I am still focusing on the idea of the subordination of the Trinity, where the Son is below the Father. I discussed last time that the concept of subordination of the Son to the Father WAS NOT a concept that can be properly used to form the guidelines regarding men and women in leadership. Whenever the Son submitted to His Father, the analogy was used in regards to MUTUAL SUBMISSION of the believers in the body of Christ—not of the wife to the husband.
This is not the only theological problem with Son subordination. Rebecca Merrill
Groothuis writes more:
“Hebrews 5:7-8 states, ‘Son though he was, he LEARNED OBEDIENCE’ while He was on earth in the flesh, and God heard his prayers ‘because of his reverent submission.’ Since this was the first time the Son needed to be obedient to the Father, he had to learn how to do it. It was NOT until his earthly incarnation that the Son ‘BECAME OBEDIENT’ and ‘LEARNED OBEDIENCE.’ There is NO INDICATION OF AN ETERNAL ORDER of the Son’s obedience to the Father’s authority” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy,” page 331).
If the Son had ALWAYS BEEN SUBORDINATE to the Father, there would have been no need to “learn” obedience. If a child is yours, they don’t have to LEARN obedience when they’re 12 years old. Now, they might have to be disciplined for their disobedience, but they will know how to obey—they will know what is acceptable behavior in mom’s eyes and what isn’t acceptable behavior.
The fact that the complementarian would use this shows their desire to “force” eternal subordination on egalitarianism and ecclesiology. But the surprising thing is that EVEN CHILDREN must one day grow up…and so must complementarian thought.
Showing posts with label Rebecca Groothuis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rebecca Groothuis. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
That's ALL?
Before I get started, let me take time to introduce everyone to the other links on my site. There are two of them: one goes to the American Institute for Faith and Culture, and the other is to my second blog, “The Center for Theological Studies” (CTS). CTS was created by my partner on the site, Byron M. Gillory III, as a blog that would tackle Biblical issues, stuff pertaining to what Christians believe about God, ourselves, the Bible, Christ, and eschatology—the study of the last things. If you take a trip to the site sometime, you’ll find that Byron has placed an article on there about Spinoza and miracles. All of you should read it sometime…
CTS is a part of the American Institute for Faith and Culture. This institute was founded by Byron, and I am a department head of the institute—as CTS demonstrates, I head up the theological studies department. I’ve posted some of my work from this site on CTS as well. This summer, having time to study the Arminian/Calvin debate, I’ve had time to study other theological issues. The Arminian/Calvin debate will probably be the biggest issue of the summer at CTS—but, stay tuned…others are sure to pop up out of nowhere.
Now, to Byron (my “adopted” brother, my twin in all the world): some time back, Byron and I began to discuss the issue of women in ministry. He talked to a professor who said that, while most complementarians don’t believe that 1 Timothy 2 is discussing women not having spiritual authority in the church, they seem to hang on to the view itself. Why? “Because of the Trinity.”
That’s IT? The TRINITY? I mean, I can understand someone taking 1 Timothy 2 out of context, coming to some warped conclusions about women. People have done that for years? But the TRINITY? That’s the ONLY thing keeping complementarians from changing sides?
It seems to be true. And that’s the reason why I applaud Rebecca Merrill Groothuis for tackling this subject in the book, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy.” If egalitarians are gonna change the world, one book at a time (and one blog post at a time), then they are gonna have to tackle the issue of the subordination of the Son to the Father.
“Support for the claim that woman’s unequal role does not bespeak woman’s unequal being is often sought in the analogy of the relationship of God the Son to God the Father. It is argued that the Father and the Son are “EQUAL IN BEING” yet IN ALL THINGS AND THROUGH ALL ETERNITY they relate to one another according to a HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY AND OBEDIENCE; thus the analogy of the ‘eternal functional subordination’ within the Trinity illustrates and vindicates woman’s permanent and comprehensive subordination to man’s authority” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 329).
The analogy of the Father and Son is wrong on a few accounts, but I’m gonna spend time examining one particular piece of evidence against the concept: context.
If the relationship of the Father and Son was an example of how men and women relate to each other, don’t you think Scripture would have mentioned it? Yet, it’s funny that Scripture NEVER uses the Father-Son relationship in that way. Whenever the relationship is mentioned, it is mentioned CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH and their interactions with one another.
To see this concept, look at Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians:
“Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus: TO ALL THE SAINTS IN CHRIST JESUS WHO ARE IN PHILIPPI, including the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Paul’s writing this letter to ALL THE SAINTS, everybody, not just some people. This letter is not written to JUST women, where Paul could say, “Submit to the male leaders, as Christ submitted to the Father.” No! Paul is writing to all the believers.
And it is to the church that Paul gives the analogy of the Son to the Father:
“Everyone should look out not [only] for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider EQUALITY with God AS SOMETHING TO BE USED FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE. Instead He emptied Himself by ASSUMING THE FORM OF A SLAVE, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form, He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death—even to death on a cross. For this reason God also HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow----of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth----and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 3:4-11, HCSB).
Here Paul is talking about the believers to put others before themselves. And who is the example? Christ. Why is Christ the example? Because, even though He was God (and is God), He didn’t let His EQUALITY with the Father keep Him from submitting to His Father. Instead, He SUBORDINATED Himself for a time, becoming human (human flesh being, of course, “a little lower than the angels,” Psalm 8); and, if that wasn’t enough, He even went to the cross in OBEDIENCE to His Father. As a result, the Father exalted Him for His obedience and gave Him the ONLY NAME by which people can be saved.
What we see is the Son doing what the Father demanded—and obeying, received exaltation. However, this exaltation wasn’t just for the Son—it was also “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father started the process of redeeming the world by sending His Son; the Son went in obedience to the Father to die for the world and, while on earth, EXALTED the Father; in return, the Father EXALTS the Son and all of this brings glory to the Father.
Notice that Christ, as the SON of God, is elevated as the example for the church, the SONS of God. By following Christ’s example, the church would be acting as SONS of the Most High God—and the Father would exalt them and bless them in due time.
Peter gives similar words to the Jewish believers in the Dispersion in his First Letter. Here, Peter is telling those in the church how they should conduct themselves in their relationships with one another:
“And all of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because
GOD RESISTS THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, because He cares about you” (1 Peter 5:5-7, HCSB).
Peter tells the believers to humble themselves UNDER the hand of God. Sounds familiar to Paul’s words in Philippians, right? Paul told the believers there that Christ “HUMBLED HIMSELF…” (Phil. 2:8). He also told the Philippian believers to “in humility consider others as more important than” themselves (2:3). Paul focuses on the exaltation of Christ in Philippians (pointing to the exaltation of the believers there due to humility), while Peter focuses on God exalting the believers in the Dispersion.
The language of submission and exaltation has to do with all the believers there, NOT a division of men and women. The idea that these passages deal with men and women is ridiculous. In addition, notice that the ONLY submission stressed prior to the general submission in 1 Peter 5 is the submission of the younger believers to the older believers. There are NO genders mentioned here.
So, what analogy applies to husbands and wives? The analogy of Christ and the CHURCH in Ephesians 5:
“Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should [submit] to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-24, HCSB).
I want us to take time to examine something here so that we don’t get misled. The reason why wives are to submit to their husbands is because THE CHURCH SUBMITS TO CHRIST. But why isn’t the analogy of the Father and Son used IF subordination of the wife is what’s in mind here?
The answer is that subordination IS NOT the idea here. The idea in mind here is submission. Submission is not the same as subordination.
According to Byron (mentioned above), the only thing keeping complementarians intact is the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. But the problem is that whenever this relationship is discussed, it’s used in regards to members of the body of Christ, not the husband and wife—and certainly not with discussions of men and women.
Rather, when men and women are discussed, Adam and Eve are used (1 Tim. 2 and 1 Corinthians 11); and in 1 Corinthians 11, the old order of birth (man before woman) is replaced with woman before man.
To the complementarian I say, CONSIDER YOUR CONTEXT! If this is all they have, then they have nothing at all…
CTS is a part of the American Institute for Faith and Culture. This institute was founded by Byron, and I am a department head of the institute—as CTS demonstrates, I head up the theological studies department. I’ve posted some of my work from this site on CTS as well. This summer, having time to study the Arminian/Calvin debate, I’ve had time to study other theological issues. The Arminian/Calvin debate will probably be the biggest issue of the summer at CTS—but, stay tuned…others are sure to pop up out of nowhere.
Now, to Byron (my “adopted” brother, my twin in all the world): some time back, Byron and I began to discuss the issue of women in ministry. He talked to a professor who said that, while most complementarians don’t believe that 1 Timothy 2 is discussing women not having spiritual authority in the church, they seem to hang on to the view itself. Why? “Because of the Trinity.”
That’s IT? The TRINITY? I mean, I can understand someone taking 1 Timothy 2 out of context, coming to some warped conclusions about women. People have done that for years? But the TRINITY? That’s the ONLY thing keeping complementarians from changing sides?
