Download PDF - The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Odds & EndsWill <strong>The</strong>re Be Sex in Heaven?In February 2007, Catholic theologian PeterKreeft delivered a lecture at Southeastern Baptist<strong>The</strong>ological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.<strong>The</strong> title of his address was “Will <strong>The</strong>re Be Sexin Heaven?” <strong>The</strong> short answer he gives to the questionin the title is “yes.” <strong>The</strong> answer is “yes” mainlybecause of his view that gender distinctions continuein the new creation. He argues that the resurrectionof the body is a restoration project, not anobliteration of something so deep as our malenessor femaleness. Thus gender complementarity willalways be a part of us, even in the age to come.In any case, you can listen to the entire lecturefor yourself at Southeastern’s chapel audio page(www.sebts.edu/chapel) under the date February3, 2007. <strong>The</strong> lecture comprises the gist of a chapterin Kreeft’s book about heaven, Everything You EverWanted to Know About Heaven, but Never Dreamedof Asking (Ignatius, 1990). A text version of “Is<strong>The</strong>re Sex in Heaven?” is available at Kreeft’s ownwebsite, www.peterkreeft.com.– Denny Burk<strong>The</strong> Gospel CoalitionLast Spring, D. A. Carson and Tim Kellerlaunched a renewal movement called “<strong>The</strong> GospelCoalition.” According to Mark Driscoll(theresurgence.com), “<strong>The</strong> Gospel Coalition”began as a theological colloquium led by Carsonand Keller. <strong>The</strong> colloquium met for a few yearswith a special focus on drafting “a new evangelicalreformed confession of faith.” Members of thiscolloquium included Alistair Begg, Kent Hughes,Philip Ryken, Mark Dever, Ray Ortlund, LigonDuncan, and representatives from organizationssuch as <strong>The</strong> <strong>Council</strong> on Biblical Manhood andWomanhood, Desiring God, Together for the Gospel,9Marks, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals,Sovereign Grace Ministries, and Acts 29.<strong>The</strong> final version of the “confession” was draftedby Carson with a preamble composed by Keller.Driscoll writes, “<strong>The</strong> colloquium was arranged inorder to help hone the statements into an agreeablefinal draft. <strong>The</strong> hope was to redefine a clear centerfor evangelicalism more akin to that previouslyarticulated by men such as Francis Schaeffer, JohnStott, and Billy Graham.”Of interest to our readers is <strong>The</strong> Gospel Coalition’sconfessional statement on Gender and theFamily:We believe that God created humanbeings, male and female, in his ownimage. Adam and Eve belonged to thecreated order that God himself declaredto be very good, serving as God’s agentsto care for, manage, and govern creation,living in holy and devoted fellowship withtheir Maker. Men and women, equallymade in the image of God, enjoy equalaccess to God by faith in Christ Jesusand are both called to move beyond passiveself-indulgence to significant privateand public engagement in family, church,and civic life. Adam and Eve were madeto complement each other in a one-fleshunion that establishes the only normativepattern of sexual relations for men andwomen, such that marriage ultimatelyserves as a type of the union betweenChrist and his church. In God’s wisepurposes, men and women are not simplyinterchangeable, but rather they complementeach other in mutually enrichingways. God ordains that they assumedistinctive roles which reflect the lovingrelationship between Christ and thechurch, the husband exercising headshipin a way that displays the caring, sacrificiallove of Christ, and the wife submittingto her husband in a way that modelsthe love of the church for her Lord. Inthe ministry of the church, both men andwomen are encouraged to serve Christand to be developed to their full potential4 JBMW | Spring 2008

in the manifold ministries of the peopleof God. <strong>The</strong> distinctive leadership rolewithin the church given to qualified menis grounded in creation, fall, and redemptionand must not be sidelined by appealsto cultural developments.For more on <strong>The</strong> Gospel Coalition and itsfoundational documents, visit the website: www.thegospelcoalition.org.– Denny Burk“We Reject the Commands of Scripture”One of the primary goals of the DanversStatement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhoodwas to define the complementary roles of men andwomen. In the evangelical gender debate this statementhas delineated a defensible complementarianposition based on biblical authority. Twenty yearslater, people on both sides of the issue at least recognizethat the battle lines are clearly drawn.Luke Timothy Johnson is a distinguished NewTestament scholar and explained his position in anarticle on homosexuality and the church (“Homosexuality& the Church: Two Views” Commonweal134 [2007]). He teaches at Emory University, atheological school of the United Methodist Church,which has the mission to train church leaders“grounded in the Christian faith and shaped by theWesleyan tradition of evangelical piety, ecumenicalopenness, and social concern.” Unfortunately,Emory rejects biblical authority, supports the ordinationof women, and seeks to be at the forefrontof institutions valuing lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgender students.In the article, it is clear that Johnson understandshis opponents: “For them, the authority ofScripture and tradition resides in a set of commands,and loyalty as a matter of obedience. If theChurch has always taught that same-sex relationsare wrong, and the Bible consistently forbids it, thenthe question is closed.” He clearly understands thebiblical text: “Accepting covenanted love betweenpersons of the same sex represents the same downwardspiral with respect to Scripture, since theBible nowhere speaks positively or even neutrallyabout same-sex love.”Johnson is straightforward about why he supportssame-sex marriage:I think it is important to state clearlythat we do, in fact, reject the straightforwardcommands of Scripture, andappeal instead to another authority whenwe declare that same-sex unions can beholy and good. And what exactly is thatauthority? We appeal explicitly to theweight of our own experience and theexperience thousands of others have witnessedto, which tells us that to claim ourown sexual orientation is in fact to acceptthe way in which God has created us.He is also realistic about the basis for his position:“We are fully aware of the weight of Scripturalevidence for pointing away from our position,yet place our trust in the power of the living Godto reveal as powerfully through personal experienceand testimony as through written texts.”I respect Dr. Johnson for his specificity inarticulating the foundation of his position in favorof same-sex marriage, but I fundamentally disagreewith his conclusion. I am grieved for the church andam alarmed by the deteriorating definition of marriagein our culture. Nevertheless, I am grateful forGod’s sovereign control over history, for the pastorsand scholars who labored to provide the Danversstatement to the church, and for the partners whoare standing with CBMW for biblical manhoodand womanhood.– David KotterWhen History Trumps ScriptureMimi Haddad is the president of Christiansfor Biblical Equality, and I was pleased to be presentfor the paper that she presented at the 2007meeting of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society.<strong>The</strong>re is much that could be said in response to herpresentation, but I will only offer two brief reflectionshere—one positive and the other negative.First, I appreciated being reminded of God’sremarkable work in the nineteenth century. <strong>The</strong>1800s were a period of incredible growth and activityamong evangelicals in America and Britain. Mis-JBMW | Spring 2008 5

sions agencies—both domestic and foreign—andbenevolence societies of all sorts grew, prospered,and dramatically impacted the world. We shouldpraise God for this advance of the gospel. Amongother things, we should thank the Lord that hechose to use many remarkable women to accomplishsome of these things. Haddad’s paper was ahelpful reminder of this fact.Nevertheless, I think there was a severe weaknessto Haddad’s “Since A, then B” argument. Sheattempted to prove that since women led in someimportant ways in the evangelical movement inthe past, we should encourage women to assumeleadership in our churches and ministries today.Without nit-picking about the details of the nineteenthcentury (What were the relative numbersof women leaders vs. men leaders anyway? LottieMoon impacted Southern Baptists without everbeing placed in a position of leadership on theirmissions agency, right?), here is my major concernwith Haddad’s argument.We must remember that the Bible is authoritative;history isn’t. We must always eschew thefallacy of looking back in time to follow the doctrinethat our favorite theologian formulated or toadopt a methodology that “worked” at some previoustime. As a church historian, I remind my studentsof this all the time, for this is the danger ofthose who love and value history. “John Owen saidit, so it has to be right.” “William Carey did it, soit must be biblical.” Right? No. We must humblylearn from sisters and brothers who loved Christbefore us. That is, in my opinion, one of the greatreasons to study history. But the only touchstone ofour faith and practice is God’s inspired word, theBible.All evangelicals should agree that the Biblealone (sola scriptura) is the only inerrant guide forour beliefs and church practices. Haddad argues,though, that we should seek to base our ministrieson the example of women’s roles in the nineteenthcentury (which is not as strong an example asHaddad implies), rather than tackling the teachingof texts like 1 Tim 2:11-15. This is a dangerouscourse. If we follow it, we are in danger of abandoningthe Protestant principle of sola scripturain favor of Roman Catholicism’s view that Godguides us through both Scripture and as the HolySpirit leads the church to fuller revelation in hertradition. Protestants should value and learn fromthe tradition of the church. But we must always critiquethat tradition biblically. On the basis of theBible’s teaching on women’s roles, I don’t think thatHaddad’s arguments from the history of the nineteenthcentury are valid.– Shawn WrightGender Confusion in California,Clarity in the ScripturesLast Fall, California Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger signed into law the CaliforniaStudent Civil Rights Act, which adds “sexual orientation”and “gender identity” to the class of groupsto be protected from “educational discrimination.”Teachers and school districts have been prohibitedfrom “giving instruction . . . [and] sponsoringany activity that reflects adversely upon personsbecause of their race, sex, creed, handicap, nationalorigin or ancestry.” Educators are also prohibitedfrom “sponsoring any activity that reflects adverselyupon persons because of their gender identity.”<strong>The</strong> law leaves undefined precisely what sortof events or curricula might qualify as “educationaldiscrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” or“sexual orientation.”Such fuzzy-headed thinking on human sexualityand gender has been introduced into schooldistricts in California by groups such as the GenderPublic Advocacy Coalition (GPAC), an organizationthat was profiled in a four-part series onCBMW’s Gender Blog.While the California legislation is troublingeven on its surface, Jennifer Roback Morse of theconservative monthly National Review and authorof Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-upWorld, gets right to the heart of the sad fallout forstudents in California and in other states wheresimilar laws will surely be attempted in the future.“Most disturbing,” she writes, “is that suchlegislation will cause struggles in the developmentof a healthy sense of gender in the vast majorityof young people. Due to the flexible language6 JBMW | Spring 2008

