands. Wilcox’s book describes how evangelical men actually think and live. He brings forth the demographic statistics and survey results on issues ranging from paternal hugging of children to paternal yelling, from female responses about marital happiness to the divisions of household labor. In virtually every category, the most conservative and evangelical households were also the “softest” in terms of familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health."

But,

"evangelicals have integrated biblical language of headship with the prevailing cultural notions of feminism—notions which fewer and fewer evangelicals challenge. He ties this “softening patriarchy” to specific feminist gains within evangelicalism—gains that few evangelicals are willing to challenge"

I'm a little confused. Either Moore is equivocating on the use of "softness" in reference to fatherhood, or he views "softness" negatively. What does being soft on "familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health" mean in his example?

You may have noticed that I’ve been writing on male headship, and what it means, a lot lately. I thought I might tell you why:

I’ve absorbed a lot of the cultural clutter on this topic over the years, and by “cultural clutter” I mean the ideas that are out there, whether in secular or church culture. But I never really sat down to try to sort through it all. I simply sought to live my life according to what I could glean from Scripture, from trusted advisors, and my relationship to God. (I either didn’t have, or didn’t make, time to do the sorting.) Now I am starting to look at the clutter.

I came to this task from an assumption of complementarianism tempered with some of what would probably be categorized as egalitarian ideas, without having studied either very closely. (I hate categories, by the way. I think that much of life doesn’t fit into specific, or dictated, categories – or shouldn’t, anyway.) I assumed that the husband was the leader of his home and had final authority in it, though I didn’t accept this in some of the ways I’d seen it expounded (super-hard complementarianism). And I decidedly did not accept the feministic-egalitarian trend of reinterpreting Scripture to interpret away even the basic meanings that were there, in the headship and related passages.

But, as I sat down to pore over the passages myself, rather than reading what other people said about them, I began to notice that the passages really didn’t seem to be saying what other people said they did, or even what I had previously thought they implied.

Before I go further, I want to address a comment by my friend Rusty on a previous post. Rusty said,

In Eternal Subordination of the Son: The Basics, Part III at CBMW's Gender Blog, Jeff Robinson writes,

Of this text [I Cor. 15:24-28] [Bruce A.] Ware writes: "The Son has his position over all of creation, bringing everything into subjection under his own feet, only because the Father has given all things to the Son. The Son, then, shows himself as the supreme victor and conqueror of all, including the conqueror of death itself, only because the Father has given him this highest of all callings and roles. In full acknowledgment of the Father's supremacy, the Son displays his submission to the Father by delivering up the now-conquered kingdom to the Father, and then, remarkably, by subjecting himself also to his Father. Though all of creation is subject to the Son, the Son himself is subject to the Father."

I agree with what Ware says except for the last two sentences. Does Christ fully acknowledge the Father's supremacy, and does He subject Himself to the Father? Does He have any other choice but to submit to the Father? Has He any other choice than to obey? I would say that, no, He doesn’t. There is no place in Scripture that I can find in which Jesus acknowledges the Father's supremacy or is said to submit to the Father, and saying that He obeyed does not mean that He could’ve not. But because He did, He was perfect, and accomplished God’s purposes – this is the significance of His obedience. He does the will of the Father because He is God, and because that is why the Father sent Him – that is His purpose. We could say that Christ is the Father's agent.

But, being that He is part of the Godhead, one part of the Triune God, being God, is His submission even an issue in terms of hierarchy or rank? In I Cor. 15:28 we read that the Son will be subjected. But Who will do this subjecting? It does not say that the Son Himself will subject Himself to the Father. And what is the purpose of the subjection? To show Who has supremacy over Whom? Or so that what was accomplished in Christ will be accommodated into the whole of the Godhead, “that God may be all in all”?

Others point to the fact that Christ is seated at God's right hand to indicate that God has final authority over Christ, or is higher in rank. I suppose that one could look at it this way, but for what purpose? I don't believe that the point is Who has more authority, power, choice, or rights than Whom, or Whose authority is superior to Whose, or Whose rank is higher. It's about agency, and purpose -- since there is one authority.

I think the point that God has given Christ all things, as Christ gives to us in turn, is to show the authority that Christ, and those whom He in turn gives authority, have: God’s authority – the final, only, and one authority. Subjection, in God’s hierarchy, appears ultimately not to put Christ and His redeemed eternally under, but to raise them up! According to Ephesians 1-2, God has lifted Christ up and seated Him at His right hand, and has also raised us up with Him and seated us in the heavenly places. The only things that will be put under Him (and us) forever are heavenly and earthly powers and authorities, and those things which are evil. The point of any hierarchy that exists in regards to God in spiritual matters is to show Who has the authority, and who (or what) doesn’t.