It seems to be true. And that’s the reason why I applaud Rebecca Merrill Groothuis for tackling this subject in the book, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy.” If egalitarians are gonna change the world, one book at a time (and one blog post at a time), then they are gonna have to tackle the issue of the subordination of the Son to the Father.
“Support for the claim that woman’s unequal role does not bespeak woman’s unequal being is often sought in the analogy of the relationship of God the Son to God the Father. It is argued that the Father and the Son are “EQUAL IN BEING” yet IN ALL THINGS AND THROUGH ALL ETERNITY they relate to one another according to a HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY AND OBEDIENCE; thus the analogy of the ‘eternal functional subordination’ within the Trinity illustrates and vindicates woman’s permanent and comprehensive subordination to man’s authority” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 329).
The analogy of the Father and Son is wrong on a few accounts, but I’m gonna spend time examining one particular piece of evidence against the concept: context.
If the relationship of the Father and Son was an example of how men and women relate to each other, don’t you think Scripture would have mentioned it? Yet, it’s funny that Scripture NEVER uses the Father-Son relationship in that way. Whenever the relationship is mentioned, it is mentioned CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH and their interactions with one another.
To see this concept, look at Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians:
“Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus: TO ALL THE SAINTS IN CHRIST JESUS WHO ARE IN PHILIPPI, including the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Paul’s writing this letter to ALL THE SAINTS, everybody, not just some people. This letter is not written to JUST women, where Paul could say, “Submit to the male leaders, as Christ submitted to the Father.” No! Paul is writing to all the believers.
And it is to the church that Paul gives the analogy of the Son to the Father:
“Everyone should look out not [only] for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider EQUALITY with God AS SOMETHING TO BE USED FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE. Instead He emptied Himself by ASSUMING THE FORM OF A SLAVE, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form, He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death—even to death on a cross. For this reason God also HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow----of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth----and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 3:4-11, HCSB).
Here Paul is talking about the believers to put others before themselves. And who is the example? Christ. Why is Christ the example? Because, even though He was God (and is God), He didn’t let His EQUALITY with the Father keep Him from submitting to His Father. Instead, He SUBORDINATED Himself for a time, becoming human (human flesh being, of course, “a little lower than the angels,” Psalm 8); and, if that wasn’t enough, He even went to the cross in OBEDIENCE to His Father. As a result, the Father exalted Him for His obedience and gave Him the ONLY NAME by which people can be saved.
What we see is the Son doing what the Father demanded—and obeying, received exaltation. However, this exaltation wasn’t just for the Son—it was also “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father started the process of redeeming the world by sending His Son; the Son went in obedience to the Father to die for the world and, while on earth, EXALTED the Father; in return, the Father EXALTS the Son and all of this brings glory to the Father.
Notice that Christ, as the SON of God, is elevated as the example for the church, the SONS of God. By following Christ’s example, the church would be acting as SONS of the Most High God—and the Father would exalt them and bless them in due time.
Peter gives similar words to the Jewish believers in the Dispersion in his First Letter. Here, Peter is telling those in the church how they should conduct themselves in their relationships with one another:
“And all of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because
GOD RESISTS THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, because He cares about you” (1 Peter 5:5-7, HCSB).
Peter tells the believers to humble themselves UNDER the hand of God. Sounds familiar to Paul’s words in Philippians, right? Paul told the believers there that Christ “HUMBLED HIMSELF…” (Phil. 2:8). He also told the Philippian believers to “in humility consider others as more important than” themselves (2:3). Paul focuses on the exaltation of Christ in Philippians (pointing to the exaltation of the believers there due to humility), while Peter focuses on God exalting the believers in the Dispersion.
The language of submission and exaltation has to do with all the believers there, NOT a division of men and women. The idea that these passages deal with men and women is ridiculous. In addition, notice that the ONLY submission stressed prior to the general submission in 1 Peter 5 is the submission of the younger believers to the older believers. There are NO genders mentioned here.
So, what analogy applies to husbands and wives? The analogy of Christ and the CHURCH in Ephesians 5:
“Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should [submit] to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-24, HCSB).
I want us to take time to examine something here so that we don’t get misled. The reason why wives are to submit to their husbands is because THE CHURCH SUBMITS TO CHRIST. But why isn’t the analogy of the Father and Son used IF subordination of the wife is what’s in mind here?
The answer is that subordination IS NOT the idea here. The idea in mind here is submission. Submission is not the same as subordination.
According to Byron (mentioned above), the only thing keeping complementarians intact is the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. But the problem is that whenever this relationship is discussed, it’s used in regards to members of the body of Christ, not the husband and wife—and certainly not with discussions of men and women.
Rather, when men and women are discussed, Adam and Eve are used (1 Tim. 2 and 1 Corinthians 11); and in 1 Corinthians 11, the old order of birth (man before woman) is replaced with woman before man.
To the complementarian I say, CONSIDER YOUR CONTEXT! If this is all they have, then they have nothing at all…
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The New Paradigm
About two days ago, I started discussing the false analogies as presented in Rebecca Merrill Groothuis’s chapter on “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role.” The first false analogy Groothuis describes is the Levitical priesthood. We’ve already seen that Christ is our High Priest, who does away with the Levitical priesthood because He is of a different priestly order, “The line of Melchizedek” (the name “Melchizedek” means “King of Righteousness”).
But in today’s post I wanna look at a conclusion Groothuis draws from what she has studied regarding false analogies:
“In the new covenant, physical distinctions such as race and gender NO LONGER DEMARCATE UNEQUAL LEVELS OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE (Gal. 3:26-28). No one in the body of Christ is excluded from the priestly responsibilities of representing God’s holiness to the world, offering spiritual sacrifices to God, representing God before other believers and interceding for others before God. THE FAILURE TO PERCEIVE AND HONOR THE PIVOTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIESTHOOD IN THE OLD COVENANT AND PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW COVENANT IS A FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGICAL FLAW OF EVANGELICAL PATRIARCHY” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 329).
Groothuis hits the nail on the head with this last statement: the fact that complementarians (patriarchalists) cannot understand New Covenant Theology because they tend to see the New Testament priesthood as an EXTENSION of the old. I’ve already argued (in my series on “Justifications for a Patriarchal Hermeneutic”) that God intended for ALL of the nation to be priests and appear before God. Exodus 19-20, though, tells us that, before Moses went up on Mount Sinai, the people were afraid of the fire and smoke coming from the mountain; but after Moses brought the commandments down from Sinai, the people were afraid to come up the mountain (as God had directed them to do). They were supposed to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; but, instead of accepting their priestly duties, what did they do? They told Moses that they wanted HIM to speak to God on their behalf!
The people did not want to talk to God because they feared death (“lest we die”). And by so doing, they gave up their priesthood that believers now receive in the New Testament.
This shows us that, IF God extends the idea of the priesthood into the New Testament (and does not break with it completely), then the idea of the priesthood extended is THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS!
Here is what Peter writes regarding the spiritual priesthood:
1 So rid yourselves of (A) all wickedness, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander. (B) 2 Like newborn infants, desire the unadulterated spiritual milk, (C) so that you may grow by it in [your] salvation, [a] 3 since you have tasted (D) that the Lord is good. (E) (F) 4 Coming to Him, a living stone—rejected by men but chosen and valuable to God— 5 you yourselves, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (G) through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
Look! I lay a stone in Zion, (H)
a chosen and valuable cornerstone, (I)
and the one who believes in Him
will never be put to shame! (J) [b] (K)
7 So the honor is for you who believe; but for the unbelieving,
The stone that the builders rejected—
this One has become the cornerstone, (L) (M)
and
8 A stone that causes men to stumble, [c]
and a rock that trips them up. (N) [d] (O)
They stumble by disobeying the message; they were destined (P) for this.
9 But you are a chosen race, (Q) [e] (R) a royal priesthood, (S) (T)
a holy nation, (U) (V) a people for His possession, (W) (X)
so that you may proclaim the praises (Y) [f] (Z)
of the One who called you out of darkness
into His marvelous light. (1 Pet. 2:1-9, HCSB)
The priesthood of all believers is for everyone. And I wish the complementarian could see it…
But in today’s post I wanna look at a conclusion Groothuis draws from what she has studied regarding false analogies:
“In the new covenant, physical distinctions such as race and gender NO LONGER DEMARCATE UNEQUAL LEVELS OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE (Gal. 3:26-28). No one in the body of Christ is excluded from the priestly responsibilities of representing God’s holiness to the world, offering spiritual sacrifices to God, representing God before other believers and interceding for others before God. THE FAILURE TO PERCEIVE AND HONOR THE PIVOTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIESTHOOD IN THE OLD COVENANT AND PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW COVENANT IS A FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGICAL FLAW OF EVANGELICAL PATRIARCHY” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 329).
Groothuis hits the nail on the head with this last statement: the fact that complementarians (patriarchalists) cannot understand New Covenant Theology because they tend to see the New Testament priesthood as an EXTENSION of the old. I’ve already argued (in my series on “Justifications for a Patriarchal Hermeneutic”) that God intended for ALL of the nation to be priests and appear before God. Exodus 19-20, though, tells us that, before Moses went up on Mount Sinai, the people were afraid of the fire and smoke coming from the mountain; but after Moses brought the commandments down from Sinai, the people were afraid to come up the mountain (as God had directed them to do). They were supposed to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; but, instead of accepting their priestly duties, what did they do? They told Moses that they wanted HIM to speak to God on their behalf!