employed, anything that looks remotely like genderstereotyping will run afoul of this law.” Further, shepoints out the reality that growing up as boys andgirls is difficult enough without such “thinly-disguisedthought-control laws” adding another layerof confusion from feminism and gay/transgenderrights advocates.Most young people have questions abouthow to express their gender. What doesit mean to be a man? What should agood woman do? <strong>The</strong>se are questionswith which all young people must grapple,and they are entitled to have somesubstantial guidance from adults. For fartoo long, we’ve been avoiding these questionsout of fear of offending sensibilities.With this new law, California schoolteachers and school boards will have tofear the gay lobby, as well as the feministestablishment.Indeed, all young people do grapple with theappropriate ways to express and understand theirgender and stand in need of substantial guidance.However, they are not going to find it in a cultureentranced by postmodernity’s siren song of genderand sexual obfuscation.Young people, indeed all people, will findsuch knowledge—what Francis Schaeffer famouslycalled “true truth”— only in the Word of God, thestorehouse of wisdom, wisdom that brings claritysuch as “God created them male and female,” wisdomthat demands that the only legitimate unionbetween a man and a woman is a covenant unionsealed by a holy God for a lifetime.Scripture knows no such ambiguous languagewith regard to issues of gender and sexuality andagain, God’s Word proves that its wisdom brings tonothing the so-called “knowledge” of the philosopherof this age.– Jeff RobinsonJBMW | Spring 2008 7

Letters<strong>The</strong> Editor:Thank you for publishing a review of my book,Jesus and the Father, by Jason Hall that I read withinterest (JBMW, 12/1, 2007, 32–39). Because I amprimarily interested in establishing what is the biblicaland historically developed orthodox doctrineof the Trinity, I would like to make a reply to him.I respond to his work in the order I havefound comments that I cannot accept.P. 31 col. 1. Jason says I accuse a “wideswath of evangelicals” of falling into heresy. <strong>The</strong>truth is I accuse a very small number of evangelicalsfor publishing in error on the Trinity. <strong>The</strong> evangelicalswho have written on the eternal subordinationof the Son can be counted on one hand. Not oneRoman Catholic, not one mainline contemporaryProtestant, and many informed evangelicals opposethis doctrine, including Millard Erickson, RogerNicole, Cornelius Plantinga, and Philip Cary in theUSA.P. 32 col. 2. I do not speak at anytime as faras I am aware of an “egalitarian Trinity”. What Iendorse, taking up exactly the words of the AthanasianCreed, is a “co-equal” Trinity, where “noneis before or after greater or lesser”, and all three are“Lord” and “Almighty.” Can I be in error if I exactlyquote the creeds?P. 33 col. 1. I do not oppose the subordinationof the Son in any way. I endorse wholeheartedly,following scripture and the interpretativetradition, the voluntary and temporal (and if youlike “functional”) subordination of the Son for oursalvation. What I oppose is the eternal subordinationof the Son in being, work, or authority.P. 33 col. 1. I do not call my debatingopponents “Arians.” (This claim is made repeatedly)What I accuse my debating opponents of isembracing in ignorance key elements of the Arianheresy. If one key element of the “neo-Arian” (i.e.Eunomian) position, opposed by the Cappadocians,was the subordination of the Son in authority—andit certainly it was—then Grudem, Wareet al have embraced a key element in the neo-Arianposition.P. 33 col. 2. I do not simply equate the terms“eternal” and “ontological.” What I argue is that theminute it is claimed that the Son’s subordination iseternal then his subordination is what defines hisperson. He functions subordinately because he isthe subordinated Son.P. 33 col. 2 last few lines. Jason very badlymisrepresents what I say on the word “inferior.”I completely agree that an inferior in role is notnecessarily a personal inferior. What I argue is thatsomeone who is permanently or eternally subordinatedcannot be considered an equal in any substantiveway. He or she is inferior in some way.P. 34 col. 1. Jason suggests that I am mistakento claim that the Church Fathers and Calvinconsider the “functional subordination of theSon a heresy.” It is true that none of them speakof “functional” or “role” subordination, but it is notfunctional subordination that I consider an error. <strong>The</strong>voluntary, temporal functional subordination of theSon can be accepted as pristine orthodoxy. This iswhat the incarnation is all about (c.f. Phil 2:4–11).What I oppose is the eternal subordination of theSon in being or function/work, arguing that theChurch Fathers and Calvin deem this idea to be“heresy”.P. 34 col. 2. Jason claims that I do “not quotethe church fathers” to substantiate my argumentfrom “logic” that to deny the absolute authorityand power (omnipotence) of the Son is to fall intoerror but I do and in great detail (See Jesus and theFather, pp. 185–190), especially in reference to theCappadocians.P. 35. In a major section entitled “Distinctionof person and nature,” Jason accuses meof “not making the necessary distinction betweenpersons and nature in the doctrine of the Trinity. Intrinitarian grammar the terms—substance, being,8 JBMW | Spring 2008

nature, essence—are exact theological synonyms.<strong>The</strong>y are used interchangeably of what is one inGod. <strong>The</strong> terms—person, hypostasis, subsistence—likewise are exact theological synonyms. <strong>The</strong>y areused interchangeably of what is three in God. Sothe exact definition of the Trinity in the West is“one substance three persons”, and in the East, “onebeing three hypostases”. Jason and my debatingopponents may be unaware of these exact terminologicaldistinctions and get them confused, I donot.P. 36 col. 1. Following this Jason Hall assertsthat my “claim that eternal subordination in personis the same as eternal subordination in being isuntrue.” If the Father and the Son are one in being(homoousios), how can this be untrue? To confessthat the Father and the Son are one in being is tobelieve that the three persons have the one substancenature-being-essenceboth in unity and in distinctionas the person of the Father, Son and Spirit. <strong>The</strong>re canbe no distinguishing at any point in substancenature-being-essencein the divine three yet there isan eternal difference in the persons—one is Father,one is Son, and one is the Holy Spirit. How this differenceis defined by orthodoxy I explain in a wholechapter in my book (pp. 205–241). What orthodoxycan never allow is that the persons are differentiatedor divided in substance-being-essence-nature,or differentiated or divided in power-authority.P. 36 col. 36. Jason says he has no needto “delve” into my innumerable quotes from theChurch Fathers and Calvin because firstly they arethe same as in my earlier book, <strong>The</strong> Trinity and Subordinationism,and secondly, because others havefully and “skillfully” shown these to be a misreadingof the sources. Neither assertion is true. In Jesus andthe Father I multiply the evidence from the ChurchFathers at least fourfold, and even more so in thecase of the Cappadocians. In addition in my secondbook I add a whole chapter on Barth and onthe immanent-economic Trinity relationship. And,it is simply not true that anyone has shown thatmy reading of the historic sources is substantiallywrong. If I am to be refuted it has to be demonstratedthat my reading of the Bible, the ChurchFathers, Calvin and the creeds and confessions aresubstantially mistaken. Asserting that I am wrongproves nothing.P. 36 col. 2. <strong>The</strong> claim, common to the Grudem-Wareposition, that “the Son can exercise hispower under the submission of the Father” is anexplicit parallel to the teaching of the Neo-ArianEunomious. (See Jesus and the Father, 185ff ). Gregoryof Nyssa word for word rejects this argument(188). Orthodox teaching on the divine attributespredicated on the Bible also excludes this idea.Father, Son and Spirit are all omnipotent and thisterm is a superlative. <strong>The</strong> Father is not a bit moreomnipotent than the Son! If he were he would be“more God” than the Son! Most importantly theprimary New Testament confession, “Jesus is Lord”(more than 200 times) excludes this idea.P. 37. Next Jason says that nowhere do Ishow or prove that the evangelicals I am debatingagainst on the Trinity have a “deficient knowledgeof the historical theology.” (<strong>The</strong> same stark claimis made in the conclusion). This is what the wholebook of over 300 pages seeks to establish. If I amsubstantially right in what I say it proves that whatmy opponents are substantially wrong. Given thatthey are Christian men of good will then this mustbe explained in terms of ignorance of what the historiccreeds and confessions define as orthodoxy.What is most surprising is that in this partof the review, rejecting my claim that Grudem,Ware et al are ill-informed on the historic doctrineof the Trinity, your reviewer explicitly says he andthey know that “the Arians subordinated the Sonin authority.” What? Knowing this teaching is akey Arian error they endorse it? Did Jason meanto say, “we” were all ignorant of this fact (as well asmany others you raise)?P. 38 col. 2. Jason next claims that I teachthe differences between the divine three are “relative.”This is completely false and a direct denial ofmy repeated assertions that divine unity and divinethreeness are absolutes and eternal. I am not amodalist in any way. I emphatically and explicitlyteach the eternal differentiation of the divine threein the ways historic orthodoxy endorses. What Ideny is that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity eternallysubordinates the Son in being, work/function, orJBMW | Spring 2008 9

