The following is the third post in our Blog Conference on Women and Ministry during which we’ll be hosting posts written by people from a range of viewpoints with the opportunity for you to interact with the material and discuss the implications for the Church and the gospel. You can read more about the conference by clicking here. In the following, John McClean comments on the need for churches to examine how men and women can use their different gifts to complement each others’ work in ministry.
It is hard to know how to make a useful contribution to the conference at this point.
Most of the discussion seems to have been about the validity of the complementarian position, and I had hoped to do something that worked within that position rather than defend it.
I’m not going to defend complementarianism, just give an explanation of why I hold what I do. I think it is defensible, but I am not going to work my way through the arguments here.
I am a product of my culture and so the idea that men and women have different roles in church and family does not sit terribly comfortably with me. It certainly is not a view that I have longed to embrace. However, when I read the Bible on the issue and interpret and apply it the same way I do on other issues I find that I can’t avoid the conclusion that it does teach a complementarian position. I realise that many of the key passages could be interpreted in other ways, I know that there are issues of historical background which could change the implications of texts, I admit that there are questions which the complementarian view cannot always answer well. However it requires extensive special pleading to take all the apparently complementarian texts as egalitarian, whether on the basis of a proposed historical background or some other basis. The fact that a theological position does not manage to answer every question is not a reason to rule it invalid. Theological formulations are first of all tested against scripture not from being comprehensive. (Indeed being comprehensive may count against a theological position – but that is another discussion).
So, despite the objections to the view, I come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that husbands have a role of leadership in families along with which comes an authority, and that the same principle is applied to churches which means that the office of eldership, which has the role of teaching and spiritual authority in a church is properly held by men. (If there is a better word to use than “authority” that’s fine, but I’m not sure what that word is.)
The Biblical pattern of leadership and authority is one of servant leadership. Authority is to be exercised for the good of others, not to crush or abuse them. It should help them flourish and live out their calling from God as fully as possible. That does not deny authority, but means that it must be exercised in a very different way to the patterns of “the world” (which is the point Jesus makes in Mark 10:42-44).
Clearly the Bible’s teaching on male leadership in the church and the family has been twisted in terrible ways. The lives and ministries of women, and men as well, have been ruined by over-bearing, abusive men. This is something the obvious danger in the complementarian position and one that needs to be carefully guarded against. However simply because a view can be misapplied does not mean it is wrong.
That leads me to the main point I wanted to consider, which I will deal with briefly. Complementarians are meant to believe that men and women are complementary, but it doesn’t seem to me that we’ve spent much time or energy thinking out how that works. Often complementarianism seems to simply a defend a traditional culture, a culture which certainly can be repressive and abusive.
One of the problems is that complementarians get trapped into over-emphasising the differences between men and women. Men and women are all humans! Remember that Adam’s first reaction to Eve was not “Hey, she is different to me”, but “this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. We have far more in common with each other. Men are from mars, women are from Venus is only half right. Much about us is shared.
One of the important things that the Bible says about gender is that men and women are meant for partnership. In Genesis 2 God makes Eve to be for Adam a “helper as his partner” (NRSV). In 1 Corinthians 11, in which Paul is discussing the way men and women should conduct themselves differently, he reminds us that “in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman” (1 Cor 11:11).
Christians have not always recognised the interdependence of men and women. Aquinas conceded that woman was created as a helper for Adam, but added that “she was not fitted to be a help to man except in generation, because another man would prove more effective help in anything else”. John Calvin said the woman was created as an “inferior aid.” They were, of course, men of their age, but they fell short of the Biblical message of the equal value and mutual need of men and women.
Once we take the complementary roles of men and women seriously the question of submission and authority can become far less pressing. That is certainly what Liz and I find in our marriage. The important questions for us as partners and parents is how do we work together well, rather than who is in charge?
Churches which accept a complementarian view should focus more on teamwork than authority. Little thought is give to how women can contribute their insights in teaching and shaping the church, because the male leaders are too worried about maintaining ‘authority’. One of the poor approaches is to separate men’s and women’s ministries. It is sad that often men and women don’t meet in the same Bible study groups to learn from each other and pray for each other and use their different gifts together. Complementarian churches need to take their claimed position more seriously.
This is one of the reasons why a committee I am part of in the Presbyterian Church of Australia has running a conference Flourish (http://www.gaawomensministry.com/) to get church which is largely complementarian to start thinking about how to live that properly.