The people did not want to talk to God because they feared death (“lest we die”). And by so doing, they gave up their priesthood that believers now receive in the New Testament.
This shows us that, IF God extends the idea of the priesthood into the New Testament (and does not break with it completely), then the idea of the priesthood extended is THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS!
Here is what Peter writes regarding the spiritual priesthood:
1 So rid yourselves of (A) all wickedness, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander. (B) 2 Like newborn infants, desire the unadulterated spiritual milk, (C) so that you may grow by it in [your] salvation, [a] 3 since you have tasted (D) that the Lord is good. (E) (F) 4 Coming to Him, a living stone—rejected by men but chosen and valuable to God— 5 you yourselves, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (G) through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
Look! I lay a stone in Zion, (H)
a chosen and valuable cornerstone, (I)
and the one who believes in Him
will never be put to shame! (J) [b] (K)
7 So the honor is for you who believe; but for the unbelieving,
The stone that the builders rejected—
this One has become the cornerstone, (L) (M)
and
8 A stone that causes men to stumble, [c]
and a rock that trips them up. (N) [d] (O)
They stumble by disobeying the message; they were destined (P) for this.
9 But you are a chosen race, (Q) [e] (R) a royal priesthood, (S) (T)
a holy nation, (U) (V) a people for His possession, (W) (X)
so that you may proclaim the praises (Y) [f] (Z)
of the One who called you out of darkness
into His marvelous light. (1 Pet. 2:1-9, HCSB)
The priesthood of all believers is for everyone. And I wish the complementarian could see it…
Saturday, May 30, 2009
False Analogy I: The Levitical Priesthood
I know I’ve dealt with this issue a few times at the blog, especially in my series on Margaret Kostenberger’s book, “Jesus and the Feminists.” Well, I’m here to tackle it again—this time from the perspective of Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.
A lot of time has been invested over the last few weeks studying Groothuis’s work in chapter 18 of her edited book, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” called “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role.” We’ve seen that this phrase (the chapter title) is illogical on the basis of the fact that it is a self-refuting statement. I’ll provide a definition of a self-refuting statement here:
A self-refuting statement is one where something said contradicts something previously said.
For instance, I’ll use a modern quote I was told from my friend Eunice regarding Dorothy Patterson:
“She[Dorothy] is PREACHING AGAINST women PREACHING.”
Notice the words highlighted? Dorothy Patterson is telling women not to preach—but she is PREACHING herself! If women are not supposed to preach (according to Dorothy Patterson and other complementarians), then why is Dorothy Patterson preaching? Her preaching CANCELS OUT her campaign that tells women not to preach.
This is not to make fun of Dorothy Patterson. As I’ve written in other posts, she is well-accomplished and deserves to be commended for her educational achievements. I just used this self-refuting statement to show how one thing can contradict another in close proximity. Other such statement would be “Being nosy about NOT BEING NOSY,” and so forth. As you can see, self-refuting statements are quite a laugh!
In any case, back to my original point. “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role” cannot be true if women are equal in being, but UNEQUAL in role because THE UNEQUAL role is dependent on the EQUAL BEING!
Today’s post will concern one of many analogies that complementarians use to argue women’s subordination to men: the Levitical Priesthood. Regarding this false analogy Rebecca Merrill Groothuis writes:
“Furthermore, while God chose the Levites to perform a ministry of lifelong duration, it was not a PERMANENT decree as is the (supposed) divine decree that women be subordinate to male authority. The authority/status difference between women and men is deemed AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE of God’s creational design; thus it is permanent not only in the sense that it endures throughout a person’s lifetime but also in that it pertains to all men and women EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME. The Levites’ role, by contrast, WAS NOT PERMANENT but PROVISIONAL, in that it pertained only to a temporary religious system at a particular time and for a particular purpose in history” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 327).
The role of the Levite priest was temporary. As the writer of Hebrews says,
“If, then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise in the order of Melchizedek, and not to be described as being in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of the law as well. For the One about whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has served at the altar. Now it is evident that our Lord came from Judah, and about that tribe Moses said nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:11-14, HCSB).
Because Jesus was the high priest of a different order, then the Levitical priesthood is abolished (because it has been supplanted by a better one). The Levitical priesthood was only to last for a limited time. This is not a good example by which to argue for women’s subordination, since those who believe women should be subordinate argue for ETERNAL subordination of men to women (or at least until the end of human mortality).
Also, notice the differences between Christ and the Levitical priests:
“Now many have become Levitical priests, since they are prevented by death from remaining in office. But because He remains forever, He holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is always able to save those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:23-25, HCSB).
Because the Levitical priests were human, they could only serve for a limited time—that time being their life span, whether it be 50, 60, 70 years, etc. Jesus, however, lives on forever, so there is NO LIMIT OF TIME to His priesthood—His is an ETERNAL one.
For those who care to read other comments on the priesthood, please see my series on Margaret Kostenberger’s book; the title of the series is “Justifications for a Patriarchal Hermeneutic.” In that series I also address the issue of the “priesthood of all believers,” how, even in Exodus 19, God desired that the entire nation would be a “Kingdom of priests,” although the Israelites forfeited their mass priesthood because of fear.
A lot of time has been invested over the last few weeks studying Groothuis’s work in chapter 18 of her edited book, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” called “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role.” We’ve seen that this phrase (the chapter title) is illogical on the basis of the fact that it is a self-refuting statement. I’ll provide a definition of a self-refuting statement here:
A self-refuting statement is one where something said contradicts something previously said.
For instance, I’ll use a modern quote I was told from my friend Eunice regarding Dorothy Patterson:
“She[Dorothy] is PREACHING AGAINST women PREACHING.”
Notice the words highlighted? Dorothy Patterson is telling women not to preach—but she is PREACHING herself! If women are not supposed to preach (according to Dorothy Patterson and other complementarians), then why is Dorothy Patterson preaching? Her preaching CANCELS OUT her campaign that tells women not to preach.
This is not to make fun of Dorothy Patterson. As I’ve written in other posts, she is well-accomplished and deserves to be commended for her educational achievements. I just used this self-refuting statement to show how one thing can contradict another in close proximity. Other such statement would be “Being nosy about NOT BEING NOSY,” and so forth. As you can see, self-refuting statements are quite a laugh!
In any case, back to my original point. “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role” cannot be true if women are equal in being, but UNEQUAL in role because THE UNEQUAL role is dependent on the EQUAL BEING!
Today’s post will concern one of many analogies that complementarians use to argue women’s subordination to men: the Levitical Priesthood. Regarding this false analogy Rebecca Merrill Groothuis writes:
“Furthermore, while God chose the Levites to perform a ministry of lifelong duration, it was not a PERMANENT decree as is the (supposed) divine decree that women be subordinate to male authority. The authority/status difference between women and men is deemed AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE of God’s creational design; thus it is permanent not only in the sense that it endures throughout a person’s lifetime but also in that it pertains to all men and women EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME. The Levites’ role, by contrast, WAS NOT PERMANENT but PROVISIONAL, in that it pertained only to a temporary religious system at a particular time and for a particular purpose in history” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 327).
The role of the Levite priest was temporary. As the writer of Hebrews says,
“If, then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise in the order of Melchizedek, and not to be described as being in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of the law as well. For the One about whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has served at the altar. Now it is evident that our Lord came from Judah, and about that tribe Moses said nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:11-14, HCSB).
Because Jesus was the high priest of a different order, then the Levitical priesthood is abolished (because it has been supplanted by a better one). The Levitical priesthood was only to last for a limited time. This is not a good example by which to argue for women’s subordination, since those who believe women should be subordinate argue for ETERNAL subordination of men to women (or at least until the end of human mortality).
Also, notice the differences between Christ and the Levitical priests:
“Now many have become Levitical priests, since they are prevented by death from remaining in office. But because He remains forever, He holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is always able to save those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:23-25, HCSB).
Because the Levitical priests were human, they could only serve for a limited time—that time being their life span, whether it be 50, 60, 70 years, etc. Jesus, however, lives on forever, so there is NO LIMIT OF TIME to His priesthood—His is an ETERNAL one.
For those who care to read other comments on the priesthood, please see my series on Margaret Kostenberger’s book; the title of the series is “Justifications for a Patriarchal Hermeneutic.” In that series I also address the issue of the “priesthood of all believers,” how, even in Exodus 19, God desired that the entire nation would be a “Kingdom of priests,” although the Israelites forfeited their mass priesthood because of fear.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Hide-and-Go-Seek
“The idea that woman’s subordination is not in any sense determined by or grounded in what a woman is or what God designed her to be is CONTRARY to the ways of God in that it separates God’s WILL for creation from His DESIGN for creation. Ontology and teleology become detached, irrelevant to one another. In what other area of theology would this be asserted? Can the will of God be deemed to be at odds with the created nature of things? Would God require—has God EVER required—of us anything for which He did not design us? GOD’S DECREES ALWAYS TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT HIS CHARACTER, OUR HUMANITY, THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS THE WAY GOD CREATED THEM. For example, God’s ban on homosexual relationships tells us about—and is grounded in—the created nature of sexuality, its meaning, design and purpose” (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 323).