authority. Difference and equality are not mutuallyexclusive ideas.Following the suggestion that I am amodalist, relativising divine differentiation, yourreviewer says he follows Grudem, Ware et al inendorsing the Arian practice of taking the divinetitles “Father” and “Son” literally. Does he believethat the eternal Son gets old and one day dies? Ifnot then he does not take the title “Son” literally. Inthe New Testament when Jesus is called the “Son”it most commonly alludes to his royal rule as I noteJohn Frame teaches. This title never suggests hissubordination in authority as those who draw onhuman experience rather than scripture hold.I pray this response will encourage furtherdebate and reflection on the primary doctrine ofthe Christian faith, our doctrine of God.Kevin GilesMelbourne, AustraliaJBMW Response:We encourage readers to go back and readHall’s review of Giles from JBMW 12, no. 1 (Spring2007) for themselves, as well as Giles’s book, Jesusand the Father. Having considered Giles’s concerns,the editors continue to stand by Hall’s review anddo not feel that a point-by-point reply to Giles’sresponse is necessary. However, some more importantcomments are in order:(1) In response to Hall, Giles claims, “I accusea very small number of evangelicals for publishing inerror on the Trinity. <strong>The</strong> evangelicals who have writtenon the eternal subordination of the Son can becounted on one hand” (italics his). However, whenone considers both the text of Giles’s book and thefootnotes, the results yield at least the followingcontemporary evangelicals who have affirmed whatGiles claims to be an erroneous teaching: GeorgeKnight III, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, NormanGeisler, John Frame, Robert Letham, RobertDoyle, Werner Neuer, Peter Adam, James Hurley,John Piper, J. Scott Horrell, and Peter R. SchemmJr. This list is neither small, nor able to be countedon one hand. Moreover, one could add to the listseveral other very significant evangelical scholars(both complementarian and egalitarian) who haveaffirmed the idea of the eternal functional subordinationof the Son to the Father in their writings,including D. A. Carson (<strong>The</strong> Difficult Doctrine of theLove of God [Crossway, 2000], 30–43, esp. 40; seealso 86, n. 6), Andreas J. Köstenberger (EncounteringJohn [Baker, 1999], 160), Thomas R. Schreiner(see Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood[ed. Piper and Grudem; Crossway, 1991], 127–30),and Craig S. Keener (“Is Subordination withinthe Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18in Context” Trinity Journal n.s. 20, no. 1 [1999]:47–49).(2) Giles is astonished that Hall and the scholarshe defends admit to knowing that “the Arianssubordinated the Son in authority.” Giles then asks,“What? Knowing this teaching is a key Arian errorthey endorse it?” But what Hall and others endorseis the eternal functional subordination of the Sonto the Father. As Hall observes, according to Giles,these scholars are then guilty by association, sinceArians also believed in the eternal functional subordinationof the Son. But this is misleading, as Hallnotes:<strong>The</strong> most fundamental characteristicof the Arian heresy, the one that theNicene Creed was crafted to dismiss, isthe notion that the Son is a creature andtherefore unlike the Divine Father insubstantial ways. . . . <strong>The</strong> total subordinationof the Son was a necessary corollaryof this view, to be sure, but it was not thestarting point. To boil Arianism downto make subordination as such its centraltenet is misleading. No one in thisdebate is saying that the Son is a creature,and no one is arguing for the eternalfunctional submission of the Son onthat basis. Thus, there is a great differencebetween classical Arian arguments forthe subordination of the Son and contemporaryarguments for the submissionof the Son (37–38).(3) Last, we encourage readers to considerthe arguments of several recent authors who haveinteracted with Giles, including Bruce A. Ware,10 JBMW | Spring 2008

“Christ’s Atonement: A Work of the Trinity,” inJesus in Trinitarian Perspective (ed. Fred Sandersand Klaus Issler; Nashville: B&H, 2007), 156–88;Robert Letham, <strong>The</strong> Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History,<strong>The</strong>ology and Worship (P&R, 2005); Peter R.Schemm Jr., “‘<strong>The</strong> Subordination of Christ and theSubordination of Women’ (Ch 19) by Kevin Giles,”JBMW 10, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 81–87; and WayneGrudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth:An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions(Multnomah, 2004).– Christopher W. Cowan for the EditorsJBMW | Spring 2008 11

Essays & PerspectivesPursuing Manhood 1Ray Van NesteAssistant Professor of Christian StudiesDirector, R. C. Ryan Center for Biblical StudiesUnion UniversityJackson, TennesseeWhat follows is an address that I gave to someyoung men at my college who asked me to speak to themabout the issue of pursuing manhood. This is an importanttopic not least because of the confusion that seemsto reign in the minds of so many about what manhoodis and how one progresses well in this journey. I haveseen Garrison Keilor quoted as saying, “Manhood wasonce seen as an opportunity for achievement, but nowseems like a problem to overcome.” So though my commentsare directed at college-aged young men, they mayfind application to men of other ages as well.I know some have told you that the way totake leadership, step up, and progress in manhoodis to get married. However, I must differ. Marriageis the last thing some of you need to be thinking ofjust now. You need to grow up first. I affirm what Ithink these others are trying to say—start preparingyourself for marriage. Move “Halo” down yourlist of priorities in order to begin thinking aboutwhat sort of vocation you will pursue, how you’regoing to pay your bills, etc. But much progress inthis may be needed before you really start lookingfor a wife. If you are not right now getting yourclass work done, and fulfilling your comparativelylight responsibilities as a single student, then don’teven consider the prospects of marriage. Insteadstart working on growing up.Our culture is infatuated with youth andencourages you not to grow up. After all, it says, theglory is in the youth. If you would be men, you mustreject this siren song and swim against the tide. Youmust diligently seek to throw off immaturity and togrow up. Remember the one boy who never grewup was Peter Pan—and in case you haven’t noticed,his role has typically been played by a woman. <strong>The</strong>chase for perpetual youth is never manly. <strong>The</strong> otherexample of avoiding the effects of growing up is themedieval boys choirs. To maintain the high voicesof the boys as they aged, the boys might be castrated.Again, avoiding maturity is emasculating.So my main point to you is work on growingup. It does not “just happen.” Examples aboundof physically mature males who have never trulyattained manhood because they failed to mature inany way other than physically. So, what does it looklike to grow up in manliness? No doubt this couldbe discussed in many ways. I’ll just take a stab atseveral that I think are important based on my ownreflections on scripture and my observations of theyoung collegiate men whom I teach.Take Responsibility/ Reject PassivityWith our modern invention of “adolescence”(which now includes the college-aged male) youcan be encouraged to float along without much realresponsibility, just get by in classes, major in play, bea goof-off, sample the girls to whatever extent youcan, and not really consider responsibility.However, if you would be a man you mustshake off the doldrums. I enjoy life, like to laughand to joke (even if not everyone appreciates puns!),but that is different from being a total goof-off. Itis not until there is a weightiness in your core that12 JBMW | Spring 2008