John McClean is a lecturer at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. Read more about our contributors here.
>> Next post on September 8th – “1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Universal sin or an Ephesian situation?”, Cheryl Schatz.
Related posts:
- Women and Men: Equal but sometimes Different – Blog Conference Post #5
- Final Thoughts for the Continuing Discussion – Blog Conference Post #7
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Universal sin or an Ephesian situation? – Blog Conference Post #4
- Women Elders? – Blog Conference post #1
- Female Teaching – Blog Conference Post #6
Hi John,
How is the flourish conference going to be relevant to interdependent/non-hierarchists/egals in the PCA?
They do exist!
To me your post dosen’t seem to understand either viewpoint? You seem to state biblically that your views are complementarian (although this hasn’t been explained how so at the level of this conference). But you have expressed that you carry out your marriage in the same way as egalitarians are arguing marriage should function. You have also given biblical evidence in support of the egal view.
Are you saying the conference is complemantarian so that PCA people will come but then plan to encourage them to live out an egalitarian lifestyle??
Would love to understand…
“Men and women are all humans! Remember that Adam’s first reaction to Eve was not “Hey, she is different to me”, but “this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. We have far more in common with each other.”
Hello John,
This is an excellent point, John! This is something that has always been on my mind. While complemntarianism has focused on differences, interestingly Adam’s first words were of sameness! Like ((((hello)))
Thanks for the post John!
I appreciate your point that Kathy has also picked up on. I also like your emphasis on looking at how men and women can work together and be partners.
Something I have wondered for a while is why the PTC (the Bible college where you are a lecturer…) offers a strand of training for women that contains “ladies only” lectures, just as indeed the Flourish Conference you have promoted has “ladies only” lectures. Could you explain the thinking behind structuring “ladies only” training and workshops?
In asking that, obviously I appreciate why we have a kid’s club at our church that we only invite kids to…but I was wondering why some comps seem to think theological training needs to be at points seperate.
John,
I’ve to ask…do you believe in the subordination of women to men?
I’ll touch on each of the comments in something like reverse order.
Do I believe in the “sub-ordination of women”? I wouldn’t use that word to begin with! I don’t think that all men have authority over all women, I do think there is a principle of husbands taking a responsible loving lead in family life and a parallel principle for who holds eldership in the church.
But those principles have to be lived out in relationships that are mutual and the authority has to exercised in loving service. It does not make the person who has authority better/more important/more valuable.
Interesting that I says I’m comp. but you think I sound egal! I always assumed that the reason the term “complementarian” was chosen was because people did not want to describe themselves as hierarchical. I don’t think marriage or church should be a “hierarchy”. I do think lots of people in comp. circles make too much of authority/submission (probably in egal ones as well).
Why does PTC have a separate MTW strand – because we recognise that our college is very “blokey” and it seems that women will appreciate a chance to talk about ministry issues without feeling that the guys are listening in. This year (as the first year) it seems to be working.
For “flourish” the sessions are based on what the presenter wanted. If a woman presenter wanted a women only session that is what we did. Anyone is welcome to come to flourish, but we will be working from a complementarian basis and we don’t want to go over arguments about women’s ordination or the basic theological position. We believe that the church will benefit most from talking about how do we work together in a complementarian framework. We thought it was better to say that upfront rather than for it to be a surprise at the conference.
Thanks for answering my question John!
To follow on from Kathy’s question and your answer to her, do you believe a husband has authority over his wife?
My reason for asking is because you have also mentioned that you do not believe in hierarchy in marriage and the church. I am just trying to work out if you really are comp…it really throws the planning for the Conference out if you are not!
Just to make sure we are all on the same page, I think you are right, that the word “complementarian” came about because it was more PC than “hierarchial”, but most comps (Driscoll, Grudem, Piper etc) maintain hierarchy in their position.
There are non-hierarchical comps…but they usually specify their position and are usually called egalitarian! Although many comps believe egals are saying there is no difference between genders, this is not the case, but they do believe that there is equality without hierarchy (truly equal but different).
There are now also “Evangelical Feminists”, but no one knows who they are except Grudem who appears to have come up with the label. He explains it as egals who take the Bible seriously, but then he explains how they don’t really take the Bible seriously at all…
I decided that if Grudem could come up with labels that I could too, and so I have decided to be an “interdependent”…because you can’t have too many labels.
Are we all on the same page now?
You are an interesting “comp”, John!
I’m excited about this discussion! I’ll be back!