Therefore, Christ is not head of the husband to show any supremacy or to put him under Him, but to raise him up. Likewise, a husband is not head of his wife to show any supremacy or to put her under him, but to raise her up.

Rise up!

This post actually started when mulling over the concept of "mutuality" or the New Testament admonitions around the idea that all Christians within the body of Christ are to have submission to one another. The responsibility we have of considering one another's welfare, and the general spirit of humility we ought to evidence as we walk the path of this life with God. Some of these scriptures are :

Ephesians 5:21
submitting to one another in the fear of God.

Romans 12:10
Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;

 

1 Peter 5:5
[ Submit to God, Resist the Devil ] Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “ God resists the proud,But gives grace to the humble.”

Somehow I ended up back in the Garden of Eden with Eve. Maybe because the principle of mutual submission was one that was held in conjunction with that of "headship" of husbands in the family. So I started thinking about the Fall, and fact that Adam had communication of some kind with God about the essential rule of the Garden:eat of any other fruit, but don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This rule was also communicated to Eve, but it isn't clear whether directly from God or indirectly through Adam. What is clear is that Eve made an authoritative decision that didn't include consensus with her companion Adam... or with God. When Eve decided to make that fateful decision to try some knowledge of good and evil for herself, she acted alone.

I find this sort of interesting in the view of talk about authority. We are unable to escape the active principle of authority; everywhere we turn we have to submit to rules of conduct and arbiters of right, or at least appropriateness, of some kind. Everyone answers to others and to some ruling authority of some sort. It just is unavoidable, because that is how the world runs... and even the animal world has a visible pecking order. Whether loose or strict, there is a chain of command... the buck has to stop somewhere.

I started out to comment on Ilona’s post on Eve-ness but it got rather long (understatement), so I thought I’d post it as two blog entries. Here goes:

Ilona, this is a very good exploration. I think we must identify just where terms like “hierarchy,” “mutual submission,” “delegation,” and “chain of command” apply, though, in the scheme of things.

You say, When we say that "God has all the authority" we don't mean He micromanages all the decisions, and the same holds for men and women. I think we have to look at this from that point of view: God places men in authority over creation, not instead of, but by delegation. If men have authority in a position of "headship", they can delegate anything up to the final authority to their wives. This is real authority. That means wives exercising real authority in harmony as their husband's partner. But for many advocates of feminism that isn't enough.

Upon what (authority ;-) ) would you build a case that, because God delegates authority over creation to mankind (Genesis 1:28), that husbands therefore have authority that they may delegate to their wives? First, I think it could be debated whether or not God actually delegates authority to mankind in Gen. 1:28. He certainly bestows authority (authorizes), yet he also directs, or commands.

Some questions that I think must be asked, relating to your statement: Does a husband have exclusive authority by nature of his headship? Is authority always passed down, outside of human institutions which require a chain of command such as a business or other organization involving groups of people, and outside of what God bestows upon people? Does a wife’s answering to her husband have an additional dimension that his accountability to her doesn’t have?

A directive (or command) is not delegation, nor is authority given Christ by the Father, because He does not answer to the Father for it. Nor do I delegate authority to my son when I tell him to clean up his room, although he answers to me for the state of his room and whether or not he cleaned it when I directed him to. Yet I allow him some latitude (authorize him) to decide just how to pick it up. And I answer to God for my dealings with my son.

Continued from part I

Regarding mutuality and consensus, mutuality happens between two or more people who are, in some aspect, of the same mind toward one another, or of character or similarity of relationship. Consensus can also occur between two or more people but has to do with a coming-together in agreement, or ending such convention with agreement. But mutuality in marriage need not designate consensus nor submission to authority within the relationship; mutuality isn’t just about decision-making.

There is no consensus in the Godhead – it has (they have) one will. Nor is there mutual submission in the Godhead. Ephesians 5 and 6 do not argue for consensus per se, but they do argue for mutual submission. They erase any notion of entitlement or legitimacy of fleshly power. Does a husband rule his wife, or a parent rule his children, or a master his slave? In some ways, yes, but which ways? Is the relationship between husband and wife the same as that between a parent and child, or a master and slave? No – these are three different relationships. What they have in common is an order in terms of human identity or lot, or form, and the functions and roles inherent in that. In some ways there is rule, but in some of those ways, the rule goes from "inferior" to "superior". This is why I said, early on in my series, that we must determine what rule there is in various places, and what authority.