you really have the opportunity and the privilegeto engage in playfulness, too. When I was in Scotland,there were a number of good guys who werethere studying at the same time I was. We wouldget together at various times and have an ongoingconversation about the man of gravitas (Latin for“weightiness”). <strong>The</strong> word refers to a certain “bearing”or dignity. <strong>The</strong> man of gravitas is not one whocannot joke, but one who has a weightiness in whathe says, one who has an opinion that matters basedon his proven character. We must establish that. Ifwe are not moving in that direction, then we arenot maturing. Laugh when it is appropriate, butif you can’t be serious at the proper times you areimmature. You don’t need to jeopardize any womanby talking about a serious relationship with her.Find ways now to discipline yourself in beingresponsible. Here are some ways:Do Your WorkTake seriously your current obligations. Learnand discipline yourself to complete your schoolassignments and to do them well. Be on time atwork and in class. This may seem pretty basic, butit is an essential starting place. I challenge yourmanhood, right here, right now, if you are not, on aregular basis, getting your work done and turning itin on time. We say we want to take on the responsibilityof leading a family or assuming leadershipat a job, but we can’t do an assignment and turn itin? It starts with the small things. If we are faithfulin little, we will be faithful in much.Own Your FailuresReject the blame game. When the buck ispassed, it is always done with a limp wrist. If youdid not get your assignment done on time, own upto it and drop the lame excuses. Refusing to ownyour failures—playing the blame game—is anabandonment of manhood. You cannot lead andavoid responsibility at the same time. Face it like aman. If you simply did not discipline your time sufficientlyto accomplish the task, don’t spin it withsome religious sounding excuse. If your roommatewas in a crisis, I am glad you were willing to stay upall night last night to talk with him. But your paperis still due today. You should not have waited untilthe last day to complete it.We see this at the Fall (Genesis 3). When Godcomes, he calls Adam to account, but Adam passesthe blame to Eve. However, Paul makes it clearthat the ultimate responsibility for the sin restedon Adam (Rom 5:12–21). Avoidance of responsibilityis an old and pernicious sin which will neuteryou. Fight it!Expect to WorkGod made you to work. Reject laziness. Seelaziness not merely as a foible but as damnable sin, adangerous cancer that can eat away your soul. Lazinessand avoidance of work is a typical sin for men,so wage a particularly diligent and merciless waragainst it in your own soul.Yes, work-aholism is another error that affectsmen, but the answer is not laziness. In fact workaholismis often a way of avoiding the really challengingwork of caring for and leading one’s wifeand children.Work is good and ennobling. If this is not theway you think, change your thinking to adopt thisbiblical view (Col 3:23). Reject the “live for theweekend” mentality. Instead, begin asking God andgodly leaders what work He has for you to do. Findyour calling. Yes, I know He created you for Hisglory, to be in relationship with Him and with others.But He also made you to work, and that workwill be one main way in which you glorify God.For what task were you created? To what work willyou commit yourself? You need to have some clearthoughts about this (not a full blueprint) before youcan seriously consider marriage. Before you shouldtake a wife you need to know where you’re takingher. You need to know what you intend to do inlife. Of course, God sometimes shifts things, andthings change. But you need to have a goal. Youneed to know, to the best of your ability, under God,and in concert with godly, wise counsel, where youare headed.Reject the Temptation to Whine and ComplainOne of the most “un-manly” things you can dois whine. I am not saying, “Don’t admit weaknesses,JBMW | Spring 2008 13

and don’t seek help.” No. Do that. But I am talkingabout whining about how things are wrong for youinstead of making the most of your situation. Partof manhood is initiative; so begin to practice thisby seeking solutions rather than sniping and complaining.This produces leadership.Embrace Commitment<strong>The</strong> world will tell you life is found in freedomfrom any constraints, obligations, or commitments.It is a lie. What this leads to ispurposelessness. We are often given the picture ofmanliness in the lone wandering hero. This is false.This aversion to commitment and obligationsis actually just a form of cowardice. It is easy toplay games and go through motions. In isolationyou can keep your sins hidden, deceive yourselfwith an exalted view of yourself, and live in fantasy.<strong>The</strong> real work is in settling into specific situations,working out issues, helping people, havingto face your own sins, deficiencies, and failures, andstaying at it over the long haul. And, this is wherereal life is found. You are not a drifter born to walkalone. You were made for community. Of course,part of what I have in mind here is to begin thinkingnot of various women to entertain but of theprospect of settling down with a specific woman.<strong>The</strong>y call it “playing the field.” Typically it’s justsin. Don’t toy with women. <strong>The</strong>y were not createdfor your amusement. You know the stories of guysdating various girls, or at least keeping a number ofgirls “on the line,” giving them just enough interestto keep them close for whenever he wants to hangout with them. Guys like this need other guys torebuke them and run them off.But, how do you begin this? How do you prepare?First, invest yourself in a local church. Learnthere to live in community with other people, tobuild significant relationships, to work throughproblems, to express your needs and to meet theneeds of others. <strong>The</strong> church is the training groundfor life in general. <strong>The</strong>n learn the fact that commitmentcosts. Stand by your word. Realize that everydecision to do one thing is a decision not to do severalothers. So do not simply clutter your life withmiscellaneous things. Take responsibility and commitmentto bring some focus to your life. What areyou about?SacrificeAll these issues are inter-related so you willsee some overlap here. But Ephesians 5 showsclearly that masculine leadership involves the willingnessto sacrifice. <strong>The</strong> self-centered environmentwe live in will not encourage you in this direction.We must crucify the idea that says, “I deserve it all,and it should not hurt me to get it.” This is stupidas well as sinful. But it is common. I see it when astudent says, “Surely you won’t penalize me for mypaper being late (or work hurriedly done) because Idid not have enough time. You know I have to havea social life.” My answer to such a student is, “No,I do not understand; and, no, you do not have tohave a social life every day. It would not hurt you toshut yourself away for a few weekends and learn towork hard on something, to learn to pay the priceto succeed.”If you are going to invest your life into somethingthat matters, you will have to make sacrifices.In the future, that will involve laying asidesome things you would like to do in order to workaround the house, to help your wife with somethings that, in themselves, don’t particularly interestyou, to lead your family.Elisabeth Elliot put this well:<strong>The</strong>re is no getting around the fact thatto give yourselves wholeheartedly to therearing of children will eliminate youfrom a lot of activities your friends areenjoying and often from activities thatseem to be obligations—not merelysocial, but perhaps church, family, businessand civic ones. You will have to askGod for wisdom to choose and the gutsto stick to the choice. (Don’t pay attentionto you-owe-it-to-yourself talk. Youowe nothing to yourself, everything toGod.) 2But that is in the future. For now, learn to live outof principle and not out of unbridled desire. Learnto say no to yourself.14 JBMW | Spring 2008

Also on this point, it is true that masculinityinvolves the idea that men protect women and children.I know this is terribly non-“PC” and, to manypeople, passé. That does not change the truthfulnessof it, however. Nor does it change the fact thatmost women deeply appreciate this unless theyhave trained themselves not to.“Women and Children First”Although Hollywood perverted the story ofthe Titanic into class warfare and peepshow thrills,the real story of the doomed ocean-liner includesthe cry, “Women and children first,” as the men onboard, with only few exceptions, yielded their seatson lifeboats so that women and children could berescued. Men looked into the eyes of their wivesand children to speak tender words of comfort andencouragement before sending them out to safetyknowing full well that they, the men, would die inthose waters and never see their loved ones again. Inthe end, nine men died for every one woman whodied in that disaster. <strong>The</strong> then-current First Lady ofthe United States, Mrs. Taft, honored this spirit ofmanhood by mounting a national campaign to raiseprivate funds for a monument that would carry theinscription: “To the brave men who gave their livesthat women and children might be saved.” Mrs.Taft explained, “I am grateful to do this in gratitudeto the chivalry of American manhood.” 3This spirit of “Women and children first” camefrom an earlier disaster, the sinking of the HMSBirkenhead:In 1852, the British troopship H.M.S.Birkenhead was traveling to South Africawhen she hit a ledge and foundered. Onboard were more than seven hundredmen, women, and children. With onlytwenty minutes left before she wouldsink, the decision was made to place allwomen and children aboard the few lifeboats. <strong>The</strong> men would remain behindand face the man-eating sharks circlingthe disaster. Hundreds of men drownedor were eaten alive in full view of theirchildren, but not a single woman or childperished that day. In past years, this storywas known by every schoolboy and girl. 4What does this kind of heroic sacrifice looklike right now in the day-to-day life of young menin college? We will likely not face situations likethe Titanic or the Birkenhead (though those menprobably did not anticipate facing these situationseither). It is worthwhile considering these grandexamples, though, because the big picture effectshow we act in the small things of life. Here aresome ways we can live this out. Guys, take therisk in relationships. You initiate and make theapproach. That way, she can be safe and does nothave to take the risk of stepping out first. Also ifshe feels the need to break it off, she is free to do soeven without explanation. You take the brunt of itand let her go unscathed.In a small way, you could include here openingthe door for ladies, waiting for her to enter a doorfirst, walking on the traffic side of the street, placingyourself between her and any potential danger,etc.ConclusionI’ll close with this story. Just this last weekendmy family and I had gone to the mall (which Isometimes consider part of my sacrifice). We havesix children, two of whom are under two years old.As we left, in the cold, dark and drizzling rain, werealized we had two dirty diapers. So, as we told ourfour older children to file into the vehicle, my wifeand I were side by side using the back of the vehicleas a diaper changing station. Instead of duelingbanjos we had dueling diapers, working quickly inthe cold and rain.I began to think, “Just one week ago I was ata professional conference in San Diego. I was in anumber of settings with very important people. Iwas sitting next to a very well respected pastor whowas saying something appreciative about a paperI had just presented. I talked to several prominentpeople in my professional world. I was hobnobbing.I was talking about future writing projects and thelike. But now here I am in the dark, cold, drizzlyrain changing a diaper. This is where in the moviesthey say, ‘Well, you didn’t think you would end uphere, did you?’ When you were young everythingseemed great and you had big plans, but here youJBMW | Spring 2008 15

are bogged down with a wife and six kids.”But I thought, “No, that couldn’t be any furtherfrom the truth!” I was glad to get to go to theconference, but this is real life. <strong>The</strong> everyday laborwith my family is far more heartening and joyful tome than any of those other things. This will havefar more impact in God’s Kingdom. <strong>The</strong> everyday,inglorious work I do, the tasks of teaching, training,and changing diapers—that matters far more. Forthose of you who will marry, this is where you areheaded. Manhood is embracing everyday responsibilities,living out commitment, being willing tosacrifice, so that your cultural engagement reallyhappens in your family. <strong>The</strong> most significant cultureyou are involved in is your own home, yourown church, living out practical godliness . . . withdirt and other items under your fingernails, so tospeak. It is godliness in the everyday sphere of life.This is real manhood being lived out.ENDNOTES1This essay grew out of an address given for a “Month of Man”event at Union University. Kudos to Union students, Neil Brown,Patrick Brown, Stephen Capps, and Blake Stannard who initiatedand organized this event.2Elisabeth Elliot, <strong>The</strong> Mark of a Man (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1981),160–61.3Douglas Phillips, “Titanic Chivalry,” World, 28 May 1998, 28–29.4From VisionForum.com. I commend to the reader Douglas Phillips’sexcellent book on this event, <strong>The</strong> Birkenhead Drill (SanAntonio: Vision Forum, 2002).16 JBMW | Spring 2008