Same page?! lol!
John, I was hoping to pick up on a part of Amy’s question that you did not really address. What is the thinking behind Flourish being comp? I was wondering if it was comp as this was the “safe” non offensive place to be IF you focussed on what women CAN do. This way egals can come and learn about some of what they can do and the comps can learn about a lot of what they can do. Would that be a fair assessment of the thinking?
I am curious for a number of reasons.
Advertising it as a comp conference (as it has been) does not encourage egals to go, and this does not in any way reflect the “state of play” of the PCAus. We are not a comp church.
The Biblical Basis for being comp (as found at the Flourish website) suggests that egals are not Biblical if indeed you accept the Biblical Basis as outlined…which I obviously do not
Once again this does not encourage egals to go or indeed feel welcome if they did go. Also, from presenters at the Flourish Conference that I have spoken with they have been asked to sign the Biblical basis before being accepted as presenters. This so weights the conference in one direction that egals are not going to be interested in going.
Since there is nothing in our doctrine of faith that would cause the GAofA to go down such a route, why have we? I have read the report to the GAofA about women in ministry that lead to the Flourish Conference (it is available at the Flourish Website) and it suggests that one of the most helpful and productive things in ministry is partnership…as your post suggests too.
Why could the conference have presenters from both sides with an emphasis on practical ministry training and NOT debating the pros and cons of the different views?
To me this all represents confusion (either that or there are people out there trying to control what others think, so I prefer to go with the confused theory!). I would just like to understand the thinking behind all this.
If I can explain where I am coming from. I know that comps are trying to be sensitive to those who do not share their views. You have told me that you believe this to be a painful issue for many. If, however, we ignore it or just decide to run things from a comp position, then the hurt will only deepen and the sides become more polarised. A part of the reason for this Blog Conference was so that we could actually talk about the issue, so we could understand each other, so we could see the reasoning behind something like the Flourish Conference rather than just seeing it as devisive, as I guess I do.
I thought your comment at the beginning of the post was interesting. You seem to think that the discussion so far has been about the validity of the comp position. We have certainly had a lack of comps commenting, but I thought the discussion had also been about the validity of the egal position. The fact that the validity of both has been discussed I think is great and I hope people on both sides are learning and growing through it.
By the way,I think PTC was the most un “Blokey” place I have ever been in…Mark Driscoll would have a fit if he visited the PTC!
Dear John,
I am curious about one thing. You said that the presenters were given the option about their presentations. Because of this there were “women only” sessions being taught by women. I am wondering if you believe that it is okay for women to teach the bible to men publicly? Do you believe the complementarian position that women are not allowed to teach the truth of the Scriptures to men? If you don’t believe that, then how would you have given the women the option to teach men? If you do believe that God allows women to teach men, then how do you explain 1 Timothy 2:12 to allow for true complementary sharing of our God-given gifts of teaching?
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions.
I’ll try to say something about recent comments, though I’m not sure I’ll manage to deal with it all.
A word like “hierarchy” needs definition, though I know I used it without one earlier. I’ll try to explain how I was using it. By a hierarchical relationship I mean one in which concerns of authority and submission are the main dynamic. So a master/mistress and slave relationship is, I assume, strongly hierarchical, as is the relationship between a commanding officer and a soldier. In those case not only is it clear who is in charge, but that is the main thing that shapes the relationship.
A parent child relationship, though very different in many ways, is still fairly hierarchical, specially with young children. My kids certainly understand that I get to say what happens in our family in a way that they don’t, though that has changed and is changing as they grow up. In a church the relationship between elders and the congregation should be less hierarchical than a parent-child one, there should be a far greater sense of mutuality. Finally I think marriage is even less hierarchical and more mutual. A wife is called to submit to her husband in a way that a husband is not called to submit to her; but the basic shape of the relationship is far more mutual. That is how I’d understand Eph 5:22-33. So while I think that in most NT texts (if not all) hypotasso means submit to authority, I don’t think that looks the same in all instances.
You might want to say that I do then think marriage is ‘hierarchical’, but remember that I want to say that mutuality is the basic dynamic and authority/submission works within that (as well as 1 Cor 11:11 think of 1Cor 7:4). At the other end of the spectrum hierarchy is basic and any mutuality occurs within that.
