Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Complementarianism’

Aren’t men considered superior to women in Christianity? – Part 3

January 27th, 2010

In the final part of this trilogy of articles we will be considering what it means to be ‘a helper’ and whether all that we have discussed in the previous two articles is relevant today, or should this be adapted for cultural reasons?

To view the previous two articles on this subject please click here.

Specific role for women: Helper

When God created woman it is recorded that God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for (or corresponding to) him’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew (the language the Old Testament is translated from) for ‘helper’ is ‘ezer kenegdo’ in Genesis 2:18 could literally be translated as ‘a helper as corresponding to/opposite him’ from ‘ezer’ (help), ‘ke-‘ (as, like), ‘neged’ (opposite, corresponding to), ‘-o’ (him). ‘A helper opposite and corresponding’ to Adam is a good translation.

Therefore Eve was not inferior to Adam. The fact that the word ‘help’ (ezer) is often used to refer to an action of God is interesting, and illustrates the fact that both male and female roles derive from God. For example:

‘And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (Third member of the Trinity)’ (John 14:16-17)

The job title given to women is also used to describe a characteristic of God. It is critical to understand this, to be a helper is to do as God does; the role should be held in high esteem. Feminist theologian Phyllis Trible expounds this idea in her article Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies (See footnote below). Women are to ‘come along side’, engage with the life of the church and support a broad range of activities within the church, as mentioned in the first article.

But surely culture has changed now?

Many parts of the Bible were written within a cultural context in which women were considered second-class citizens. Some have argued, from this basis, that the Bible’s views on men and women correspond to the culture in which it was written, rather than be part of God’s revelation. The argument follows that we have now evolved into an increasingly tolerant and equal society, and therefore we should ignore those sections of the Bible that teach about the differences between the sexes. This argument has had great influence in both Christian and non-Christian circles.

Firstly, does the Bible really assert inequality between the sexes? It is true that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society, but in contrast, the Biblical view of men and women was highly innovative in its day because of its inherent respect for women (John 4:1-26, Galatians 3:28). The Bible clashed with the culture of its day on these issues; it did not reflect it.

It is also true that the Bible is often descriptive, instead of prescriptive. For example, the Bible records events that involve slavery and war. The fact that the Bible records these happenings does not mean that the Bible endorses those things, but rather that they were common occurrences in those times (and now). Therefore, for some evils, it is true that the Bible mentions them and treats them as existent; however, they exist because of a result of human choice. As such, before humanity chose to reject God, evil did not exist. We find, in comparison to war and slavery, that the complementary nature (and thus differences) between the sexes were part of God’s creational standard at the beginning. In other words, the differences between men and women are good, and were not a product of human choice or culture. It is only a distortion of these roles as enforced by centuries of heavy-handed patriarchy that has encouraged us to throw the baby out with the bath water; to reject our differences and equate the concept of gender distinctions with sexism. This is also supported by the Bible; when discussing the role of women in the church, Paul appeals to creation rather than culture (1 Timothy 2 11-14).

Does this mean that men have a superior role than women in the church?

To place different value and worth on one role above another; to elevate one as being ‘better’ than the other, is to make a critical, and potentially dangerous, mistake. This is an understandable result of interpreting the Bible through the lens of our western secular thinking. However, it does not take into consideration the fact that equality does not necessitate men and women being identical and indistinguishable. The emphasis in biblical teaching is on the equality of men and women, and their equal standing before God. The functions given them by God, though important, are of a lesser concern, and are based on love and mutual servanthood. A man who is an elder, or even a married man, may be considered, and correctly so, to have an authority not open to women, but biblical relationships are build on our mutual equality, and therefore that authority should be a means by which to honour women, not to rule them. Likewise, the exercise of authority within the church should not produce power struggle, or hierarchy that benefits only those who are in eldership; but rather, a social structure that is designed to better care for all members of the Church. This follows Jesus’ view of leadership, namely a commission to serve others and not to be served.

Further reading supporting the view represented in this article:

1. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., (Editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Crossway books,1991

2. Audio Talk: ‘Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?’, Amy Orr-Ewing: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/isnt-the-bible-sexist-and-out-of-date.htm

3. James, Sharon., An Overview of Feminist Theology: http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/an-overview-of-feminist-theology.htm

4. One of the main websites containing many articles supporting Complementarianism: http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

5. Peterman, Eric., Galatians 3:28 and Evangelical Egalitarianism: http://www.valleybiblefellowship.org/papers/galatians%203,28%20and%20evangelical%20egalitarianism.htm

6. Heck, D, V., The Philosophy of Women’s Ministry in the Local Church: http://www.grace4u.org/Topical/WomeninMinisty.htm