I’m still in chapter 18, discussing Rebecca Merrill Groothuis’s work on “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role.” We’ve talked about here at the blog how “role” and “being” are synonymous terms (meaning the same thing) to complementarians. However, they’re stumped when you start asking them about women being EQUAL in being. If women are equal in being, then how can they be unequal in role (which is BASED on their BEING UNEQUAL)? If a woman is equal to the man in being, then she should also be equal in role. But to accept this is just too much to swallow…at least if one is complementarian…
In an earlier post on Genesis 1, I affirmed that woman are EQUALLY made in the image of God (as is the man) and that, just as the man was told in Genesis 1 to “rule the earth…and subdue it,” so was the woman. She, like the man, was made a “lord” (lowercase) over the earth—and was given such authority by her Creator (“Lord,” capital) who made the universe. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis responded here at the blog a few days ago in regards to the image, and she made a brilliant statement that I think is worthy of repeating: “Where there is the image of God, there is authority.” By virtue of man (and woman) being made in the image of God, they both have authority.
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis makes it clear that God’s will can be seen in God’s design. Let’s look at some evidence for Groothuis’s position, Romans 1:
“Since what can be known about God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HE HAS MADE” (Rom. 1:20, HCSB).
If this is not enough, what are we to do with Psalm 19?
“The heavens DECLARE the glory of God, and the sky PROCLAIMS the work of His hands.
Day after day they POUR OUT speech; night after night, they COMMUNICATE knowledge.
There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard.
Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.
In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun.
It is like a groom coming from the bridal chamber; it rejoices like an athlete running a course.
It rises from one end of the heavens and circles to their other end; nothing is hidden from its heat” (Psalm 19:1-6, HCSB).
Verses 1-6 give us what is known as “natural revelation,” a manifestation of God’s glory in the natural world, the physical world around us. As can be seen, God has not hidden Himself from us—rather, He has given us creation by which we can see who He is and desire to come to know Him.
In agreement with Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, God’s Will is seen in His design. After all, we do have Genesis 1:
“Then God said, ‘Let US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth’. So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth’” (Genesis 1:26-27, HCSB).
Notice that God said, “LET US…” The word “let” implies volition, the decision of the will. God, then, “willed” to create man in His image with His likeness. This is not something He was forced to do. Next, because God ordained man to bear His image, He then gave man dominion, rule over the earth, which matched His rule over all of creation (planets, galaxies, moon, stars, etc.).
Look at God’s words regarding the creation of sky lights:
“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth’” (Gen. 1:14-15, HCSB).
When God creates light in the sky, He gives us the purpose for so doing—“THEY WILL SERVE AS SIGNS FOR FESTIVALS AND FOR DAYS AND YEARS…THEY WILL…PROVIDE LIGHT ON THE EARTH.” God doesn’t just create the lights in the sky for naught—no, He has a purpose for them—to tell of the seasons, and to report of the time of day and night throughout the years. Not only that, but they will provide light on the earth. God creates them, then, not only as time-markers, but so that, even in the dark (night), there would still be light. God not only spoke light into darkness (“Let there be light”), but He even placed light into the darkness. Because the night light would be in the sky, it would overlook all the earth and give light, shining as a huge “flashlight” from Heaven above.
And look back at the creation of man. When God creates man and woman, He does so how? In HIS IMAGE with HIS LIKENESS. We are made like Him and bear His image. Why are we made this way? Is this just something God decided to do without reason or purpose? No—we were made to “rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, HCSB).
God designed men and women with talents and abilities (because they both were made in the image of God). And once we become children of God, He gives us “grace gifts” by which we bring glory to Him. And the Lord would not give us gifts in reality which GO AGAINST HIS DESIGN (for “He cannot deny Himself,” 2 Timothy 2). If He designs something in a certain way, He intends for that design to serve a purpose.
An architect builds houses for the purpose of living arrangements, not as museum exhibits; the automobile industry designs cars for the purpose of having them be DRIVEN in order to travel from one destination to another; and doctors prescribe medication with the sole goal of helping their patients get better and stay healthy, not give the patient medicine to sit in their medicine cabinet (the patient won’t get better if he does this). All these things that we do have purpose in-built BY VIRTUE OF DESIGN!! And if this is true, and we are in the LIKENESS of our Creator, then why would it be any different with Him? Why would He play "hide-and-go-seek" with His creation?
I’m still in chapter 18, discussing Rebecca Merrill Groothuis’s work on “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role.” We’ve talked about here at the blog how “role” and “being” are synonymous terms (meaning the same thing) to complementarians. However, they’re stumped when you start asking them about women being EQUAL in being. If women are equal in being, then how can they be unequal in role (which is BASED on their BEING UNEQUAL)? If a woman is equal to the man in being, then she should also be equal in role. But to accept this is just too much to swallow…at least if one is complementarian…
In an earlier post on Genesis 1, I affirmed that woman are EQUALLY made in the image of God (as is the man) and that, just as the man was told in Genesis 1 to “rule the earth…and subdue it,” so was the woman. She, like the man, was made a “lord” (lowercase) over the earth—and was given such authority by her Creator (“Lord,” capital) who made the universe. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis responded here at the blog a few days ago in regards to the image, and she made a brilliant statement that I think is worthy of repeating: “Where there is the image of God, there is authority.” By virtue of man (and woman) being made in the image of God, they both have authority.
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis makes it clear that God’s will can be seen in God’s design. Let’s look at some evidence for Groothuis’s position, Romans 1:
“Since what can be known about God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HE HAS MADE” (Rom. 1:20, HCSB).
If this is not enough, what are we to do with Psalm 19?
“The heavens DECLARE the glory of God, and the sky PROCLAIMS the work of His hands.
Day after day they POUR OUT speech; night after night, they COMMUNICATE knowledge.
There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard.
Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.
In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun.
It is like a groom coming from the bridal chamber; it rejoices like an athlete running a course.
It rises from one end of the heavens and circles to their other end; nothing is hidden from its heat” (Psalm 19:1-6, HCSB).
Verses 1-6 give us what is known as “natural revelation,” a manifestation of God’s glory in the natural world, the physical world around us. As can be seen, God has not hidden Himself from us—rather, He has given us creation by which we can see who He is and desire to come to know Him.
In agreement with Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, God’s Will is seen in His design. After all, we do have Genesis 1:
“Then God said, ‘Let US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth’. So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth’” (Genesis 1:26-27, HCSB).
Notice that God said, “LET US…” The word “let” implies volition, the decision of the will. God, then, “willed” to create man in His image with His likeness. This is not something He was forced to do. Next, because God ordained man to bear His image, He then gave man dominion, rule over the earth, which matched His rule over all of creation (planets, galaxies, moon, stars, etc.).
Look at God’s words regarding the creation of sky lights:
“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth’” (Gen. 1:14-15, HCSB).
When God creates light in the sky, He gives us the purpose for so doing—“THEY WILL SERVE AS SIGNS FOR FESTIVALS AND FOR DAYS AND YEARS…THEY WILL…PROVIDE LIGHT ON THE EARTH.” God doesn’t just create the lights in the sky for naught—no, He has a purpose for them—to tell of the seasons, and to report of the time of day and night throughout the years. Not only that, but they will provide light on the earth. God creates them, then, not only as time-markers, but so that, even in the dark (night), there would still be light. God not only spoke light into darkness (“Let there be light”), but He even placed light into the darkness. Because the night light would be in the sky, it would overlook all the earth and give light, shining as a huge “flashlight” from Heaven above.
And look back at the creation of man. When God creates man and woman, He does so how? In HIS IMAGE with HIS LIKENESS. We are made like Him and bear His image. Why are we made this way? Is this just something God decided to do without reason or purpose? No—we were made to “rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, HCSB).
God designed men and women with talents and abilities (because they both were made in the image of God). And once we become children of God, He gives us “grace gifts” by which we bring glory to Him. And the Lord would not give us gifts in reality which GO AGAINST HIS DESIGN (for “He cannot deny Himself,” 2 Timothy 2). If He designs something in a certain way, He intends for that design to serve a purpose.
An architect builds houses for the purpose of living arrangements, not as museum exhibits; the automobile industry designs cars for the purpose of having them be DRIVEN in order to travel from one destination to another; and doctors prescribe medication with the sole goal of helping their patients get better and stay healthy, not give the patient medicine to sit in their medicine cabinet (the patient won’t get better if he does this). All these things that we do have purpose in-built BY VIRTUE OF DESIGN!! And if this is true, and we are in the LIKENESS of our Creator, then why would it be any different with Him? Why would He play "hide-and-go-seek" with His creation?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Role and Being
Role is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “function, position, job, or task.”
