In a post from last December (CLICK HERE), I apologized to the women in my world. It was more a philosophical apology, because even before my shift in positions (complementarianism v. egalitarianism) I worked hard to insure respect for everyone I have been privileged to journey with, difference in gender included. I may have failed at some points, but my intention was to honor all. If there is a continuum where a complementarian view was on one side and an egalitarian view were on the other, internally, I attempted to live as close to the center-line as possible.
As a result of the previous post, I was asked by an atheist friend this question: “Not trying to be a douche, I honestly want to know what you and other more "progressive" pastors do with all the verses talking about a woman’s role in the church.” The following is, at least for me, a short summary of how I approach said passages.
While I could work directly with the key texts, the guiding issue for me is more hermeneutical. As stated in the prior post, “A position of non-equality simply did not make continuing sense for me as I attempted to flesh out a full-orbed theology of the Kingdom of God and it’s hopeful consummation…”
There is a thing I will call Kingdom imagination. Most can imagine what things would look like if all were “righted,” even if there is some difference in what “righted” might look like.
Additionally, almost everyone can admit that things are not right now – poverty, injustice, crime, massive physical disasters, abuse, illness (both mental and physical), etc.
If all of that were “righted” then you begin to land on what the Bible calls the “new creation.” Scripture history is a story or narrative going somewhere, sometimes inching along, sometime forcefully, but if you buy the Bible at all you must admit that it is going somewhere (read Rev 20-21) (BTW – do you think I used enough commas in that sentence? Sheesh!).
A robust theology of the Kingdom must hold in tension both a present reality (God’s reign erupting into our life in the here and now) and future consummation or hope (a full “righting” of all that is bent and broken from the once perfect creation).
For me at this time, it all comes down to which direction should a person view Scripture. Are we to view it from the present back or from the past forward? If backward, one is caught on the horns of a more or less literal interpretation of key texts. In this particular case, texts in which it appears the Bible is desiring women to be subjugated to men. If one is looking forward, as I believe the whole arch of Scripture does (eschatologically), then one must read the texts regarding women through the lens of Christ and what he has and will accomplish in the future. I call this “the directional life.” The question that really must be grappled with is are we to view this issue primarily through the lens of the historical context of the day or through the lens of Christ and his astounding work from then into the future.
In writing this, I am not judging others who have not arrived where I have. I believe in the idea of giving space to grow and learn. Honest people are not static, but learning. We are not to stop learning until we stop breathing. The people that are most frustrating to me are those who are unwilling to allow for that grace…grace that I have received from many who have disagreed with me. Many come off arrogantly enlightened and unwilling to have respectful dialogue around key issues, thus creating an antagonistic environment that makes everyone go defensive instead of open. I am grateful for the space I have received from people who have disagreed with me and it is my intention to extend that same hope and space to others.
r
I have recently been studying the issue of women in leadership roles. I come from a complementarian position but am thoughtfully considering the egalitarian position. In my study i am focusing on Scripture as the root and foundation of truth and thus look to it for answers to the question at hand. The funny thing is that i have found upon a deeper look at Scripture there is much to defend the egalitarian position while the complementarian position has more of a defense on a mere cursory read of Scripture.
We should always look to God’s word for the truth…never to our own imaginations, culture, desires, etc. Nothing is more true than God, who is truth itself…and nothing we have access to is more truthful than His word.
Likewise- I never did get to teach you how to use a knife and fork 😉
Thanks for writing William. While it not a completely easy thing to explain in a comment, the gist of how I would deal with those particular texts would be to read them forward. What I mean by that is I would read them in light of Paul’s other comments regarding new creation (II Corinthians 5; Col 3:11 – how we see each other in light of Christ’s work) which does not make the same distinctions regarding male and female. Some are comfortable with Paul’s language regarding female submission, while side-stepping, their exegesis when it comes to head covers, braids, jewelry and expensive clothing, and women being silent in church. In Christ, we are new creations! The guiding question for me is, when that new creation is consummated, will women be subjugated to men? While some may be able to conjure that image, in light of Paul’s language, it does not seem to be the way. So, in my comment about reading the text front ways or back, if we read back we make those texts referring to subjugating woman literal. If we read forward, we interpret them through the lens of equality.
I am not writing to persuade you one way or the other. It may not be satisfactory for you, but for me it seems to embrace a more sensible, honorable and whole Bible approach.
Again, thanks for weighing in. I really appreciate it.
Is “the” Dave McConkey? Sheesh! If it is, how are you? It has been way too long. How are you?
Sorry for the use of the word “subjugation.” Certainly not the right word. It really just muddied the waters regarding the real issue. I apologize.
As for the rest, I am honestly not attempting to sidestep the challenging texts anymore than anyone else. The real conundrum is seeing how many handle the challenging texts, picking and choosing which ones are applicable to their context and which ones are not. I am referring to the no braids, head covers and jewelry stuff. We share the same history in as much as I held a complementarian position, but did a dance around the incongruent sections. In other words, I was forced into contextualizing some of it, while holding on to the “women not teaching or no authority” part…even though I do not know an evangelical church that literally silences women completely (although, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any – I just don’t know of them). I am simply trying to live into an interpretive approach that is as consistent as possible.