Women in Ministry:Practical Application of Biblical TeachingRandy L. StinsonPresident, <strong>The</strong> <strong>Council</strong> on Biblical Manhood and WomanhoodDean of the School of Leadership and Church Ministry<strong>The</strong> Southern Baptist <strong>The</strong>ological SeminaryLouisville, KentuckyChristopher W. CowanAssociate Editor, <strong>The</strong> Journal for Biblical Manhood and WomanhoodAdjunct Instructor of New Testament Interpretation<strong>The</strong> Southern Baptist <strong>The</strong>ological SeminaryLouisville, KentuckyIntroductionIt is not uncommon for churches and individualbelievers who hold to a complementarianview of gender roles to be unsure how to applythese principles in specific cases. Given this need,we offer the following application-oriented suggestionsfor consideration. Not all complementarianswill necessarily agree with every aspect of this essay.However, we believe there is a need for this kindof practical outworking of the biblical teachingson manhood and womanhood and, thus, submit toyou our own understanding of how this teachingapplies to various ministry contexts. What followsis obviously not intended as hard and fast rules to beaccepted on the level of Scripture, nor do we expectthat this will address every possible ministry positionor scenario. Yet, as with any text of Scripture,while correct interpretation is necessary, it must bejoined with biblically faithful application. 1By God’s grace, all men and women whobelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ receive spiritualgifts to equip them to serve together in Christ’sbody—the church. God grants these gifts throughhis Spirit to all believers without distinction andfor the edification of all (1 Cor 12:4–11). No memberof Christ’s church is unneeded; each is gifted byGod’s will so that the church, though many parts,may be one body (1 Cor 12:12–26).In particular, the Bible affirms the valuableand necessary role of women serving in Christianministry. 2 A church in which women are notencouraged and granted opportunity to serve asvital members of the Christian community is bothdisobedient and unhealthy. Yet, while every believeris equipped by the Holy Spirit indiscriminate ofgender, how each man or woman serves the churchfalls under the framework of Scripture. God’s wordis clear in its affirmation of women in ministry,yet it also gives specific instruction regarding theroles of men and women in the church. In 1 Tim2:11–15, Paul writes,Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.I do not permit a woman toteach or to exercise authority over a man;rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adamwas formed first, then Eve; and Adamwas not deceived, but the woman wasdeceived and became a transgressor. Yetshe will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love andholiness, with self-control (ESV).Thus, according to Scripture, Christian women arecalled by God to serve the church, with theJBMW | Spring 2008 17

exception of teaching or having authority over menin the church. 3However, it is not always clear how this biblicalteaching applies in a given ministry context. <strong>The</strong>first century church did not have the various ministrypositions, both inside and outside of the localchurch, that are present in our Christian communitiestoday. <strong>The</strong> early church had no Sunday schoolteachers, music ministers, or seminary professors, sothe Bible does not address these ministries as such.But this does not mean we can simply ignore whatScripture does say about men and women servingtogether in the body of Christ. Rather, we mustrelate the unchanging truths of Scripture to ourcontemporary ministry circumstances. We hope thefollowing will serve as practical advice for specificministry positions to assist believers, churches, andother Christian organizations in applying God’sword for the good of his church and the glory ofthe Lord Jesus Christ.Teaching and Leading<strong>The</strong> church of the Lord Jesus Christ is designedto function via the gifts of all of God’s people—men and women. <strong>The</strong>se include specific gifts thatinvolve the functions of teaching and leading. Herewe want to briefly distinguish between two generalmeanings of the term leading. By the use ofthe word leading, we primarily have in mind giftsthat God grants that enable believers to serve inparticular positions of authority, providing spiritualdirection to other believers in a local church (forexample, the position of pastor/elder/overseer).However, people may also use the term leadingto speak of having primary responsibility forcoordinating group efforts in a particular ministryarea. In this latter case, one need not necessarilyexercise authority over individuals in order to bedesignated the “leader” of a specific ministry. It ismore of an administrative responsibility for a programrather than an authoritative relationship overpeople’s specific conduct in the church (though werecognize that there can be situations where thosetwo distinct kinds of activities would merge intoeach other, situations that would require prayer andmature Christian wisdom to decide). For example,we believe a woman can serve as a “children’s ministryleader” (see further below). This may requireher to coordinate the efforts of men who serve asteachers of children. But this appears to be consistentwith Scripture, provided that her position doesnot require her to teach or exercise authority overthese men.Each local church should ensure that womenhave the opportunity to exercise their spiritual giftsfor the edification of the body—including teachingand leadership gifts. 4 However, as already noted,all things must be done inside the parameters thatGod’s word establishes for his people. We mustsubmit to the authority of Scripture as we ministerto one another. Many opportunities and needs existfor women to teach and lead other women, whichwould be a faithful application of Titus 2:3–5:Older women likewise are to be reverentin behavior, not slanderers or slavesto much wine. <strong>The</strong>y are to teach what isgood, and so train the young women tolove their husbands and children, to beself-controlled, pure, working at home,kind, and submissive to their own husbands,that the word of God may not bereviled (ESV).Regardless of the specific context, believersought to be careful to avoid a situation that wouldresult in a violation of the principles of 1 Tim2:11–15. In this passage, Paul restricts women fromengaging in two activities: teaching men and havingauthority over men. Since these are the primaryresponsibility of those who hold the office of elder/overseer/pastor (see 1 Tim 3:2–5, 5:17; Titus 1:9;1 Pet 5:1–3), a woman should not function in thisoffice because this would require her to exercisethese two prohibited activities. But, we should alsorecognize that these activities—especially that ofteaching men—are not limited to those who holdthe office of elder/overseer/pastor. Thus, we believea woman is prohibited from holding any office orposition in the church that would require her eitherto teach Scripture/Christian doctrine to men or toexercise authority over men. This does not prohibitinformal guidance and explanation such as that18 JBMW | Spring 2008

communicated from Priscilla and Aquila to Apollosin Acts 18:26. Rather, what is prohibited is thekind of formal teaching and exercising of governingauthority envisioned in 1 Tim 2:12. <strong>The</strong>refore,churches should evaluate any given ministry positionbased on whether or not it would require awoman to perform such functions.Some have suggested that it is consistent for awoman to teach men as long as she herself is underthe authority of her husband and/or the pastoralleadership of the church, but Scripture does notsupport this position. Paul restricts women fromexercising two distinct functions: “I do not permita woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”(1 Tim 2:12). 5 Though a woman may not be ina position of exercising authority over men, ifshe teaches them Scripture/biblical doctrine, sheis functioning in a way that conflicts with Paul’sinstructions. <strong>The</strong> Bible does not indicate that theseactivities are acceptable as long as a woman is“under authority.” <strong>The</strong> pastor(s)/elder(s) of a churchcannot give a woman (or a man!) permission to disobeyScripture. As Wayne Grudem writes, “Wouldwe say that the elders of a church could tell people‘under their authority’ that they have permissionto disobey other passages of Scripture?” 6 Of coursenot. We would assume (and hope) that any churchmember—man or woman—who serves in an officialministry capacity in a local church is functioningunder the authority of the pastoral leadershipof that church. But submitting to the leadershipof the church does not grant one the freedom todisobey clear biblical teachings.Specific Ministry Positions<strong>The</strong> specific ministry positions consideredbelow have been chosen because, in our experience,these are the particular ministries about whichindividuals and churches most frequently ask whenit comes to questions of gender roles. So, with theforegoing discussion in mind, how should we applythe teachings of Scripture regarding women inministry to the following ministry contexts?Sunday School Teacher/Leader orSmall Group Bible Study Teacher/LeaderFor a woman to function in one of these rolesin a mixed group of men and women would placeher in a position of providing biblical instructionpublicly to men, and oftentimes also place her inan authoritative “pastoral” role over the membersof the group. This would be inconsistent with theteaching of 1 Tim 2:11–15.We believe a woman co-teaching a mixed classwith a man (for example, a husband and wife, wherethe husband would teach sometimes and the wifewould teach sometimes) would also be problematic.Certainly, if a man is teaching a Sunday school class,his wife could be a helper to him in a way that doesnot violate 1 Tim 2:11–15. But to promote a teamteachingconcept would presumably involve the wifein providing Bible instruction to men. In addition,individuals may very well understand such a husbandand wife “team-teaching” setting as promotingan egalitarian view of “mutual submission.” 7Church Worship Leader/Music MinisterFor a woman to serve as a worship leaderor music minister in a church is a more difficultissue. Part of the difficulty in making applicationhere lies in the lack of uniform agreement amongvarious church traditions regarding the role andfunction of one who serves in such a ministry. It iscertainly possible for a woman to serve in a positionin which she leads in congregational singingduring a church worship service. However, it woulddepend on how that particular church understandsthe degree of authority that she holds over theassembled congregation and the extent to whichshe provides instruction. Is her position understoodas one of authority over the congregationsimilar to a pastor/elder? Does she provide doctrinalcommentary between songs or other doctrinalinstruction to the choir or congregation? Doesher “leading” involve the exercising of authorityover others or, rather, providing leadership regardingtiming, tempo, music, etc.? Does she direct thechurch to a particular song in a hymnal and invitethose assembled to praise the Lord, or does sheengage in more biblical exhortation like a pastor/JBMW | Spring 2008 19

