« seminary students and the pastorate.... | Main | Question regarding the post below.... »
March 22, 2006
Gender Equality, Gender Roles and Women in Ministry: Should this really still be an issue in the Church? Miroslav Volf as an opposing view to those of Tim Challies, John MacArthur and others...
Chapter IV of Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace is outstanding. It is titled "Gender Identity" and deals with the issue of "Trinitarian Identities" and how that plays itself out in regards to "masculinity" and "femininity." Volf has covered every base of this issue, and has dealt with all the arguments and all the major scholars. It is a great piece of writing. I will get to this later in the post.
This chapter is of great interest to me, especially as I have seen the topic of gender identity, manhood and womanhood, Biblical roles, etc. disccussed a lot in various blogs recently.
I noticed that blogger Tim Challies spent a lot of time talking about the Shepherd's Conference where Ligon Duncan from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood spoke. Tim also posts a blog titled The Extraordinary Value of Women, though after reading it, it seems more of an argument for how women are only extraordinary as long as they are subservient to men. Challies says, "The message these women collectively give is not about "gender equality"; it is about true feminine excellence." Though you should read it yourself. Challies is a great blogger and many agree with him on these issues. Returning to the Shepherd's Conference, Challies says this: "MacArthur suggested, when introducing the speaker, that few Evangelicals are aware of the importance of this issue."
Is this really an issue? Maybe many are aware of the issue, but really see it as a non-issue?
It's an issue according to Challies because Our culture is now completely egalitarian and this poses a particular challenge to the church. Christians can no longer be assumed to be instinctively complementarian. On the other hand, we look out at the culture and see even the sons of this age wiser than the next. Another conflicting indicator we get is the infringement of egalitarianism into Evangelicalism. The lines are becoming increasingly blurred so that we now have people claiming to be complementarian egalitarians.
To read more of MacArthur's views on women in ministry, you can read this Q and A here. Here is an excerpt:
As a footnote to that, perhaps it ought to be said that from a biblical standpoint, there is no tolerance in Scripture for women leaders in the church, apart from women leading other women--older women teaching younger women and leading their children and so forth.
It is so patently obvious that God created Adam and that Eve was made as a helper to Adam. So, man and woman were designed in the way that man leads and a woman helps, and comes under his leadership. What literally sent the human race down the proverbial drain was when woman stepped out from under submission, acted independently and sinned, taking the male role by leading. Man then, went under woman. He wasn't even deceived! He just sinned because his wife sinned.
Obvioulsy the Biblical viewpoint that I take on this issue of gender is the egalitarian position. Probably one of the biggest reasons I chose Fuller Theological Seminary was because of its diversity. Not just diversity of race, but because of the extraordinary number of women on campus as well. It was not just a campus of young, white men, studying to be pastors (of which I was one of those), but it was a place where women came to study and be prepared for the pastorate as they followed God's calling in their lives.
To really take a hard look at this issue of gender, I recommend Volf's book. Here is an excerpt:
So far my argument about gender identity has consisted of two basic claims and one suggestion. I have claimed that (1) the content of the gender identity is rooted in the sexed body and negotiated in the social exchange between men and women within a given cultural context, and that (2) the portrayals of God in no way provide models of what it means to be male or female. I suggested, instead, that the relations between the Trinitarian persons serve as a model for how the content of "masculinity" and "femininity" ought to be negotiated in the social process. Before I explore in what sense the relations between the divine persons can serve as a model, I need to attend to a possible objection.
It could be objected that my proposal is inadmissibly formal. I have formally rooted gender identity in the sexed body and in the interaction between men and women, and am about to suggest how this interaction should take place. The content of gendery identity is left unspecified; anything seems to go. Granted that this content cannot stem from who God is, the objection could continue, should Christians not seek to determine it by listening to what the Bible says? Should we not analyze the biblical statements about men and women, try to reconstruct biblical "manhood" and "womanhood," and apply it in contemporary contexts? Without denying that we can learn much from men and women in the Bible, I propose that such an approach would be mistaken. Biblical "womanhood" and "manhood"--if there are such things at all, given the diversity of male and female characters and roles that we encounter in the Bible--are not divinely sanctioned models but culturally situated examples; they are accounts of the successes and failures of men and women to live out the demands of God on their lives within specific settings. This is not to say that the biblical construals of what men and women (of what men and women as men and women) should or should not do and be are wrong, but that they are of limited normative value in a different cultural context, since they are of necessity laden with specific cultural beliefs about gender identity and roles.