The word “being” is defined as “existence.” For instance, when one thinks of a “human being,” he or she thinks of the existence (being) of a human (homo sapien). Thus, “human being” is a reference to “human existence.”
I think it’s pretty obvious to the reader that “being” and “role” are not the same thing! The “being” can exist, independent of the role; but the role cannot exist without the being! Why can’t the role exist independent of the being? Because if an object does not exist, then it can’t do anything, doesn’t serve a function.
Let’s see how these terms fit in the issue of women in ministry:
“Regardless of how patriarchal gender relations may be explained or masculinity and femininity defined, the fact remains that woman’s subordinate ‘role’ is determined exclusively and necessarily by her personal nature; that is, SOLELY on account of her BEING female she MUST be subordinate. Therefore woman’s ‘role’ designates not merely what she does (or doesn’t do) but what she is. She is female; she is subordinate.
It may sound quite plausible to insist that woman’s subordination and man’s authority are merely roles assigned by God and so do not entail woman’s personal inferiority. Roles, by definition, do not necessarily bespeak qualities of personal being. But patriarchal gender roles are not roles in accordance with the usual definition. These ‘roles’ have a ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE WITH BEING. WHERE THE ‘BEING’ IS, THERE THE ‘ROLE’ IS ALSO. ‘Female being’ corresponds precisely to ‘a role of subordination to male authority.’ The word ROLE is used in a way that renders its meaning basically synonymous, or redundant, with BEING” (320).
It is often said that a woman’s being is EQUAL to a man’s; however, a woman has a different role than a man. And why? Because of her BEING—because she is a woman!!
But if the woman’s UNEQUAL ROLE is based on her being, then isn’t the woman’s being UNEQUAL to the man’s? And yet, this is the opposite of what complementarians say—that the woman’s being is EQUAL to the man’s!!! So now, it seems, that the woman is both EQUAL and UNEQUAL in her being to the man.
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis concludes Part One of her chapter “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role” with these words:
“Thus evangelical patriarchy does not have woman being unequal in a different respect from the way she is equal. Rather, a woman is unequal (subordinate) in the same respect that she is equal—by virtue of her being, as a constitutive element and necessary consequence of her being. Therefore woman’s equality (as biblically defined) and woman’s subordination (as defined by patriarchalists) cannot coexist without logical contradiction. Evangelical patriarchy’s EQUAL BEING/UNEQUAL ROLE construct must be deemed internally incoherent” (322).
There is a “logical contradiction” between the equality and inequality of the woman’s being because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction:
“…the foundational and indisputable law of noncontradiction, which states that ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ CANNOT both be true at the same time in the same respect. The law of noncontradiction is not a mere human construct that God’s truth somehow transcends. Rather, it is necessary and fundamental to all meaningful discourse and communication—including God’s revelation of His Word in Scripture. That is why biblical scholars who hold to the Bible’s infallibility SEEK TO RESOLVE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS in Scripture; it is AXIOMATIC that if the Bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be true in all that it affirms” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 304 ).
This makes the issue of equal in being/unequal in role logically impossible to uphold. Complementarians, therefore, have a philosophical problem in their view of women—if not a theological one.
The word “being” is defined as “existence.” For instance, when one thinks of a “human being,” he or she thinks of the existence (being) of a human (homo sapien). Thus, “human being” is a reference to “human existence.”
I think it’s pretty obvious to the reader that “being” and “role” are not the same thing! The “being” can exist, independent of the role; but the role cannot exist without the being! Why can’t the role exist independent of the being? Because if an object does not exist, then it can’t do anything, doesn’t serve a function.
Let’s see how these terms fit in the issue of women in ministry:
“Regardless of how patriarchal gender relations may be explained or masculinity and femininity defined, the fact remains that woman’s subordinate ‘role’ is determined exclusively and necessarily by her personal nature; that is, SOLELY on account of her BEING female she MUST be subordinate. Therefore woman’s ‘role’ designates not merely what she does (or doesn’t do) but what she is. She is female; she is subordinate.
It may sound quite plausible to insist that woman’s subordination and man’s authority are merely roles assigned by God and so do not entail woman’s personal inferiority. Roles, by definition, do not necessarily bespeak qualities of personal being. But patriarchal gender roles are not roles in accordance with the usual definition. These ‘roles’ have a ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE WITH BEING. WHERE THE ‘BEING’ IS, THERE THE ‘ROLE’ IS ALSO. ‘Female being’ corresponds precisely to ‘a role of subordination to male authority.’ The word ROLE is used in a way that renders its meaning basically synonymous, or redundant, with BEING” (320).
It is often said that a woman’s being is EQUAL to a man’s; however, a woman has a different role than a man. And why? Because of her BEING—because she is a woman!!
But if the woman’s UNEQUAL ROLE is based on her being, then isn’t the woman’s being UNEQUAL to the man’s? And yet, this is the opposite of what complementarians say—that the woman’s being is EQUAL to the man’s!!! So now, it seems, that the woman is both EQUAL and UNEQUAL in her being to the man.
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis concludes Part One of her chapter “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role” with these words:
“Thus evangelical patriarchy does not have woman being unequal in a different respect from the way she is equal. Rather, a woman is unequal (subordinate) in the same respect that she is equal—by virtue of her being, as a constitutive element and necessary consequence of her being. Therefore woman’s equality (as biblically defined) and woman’s subordination (as defined by patriarchalists) cannot coexist without logical contradiction. Evangelical patriarchy’s EQUAL BEING/UNEQUAL ROLE construct must be deemed internally incoherent” (322).
There is a “logical contradiction” between the equality and inequality of the woman’s being because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction:
“…the foundational and indisputable law of noncontradiction, which states that ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ CANNOT both be true at the same time in the same respect. The law of noncontradiction is not a mere human construct that God’s truth somehow transcends. Rather, it is necessary and fundamental to all meaningful discourse and communication—including God’s revelation of His Word in Scripture. That is why biblical scholars who hold to the Bible’s infallibility SEEK TO RESOLVE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS in Scripture; it is AXIOMATIC that if the Bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be true in all that it affirms” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 304 ).
This makes the issue of equal in being/unequal in role logically impossible to uphold. Complementarians, therefore, have a philosophical problem in their view of women—if not a theological one.
It's NOT Prego!
“It should also be noted that although ROLE THEOLOGY has become central to evangelical patriarchy, NOWHERE does Scripture use the term ROLE or any synonym for it with reference to the responsibilities of believers toward God or one another. At no point do we read that God designed us—and requires us—to ‘PLAY A ROLE.’ No, God’s concern is for each of us to BE a righteous person and to use whatever GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT we have been given for the good of the church and the glory of God” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 319).
The word “role” has been used to “rewrite” the biblical canon and replace the word “gifts.” But there are two reasons why this is a bad idea.
First, “it’s not prego!” which means, “IT’S NOT IN THERE!” There is no word, phrase, verse, chapter, book, or even TESTAMENT that contains the word “role” in it. But the word “role” implies acting, theater, stage, drama…and the word SCRIPT comes to mind. Read these words from Udo Middleman:
“If God is in such control that EVERYTHING ALREADY AND FOR ALL TIMES IS WHAT HE INTENDED, we have no truly grieving God, no man of sorrows, no sadness of Jesus when the rich young ruler walked away without believeing. GOD HAS THEN DESIGNED WHAT IS NORMAL, and implicitly endorses what takes place AT ANY TIME. In terms of ideas or philosophy, and how you see things, IT IS A MODERN VARIANT OF THE SAME OLD PAGAN ORDER, THIS TIME WITH CHRISTIAN VOCABULARY. Life and death are justified, as is my bad temper, your murderous tendencies, your near-sightedness, and your addictions…the commands to LIVE otherwise, to bring one’s behavior in line with God’s Word, would be out of place, MERE THEATER AT BEST…if all of life is LOCKED INTO A SCRIPT, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY LIVE PEOPLE” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” page 149).
When complementarians use the word “role,” they are saying that EVERYTHING a woman will ever become is already spelled out for her. If her life were a script, she’d be given no “first dibs” on her life, how she will play her role, nor what she will do in it.
The word “role” has been used to “rewrite” the biblical canon and replace the word “gifts.” But there are two reasons why this is a bad idea.
First, “it’s not prego!” which means, “IT’S NOT IN THERE!” There is no word, phrase, verse, chapter, book, or even TESTAMENT that contains the word “role” in it. But the word “role” implies acting, theater, stage, drama…and the word SCRIPT comes to mind. Read these words from Udo Middleman:
“If God is in such control that EVERYTHING ALREADY AND FOR ALL TIMES IS WHAT HE INTENDED, we have no truly grieving God, no man of sorrows, no sadness of Jesus when the rich young ruler walked away without believeing. GOD HAS THEN DESIGNED WHAT IS NORMAL, and implicitly endorses what takes place AT ANY TIME. In terms of ideas or philosophy, and how you see things, IT IS A MODERN VARIANT OF THE SAME OLD PAGAN ORDER, THIS TIME WITH CHRISTIAN VOCABULARY. Life and death are justified, as is my bad temper, your murderous tendencies, your near-sightedness, and your addictions…the commands to LIVE otherwise, to bring one’s behavior in line with God’s Word, would be out of place, MERE THEATER AT BEST…if all of life is LOCKED INTO A SCRIPT, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY LIVE PEOPLE” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” page 149).
