In years past, the gender debates among evangelicals have focused largely on the interpretation of key biblical texts. Complementarians have presented their interpretation of of the Bible’s teaching, and Egalitarians have presented theirs.In recent years, however, a new line of argument has been emerging among those of an egalitarian bent. According to a recent book review by S. M. Hutchens in Touchstone magazine, this new approach appears in John G. Stackhouse’s 2005 book Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender. Hutchens writes:
The problem for egalitarian theologians has become associated less with particular passages of Scripture as with the Scriptures considered as a whole. . . [For Stackhouse] patriarchy is an interim measure that God has, in “holy pragmatism,†ordained for humankind in its sinful and ignorant nonage, and from which he intends it to become extricated as it ventures further into the life, knowledge, and love of the genderless God—presented in male terms in Scripture because of the cultural captivity of the world and the Church to patriarchalism.
According to Hutchens’ review of Stackhouse’s book, Paul and other writers in scripture do teach patriarchy. The problem is not that complementarians have misunderstood Paul’s teaching. The problem is that complementarians have not been able to move beyond Paul’s teaching to the egalitarian ideal that God desires, despite what Paul has written.
If Hutchens is correct, then Stackhouse’s approach is not unlike William Webb’s infamous “redemptive movement hermeneutic†(RMH) which has taken the evangelical world by storm. Webb argues in his book Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals, that partriarchy in the Bible (including the writings of Paul) is but an interim ethic, an imperfect state of affairs that an RMH can cure. Webb’s RMH enjoins readers to move beyond pesky Pauline commands such as “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man†and to realize that God has a more perfect will that Paul’s patriarchalism often falls short of. Thus we should move beyond Paul’s teaching so that we can realize God’s hitherto undisclosed (but more perfect) will.
The bottom line is that Webb and other egalitarians relativize the teaching of Paul in certain texts (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 11:3) so as to make way for Paul’s teaching in egalitarian-friendly texts (e.g. Galatians 3:28). So folks like Webb (and apparently Stackhouse) admit that Paul forbids women to teach and exercise authority over men in the church. They just think Paul’s teaching is wrong for today’s church.
The net effect of this interpretive strategy is the elimination of the authority of scripture by marginalizing the teachings of the apostle Paul. That is why Wayne Grudem responded so forcefully to William Webb’s book in his essay “Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?†Of course Grudem answers this question in the negative, and Hutchens does the same in his evaluation of Stackhouse’s book.
So I commend to you S. M. Hutchens’ clever and critical book review: “A Maid To Order Bible.†He is right on the mark in his critique, as he recognizes that nothing less than the authority of scripture is at stake in this debate.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:10 pm Dear Bryan,
I had initially posted three responses. I posted them but then decided that that was not the direction that I wanted the conversation to go. So I deleted them.
I deleted them before S. M. Hutchens began making his comments.
Is there something you wanted to talk about concerning the deleted comments?
Thanks,
Denny
September 9th, 2006 at 2:43 pm Just curious why you deleted your statement that you hadn’t read Stackhouse’s book after Hutchens said “I strongly urge people who are concerned about these things to obtain and read Prof. Stackhouse’s book. I have far more cause to fear that it will not be read than that it will.†It seemed like you were comfortable mentioning how you hadn’t read it until he said that. Plus it just seems odd to delete comments you were making so that no one would be aware of how you responded. I wasn’t aware that it was 3 responses. Anyway it’s your blog. Do as you wish.
Blessing,
Bryan
September 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm BJoslin
I’m glad you’ve read so much but your point was that Egalitarians aren’t answering Hutchens’ points, like Egalitarians are just sitting back with nothing to say. But in reality this debate takes place all the time and for some of the participants it just gets old. And why bother answering objections from a reviewer that has hate for the view of the book he’s reviewing. It’s not like he’s going to give us a fair and accurate representation of Stackhouse’s views anyway. He’s going to pick the easiest targets in the book, not quote everything he says, generalize, and not answer some many of the questions/objections that Stackhouse has put forth. Besides nobody here has even read the book. People don’t want to discuss what Stackhouse wrote; they want to discuss what Hutchens said about Stackhouse and some things Stackhouse wrote, but out of context. Is that how we’re supposed to engage the views of those we disagree with; by reading what their opponents wrote of them instead of their actual views?
You said,
God’s will is now the opposite of what the written word says. And yes, it is that black and white – either it is now OK for women to teach men or it isn’t. If it is God’s will for them to, then complementarians are outside of the divine will. If Paul’s words still are authoritative, then egalitarians are outside of God’s will for His covenant people. Let’s not muddy the waters, since the two sides cannot both be right, since such is illogical. The question I have is simply, when did God’s will for his people change? At what point did Paul’s words no longer retain their authority? If these words of his are no longer authoritative and a fixed guide for God’s people, then it is not a leap to ask the question as to what is next. When did God’s written, infallible word “go bad†like a piece of fruit that we can no longer stomach?