elder? Churches ought to take these kinds of questionsinto consideration when attempting to applybiblical principles to this ministry position.Children’s Ministry Teacher/LeaderIf a woman serves in a position of essentiallyoverseeing and coordinating the children’s ministryof the church, this does not seem to present any conflictwith Scripture. Neither should it be regardedas inappropriate for women to teach children. Wenote that Scripture not only permits women toteach children, but in certain cases expects it. Ason is commanded to heed the instructions of bothhis father and mother (Prov 1:8). Paul speaks commendablyof Timothy’s mother and grandmotherwho taught him the Scriptures and passed their faithon to him (2 Tim 1:5; 3:14–15). This does not conflictwith the biblical prohibition against a womanteaching doctrine to men or exercising authorityover them in the church, because young boys donot relate to women teachers as man to woman.Thus, there is nothing inappropriate with womenteaching or exercising authority over young boyswho are under their mother’s authority at home.What churches should seek to avoid is designatinga woman in such a position as the “Children’sPastor.” For her to hold this title is problematic,since women are biblically restricted from functioningas pastors/elders/overseers, and applyingthe title “pastor” to her would blur that category.Thus, it seems inconsistent to give her this titleeven if her teaching is limited to children.If her position is not understood as one ofauthority over the congregation similar to a pastor/elder, but, rather, her position is that of a “children’scoordinator,” “children’s ministry leader,” etc., whoplans and coordinates the children’s ministry ofthe church and perhaps teaches children as well,this would appear to be consistent with biblicalteaching.Youth Ministry LeaderWe believe it is wisest to place teenage boysunder the spiritual leadership and instruction ofmen. Given the fact that they themselves are on thebrink of manhood, this is the most appropriate timefor them to be led and instructed by men who canmodel godly, biblical manhood for them. It wouldalso serve as a transition for them, so that theybegin to expect to sit under the doctrinal instructionof God-called men in the church. This wouldnot mean that men should be solely responsiblefor teaching and leading all of the youth. Teenagegirls are just as much in need of godly women whocan disciple them and model biblical womanhoodfor them. So, there is a genuine need for women tominister to them.While we believe men teaching and leadingteenage boys would be the wisest arrangement, wedo not intend to make an absolute rule here. Since,in general, teenage boys are still under the authorityand instruction of their mother as well as theirfather, it would not necessarily be inconsistent forthem to receive doctrinal teaching from a womanteacher or youth ministry leader. Each specific situationwould require mature Christian wisdom todecide the most appropriate arrangement.Teaching in a <strong>The</strong>ological Seminary or CollegeIt is sometimes argued that the prohibitionsof 1 Tim 2:12 do not apply to those who teach ina theological college or seminary. Since the contextof Paul’s prohibition is the church and the contentof the teaching is Christian doctrine, some arguethe academic content and context make the prohibitionirrelevant to formal theological education.We disagree with this assessment for two reasons.First, in both the church and the theological school,the content of the teaching is often the same—theauthoritative apostolic deposit of Christian doctrine.8 Second, seminaries are hardly serving theirchurch constituencies well if they are permittingwhat 1 Tim 2:12 expressly prohibits—womenteaching Christian doctrine over men. <strong>The</strong>refore,consistency requires that instructors of Bible ortheology also adhere to the requirements of 1 Tim2:11–15.Christians may debate all of the specific areasof study that would be included under the heading“Christian doctrine.” But certainly “Christiandoctrine” would include New Testament Studies,Old Testament Studies, Bible interpretation, sys-20 JBMW | Spring 2008

tematic theology, Christian ethics, Christian philosophy,and church history. In seminary, Greekand Hebrew courses are taught with attention toexegesis and interpretation of the biblical text, andin this sense would be relevant to the prohibitionsof 1 Tim 2:12. Thus, we would encourage seminariesand colleges to carefully consider the contentof these courses so that they may avoid a situationthat involves women providing doctrinal instructionto men.Having acknowledged this, we would stronglyaffirm the pursuit of a theological education bywomen who have been called by God into Christianministry and had their giftedness affirmed bya local church. <strong>The</strong> church of the Lord Jesus Christis in need of both men and women who have beentrained and equipped for service. In addition, agrowing number of evangelical seminaries, colleges,and denominational agencies are creating womenspecificprograms and ministries, and many of theseteaching and ministry positions require theologicaleducation.Parachurch Ministry Teacher/Leader<strong>The</strong> same biblical principles about teachingmen and exercising authority over men apply in thecontext of a parachurch ministry. It is not sufficientfor a parachurch organization to claim that it isdistinct from the church. While this may be true, itdoes not provide an adequate answer to the questionof gender roles in such an organization. If a parachurchministry is engaging in an activity for whichwe have biblical instruction, then it seems clear thatit should be obeying that instruction. In his veryhelpful discussion on this issue, Wayne Grudemwrites, “Some New Testament commands do notapply to parachurch organizations not because theyare not churches, but because they are not performingthe activity mentioned in those commands. . . .Parachurch organizations should follow New Testamentcommands written to churches when thoseorganizations are doing the same activities thatthe command is talking about.” 9 Thus, we believewomen should not be appointed to serve in specificroles in parachurch ministries that would requirethem to teach or exercise authority over men.Parachurch Board of DirectorsWe believe there is nothing to prevent womenfrom serving alongside of men as members of aboard of directors for a Christian parachurch organization.While the board as a whole exercises governanceover the ministry, individual members ofthe board usually do not exercise individual authorityover one another or over individuals in the ministry.Thus, it does not involve the direct authority ofa woman over a man, but is the collective authorityof a group. Board members reach group decisionsthat provide direction for the organization. Thiswould be similar to women voting as a part of achurch congregation.Having said this, we believe the chairman ofthe board of directors should be a man, since (inmost organizations) this person is expected to exercisea leadership role over the other board membersand in his relationship with the organization’spresident/executive director.Bible Conference Preacher/TeacherA significant number of women have ministriesthat involve them in speaking and teachingat Bible conferences. We are very grateful for thewonderful work many of these women have donein advancing sound biblical knowledge amongwomen and helping them to apply it to their lives. Ifthey also provide doctrinal instruction to men duringtheir conferences, though, this seems to conflictwith Scripture. Again, we are grateful to Godfor the teaching ministries of many gifted women.Gender-specific conferences allow female speakersto address gender-specific issues of a woman’s lifethat pastors will not be able to do from the pulpit.Such forums can serve as faithful applicationsof Titus 2:3–5 on a large scale. As a general rule,though, we would simply encourage the speakers,as well as conference coordinators, to limit attendanceat the events to women.ConclusionWe are encouraged by the need to write thisessay, for two reasons. First, that these questionsare being asked indicates that many Christians andchurches are seriously engaging God’s word forJBMW | Spring 2008 21