The Directional Hermeneutic that I have sketched out is the closest to that consistency I have found.
Lastly, and I say this ever so humbly because I don’t want you to think that this is why I changed my position, I thought I liked women before too. The grieving part for me was, it wasn’t until I struggled my way to a non-complementarian position that women in my life were honest enough to tell me that I had hurt them with my position. Don’t get me wrong…they were kind and gracious and patient, but confided that they felt diminished and disempowered by me. In a word, I may have thought I liked women, but they didn’t feel completely liked. Frankly, that breaks my heart.
Thanks for your thoughts. I wish we could hang out face to face. Peace!
HI Rob,
Thanks for your post. Appreciate your thoughts but your use of the word subjugate troubled me. I know its semantics and we all might attach different meanings to different words but I looked up the definition and got the following synonyms:
conquer, vanquish, defeat, crush, quell, quash, gain mastery over, gain ascendancy over, gain control of, bring under the yoke, bring to heel, bring someone to their knees, overcome, overpower, hegemonize;
For me those are not even slightly descriptive of the complimentarian position. We talk about Christ being under submission to the Father but would certainly never use any such terms there.
My personal leaning is towards complementarianism, whilst being very open to and perhaps even awaiting a solid scriptural case for shifting from that . I find much of the dialogue gravitates away from what the bible says and appeals rather to our cultural sensibilities- (sensibilities which I would propose complimentarians would uphold in terms of equality), or sadly involves the gross/misrepresentation and over-simplification of the opposing side’s position.
I like your question, will men occupy a position of headship in the Kingdom of heaven. To my imagination no, as I think we’ll experience His headship in a way that we cannot now living, as we do, in a fallen sinful world. Neither will we have marriage as we do now.
However, just as that does not cause us to do away with the institution of marriage for today, I’m not sure it’s a great case for forwarding the egalitarian position. We certainly pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” BUT things are not now as they will be. We are people, and a people, the church, living in a fallen sinful world.
Could one not then propose that the family structure of headship, that carries through to the church, is that established by the Lord for his people, whilst they remain, that points to and demonstartes His relationship with His church, a church that awaits his return and the arrival of that perfect Kingdom?
Also, for the record, as one who leans towards complimentarian for the moment, I like women too 🙂
I’ve heard about Immanuel from some fellow Spokanites. When I visited your website this post piqued my interest. I’m struggling to understand the influence of “Christ and his astounding work from then into the future” on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2. When I read these epistles in the context of the larger narrative I see a beautiful setting of complementary gender roles where both men and women are gifted and called to serve the mission of Christ. It doesn’t occur to me how an eschatological perspective could alter that interpretation. Could you elaborate more specifically?
Thanks Diane. I am glad that the post was helpful. For me, a more eschatological approach is both freeing and in many ways de-complicating.
Thank you for this post, Rob. I, too, have struggled with these issues, but in a different way. I’ve spent over 30 years trying to keep a good heart and to submit, over and over, in churches that emphasize a historical hermeneutical interpretation of women’s role in the church. They were willing to release women from head coverings and no jewelry, and were even willing to allow a woman to teach over women or children, but to preach? To teach with authority? To be in leadership? No. And I swallowed that and submitted to it and … A few years ago I just got completely fed up. It seemed to me this approach just creates division in the church, and frustration in women like me who have a strong teaching gift, but few church outlets. I’m really thinking now about your “directional model” as a hermeneutical tool.
Thanks for dropping in Andrew. I am a slow learner. But, I am also a committed learner. 🙂 Peace to you my friend.
I have been guilty of approaching this topic with little grace and little space. It has been difficult for me on account of what I would consider an eisegetical and presumptive hermeneutic used to interpret specific text, along with a disregard for the theological implications of thse exegetical outcomes. As you intimated Rob, a Christological and Kingdom oriented hermeneutic must be used in order to be faithful to the present and future kingdom, and I for one, should embody that hermeneutic not just in my interpretation of Scripture but also in my engagement with the church and culture – that means allowing for space and grace as the Kingdom does. Thanks for the post
Without an approach to reading and interpreting the Bible, a person is left with a myopic literalist only view. Scripture insists on being read with a variety of approaches. As we talked about earlier this week, a missional hermeneutic insures we are reading along the grain that God intended taking into consideration that directional pull of its “telos” or goal. Without this redemptive approach, we are stuck with things that made sense in context (ex. – OT sacrificial practices and NT Holy Kissing) but may not be as applicable for the unfolding story.
The real challenge then is discerning which is which. One of the tools I use is described in the blog. Where is the story going and how does it impact the particular text being looked at?
It would be difficult for one from any place in this topic’s spectrum to deny the importance of hermeneutics. I like this post, Rob. I guess my question is: How do my hermeneutical and biblical inerrancy pieces of my theology act in harmony together? (Not to mistake biblical inerrancy for biblical literalism…)