As for women teaching men, the NT calls us to teach one another (Col 3:16) and that is a ministry from all to all – potentially . The NT also has a ‘teaching office’ (call it eldership) which has an authority associated with it. Like Peter Barnes I don’t think that office is properly occupied by women (I also don’t think that most men are called to hold that office either, so what I say about the teaching role of women I’d also say about most men).
You might think that sounds very hierarchical, however I think that if the elders use their authority in service to encourage all God’s people to use their gifts, then it will actually look quite ‘mutual’ most of the time. (I assume you see how 1 Tim 2 – and 1 Cor 11 and 14 – work in that for me.) So I am quite fine with women teaching men at Flourish (for example). However some of the women presenters are not and we respect their conscience.
As to Flourish being decidedly “comp”. That was a decision of the committee which I think was wise. It is true that the PCA does not have an official ‘comp’ position, though the 1991 decision on women’s ordination and the position of most states on women’s eldership suggests something like that. It is naive to imagine a conference which had the two sides “in dialogue” and in which we could also make constructive progress on helping comp. churches help women Flourish and not have conflict. Those involved in the discussion on this blog may not produce the conflict – but I can guarantee it would come (from both sides). Those involved in previous committees of the GAA tell me that the whole discussion has been dominated by the debate and we as a committee did not want to go there again. We think our comp. position reflects the vast majority of the PCA.
Does our position mean that we think an egal position is not biblical? Obviously so! That does not mean that we think that it is held insincerely or that there may not be arguments in its favour or that we want to attack people for holding it. But (as I said) we think it is helpful for the committee to say where we are at and to ask presenters to work within it.
No promises that I’ll be able to offer any more extensive replies in this dialogue! I’ll try to at least add a comment here or there if I can say anything useful.
Thanks for your answer John. You did affirm that you believe women can teach men. But you didn’t say anything about teaching the Bible. Do you believe that women can teach men with the authority of their teaching gift? Can they lead in a bible study and be the bible teacher? Or are there rules where a woman can or cannot teach the bible? May she teach with the authority of 1 Peter 4:10, 11 which tells us all to speak and teach as one who speaks the utterances of God?
1Pe 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1Pe 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Thanks for your consideration in this discussion. It is a pleasure to be able to dialog with someone who is gracious.
Thanks for your response to my questions about the Flourish conference John. It has helped me understand what the go is!
If i am reading some of the other things you are saying correctly, for a “comp” you sound very flexible and I love the fact that you appreciate the importance of mutuality.
I also want to say that I agree with you in that I do not think that all men nor all women are gifted and equipped for the role of teaching.
Cheryl, yes I certainly meant “teach the Bible” that is helping people understand the Bible and its implications for their life. Any one who teaches like that must have something “authoritative” in their teaching. What I think is inappropriate is for a man or a woman who has not been properly appointed to a teaching office to become a quasi-teaching elder by doing the role of public teaching so often that the congregation begins to see them as that. (I am using various terms but I think there is only one teaching/eldership/overseer office in the NT. I also see that there are different ways that churches do ‘proper appointing’). Just so you don’t mis-understand me, I don’t think a woman should be admitted to that office. (I’ve said that earlier – but maybe I should remind you that I did say it!).
John,
Thanks for your clarification.
I don’t see a teaching “office” anywhere listed in the scripture. What I do see is the instruction for us to “employ” our gifts in service.
1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
I don’t see it listed anywhere in scripture that how people see you (as teaching so often that people see you as being in an “office”) would limit your gift. Rather then let one’s view of you limit your gift, the Scriptures clearly say that we are to be good “stewards” of the manifold grace of God in the gift that we employ. A steward is one who is entrusted with management in connect with transcendent matters, an administrator (BDAG) If God has already told us that we are entrusted with the gift and he commands us to use our gift for serving the body, then how would God view us if we refuse to use our gifts because some will see us as having an “office” of teacher? We can either bury our gifts or we can use them with whoever will listen.
It seems to me that the command for employment in 1 Peter 4:10, 11 overrides and destroys any man-made limitations that decide that God’s gifts must be controlled through a man centered list of offices that can be found nowhere in the scriptures. It also seems to me that a woman’s Lord and Master must be obeyed and served first and His commands to her more than constitute a qualification of a God-ordained stewardship.
Cheryl, no “teaching office” in the New Testament? I would have thought that it was generally accepted that the NT church has people who held positions as “elder/pastors/bishops” and deacons. Maybe it wasn’t clear that is what I was talking about. All I can suggest is that you look at something like R.Y.K. Fung “Ministry in the New Testament” pp154-212 in D. A. Carson (ed) The church in the Bible and the world Paternoster, 1987.