guidance about how we are to serve one anotherin ministry, rather than merely resorting to pragmaticanswers. Second, the need to address theseissues demonstrates that many Christian womenare zealous to serve the Lord and his church. Thus,the abundance of questions being asked aboutappropriate ministries is not a problem, but reflectsa healthy desire of many women to use their spiritualgifts to build up the body of Christ. 10 As JohnPiper asserts, “If I were to put my finger on onedevastating sin today, it would not be the so-calledwomen’s movement, but the lack of spiritual leadershipby men at home and in the church. . . . <strong>The</strong>spiritual aimlessness and weakness and lethargy andloss of nerve among men is the major issue, not theupsurge of interest in women’s ministries.” 11 Likewise,we believe that the problems the church isexperiencing today through the influence of feministideology is primarily a result of men failing toassume responsibility for leadership and carryingout that responsibility through selfless servanthoodof Christ’s church. May the Lord grant that all ofus—men and women—would be faithful in ourcalling to serve him and to serve one another inlove.ENDNOTES1We want to thank the following individuals for their very helpfulinput and feedback on this essay: Heather Moore, Wayne Grudem,Peter R. Schemm Jr., Jack Cottrell, Russell D. Moore, and DennyBurk.2For a helpful, biblical survey, see Thomas R. Schreiner, “<strong>The</strong> ValuableMinistries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: ASurvey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” inRecovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (ed. John Piper andWayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 209–24.3<strong>The</strong> following are some helpful works that address this biblicalteaching and its application: Andreas J. Köstenberger and ThomasR. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Applicationof 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005); WayneGrudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis ofMore Than 100 Disputed Questions (Sisters, OR: Multnomah,2004); Dan Doriani, Women and Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway,2003); Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or HaveAuthority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Recovering BiblicalManhood and Womanhood, 179–93; H. Wayne House, <strong>The</strong> Role ofWomen in Ministry Today (H. Wayne House, 1990); George W.Knight, <strong>The</strong> Role Relationship of Men and Women: New TestamentTeaching (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985); andJack Cottrell, Gender Roles and <strong>The</strong> Bible: Creation, the Fall, andRedemption ( Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994).4For helpful resources that address women’s ministry in the localchurch, see J. Ligon Ducan and Susan Hunt, Women’s Ministry inthe Local Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006); Susan Hunt andPeggy Hutcheson, Leadership for Women in the Church (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1991); Mary A. Kassian, Women, Creation, and theFall (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990); Susan Hunt and Barbara Thomson,<strong>The</strong> Legacy of Biblical Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003);Elizabeth Inrig, Release Your Potential: Using Your Gifts in a ThrivingWomen’s Ministry (Chicago: Moody, 2001); and Susan Hunt,Spiritual Mothering: <strong>The</strong> Titus 2 Model for Women Mentoring Women(Wheaton: Crossway, 1992).5See, especially, the chapter by Andreas Köstenberger (“A ComplexSentence: <strong>The</strong> Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12”) in Women in the Church,53–84.6Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?(Crossway: Wheaton, 2006), 104.7For a critique of “mutual submission,” see Wayne Grduem, “<strong>The</strong>Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians5:21,” in Biblical Foundation for Manhood and Womanhood (ed.Wayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 221–31.8We agree with Douglas Moo that “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 occurs in aspecialized sense to denote the teaching of Christian doctrine: “Inthe pastoral epistles, teaching always has this restricted sense ofauthoritative doctrinal instruction” (Moo, “What Does It MeanNot to Teach or Have Authority over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15,”185).9See Wayne Grudem, “Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path toLiberalism?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 9, no. 1(2004): 56, 57. See also Grudem, Evangelical Feminism: A NewPath to Liberalism?, 107–14.10Countless opportunities exist for women to serve in ministry rolesthat are deeply needed. For a sample list of ministries, see JohnPiper, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity: Manhood andWomanhood Defined according to the Bible,” in Recovering BiblicalManhood and Womanhood, 58. This chapter has been reprintedseparately as John Piper, What’s the Difference? Manhood and WomanhoodDefined according to the Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990).11Piper, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity,” 53.22 JBMW | Spring 2008

Young vs. Old Complementarians 1Mark DeverPastorCapitol Hill Baptist ChurchWashington, D.C.Ligon Duncan and I were recently at a gatheringof forty or so pastors. We had a great time there.Wonderful fellowship. Much theological agreement.However, when the question of complementarianismcame up, though there was largeagreement on theological substance, there was dramaticdisagreement on strategy for presentation.<strong>The</strong> core of this essay is simply this—it ismy observation that those older than me who arecomplementarian generally want to downplay thisissue, and those younger than me want to lead withit, or at least be very up front about it.Why is this? Is it because the older group istheologically unfaithful, or the younger group culturallyinsensitive? I don’t think so. I don’t know,but my guess is that there are at least a couple offactors playing into this difference. <strong>The</strong> two groupshave different personal experiences, and the twogroups have different theological assessments.First, the two groups have different personalexperiences. Normal for the older group is evangelicalsas upstanding members of the society. <strong>The</strong>yare mayors and bankers and respected persons inthe community. <strong>The</strong> tendency is natural to do whatwould be culturally acceptable, as much as is possible(parallel to John Rawls and his idea of publiclyaccessible reasons). Normal for the younger groupis being shouted at publicly, being told that they’renarrow, intolerant hate-mongers because of theiropposition to homosexuality or abortion or falsereligions. <strong>The</strong> tendency is to advocate biblical mandatesin an unvarnished, open fashion, and yet to dothis with an eye to explaining and demonstratingthem as winsomely as possible. Both groups want tobe faithful to Scripture and sensitive to culture, andyet their ideas of where the right balance is, differ.Second, the two groups have different theologicalassessments. <strong>The</strong> older group is among peerswho see women’s ordination as an extension of civilrights for people of different races. <strong>The</strong> youngergroup is among peers who see women’s ordinationas a precursor for creating legal categories ofgay rights. But having a certain skin pigmentationis to the glory of God; having a sexual partner ofthe same gender is sin. <strong>The</strong> younger group is morealarmed, not simply by the egalitarian position, butby what it is assumed that will eventually entail,either in those who allow it, or in those who comeafter them.<strong>The</strong>re are, of course, many evangelical feminists.Some Christians whom I most love andrespect and have learned from are in this category.Just to take one example, I think of mybeloved professor at Gordon-Conwell <strong>The</strong>ologicalSeminary, Roger Nicole, who is a father in the faithto me. My respect for him is huge. My debt to himis great. I was his teaching assistant for two yearsat Gordon-Conwell. He and his wife were andhave been incredibly kind to me and my family. Heprayed for me publicly at my installation at CapitolHill Baptist Church. I got a letter from himjust last week! However, on this issue, after years ofbeing taught feminism at Duke, then at Gordon-Conwell, I had come to disagree.“Well then,” you might say, “why don’t youleave this issue of complementarianism at the levelof baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperatewith those who disagree with you on such matters.”Because, though I could be wrong, it is mybest and most sober judgment that this position iseffectively an undermining of—a breach in—theauthority of Scripture. As my friend Ligon Dun-JBMW | Spring 2008 23

can, the paedo-baptist, has often said, “If there werea verse in 1 Timothy saying, ‘I do not permit aninfant to be baptized,’ we wouldn’t be having thisconversation about baptism! <strong>The</strong>re is such a verseabout women serving as teachers/elders!”Dear reader, you may not agree with me onthis. And I don’t desire to be right in my fears. Butit seems to me and others (many who are youngerthan myself ) that this issue of egalitarianism andcomplementarianism is increasingly acting as thewatershed distinguishing those who will accommodateScripture to culture, and those who willattempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree,but this is our honest concern before God. Itis no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire forpower or tradition for tradition’s sake. It is our soberconclusion from observing the last fifty years.Paedobaptism is not novel (sadly). But, onthe good side, evangelicals who have taught such adoctrine have continued to be otherwise faithful toScripture for five centuries now. And many timestheir faithfulnesses have put those of us who mayhave a better doctrine of baptism to shame! Egalitarianismis novel. Its theological tendencies havenot had such a long track record. And the trackrecord they have had so far is not encouraging.Of course, there are issues more central to thegospel than gender issues. However, there may beno way the authority of Scripture is being underminedmore quickly or more thoroughly in ourday than through the hermenuetics of egalitarianreadings of the Bible. And when the authority ofScripture is undermined, the gospel will not longbe acknowledged. <strong>The</strong>refore, love for God, the gospel,and future generations demands the carefulpresentation and pressing of the complementarianposition.ENDNOTES1An earlier version of this article appeared on the website of“Together for the Gospel,” www.T4G.org.24 JBMW | Spring 2008

Why “Together for the Gospel”Embraces Complementarianism 1J. Ligon DuncanSenior MinisterFirst Presbyterian ChurchJackson, Mississippi“Together for the Gospel” (T4G) is a consortiumof Reformed evangelicals who are committedto a comprehensive recovery and reaffirmationof the biblical Gospel. I am signer of T4G’s initialdoctrinal statement of affirmation and denials.Article 16 of our statement consists of a plainaffirmation of a complementarian understandingof gender. It reads:We affirm that the Scripture reveals apattern of complementary order betweenmen and women, and that this order isitself a testimony to the Gospel, even as itis the gift of our Creator and Redeemer.We also affirm that all Christians arecalled to service within the body ofChrist, and that God has given to bothmen and women important and strategicroles within the home, the church, andthe society. We further affirm that theteaching office of the church is assignedonly to those men who are called of Godin fulfillment of the biblical teachingsand that men are to lead in their homesas husbands and fathers who fear andlove God.We deny that the distinction of rolesbetween men and women revealed inthe Bible is evidence of mere culturalconditioning or a manifestation of maleoppression or prejudice against women.We also deny that this biblical distinctionof roles excludes women from meaningfulministry in Christ’s kingdom. Wefurther deny that any church can confusethese issues without damaging its witnessto the Gospel.Why did I and the others signers of this documentinclude this statement in our doctrinal statement?<strong>The</strong>re are several reasons.One, the denial of complementarianismundermines the church’s practical embrace of theauthority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitablyharming the church’s witness to the Gospel).<strong>The</strong> gymnastics required to get from “I do not allowa woman to teach or to exercise authority over aman,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teachand to exercise authority over a man” in the actualpractice of the local church, are devastating to thefunctional authority of the Scripture in the life ofthe people of God.By the way, this is one reason why I think wejust don’t see many strongly inerrantist-egalitarians(meaning: those who hold unwaveringly to inerrancyand also to egalitarianism) in the youngergeneration of evangelicalism. Many if not mostevangelical egalitarians today have significantqualms about inerrancy, and are embracing thingslike trajectory hermeneutics, etc., to justify theirpositions. Inerrancy or egalitarianism, one or theother, eventually wins out.Two, and following on the first point, thechurch’s confidence in the clarity of Scripture isundermined, because if you can get egalitarianismfrom the Bible, you can get anything from theBible. Paul may be excruciating to read aloud andhear read in a dominant feminist culture, but he’snot obscure in his position! In 1 Tim 2:11–12 hesays, “A woman must quietly receive instructionwith entire submissiveness. I do not allow a womanto teach or exercise authority over a man, but toJBMW | Spring 2008 25