When complementarians use the word “role,” they are saying that EVERYTHING a woman will ever become is already spelled out for her. If her life were a script, she’d be given no “first dibs” on her life, how she will play her role, nor what she will do in it.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Everlasting Subordination
In chapter 18 of “Discovering Biblical Equality,” called “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role: The Logic of Woman’s Subordination,” Rebecca Merrill Groothuis has spent time showing that the argument of “equal…but unequal” isn’t logical. Here she does it again.
I just wanna take time here to say that the philosophical arena in this debate is the genius of Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. I’ve never seen anyone else master the philosophy behind this debate like she does.
This section involves the idea that, while men and women are equal in being, they are unequal in role—and the woman is to be FUNCTIONALLY SUBORDINATE to the man. Here’s her attack on the complementarian thought:
“ ‘Equal in being but subordinate in role’ CAN accurately describe instances of functional subordination; however, it does not serve as a description of EVERY relationship of subordination to authority, and it cannot accurately be applied to woman’s subordination. Female subordination is not functional subordination therefore it cannot be justified on those grounds” (316).
Inherent within the idea of “FUNCTIONAL” subordination is that someone submits to someone else or works under someone else to fulfill a task, a FUNCTION. But with complementarians, this is not the case:
“Female subordination differs from functional subordination in its SCOPE, DURATION AND CRITERION. The subordination of women is limited neither in SCOPE nor in DURATION. It is not based on INFERIOR ABILITY or designed to accomplish a temporary task. It is COMPREHENSIVE (ENCOMPASSING ALL THAT A WOMAN DOES), PERMANENT (EXTENDING THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF A WOMAN AND APPLYING TO ALL WOMEN AT ALL TIMES) and decided solely by an unchangeable aspect of a woman’s personal being (FEMALENESS). Although femaleness is, in fact, irrelevant to ascertaining a person’s innate abilities in the higher human functions involved in leadership, decision making and self-governance, these are precisely the functions from which women are PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED; thus the inferiority of female persons in these key areas is clearly implied” (316).
As Groothuis states in the chapter, there are times when functional subordination is permanent (such as the fact that a person just can’t seem to get down a trade, skill, or talent, etc.). However, there are other times when the subordination is temporary. And the evangelical patriarchal perspective doesn’t see any TEMPORARY subordination from women—which is why 1 Timothy 2 is deemed a universal letter subordinating women at all times. But this goes against the very practice of hermeneutics, according to Henry Virkler:
“…it is important to define the intended recipients of a command, and to apply the command discriminately to other groups. If a command was given to only one church, this MAY indicate that it was meant to be ONLY a LOCAL rather than a universal practice” (“Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation,” page 227).
1 Timothy 2 is the ONLY instance in Paul’s letters were women are being told not to teach but learn in silence. In contrast, the instructions for wives to submit to their husbands abounds in the Pauline literature (Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:5).
For the complementarian, women are always to be under the man no matter what! And no talent is weighed: the woman always loses, whether or not her ability is better. But, according to functional subordination rules, the woman’s subordination is rather temporary a majority of the time. So, from here on out, if the complementarian chooses to make functional subordination work, he’ll have to make women’s subordination of an occasional nature.
I just wanna take time here to say that the philosophical arena in this debate is the genius of Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. I’ve never seen anyone else master the philosophy behind this debate like she does.
This section involves the idea that, while men and women are equal in being, they are unequal in role—and the woman is to be FUNCTIONALLY SUBORDINATE to the man. Here’s her attack on the complementarian thought:
“ ‘Equal in being but subordinate in role’ CAN accurately describe instances of functional subordination; however, it does not serve as a description of EVERY relationship of subordination to authority, and it cannot accurately be applied to woman’s subordination. Female subordination is not functional subordination therefore it cannot be justified on those grounds” (316).
Inherent within the idea of “FUNCTIONAL” subordination is that someone submits to someone else or works under someone else to fulfill a task, a FUNCTION. But with complementarians, this is not the case:
“Female subordination differs from functional subordination in its SCOPE, DURATION AND CRITERION. The subordination of women is limited neither in SCOPE nor in DURATION. It is not based on INFERIOR ABILITY or designed to accomplish a temporary task. It is COMPREHENSIVE (ENCOMPASSING ALL THAT A WOMAN DOES), PERMANENT (EXTENDING THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF A WOMAN AND APPLYING TO ALL WOMEN AT ALL TIMES) and decided solely by an unchangeable aspect of a woman’s personal being (FEMALENESS). Although femaleness is, in fact, irrelevant to ascertaining a person’s innate abilities in the higher human functions involved in leadership, decision making and self-governance, these are precisely the functions from which women are PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED; thus the inferiority of female persons in these key areas is clearly implied” (316).
As Groothuis states in the chapter, there are times when functional subordination is permanent (such as the fact that a person just can’t seem to get down a trade, skill, or talent, etc.). However, there are other times when the subordination is temporary. And the evangelical patriarchal perspective doesn’t see any TEMPORARY subordination from women—which is why 1 Timothy 2 is deemed a universal letter subordinating women at all times. But this goes against the very practice of hermeneutics, according to Henry Virkler:
“…it is important to define the intended recipients of a command, and to apply the command discriminately to other groups. If a command was given to only one church, this MAY indicate that it was meant to be ONLY a LOCAL rather than a universal practice” (“Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation,” page 227).
1 Timothy 2 is the ONLY instance in Paul’s letters were women are being told not to teach but learn in silence. In contrast, the instructions for wives to submit to their husbands abounds in the Pauline literature (Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:5).
For the complementarian, women are always to be under the man no matter what! And no talent is weighed: the woman always loses, whether or not her ability is better. But, according to functional subordination rules, the woman’s subordination is rather temporary a majority of the time. So, from here on out, if the complementarian chooses to make functional subordination work, he’ll have to make women’s subordination of an occasional nature.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The "CAN'T" Chant of Complementarianism
“According to the patriarchal paradigm, women do have their own uniquely feminine activities not shared by men—for example, bearing and rearing their young and being submissive and obedient to the master of the home…certainly, it is a privilege and joy for women to bear and rear children. The point is not to DIMINISH the value of motherhood but to note that while childbearing and nursing are distinctively FEMALE capabilities, they are not, in and of themselves, among the distinctively HUMAN capabilities…
Patriarchal men, for their part, govern their homes and churches—making decisions, teaching the whole body of believers, ascertaining and making final determinations of God’s will for their families—and women do not. Furthermore, women COULD bear authority and responsibilitiy for these things EQUALLY WITH MEN, but they do not because they are not permitted to do so. Men, by contrast, do not bear or nurse children, simply because THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO SO. The one is the ‘CAN’T’ of permission denied; the other is the ‘CAN’T’ of personal inability. This is not a case of equally dividing different opportunities and abilities between the sexes” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 309).
I am still diving into Rebecca Groothuis’s chapter on “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role: The Logic of Woman’s Subordination.” Today’s post will tackle the above quote.
What is it that makes people look at women as just wives and mothers? As I’ve stated in the last two posts, Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that man AND woman are created in the image of God, and bear His likeness. The last post talked about the Declaration of Independence, that Thomas Jefferson believed “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights…” If all men ARE created equal, and man and woman are created equal, then surely, this means that both man and woman have equal intellectual capabilities and should have equal opportunity to exercise them. Even in cases of differing intellectual capability, such as a group of students in a classroom, the students still deserve to have the same opportunity for success (even if one takes it and the other doesn’t).
Most people will affirm that everyone deserves the opportunity to prove their abilities. When we apply for jobs, we believe that we deserve the same courtesy for the job as EVERY OTHER APPLICANT. We deserve an interview for the same amount of time as the other applicants, and we deserve the same respect and consideration for the job as the other applicants. But imagine walking into a job interview and being told that, while you have all the qualifications for the post and that your resume is impressive, you still won’t get the job because…YOU’RE A WOMAN?
Does that really make sense? No—of course it doesn’t!! And yet, when we get to the church, suddenly, it becomes OKAY to discriminate in this manner. We tell women what they can and can’t do, while the men get to do EVERYTHING they could ever imagine doing.
And this is where Groothuis’s above statement rings true. Somewhere along the way, the church has taken 1 Timothy 2 out of context and told women that they can only be wives and mothers. But is this consistent with Scripture? What are we to do with other passages of Scripture that are in stark contrast with the complementarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2? I’ll provide an example:
“I want you to be without concerns…an unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband…now I am saying this for your own benefit, not to put a restraint on you, but because of what is proper, and SO THAT YOU MAY BE DEVOTED TO THE LORD WITHOUT DISTRACTION” (1 Cor. 7:32, 34-35, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
What about the passage of 1 Corinthians 7? Paul clearly contrasts the SINGLE woman and the MARRIED woman—and says that the single woman does better to remain in that state, since she can be fully devoted to the Lord without having split loyalty between a mate and her God. If Paul is here entertaining the possibility of a woman remaining single, then on what authority do great theologians and the Body of Christ tell women that they were only made for the kitchen and nursery?