For articles on Egalitarianism:

1. One of the main websites that contains many articles supporting egalitarianism: http://www.cbeinternational.org/

2. Pierce, Ronald., Clarity, Charity and Confrontation in the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/322pierce.html

3. Moore, Russell., After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5209O.pdf

Feminist theology:

1. Young, Sally., Is Judith Butler’s approach to gender politics an improvement on previous form of feminism?: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-b-e1htm

2. Fiorenza, Elisabeth., ABSTRACT: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/sf1.html and http://www.theology.ie/theologians/schuessler.htm

3. Trible, Phyllis., Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1281

Bookmark and Share

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Aren’t men considered superior to women in Christianity? – Part 2

January 18th, 2010

In our previous article on this subject from December 2009, the Christian view of men and women was discussed, and their equal standing before God and each other. In the next two articles the nature and relationship between spiritual and functional equality will be developed; this article focussing on the role of men. Within the evangelical church today people take different theological positions on this matter, generally falling into two camps; Complementarianism (Often called Subordinationism by those opposed) and Egalitarianism. The objective of this text is not to create an in-depth comparative study between the two (if you wish to research the topics, I have supplied links at the end of Part 3), but to present a coherent summary of the biblical teaching regarding the role of men, considering the relevant biblical passages in context historically, and within the Bible as a whole.

Governing the church

There are some distinctive roles that women and men have been given as gender-specific. The Bible teaches that men only should be church ‘elders’, ‘governors’ or the like (Christians call them by different names). The most obvious passage of scripture supporting male eldership is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. As I have mentioned in my previous article, the basis for gender distinction and differing roles derives from the Godhead. It is a profound thing, that such diversity of roles and equality of status exist within the Godhead, and the differences between us, as equal human beings, should likewise be celebrated.

In light of this, it should not be surprising that there are differences between the sexes. One such difference in role identified in scripture is that certain men have been given the task of caring for the church as leaders. As church governors, elders should be serving the church, not creating a dictatorship. The roles and hierarchy within the Godhead are not the result of a power struggle, and neither should it be so in the church, as Jesus says:

‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles (non-Jews) lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Mark 10:42-45)

It should also be noted: men in general are not to be leading the church, only those men that have been given that responsibility. For example, a man who is not an elder would not have the right to exercise authority over other men or women in the congregation, just because of his gender.

Women and leadership

Conversely, women are not prevented from all leadership capacities on the basis of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15, for that assumption would contradict other passages that affirm women leaders, for example: Romans 16: 3-4, 6, 12, Acts 18: 24-26, Luke 1: 46-56. In Romans 16: 1-2 a woman called Phoebe is commended by Paul to the church in Rome, he says that she is a Patron of the church. A Patron is a person who supports another person or institution financially, or through other types of service. Phoebe is recognised as a woman who served the church in this way, and as a result became a notable figure, worthy of recognition.

Another role available to women from the time of the early church up until this day have become Deaconesses. A Deacon is a church leader, who helped the elders care for the congregation and the poor. Extra biblical historical records support the institution of Deaconesses, as Pliny the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor A.D. 112) writes as an opponent of early Christianity to the Emperor concerning the correct inflictions appropriate for Christians:

. . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, who they (Christians) called deaconesses . . .’ (Translation found in: Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, Chapter 4, pp. 83-84)

Within Marriage

Likewise, within marriage men and women have different roles. The man is to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves the church (Ephesians 5:25-30). This type of leadership is very different from the common understanding of male ‘headship’, and it is due to this misconception that the roles of men and women in the church today have been so devastatingly misunderstood. This type of leadership should be governed by a love like that which Christ showed the church, a love that caused him to give up his life for her.

Some have argued, such as feminist theologians Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible and Sallie McFague, that this social structure leads inevitably to men ruling their wives as if they were their property. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past (see Part 3 next week, subheading: but surely culture has changed now?). Men have used their position as ‘protector’, ‘servant’ and ‘leader’, and distorted it to become ‘ruler’ and ‘dictator’. However in such circumstances the man is in direct violation of scripture and it would be the duty of the church leaders to remind him of his biblical responsibilities. The misconception and misuse of the male role has consequently led to the dismissal of any kind of ‘traditional’ views of men. Although heavy-handed patriarchy should be challenged, the Biblical teaching on men reveals a type of leadership that should honour, respect and love women in a way that does not inhibit them, but rather, promote them.

In the next article, I will look at the role of women and discuss whether or not the differences between the sexes are inherent or culturally manipulated.

To view the first article in this series click here.

Bookmark and Share

Post to Twitter Tweet This