Since I don’t consider the offices of the church ‘man-made’ then I don’t think that I am limiting God given giftings by man-made structures. I too think that obedience to the Lord must be primary, but I think that entails living and serving within the structure of the church he has given. (I’m not suggesting that a detailed polity can be derived from the NT, but there are principles and patterns).
John,
I asked, “Why could the conference have presenters from both sides with an emphasis on practical ministry training and NOT debating the pros and cons of the different views?”
You responded, “It is naive to imagine a conference which had the two sides “in dialogue” and in which we could also make constructive progress on helping comp. churches help women Flourish and not have conflict.”
I do not think you understood what I was suggesting. For starters the conference I was suggesting was not simply for comps, but for all women.
I do not think it “naive” to have presenters from both sides of the issue presenting on different topics who were committed to presenting on their chosen topics WITHOUT discussing/debating their personal stance. If you can ask presenters to sign the Biblical basis of Flourish, surely you can ask them to committ to not being evangelistic regarding their position if they do not want to sign the statement.
I have been thinking about your position as you have described it with regard to marriage and wanted to make a comment which I hope you will correct if I have not understood you properly.
You believe marriage is hierarchical, but that it is a relationship where there is mutuality and a sense of working together. If I understand you correctly, you believe the hierarchical aspect is written in Scripture. I am not sure where you find the mutuality in Scripture, especially as you do not see Eph 5 and hypatasso as mutual. I guess my point is that all the comps I know believe in hierarchy, as you do, but all the egals I know believe in mutual submission, as you do! The reasons the two sides do not agree is because they have radically different interpretations of certain passages such as Eph 5. You, however, appear to have managed to come away with one interpretation but are trying to live out the other interpretation.
You said, “You might want to say that I do then think marriage is ‘hierarchical’, but remember that I want to say that mutuality is the basic dynamic and authority/submission works within that (as well as 1 Cor 11:11 think of 1Cor 7:4).”
I think you want us to hold 1 Cor 11:11 and 1 Cor 7:4 in tension with one another so we understand your view of marriage, but 1 Cor 7:4 IS about marriage, while 1 Cor 11:11 is NOT about marriage. Not only that, but I think they BOTH point to a lack of “hierarchy” between men and women, i.e. there is no tension!
You also said, “That is how I’d understand Eph 5:22-33. So while I think that in most NT texts (if not all) hypotasso means submit to authority, I don’t think that looks the same in all instances.”
You had 4 challenges on my post regarding submission and Ephesians 5. I responded to the challenges, but obviously you still do not see Eph 5:21 the same way I do (which obviously you don’t have to!). I was wondering if you felt I had not responded adequately to your challenges or if you wanted to explore further challenges?
Where is your Biblical basis for mutuality in marriage found?
I hope that all makes sense!
John,
I would assert that “principles and patterns” do not equate with sin. God is very clear on what is sin and if a godly practice is not listed as a sin, then I believe that as faithful members of the body, we should be very careful in stepping beyond scripture when it comes to women’s gifts. If the Holy Spirit says that she can teach and preach the word (1 Peter 4:10, 11) and He gifts her and equips her for service, then there is no office that is needed for her to equip the body for ministry by her God-ordained gifts.
I maintain that biblically there is no such office that one must have to be a teacher. It is a gift that we are to freely give out.
The word “office” is only in the NT at Acts 1:20. It is a rare word not used for a teaching ministry at all for the body. I believe that we have made human acceptance “an office” far more important that God’s acceptance and His gifting. It (offices) just can’t be found in the Scriptures and we must go to human writings to find the establishment of a hierarchy. The body is an organism that functions with one head and it is not a hierarchical organization.
That said, I do appreciate your interaction. You have been most gracious and kind. This is very much appreciated!
Hi again John,
I am still trying to get a handle on some things you have said. One such thing is,
“Finally I think marriage is even less hierarchical and more mutual. A wife is called to submit to her husband in a way that a husband is not called to submit to her; but the basic shape of the relationship is far more mutual. That is how I’d understand Eph 5:22-33. So while I think that in most NT texts (if not all) hypotasso means submit to authority, I don’t think that looks the same in all instances.”