So if Paul is talking to women about the duties of mother and wife, then he must be talking to MARRIED women about fulfilling their responsibilities. I’ll print the 1 Timothy 2 text here so that you can read it for yourself:
“A woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be SAVED THROUGH CHILDBEARING, if she continues in faith, love, holiness, with good sense” (1 Tim. 2:11-15, HCSB).
A good principle for biblical interpretation is that Scripture is not contradictory in anything it says. Therefore, if two passages “appear” to be at odds, one is to be interpreted IN LIGHT OF the other. Since a single woman having children out of wedlock would be sin, we can assume that 1 Tim. 2 should be interpreted IN LIGHT OF or THROUGH the passage of 1 Corinthians 7.
Therefore, if a woman is married, her first duties are to the home. But if a woman is single, then what is she supposed to do? She is to follow the words of 1 Corinthians 7—be concerned about pleasing the Lord, in whatever capacities God allows her. I have further evidence that 1 Tim. 2 is to be interpreted by 1 Corinthians 7. The evidence is found in the next chapter, 1 Timothy 3:
“Wives, too, must be worthy of respect, not slanderers, SELF-CONTROLLED, FAITHFUL IN EVERYTHING” (1 Tim. 3:11, HCSB).
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul has already talked to the women about dressing in “modest apparel,” which involved treating themselves with respect. They had to treat themselves with respect to receive it from others. But then, Paul mentions the qualifications at the end: “self-controlled” and “faithful in everything.” Paul stated in chapter 2 that the women were to continue in “faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (other translations render the words “good sense” with “self-control”). Finally, Paul tells the women to be “faithful in everything.” This seems to be what Paul is preoccupied with most—the faithfulness of the women to their household responsibilities. We also see this later in the epistle when Paul writes:
“Thefore, I want younger women to marry, have children, MANAGE their households, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us. For some have already turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim.5:14-15, HCSB).
The word for “women” here is actually widows. The context of the passage shows us that Paul is contrasting the older widows from the younger ones. This is why an age to enroll widows on a church list is mentioned (5:9).
Why would Paul list such instructions to the younger widows? Because “some have already turned away to follow Satan.” Some widows have already abandoned the faith because of their lack of self-control. The lack of self-control can be seen in the same chapter of the epistle:
“At the same time they also LEARN TO BE IDLE, going from house to house; they are not only idle, but also are GOSSIPS and BUSYBODIES, saying things they shouldn’t say” (1 Tim. 5:13, HCSB).
These women are out of control. They have nothing to do, and all they can think of to keep them busy is to engage in all sorts of troublemaking. Paul’s instructions to them, then, are to keep them busy in that which is godly so they won’t fall prey to Satan’s devices. He is exhorting them to cling to their faith with all they’ve got—looking at the tragic examples of those who’ve already strayed from their faith. The text in the Greek for 1 Tim. 5:15 says that some younger widows have already “run out behind Satan.” They have left Christ and become followers of Satan.
I think that improper study of Scripture has contributed to the church’s view of women as just wives and mothers. As a result, the church has created what I call a sort of “Biological Calvinism,” a thought that only men are BIOLOGICALLY FITTED to lead. Read the words of Raymond Ortlund:
“A man, JUST BY VIRTUE OF HIS MANHOOD, is called to LEAD for God. A woman, JUST BY VIRTUE OF HER WOMANHOOD, is called to HELP for God” (quoted by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 310).
The argument of Ortlund and complementarianism itself is that women are biologically inferior to men. I’ll set up the syllogism for all to see:
I. Manhood is the gift of leadership.
II. Women do not possess manhood, but womanhood.
III. Therefore, women are not fit for leadership.
Inherent within manhood is the “RIGHT” to lead, so a woman, by being female, does not have the right to lead (according to complementarianism). It is, in essence, an argument for the biological inferiority and spiritual inferiority of women.
The church’s “CAN’T” Chant of Complementarianism has held women down for too long. If you ask me, it’s time to “march around the walls” and watch them crumble…
Patriarchal men, for their part, govern their homes and churches—making decisions, teaching the whole body of believers, ascertaining and making final determinations of God’s will for their families—and women do not. Furthermore, women COULD bear authority and responsibilitiy for these things EQUALLY WITH MEN, but they do not because they are not permitted to do so. Men, by contrast, do not bear or nurse children, simply because THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO SO. The one is the ‘CAN’T’ of permission denied; the other is the ‘CAN’T’ of personal inability. This is not a case of equally dividing different opportunities and abilities between the sexes” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 309).
I am still diving into Rebecca Groothuis’s chapter on “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role: The Logic of Woman’s Subordination.” Today’s post will tackle the above quote.
What is it that makes people look at women as just wives and mothers? As I’ve stated in the last two posts, Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that man AND woman are created in the image of God, and bear His likeness. The last post talked about the Declaration of Independence, that Thomas Jefferson believed “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights…” If all men ARE created equal, and man and woman are created equal, then surely, this means that both man and woman have equal intellectual capabilities and should have equal opportunity to exercise them. Even in cases of differing intellectual capability, such as a group of students in a classroom, the students still deserve to have the same opportunity for success (even if one takes it and the other doesn’t).
Most people will affirm that everyone deserves the opportunity to prove their abilities. When we apply for jobs, we believe that we deserve the same courtesy for the job as EVERY OTHER APPLICANT. We deserve an interview for the same amount of time as the other applicants, and we deserve the same respect and consideration for the job as the other applicants. But imagine walking into a job interview and being told that, while you have all the qualifications for the post and that your resume is impressive, you still won’t get the job because…YOU’RE A WOMAN?
Does that really make sense? No—of course it doesn’t!! And yet, when we get to the church, suddenly, it becomes OKAY to discriminate in this manner. We tell women what they can and can’t do, while the men get to do EVERYTHING they could ever imagine doing.
And this is where Groothuis’s above statement rings true. Somewhere along the way, the church has taken 1 Timothy 2 out of context and told women that they can only be wives and mothers. But is this consistent with Scripture? What are we to do with other passages of Scripture that are in stark contrast with the complementarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2? I’ll provide an example:
“I want you to be without concerns…an unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband…now I am saying this for your own benefit, not to put a restraint on you, but because of what is proper, and SO THAT YOU MAY BE DEVOTED TO THE LORD WITHOUT DISTRACTION” (1 Cor. 7:32, 34-35, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
What about the passage of 1 Corinthians 7? Paul clearly contrasts the SINGLE woman and the MARRIED woman—and says that the single woman does better to remain in that state, since she can be fully devoted to the Lord without having split loyalty between a mate and her God. If Paul is here entertaining the possibility of a woman remaining single, then on what authority do great theologians and the Body of Christ tell women that they were only made for the kitchen and nursery?
So if Paul is talking to women about the duties of mother and wife, then he must be talking to MARRIED women about fulfilling their responsibilities. I’ll print the 1 Timothy 2 text here so that you can read it for yourself:
“A woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be SAVED THROUGH CHILDBEARING, if she continues in faith, love, holiness, with good sense” (1 Tim. 2:11-15, HCSB).
A good principle for biblical interpretation is that Scripture is not contradictory in anything it says. Therefore, if two passages “appear” to be at odds, one is to be interpreted IN LIGHT OF the other. Since a single woman having children out of wedlock would be sin, we can assume that 1 Tim. 2 should be interpreted IN LIGHT OF or THROUGH the passage of 1 Corinthians 7.
Therefore, if a woman is married, her first duties are to the home. But if a woman is single, then what is she supposed to do? She is to follow the words of 1 Corinthians 7—be concerned about pleasing the Lord, in whatever capacities God allows her. I have further evidence that 1 Tim. 2 is to be interpreted by 1 Corinthians 7. The evidence is found in the next chapter, 1 Timothy 3:
“Wives, too, must be worthy of respect, not slanderers, SELF-CONTROLLED, FAITHFUL IN EVERYTHING” (1 Tim. 3:11, HCSB).
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul has already talked to the women about dressing in “modest apparel,” which involved treating themselves with respect. They had to treat themselves with respect to receive it from others. But then, Paul mentions the qualifications at the end: “self-controlled” and “faithful in everything.” Paul stated in chapter 2 that the women were to continue in “faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (other translations render the words “good sense” with “self-control”). Finally, Paul tells the women to be “faithful in everything.” This seems to be what Paul is preoccupied with most—the faithfulness of the women to their household responsibilities. We also see this later in the epistle when Paul writes:
“Thefore, I want younger women to marry, have children, MANAGE their households, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us. For some have already turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim.5:14-15, HCSB).
The word for “women” here is actually widows. The context of the passage shows us that Paul is contrasting the older widows from the younger ones. This is why an age to enroll widows on a church list is mentioned (5:9).