Or, Power in the Kingdom of God

Or, where I'm at right now

Thanks to commenter Tad for calling to my attention a passage in the gospel of John which indicates that the Father is greater than Jesus, and the Father gave Him commandment (chapter 14). This is, indeed, evidence of, if not a chain of command, command nonetheless, as well as some sort of subordination of Christ. I can see that my earlier assessments of the relationship of the Trinity were inadequate. Originally, I gave an inadequate assessment of Christ's authority (which I briefly corrected, in "Grudem on kephale"). And I have dealt inadequately with distinctions between Christ's work as a human being; His position and work now, at the right hand of the Father; and Christ's work in the future, when all things will be delivered into His hands. I have also expressed distinctions between different types of authority inadequately, and inadequately dealt with forms of authority structure, but I'll get to that later.

(Yes, I have many inadequacies)

I'll also say that I'm not up to trying to study and sort through all the distinctions in the Godhead, especially since great men of the church have argued and disagreed over them for centuries.

But what can we say about the fact that Christ obeyed His Father, did the will of the Father, and is lesser than His Father, yet at the same time is one with the Father, and is God? (All statements found in the gospel of John.) Well...all but the last statement were made by Him or about Him when He lived on earth as a human being. During this time, one might say that He was one with the Father only insomuch as He completely and totally obeyed the Father, yet there was no sin in Him because He was begotten of the Father, so, He was human (unfallen) yet also God. He must have been lesser than the Father only in terms of his humanity, not His divinity. My question now is, was Christ subordinate to His Father's commands only as a human being here on earth, in completing His earthly mission, or does He still maintain this relationship with the Father?

More important for our current discussion, though, is the way either scenario might impact theology of the marriage relationship. In Ephesians 5 and 6, Paul speaks of the risen Christ in heaven when he calls Christ head of the church. Is Christ still subordinate to the Father? If God is head of Christ, Christ head of man, and man head of woman (I Cor. 11:3), then is there indeed a chain of command? Or is headship something other than chain of command, and authority something other than (or in addition to) power or authorization passed down?

These are the questions that must be answered, and that many have attempted to answer, including me (with varying degrees of success).

Here's a summary of my thinking at present:

In Faith of the Feminine, National Review Online contributor Colleen Carroll Campbell reports on the recent three-day Vatican Congress which addressed the role of women in the Catholic Church and society. According to German philosopher Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, "feminism is an outgrowth of Christian ideas about women's equal dignity: 'Only in Judeo-Christian culture sprang up this humanization of women.'"

Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of the importance of defending the dignity of women:

In "Mulieris Dignitatem," John Paul II wanted to delve into the fundamental anthropological truths of men and women, the equality in dignity and their unity, the rooted and profound difference between the masculine and the feminine and their vocation to reciprocity and complementarity, collaboration and communion (cf. "Mulieris Dignitatem," No. 6). This dual-unity of man and woman is based on the foundation of the dignity of every person, created in the image and likeness of God, who "created them male and female" (Genesis 1:27), as much avoiding an indistinct uniformity and flattened-out and impoverished equality as an abysmal and conflictive difference (cf. "Letter to Women," No. 8). This dual-unity carries with it, inscribed in bodies and souls, the relation with the other, love for the other, interpersonal communion that shows that "the creation of man is also marked by a certain likeness to the divine communion" ("Mulieris Dignitatem," No. 7). When, therefore, men or women pretend to be autonomous or totally self-sufficient, they risk being closed up in a self-realization that considers the overcoming of every natural, social or religious bond as a conquest of freedom, but which in fact reduces them to an oppressive solitude. To foster and support the true promotion of women and men one cannot fail to take this reality into account.

HT: Scriptoruim Daily

Sharon Cairns Mann intends her new novel, Mother of Exiles, to be a great read, and it certainly is. The writing is clean and taut, the pace brisk, and the pages hard to keep from turning. Mann also aims to help fill the non-fluff sector of the (Christian) fiction market, a much-needed service. I thank Mrs. Mann for sending me a copy to read and review.

Ronia Sorenson, rookie chaplain at a women's correctional facility in southern Colorado, could not have anticipated how deeply she'd become involved in the drama of prison life. Yet not only does she learn of a world so corrupt, so rough, that most ordinary citizens believe it only exists in the movies (or novels), but she discovers important things about herself and about redemption in the process.

With colorful writing, the author does a deft job of piquing the reader's pre-conceived ideas and prejudices, often rather abruptly. But this makes for tasty reading and healthy thought-provocation. Mother of Exiles illustrates our humanness, showing how the allure of wants and needs can cause bad choices to look innocuous, especially when the focus is on ourselves and Godly trust goes by the wayside. We're so easily carried away.

Mann is not shy to open up "personal" or controversial subjects. She delves into ethical issues such as use of both work and personal time, matters of convention both societal and church, and sexual issues, if in a rather unexpected way. And not only does her protagonist befriend Hans, the gay case-worker, but she also takes steps to help him find a gay friend in his new community. Is Sorenson's heart a tad too big? Her faith a tad too small? Read for yourself and decide.