I don’t believe it is so black and white as you’d like it to be. Paul in his letter’s wasn’t always either or. He made suggestions. He gave his opinion. He became a Jew to the Jews and free to the free. He didn’t say that it’s always either or.
I believe that although God may have a better way, that he does still accommodate to culture so that the Gospel won’t be hindered. I believe in some places because of men’s attitude towards women it isn’t ok for women to teach or have authority over men. In that case I think to do otherwise does harm the message of the Gospel. But in our modern western culture to proclaim that women should not be allowed to teach of have a position of authority over a man (no matter how ignorant, uneducated and unqualified a man might be) would instead do harm to the message of the Gospel (as it does in many places).
If you don’t think that Paul at times accommodated to the culture on certain issues that he saw as important but not top priority, just so that the message of the Gospel wouldn’t be hindered, then you haven’t been paying attention to his letters. Do you think it’s at all possible that that might have happened in some instances?
Just look at slavery. I’m sure Paul disagreed with slavery but he never tried to undo that particular institution in his letters and in many ways he upheld it. He accommodated to the culture for the sake of the Gospel message. He didn’t feel that it was so important at that time so as to risk compromising the message of the Gospel.
Even though he was totally against believers being under the law why did he still become one under the law to Jews? He was accommodating. What about food taboos? Why did he have Timothy circumcised even though he felt so strongly against believer’s getting circumcised and even said they were cutting themselves off from Christ if they did?
I’m sure God did this in the OT as well (accommodated to the culture). Do you think God still expects us to kill certain people because they don’t follow certain laws? We would be outraged if we saw someone killed today based on one of God’s commands. Did God change? Or was he accommodating to the culture?
What about some of the laws concerning women in the OT? Look at them. Women are often treated as property. Do you think that is how God intended it to be? Do you think if a woman is raped by a man that the man must marry her (Deut 22:28-29)?
In the OT it was ok to beat a slave since they were your property (Exod 21:20-21). You’d be punished if they died but it wasn’t considered enough to warrant the death penalty. Do you think that was God’s desire? Do you think he thought that slaves life was worth less than a free person? But look throughout the law. You get the impression that a slave’s life wasn’t worth as much as a free person’s.
In all of these cases would you say that this is what God desired? Do you think perhaps He was accommodating to the culture? Why don’t we still believe and follow those same laws today (and don’t say because we aren’t under law anymore).
So then why is it impossible to believe that maybe Paul accommodated to the culture as well even though he had a greater desire? Why is it impossible for you to believe that he gave his opinion in 1 Tim based on the situation that was going on there? He did this in other places. In fact sometimes he said to do different things based on the church situation. In one place he says he wants widows to remain unmarried, in other places he says he wants them to marry. What’s going on there? He’s speaking to the situation and giving his opinion on the best way to handle the situation going on that may be causing a problem. In one church he seems to welcome their financial support while in another because of how they are he refuses support from them even though he says don’t muzzle the ox and a worker deserves his wages.
1 Tim is just as much as a historically conditioned situation as any of his other letters and that needs to be taken into account. Either way I’m getting bored from writing this so I’ll leave you with that.
Blessing and thanks for the challenging questions and thoughts.
Bryan L
September 9th, 2006 at 3:07 pm RJoslin,
I demonstrated how very closely modern complementarians do indeed quote Aristotle. Any notion that men have the quality of leadership and women of subordination a direct quote from Aristotle. Any notion that the decision-making of women is without authority is a direct quote from Aristotle. Any notion that women offer silence is from Aristotle, any notion of hierarchy between the sexes is developed in great depth in the pagan paradigm.
But Christ says to love the one who is next to you as yourself. Paul also.
I gave you my references to show that compelementarians quote Aristotle verbatim but you do not supply yours.
September 9th, 2006 at 3:10 pm Dear Bryan,
I have edited the original post so that it would be clear (if it wasn’t already) that my remarks are occasioned by Hutchens’ book review, not my reading of Stackhouse.
The reason I didn’t really want to pursue this line of argument is that you are taking this discussion away from the point I was trying to make. My main point is that Hutchens’ review of Stackhouse confirms my observation about a larger trend in egalitarian hermeneutics. Many egalitarians (like William Webb) are embracing a patriarchal interpretation of Paul’s writings while denying that Paul’s patriarchal teaching is normative for today.
Once again, I deleted the comments before Hutchen’s wrote his. If you don’t mind, please stop suggesting that I did otherwise.
Thanks,
Denny
September 9th, 2006 at 3:11 pm RJoslin,
To continue with your second paragraph, if women have the same nature as men, but are restricted in their activities to do less than their nature and gifts anables them to do, then they are not fulfilled. They are made to submit to conditions that men would not be fulfilled in.
September 9th, 2006 at 3:13 pm Denny,
It would be really useful if you read the books you discussed because, of course, I have read Stackhouse, and talked to him, and now I find that that is not what we are talking about here at all.
September 9th, 2006 at 3:15 pm Suzanne,
My post was not a discussion of Stackhouse’s book. I am happy that you, Bryan, and Hutchens have been discussing it, but I was not. My post is about Hutchen’s book review and a larger trend I’ve been witnessing in egalitarian hermeneutics.