I am unclear on how something can be “more” or “less” hierarchical than something else. I understand that you think that a woman must submit to her husband in a way that a man does not need to submit to his wife, and this is hierarchy, and yet you suggest that the basic shape of the relationship is more mutual (than your previous example, I think). Your own definition of hierarchy (“by a hierarchical relationship I mean one in which concerns of authority and submission are the main dynamic.”) does leave room for mutuality. But hierarchy is not mutual. Subordination is not mutual. Submission can be mutual.
My dictionary does not allow for hierarchy to be a relationship where authority and submission are the “main” dynamic, but rather that it is a relationship where authority and submission are the defining dynamic. I think this is because my dictionary recognises that you can live out “hierarchy” however you want (it can be a main or minor or something in between dynamic), but what it is is one being above another.
If hypatasso means “submit to authority” in most if not all NT passages, how do you understand it’s use in 1 Cor 16:16? Not everyone who is a “fellow labourer” has authority over me, so why should I submit to them? I actually have “authority” over some of them!
Again, in 1 Peter 5:5 where we are again exhorted to submit to one another (I believe the King James provides a very accurate rendering for us, but every translation points towards humilty to each other, if not hypotasso).
I think I need to wait for you to respond, but I hope I have given a clear picture of my confusion with your position!!
Thanks John.
“I am unclear on how something can be “more” or “less” hierarchical than something else.”
I’m glad you asked. I was wondering the same thing, Dave!
Cheryl,
we are probably at cross purposes here (if that is the right way to say it). I agree that many members of the body can teach the church in different ways, but I hold that the office of elder is not open to women. I’m using the term ‘office’ because it is a useful one to summarise what the NT says about eldership. The fact that the word is not common in the NT doesn’t stop it being a useful term.
David and Kathy,
I’m not sure that I can do any better in explaining that some relationships are more mutual and some more hierarchical.
1Cor 16:16 and 1 Peter 5:5 are both about submission to what I have called “office-bearers” – sunergeo is the verb from “fellow-worker” which is a technical term in Paul’s writings for those who share in the leadership of his mission.
I don’t think my position requires me to argue that the NT does not ever instruct us to submit to one another in a general way. My argument is that Eph 5 presents relationships which are (more or less) heirarchical and that 5:21 is not a basis for saying that husbands loving their wives is an equivalent idea to wives submitting to their husbands. I re-read your blog and I’m not sure if that is what you are saying, though since you say “submission is all about choice with order not being relevant” I assume that is what you mean.
Thanks for the response John. I love discussions like this, but if I start to bore you please just let me know!
You said, “1Cor 16:16 and 1 Peter 5:5 are both about submission to what I have called “office-bearers” – sunergeo is the verb from “fellow-worker” which is a technical term in Paul’s writings for those who share in the leadership of his mission.”
Not sure where you pulled the info about sunergo from, but I think the idea of it being a “technical term” is probably a bit of a stretch, especially when you consider the lack of use of it in the NT (it would be hard to formulate such an argument), and also Paul’s use of the word in 2 Cor 1:24 where Paul uses it in reference to himself. It can hardly be a term he uses for those who work with him if he uses it to refer to himself.
I believe it would be very hard for anyone to build a case suggesting that Paul does not consider everyone who works for the same cause that he labours for as a fellow worker. I believe you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate why we should assume these fellow workers are “office-bearers”!
That said, I think you would have to work very hard to maintain the position that hypotasso is something that can only be done to those in authority as I think 1 Cor 16:16 and 1 Peter 5:5 demonstrate this (though I guess we will agree to disagree on this!).
That all said and done, I agree, your position does not require you to, “argue that the NT does not ever instruct us to submit to one another in a general way.” This is because your position is trying to hold relationships as being mutual and hierarchical at the same time. My issue is not with what your position requires you to do, it is with the position itself…it confuses me, but I appreciate your attempt to explain it.
You also said, “that 5:21 is not a basis for saying that husbands loving their wives is an equivalent idea to wives submitting to their husbands. I re-read your blog and I’m not sure if that is what you are saying, though since you say “submission is all about choice with order not being relevant” I assume that is what you mean.”
I equated submission of the wife with the love of the husband in the sense that I believe (and so does Calvin) that submission is an outworking of love.
I might allow that the 12 had an office in the sense that when Judas disqualified himself, he needed to be replaced so there would be 12; but I cannot find office otherwise and I think importing such ideas is not helpful. If you know of Biblical warrant for the use of “office” please give it.
Rather than office, I see that every believer has a ministry, and that some of those are leadership ministries (called deacons/minister) and some of those are teaching leadership ministries (called elders, overseers, etc.).