(Volf, pp. 181-182)
Also, no one is not acknowledging the fact that there are differences between male and female. That we are created differently. But this in no way undermines or threatens their equality and interdependence to one another. In fact, Miroslav Volf summarizes Judith Gundry-Volf's (yes, her name is hyphenated as I'm sure that is alarming to some of you) position, stating:
Paul has two readings of creation in I Corinthians 11 (Gundry-Volf 1997): the one from the perspective of the patriarchal culture, which finds hierarchy in creation (vv. 8-9), and the other from the perspective of the new life in Christ, which finds equality in creation (v. 12). Paul's second way erases the difference between genders, as Boyarin suggests. Since woman is "from" man and man is "through" woman, Paul agrues, they are "not without" each other (v. 12). The prepositions "from" and "through" both draw attention back to Genesis 2 and in addition suggest the ideas of begetting ("from") and birthing ("through"). "In the Lord, " difference of the sexed bodies is not erased; to the contrary, this difference grounds the interdependence of men and women.
I want to thank the many women that I have had the opportunity to serve with in ministry and whom I continue to serve with today.
For further reading on this issue:
Read Judith Gundry-Volf's article in Sojourner's Magazine, titled, "Neither Biblical Nor Just: Southern Baptists and the Subordination of Women."
Read the site for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and for an opposing view, read the site for Christians for Biblical Equality.
And for a viewpoint that I disagree with, read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism by Wayne Grudem and John Piper.
On a completey side-note, I do find it interesting that many that oppose women in ministry use the "loaded" word feminism or feminists to class everything and anything under that is at all related to women in ministry.
Biblical equality, gender equality, egalitarian, Miroslav Volf, women in ministry, church
Posted by rhett at March 22, 2006 09:53 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rhettsmith.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/380
Comments
Stirring it up, Rhett. I can't believe there aren't any comments yet on this post.
While I hold a complimentarian view, I have to agree with you on your side note about the "F" word (feminism). We have to be careful not to use that word as an ad hominem attack.
Posted by: Chris at March 23, 2006 10:44 AM
Chris,
Hey, thanks for the comment. It's not even what position one holds, whether complementarian or egalitarian. It was really all the talk I see on the blogs about this issue, and what seems like a lot of time spent by men in trying to make sure that their authority over women is maintained. I know many Christian couples who hold complementarian views, and who hold egalatarian views.
I can respect one's complementarian views if that's the Biblical position they hold. And most often complemetarian views are practiced in communities a lot of times where both men and women are most comfortable with them. But I would also want someone to respect the egalatarian position. Which is what I hold, and I work in a community that holds that position, and I do my best to always affirm my female friends in their pursuit of ministry.
It just seems like an issue to me that is a non-essential, but that different people can hold different views in.
Posted by: Rhett Smith at March 23, 2006 11:04 AM
It's equally as unfair to say that complimentarians "oppose women in ministry" and would not affirm females in their pursuits of the Lord's calling in their life.
I think it is harder for those who hold the complimentarian position to consider it a non-essential because that position is based on the conviction that the scriptures clearly lay out different but complimentary (i.e. neither should be a source of power or position of absolute submission) roles for men and women. It seems like the egalitarian position is based on the thought of "well... it's kind of fuzzy in the bible... it was more of a cultural thing... and today it makes more sense for their to be no definitions or boundaries in gender roles." So where as one is based in conviction in an absolute, the other is based in acceptance of an supposed ambiguity. Therefore it's reasonable to see where the one would make a bigger deal out of it then the other.