Thanks,
Denny
September 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pm Bryan (# 23)
1. I didn’t say that everything Paul ever said was black and white. You clearly did not read my response carefully. What I said was that on this issue, when a woman stands to teach men and exercise authority over them, it either is, or is not, ok. There can be no gray in this.
All of your examples are of OT commandments. And no, we are not under the Law anymore. Believers relate to the Mosaic Law differently now than when under a theocracy of the OT. I am surprised that you would even use such examples. This is one of the weaknesses of Webb’s argument as well. He (and you) are not recognizing the progress of Heilsgeschichte, salvation history. Whether a dispensationalist or covenentalist, no one relates to the OT commandments the same as when under the Mosaic covenant. Yet Paul, in the New Covenant era, commands 1 Tim 2 without ever saying, “I don’t want you to do this, but the only reason is because of the culture.†Interesting that when Paul does capitulate to others’ views (such as 1 Cor 8 ), he tells you he is doing so. To think that he is doing this in 1 Tim 2 is to put it there.
Are you saying that either God changed or he accomodated himself to the Canaanite culture? I think that you need to look for another option.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:35 pm BJoslin,
You said,
“I didn’t say that everything Paul ever said was black and white. You clearly did not read my response carefully. What I said was that on this issue, when a woman stands to teach men and exercise authority over them, it either is, or is not, ok. There can be no gray in this.â€
Even if you didn’t say that it was all black and white (sorry I misunderstood you, although you do seem to keep suggesting that because Egalitarians might not think that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is binding on us that they are throwing off the authority of the whole word of God), why then is this issue so black and white for you. Why are you willing to say that there is some things that aren’t black and white but not this? Why no gray? Why is it not possible for it to be ok in some instances and not others (based on the culture like I mentioned)? Why isn’t it possible that Paul was accommodating to the culture and he expects us to do the same with this issue? Why is it not possible that Paul was giving a specific command/suggestion for a particular historical setting? I don’t understand why you have to have it one way.
You said
All of your examples are of OT commandments. And no, we are not under the Law anymore. Believers relate to the Mosaic Law differently now than when under a theocracy of the OT. I am surprised that you would even use such examples.
I realize we are not under the law but Paul does still often use the law as his basis and motivation when trying to show people God’s will and what he desires them to do.
So do you believe that those things are what God desired at one time? Do you believe he thought treating women and slaves like property was fine? If not, then why?
What about my examples of Paul and slavery? Do you think he thought slavery was ok? What about my examples of how Paul did different thing in different circumstances, even things he seems against or to make a big deal about elsewhere? What are your thoughts on those things?
You said,
This is one of the weaknesses of Webb’s argument as well. He (and you) are not recognizing the progress of Heilsgeschichte, salvation history. Whether a dispensationalist or covenentalist, no one relates to the OT commandments the same as when under the Mosaic covenant.
Please elaborate and explain this a bit more.
You said,
“Yet Paul, in the New Covenant era, commands 1 Tim 2 without ever saying, “I don’t want you to do this, but the only reason is because of the culture.†Interesting that when Paul does capitulate to others’ views (such as 1 Cor 8, he tells you he is doing so. To think that he is doing this in 1 Tim 2 is to put it there.â€
Do you think that every single time Paul wants someone to know something he wrote is his opinion he has to spell it out for them like he does in Corinthians? Maybe when dealing with the Corinthians, but what about when writing to his spiritual son, Timothy, in a letter that would have been read in the church and be used to uphold Timothy’s authority? Also interestingly in 1 Corinthians even though he says a command comes from himself and not God he still has to convince them that his opinion is trustworthy or should be held authoritively (as their apostle). Do you think he needed that kind of persuasion in a letter to Timothy? Does your Pastor always have to persuade the congregation why they should listen to him or do they have an understanding that what he says is his best attempt at interpreting God’s word for them today? Maybe if a Pastor or preacher was talking to a congregation that was hostile to him, he might feel the need to defend what he was saying as trustworthy and the best way for the congregation to interpret and apply God’s word for them today. To think that Paul wouldn’t say things differently or wouldn’t feel the need to express himself differently in different letters written to different groups many years apart seems wrong. Just because he does something one way in Corinthians doesn’t mean he’s going to do it the same way elsewhere.
Bjoslin,
Paul says he wants young widows to marry in 1 Tim 5:14. Do you believe this is an opinion, his advise for their historical situation, or a command that has to be obeyed for all times including today or else we’re disobeying the authority of the Word?
Read 1 Tim and ask yourself how much of it sounds like Paul, as the authority and mentor over Tim, is telling him how he best feels he should deal with the situations presented to him.
You said,
“Are you saying that either God changed or he accomodated himself to the Canaanite culture? I think that you need to look for another option.â€
I believe God did accommodate himself to the culture in certain ways in the OT, I believe Paul did too and I believe we are to do that as well today when it comes to furthering the Gospel without compromising the essentials. What is your explanation/option?
Blessing,
Bryan