Don,
I mentioned the Fung article, I’d also suggest you look at K. Giles “Patterns of ministry among the first Christians” (Collins Dove, 1989) and W. Pannenberg “Systematic Theology Vol III” (Eerdmans, 1998) 377-431. Giles and Pannenberg support women’s ordination and I suspect Fung would as well. So I would disagree with them about who should be ordained but they all argue that the NT has and idea of “office” of ministry.
Like lots of other theological/interpretive ideas I think it is a summary of various things the Bible does say so I don’t accept that it is “imported”. The most obvious example of that kind of idea is the doctrine of the Trinity which is not explicit in the Bible but summaries what the Bible says about God and helps us understand what it says. I certainly don’t think that the idea of office has the same importance but it is analogous. That is my brief explanation and defence. Hope it helps you understand what I mean by the idea even if it doesn’t convince you.
I am an evangelical who believes the (prot) Bible is sufficient for faith and practise and part of that sufficiency is that the actual God-selected words in each book of the Bible are sufficient and therefore one does not need any additions to the vocabulary; and that any such additions actually risk subtracting.
One big difference between seeing things as an office or a ministry is that an office exists even if no one is occupying it, for example, the office of President exists even if there is no actual President, for example, before Johnson was sworn in after Kennedy was shot. This is NOT the case for a ministry, a person has a ministry, e.g., pastor, and if that person dies a church (as guided by the Holy Spirit) may decide it needs a new leader or may not, if it already has enough. If it decides on another leader, that leader might be an evangelist, for example, and not a pastor. That is, there is not necessarily X number of pastor slots to fill, which would be the case if an office of pastor existed in the NT.
Don,
You said: “I am an evangelical who believes the (prot) Bible is sufficient for faith and practise and part of that sufficiency is that the actual God-selected words in each book of the Bible are sufficient and therefore one does not need any additions to the vocabulary; and that any such additions actually risk subtracting.”
Excellent! Very well said!
John,
You said that there is an “eldership” in the Bible. I see the work of overseer and elder but I see no word listed as “eldership”. Can you explain what Greek word you are using that you are translating as “eldership”? I am drawing a blank on this kind of “ship”.
Thanks!
“They [Calvin] were, of course, men of their age, but they fell short of the Biblical message of the equal value and mutual need of men and women.”
I suspect that in time a comment of this nature will be made about today’s hierarchialists.
“One of the problems is that complementarians get trapped into over-emphasising the differences between men and women. Men and women are all humans! Remember that Adam’s first reaction to Eve was not ‘Hey, she is different to me’, but ‘this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’. We have far more in common with each other.”
Very refreshing. You do not sound like any of the complementarians I have discovered, though admittedly I am new to this issue and discussion. Those I have read and heard in the US strongly emphasize differences–maleness and femaleness, masculinity and femininity–and the hierarchy they believe inherent because of ontological differences.
“Little thought is give to how women can contribute their insights in teaching and shaping the church, because the male leaders are too worried about maintaining ‘authority’.”
Again, from what I have read and heard, that is exactly what hierarchial-complementarianism looks like—”male leaders too worried about maintaining ‘authority’”.
“One of the poor approaches is to separate men’s and women’s ministries. It is sad that often men and women don’t meet in the same Bible study groups to learn from each other and pray for each other and use their different gifts together.”
Hierarchial-complementarianism as taught by CBMW and the like do not permit men to learn from women hence gender specific bible study groups.
“The Complementarian churches need to take their claimed position more seriously.”
True. Is the aim of your Flourish conference to promote men learning from women? If so, what would that look like in the Presbyterian Church of Australia?
Dave writes: “By the way,I think PTC was the most un “Blokey” place I have ever been in…Mark Driscoll would have a fit if he visited the PTC!”
I’ve learning Australian slang. I had to google “bloke” and “blokey”. Having listened to and watched a great deal of Mark Driscoll on this issue, this comment is funny.
John writes: “I always assumed that the reason the term ‘complementarian’ was chosen was because people did not want to describe themselves as hierarchical.”
Driscoll, Grudem, Piper, CBMW, et al are clearly and unapologetically hierarchal. I suspect the coining of the relatively new term, “complementarian,” is the spoonful of honey needed to help the medicine go down.
John writes: “Do I believe in the ‘sub-ordination of women’? I wouldn’t use that word to begin with!”