I don't mean to be trite, that's my honest impression of the egalitarian position (obviously summarized a bit). Would you say that is a fair presentation of what may be the source of contention between the two? Would you suggest a different way to describe the differences in approach between the two?
SEZ
P.S. Rhett we never had that coffee... someday.
Posted by: Scott at March 23, 2006 12:11 PM
Scott,
Thanks for the post. I don't think your impressions are trite either. But what I am wondering is this: Your first statement is that it is "unfair to say that complimentarians" 'oppose women in ministry' and would not affirm females in their pursuits of the Lord's calling in their life." But that is where the rub comes....what if a women feels God is calling her into ministry, into a pastorate position, and this is being affirmed by others? I get the sense that she would not receive that affirmation from a complementarian, but instead would receive opposition. Is that not true? I know that the complementarian would see their opposition as Biblically based but that is where the disagreements arise.
Posted by: Rhett Smith at March 23, 2006 05:49 PM
That is a good question. And I won't claim to be the spokesperson for complimentarians here (I've read some of what Grudem and Piper wrote and heard Grudem speak on the topic once, but I certainly have not spent an inordinate amount of time really developing my position on this), but my personal response to that would be that firstly I would celebrate with that woman who desires and feels called to the ministry. I believe that the call to ministry is a high calling and anyone that desires to pursue that calling and the work, suffering, joy, and service should be encouraged regardless of their gender. However, - again regardless of gender - my next desire would be to be sure that their "feelings" were informed by biblical principles. I am not against emotions, feelings, etc. I believe the Spirit can use them to prompt us to action. But I would say that we must accept the boundaries put on our emotions from scripture. You could take this any number of directions, but suffice it to say that feelings along do not constitute a calling. So therefore, from my understanding of the teaching of scripture, from the purposeful design of creation to the clear exhortations of Paul, I would share with that woman some of what I believe God has designed in the church for woman who desire to be in ministry and encourage her to pursue those things. I would not shun her, I would not convey that her role would be any less important, I would seek to be sure that she recieved the honor she deserved for her service, and desire in every way that she would be successful at the role that God had for her.
All that to say, my perspective is that feelings alone are not sufficient to indicate the will of God and they can and should be informed by the purposes of God's Word.
In this discussion I don't really know which team I'm on. I resonate a lot with what the complimentarians express in their view. However, if you are right in your characteristic of them that they patently oppose women in ministry and are just a bunch of old dudes really worried that feminists are going to take over so women should be told their place is in the kitchen... then I don't really think I fit with that. I think that God has clearly gifted certain women for service in the Body of Christ and I would certainly desire to not stand in the way of them using their giftedness. I also think that the egalitarian position tends to draw its lines a bit too broadly when it comes to gender roles, more broadly then scripture does in my thinking so that makes me cautious. I'm for women, I think they are great, I think they should be in ministry. I'm also for the bible, I think its got something to say on this issue, and I want to be faithful to it. I don't know what team that puts me on but that's me.
So with that, I ask again, can you explain the egalitarian perspective in terms of biblical conviction or is it a position that stems from a view that scripture is either ambiguous or impotent in this matter? Do you feel like there are legitimate concerns from the complimentarians? Where do you think complimentarians are really missing the boat on what scripture has to say on gender roles?
Some big questions I know but just trying to understand a little more of the egalitarian perspective.
SEZ
Posted by: Scott at March 24, 2006 12:03 AM
Hi,
I found your comments interesting especially regarding the quotes by John MacArthur and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. What we have done is take the Complementarian position using audio tapes from John MacArthur and CBMW (used with their permission) and contrasted it with a verse-by-verse explaination of the hard passages of scripture and put the two together in a DVD series called "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" It is gently done, but eye opening to see the difference between the two positions in a visual format. The reviews on this DVD are at http://www.mmoutreach.org/wim.htm. I think it would be helpful for those who have listened to John MacArthur's position and wondered how his view can be successfully refuted in a respectful Christian way.
Cheryl
Posted by: Cheryl at March 24, 2006 09:06 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