Why would Paul list such instructions to the younger widows? Because “some have already turned away to follow Satan.” Some widows have already abandoned the faith because of their lack of self-control. The lack of self-control can be seen in the same chapter of the epistle:
“At the same time they also LEARN TO BE IDLE, going from house to house; they are not only idle, but also are GOSSIPS and BUSYBODIES, saying things they shouldn’t say” (1 Tim. 5:13, HCSB).
These women are out of control. They have nothing to do, and all they can think of to keep them busy is to engage in all sorts of troublemaking. Paul’s instructions to them, then, are to keep them busy in that which is godly so they won’t fall prey to Satan’s devices. He is exhorting them to cling to their faith with all they’ve got—looking at the tragic examples of those who’ve already strayed from their faith. The text in the Greek for 1 Tim. 5:15 says that some younger widows have already “run out behind Satan.” They have left Christ and become followers of Satan.
I think that improper study of Scripture has contributed to the church’s view of women as just wives and mothers. As a result, the church has created what I call a sort of “Biological Calvinism,” a thought that only men are BIOLOGICALLY FITTED to lead. Read the words of Raymond Ortlund:
“A man, JUST BY VIRTUE OF HIS MANHOOD, is called to LEAD for God. A woman, JUST BY VIRTUE OF HER WOMANHOOD, is called to HELP for God” (quoted by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 310).
The argument of Ortlund and complementarianism itself is that women are biologically inferior to men. I’ll set up the syllogism for all to see:
I. Manhood is the gift of leadership.
II. Women do not possess manhood, but womanhood.
III. Therefore, women are not fit for leadership.
Inherent within manhood is the “RIGHT” to lead, so a woman, by being female, does not have the right to lead (according to complementarianism). It is, in essence, an argument for the biological inferiority and spiritual inferiority of women.
The church’s “CAN’T” Chant of Complementarianism has held women down for too long. If you ask me, it’s time to “march around the walls” and watch them crumble…
The Implications of lordship
In my last post, I examined Genesis 1:26-28 and affirmed Rebecca Groothuis’s belief, that Scripture presents man and woman as equals and of infinite worth to God because both were made in His image and given the task of having dominion over the earth (being “LIKE HIM”). In this post, I’m gonna discuss the implications of such a claim.
Groothuis provides them for us in her chapter called “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination”:
“On the basis of this foundational text [Gen. 1:26-28], as well as the overall teaching of Scripture, evangelical egalitarians affirm AN EQUALITY OF HUMAN WORTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS between women and men; that is, whatever human rights there may be, they belong no less to women than to men (since women are NO LESS HUMAN than men). From this follows an EQUALITY OF CONSIDERATION, whereby women and men alike have opportunity to earn and attain the place in church and society that is appropriate for each individual’s God-given abilities and calling” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 306).
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis states here that Genesis 1:26-28 entitles woman to be given the same human rights and respect as the man. The result of human worth and human rights is, what Groothuis called, an “equality of consideration,” where everyone is allowed to achieve (regardless of whether or not they will).
Look at the Declaration of Independence. It states the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence states the beliefs of Americans who desired to have their own government and be free from the oppression and tyranny of the British Parliament. Jefferson states above, “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…” What does it mean for something to be “self-evident”? It means that whatever the object or thought is, if it is self-evident it is CLEAR TO EVERYONE! IT IS APPARENT! Jefferson states here that the idea of all men being equal is not something that humans have to be made aware of—they already know it!
Then Jefferson goes and discusses the self-evident truths: the equality of all men, as well as their divine rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. First, Jefferson states that “all men are created equal.” This means that all men are at the same level in terms of their dignity, worth, and rights. All men, all humans, are to be treated with respect because no one human is above the rest.
Next, Jefferson states that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This means that, because of the equality of all humans, they are given certain rights, or privileges, that CANNOT be taken away.
What are these rights that all humans receive? “Among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” All humans should be allowed to live; all humans should be allowed to carve out their own lives without government interference in everything.
But the last unalienable right (the right that cannot be taken away) is “the pursuit of happiness.” Because all humans are equal, and given certain divine rights by their Creator, then they are also given the pursuit of happiness—which means that each person can pursue whatever pleases them in their lives. Notice, however, that it doesn’t say “the ATTAINMENT or ACHIEVEMENT of happiness,” JUST the pursuit of it. All humans receive the opportunity to do so—with no hindrances.
Now, I wanna be honest about something: Egalitarians are not out with some political agenda regarding men and women. Egalitarians view Scripture as the authority by which they assess the world and its events, not the Declaration of Independence.
And yet, the Declaration of Independence shows us the importance of theology. Notice that the few lines quoted above of the Declaration tell of a Creator—“they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…” It is the act of being given something by the Creator (God) that made the Declaration what it was.
But sadly enough, this is overlooked in today’s church. No one seems to abide by the statements of the Declaration of Independence. And for those who talk about “rights,” they are deemed as “political activists” with a secular agenda…
And what about the church? Well, the church doesn’t understand Galatians 3:28 or the Declaration of Independence. Women just as well as men are entitled to the “pursuit” of happiness, that happiness being God’s delight. The church today STATES that men and women are equal, but that doesn’t influence ecclesiology at all (according to the complementarian). In their eyes, women are denied their rightful place BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN!
But this doesn’t make sense if, as Jefferson states it, we are given “the pursuit of happiness” as an INALIENABLE right, something that can’t be taken from us.
On the job, if an employee gets denied his benefits, he cries “discrimination.” However, if a woman in the church wants to preach and teach, she cries discrimination and is told that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. But where’s the fairness in what a child is entitled to? Even though women and men are different, aren’t we all SONS?
Groothuis provides them for us in her chapter called “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination”:
“On the basis of this foundational text [Gen. 1:26-28], as well as the overall teaching of Scripture, evangelical egalitarians affirm AN EQUALITY OF HUMAN WORTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS between women and men; that is, whatever human rights there may be, they belong no less to women than to men (since women are NO LESS HUMAN than men). From this follows an EQUALITY OF CONSIDERATION, whereby women and men alike have opportunity to earn and attain the place in church and society that is appropriate for each individual’s God-given abilities and calling” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 306).
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis states here that Genesis 1:26-28 entitles woman to be given the same human rights and respect as the man. The result of human worth and human rights is, what Groothuis called, an “equality of consideration,” where everyone is allowed to achieve (regardless of whether or not they will).
Look at the Declaration of Independence. It states the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence states the beliefs of Americans who desired to have their own government and be free from the oppression and tyranny of the British Parliament. Jefferson states above, “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…” What does it mean for something to be “self-evident”? It means that whatever the object or thought is, if it is self-evident it is CLEAR TO EVERYONE! IT IS APPARENT! Jefferson states here that the idea of all men being equal is not something that humans have to be made aware of—they already know it!
Then Jefferson goes and discusses the self-evident truths: the equality of all men, as well as their divine rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. First, Jefferson states that “all men are created equal.” This means that all men are at the same level in terms of their dignity, worth, and rights. All men, all humans, are to be treated with respect because no one human is above the rest.
Next, Jefferson states that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This means that, because of the equality of all humans, they are given certain rights, or privileges, that CANNOT be taken away.
What are these rights that all humans receive? “Among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” All humans should be allowed to live; all humans should be allowed to carve out their own lives without government interference in everything.
But the last unalienable right (the right that cannot be taken away) is “the pursuit of happiness.” Because all humans are equal, and given certain divine rights by their Creator, then they are also given the pursuit of happiness—which means that each person can pursue whatever pleases them in their lives. Notice, however, that it doesn’t say “the ATTAINMENT or ACHIEVEMENT of happiness,” JUST the pursuit of it. All humans receive the opportunity to do so—with no hindrances.
Now, I wanna be honest about something: Egalitarians are not out with some political agenda regarding men and women. Egalitarians view Scripture as the authority by which they assess the world and its events, not the Declaration of Independence.
And yet, the Declaration of Independence shows us the importance of theology. Notice that the few lines quoted above of the Declaration tell of a Creator—“they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…” It is the act of being given something by the Creator (God) that made the Declaration what it was.
But sadly enough, this is overlooked in today’s church. No one seems to abide by the statements of the Declaration of Independence. And for those who talk about “rights,” they are deemed as “political activists” with a secular agenda…
And what about the church? Well, the church doesn’t understand Galatians 3:28 or the Declaration of Independence. Women just as well as men are entitled to the “pursuit” of happiness, that happiness being God’s delight. The church today STATES that men and women are equal, but that doesn’t influence ecclesiology at all (according to the complementarian). In their eyes, women are denied their rightful place BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN!
But this doesn’t make sense if, as Jefferson states it, we are given “the pursuit of happiness” as an INALIENABLE right, something that can’t be taken from us.
On the job, if an employee gets denied his benefits, he cries “discrimination.” However, if a woman in the church wants to preach and teach, she cries discrimination and is told that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. But where’s the fairness in what a child is entitled to? Even though women and men are different, aren’t we all SONS?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)