Hierarchialists here in the US, though they self-identify as complementarians, unashamedly announce and advance the subordination of women. It seems that is the logical conclusion of a hierarchical-complementarian position.
John writes: “I don’t think marriage or church should be a ‘hierarchy’.”
John writes: “Finally I think marriage is even less hierarchical and more mutual.”
John writes: “You might want to say that I do then think marriage is ‘hierarchical’…”
You say marriage isn’t about “hierarchy” only to say it is “less hierarchical” and then step back from that statement by writing the reader “might want to say that I do then think marriage is ‘hierarchical’”. You seem to want to, and not want to claim hierarchy in marriage. You may have already clarified, but what exactly is your position on hierarchy in marriage?
John writes: “Finally I think marriage is even less hierarchical and more mutual. A wife is called to submit to her husband in a way that a husband is not called to submit to her; but the basic shape of the relationship is far more mutual.”
How can the “basic shape of a relationship” be “far more mutual” when, if as you say, a “wife is called to submit to her husband in a way that a husband is not called to submit to her”? If spouses do not have a mutual responsibility to submit, that is not reciprocity, mutuality.
John writes: “You might want to say that I do then think marriage is ‘hierarchical’ but remember that I want to say that mutuality is the basic dynamic and authority/submission works within that (as well as 1 Cor 11:11 think of 1Cor 7:4).”
This sounds like reciprocity especially with the scriptures you referenced but is confusing when compared with your quotes referenced previously in this same comment.
John writes: “As for women teaching men, the NT calls us to teach one another (Col 3:16) and that is a ministry from all to all – potentially.”
“…. So I am quite fine with women teaching men at Flourish (for example).”
Does your acceptance of women teaching men extend beyond a conference dealing with this issue and its practical outworking, to say, leading a small, mixed gender bible study or teaching doctrine to the congregation?
John writes: “Churches which accept a complementarian view should focus more on teamwork than authority.”
The complementarian position and its practical application are dependent upon the foci of “male authority” and “hierarchy in marriage”. As it is presented here in the US, the very “gospel is at stake” (along with other fear-based claims) if male / female relationships do not reflect the hierarchal-complementarian position. They speak of a biblical masculinity and biblical femininity that should permeate all interactions between the sexes regardless of marriage and looks like this: single men and husbands take the lead and initiative and single women and wives respond, follow, and submit.
“But those principles have to be lived out in relationships that are mutual and the authority has to exercised in loving service. It does not make the person who has authority better/more important/more valuable.”
As long as I live I will never understand that thinking. How can one adult in marriage have authority over another adult and not think that makes them more important/valuable/better?
What then does the ‘authority’ mean. How is is applied? Is it a trump card in case of severe disagreemnt?
It is a daddy/daughter relationship no matter how you slice it when the concept of ‘authority’ is applied to marriage. The ‘wife’ can never be viewed as a fully mature adult.
Biblically, authority is coupled to responsibility.
So the claim that males have more authority in some situations — simply because they are males — means that females — simply because they are females — have less responsibility in those same situations.
Apparently some think this is a good tradeoff for both genders, but I have concerns.
1. How does the male ever have assurance he is not simply acting out of selfishness when he plays the “male final decision in marriage” or “male elder” trump card? Anyone can deceive themselves.
2. How does the female ever have assurance she is not simple acting out of selfishness when she plays the “female less responsible” card? Why does she believe God is not calling her to full adult responsibility? Does truth somehow become untruth when taught by a woman?
My point is simply that I would only accept the non-egal interpretation of the “gender” verses if it was the ONLY way to understand them, but that is FAR from the case.
“Biblically, authority is coupled to responsibility.”
In the New Covenant responsiblity seems to be coupled to service and being a servant.
Don,
you said “I am an evangelical who believes the (prot) Bible is sufficient for faith and practise and part of that sufficiency is that the actual God-selected words in each book of the Bible are sufficient and therefore one does not need any additions to the vocabulary; and that any such additions actually risk subtracting.”
I guess the obvious critique to this thinking is… do you believe in the ‘trinity’, i don’t see that ‘God selected word’ in the bible. Therefore are we subtracting from the word when using this terminology.
Also i guess that unless you are a greek and hebrew scholar who can ‘fully’ understand those ‘god inspired words and grammar’ you musn’t be able to understand the bible…well at least properly. Seems to make the bible un-translatable then…sounds very Islamic!!!!
Seems far more reasonable to see how those words fit into the rest of the context of the bible as a whole.