emain quiet.” Elsewhere, in 1 Cor 14:34–35, wefind the confirming parallel to this previous pronouncement:“<strong>The</strong> women are to keep silent inthe churches; for they are not permitted to speak,but are to subject themselves, just as the Law alsosays. If they desire to learn anything, let them asktheir own husbands at home; for it is improper fora woman to speak in church.” <strong>The</strong>se verses (andmany others) are uncomfortably clear and certainlypolitically incorrect, and though some of us may beconsoled by “exegesis” that shows that they don’treally mean that women can’t preach, teach, rulein the church, yet there remains this nagging feelingthat such interpretive moves are the victory ofpresent opinion over clear but unpopular biblicalteaching. Cultural cooption of the church’s readingof the Bible robs the church’s ability to speak propheticallyto the culture and to live distinctively inthe culture, which in turns undermines the church’sGospel witness.Three, because the very ideal of equalitychampioned by egalitarianism (whether secular orChristian) is a permutation of a particular strand ofEnlightenment thought, and because this particularideal of equality is actually alien to the biblicalanthropology and ethic, whenever and wherever itis read into the text of Scripture and its principlesare worked out consistently, there is a competitionwith a biblical view of manhood and womanhood.For instance, try to find this view of equality inGenesis 1—it’s just not there. Consequently, commitmentto evangelical egalitarianism opens thedoor for two competing but incompatible ethicalnorms and ideals within the individual, familyand church. If the egalitarian impulse wins out,the church is compromised precisely at the pointwhere paganism is assaulting the church today. For,as Peter Jones has brilliantly demonstrated, paganismwants to get rid of Christian monotheism bygetting rid of the Creator-creature distinction. Andone way paganism likes to do that is through genderconfusion—hence, the bi-sexual shaman, thesacred feminine, goddess worship, etc. Paganismunderstands that one of the best ways to preparethe way for pagan polytheistic monism over againstthe transcendent Creator God of the Bible is toundermine that God’s image in the distinctivenessof male and female, and in the picture of Christand the church in marital role distinctions, and inthe male eldership of the church. Egalitarianism isjust not equipped for that fight, and in fact simplycapitulates to it.Four, when the biblical distinctions of malenessand femaleness are denied, Christian discipleshipis seriously damaged because there can be notalk of cultivating distinctively masculine Christianvirtue or feminine Christian virtue. Yes, thereare many Christian ethical norms that are equallydirected and applicable to male and female disciples,but there are also many ethical directives in the NTenjoined distinctly upon Christian men as men andChristian women as women. Furthermore, the NT(and the Bible as a whole) recognizes that men andwomen are uniquely vulnerable to different kinds oftemptations, and thus need gender-specific encouragementin battling against them in the course ofChristian discipleship. Evangelical egalitarianism,fearful as it is that any acknowledged differencebetween men and women could set the stage forinequality of role or status, is utterly unpreparedto help the believer with these distinctive commandsor temptations. Egalitarian discipleship ofChristian men and women has, then, an inherentandrogynous bias. But that is not how God madeus. He made us male and female. Thus, Paul warnsChristian men against the soul-peril of “effeminacy”without in any way criticizing (and, indeed, admiringand encouraging) the “femininity” of women.We need masculine male Christians and femininefemale Christians, and that kind of discipleshiprequires an understanding of and commitment tocomplementarianism. Hence, denial of complementarianismcompromises Gospel discipleship.For these reasons and more, I think we wereright to “deny that any church can confuse theseissues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.”ENDNOTES1An earlier version of this article appeared on the website of“Together for the Gospel,” www.T4G.org.26 JBMW | Spring 2008

StudiesReconsidering the Maleness of JesusMicah Daniel CarterPastor, Mackville Baptist ChurchMackville, KentuckyAdjunct Professor of <strong>The</strong>ology and Philosophy, Campbellsville UniversityCampbellsville, KentuckyIntroductionToday a Christology which elevates Jesus’maleness to ontologically necessary significancesuggests that Jesus’ humanitydoes not represent women at all. Incarnationsolely into the male sex does notinclude women and so women are notredeemed. 1Against several erroneous Christological proposals,the orthodox definition for Christologyfound in the statement of the <strong>Council</strong> of Chalcedon(451) provides a careful defense for the assertionthat Jesus Christ was both God and man. 2 <strong>The</strong>deity and humanity of Jesus, Chalcedon demonstrates,must be affirmed simultaneously withoutthe devaluation of either fact related to the personof Jesus Christ. Although such an important affirmationhas been retained in orthodox Christologyover the centuries, neither the language nor theconcepts of the Chalcedonian definition have goneunchallenged.One such challenge in contemporary Christologyarises from feminist theologians. 3 As feministsreflect on the person of Christ in light of theirgendered experience, new insights and theologicalexplorations into the meaning of Jesus the Christfor the lives of twentieth-century women and menare emerging. 4 In Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s estimation,the questions posed by feminist theologianswith regard to Christology are illuminating: Howcan a “Son of God” be a Savior and representativeof God’s sons and daughters? How does Jesus’“maleness” relate to the other half of humankind?Is God the Son masculine or feminine or beyond?Kärkkäinen states, “<strong>The</strong> image of Christ is ambiguousfor many contemporary women because ithas served both as the source of life and as thelegitimator of oppression.” 5For feminists, the inevitable stumbling blockfor a Christology inclusive of women is Jesus theman, God incarnate in a male persona. 6 KathrynGreene-McCreight recognizes that orthodoxChristology, which maintains the biblical fact ofthe maleness of Jesus, “poses difficulties for feministtheology insofar as feminist theology sharesin modern theology’s difficulty with the ‘scandal ofparticularity.’” She adds, “<strong>The</strong> notion that the oneeternal God, creator of heaven and earth, couldcome to dwell with humanity in the person of a[male] Jewish carpenter is often offensive to modernsensibilities, which are drawn instead to theuniversal and the general.” 7 Thus, since the Christiantradition maintains that God particularlybecame man, feminist theologians allege that suchan incarnation alienates one-half of humanity.<strong>The</strong> point is that the doctrine of the incarnationdoes not directly address the female sex. 8 Yetaccording to feminist theologians, church historyactually reveals the inclination for the use of theincarnation against the female sex. Lisa Isherwoodclaims, “As the early proponents of feminist theologystrove to understand the exclusion of womenand women’s experience in church practice andtheological reflection, even in churches that had aJBMW | Spring 2008 27

strong social gospel, they were increasingly facedwith the realization that it may be the very fabricof Christianity that caused the exclusion.” 9 Consequently,feminist theological analysis began toreveal “that the maleness of Christ himself may bepart of the difficulty. . . . If Christ could not experiencebeing female then the question was raised asto whether the female state could be redeemed.” 10Feminists reiterate that Chalcedon, in its historicalcontext, “make[s] clear that it is not Jesus’maleness that is doctrinally important but hishumanity in solidarity with the whole sufferinghuman race.” 11 While the claim related to Jesus’solidarity with all of humanity is true, of course,feminists want to go beyond Chalcedon to saymuch more about the nature of the incarnation. Inface of this, assert feminists, orthodox Christologyintroduces incredible trivialization into the doctrineof the incarnation by the “androcentric stresson the maleness of Jesus’ humanity.” Such emphasison Jesus’ maleness “fully warrants the charge ofheresy and even blasphemy currently being leveledagainst it.” 12Is it possible, then, for feminists to accepttraditional Christology, with its retention of themaleness of Jesus? Julie Hopkins argues that “it isonly possible to bring women into the centre of anincarnational christology if the traditional categoriesare gender reversible; if, in other words, we mayspeak of the Divine incarnated in a female body,‘truly God and truly female’.” 13 Hopkins wants afull inclusion of the female into Christology, sothat (as the Dutch feminist theologian Anne-Claire Mulder argues) Christian theology mayspeak of the female flesh becoming Word/Logos. 14For Hopkins (and feminist theology in general),if this proves to be impossible on Christian theologicalor moral grounds, then Mary Daly’s famousdictum was correct when she observed, “If God ismale then the male is God.” 15This article will argue that feminist Christologicalexploration and subsequent reconstructionshould be rejected and deemed unacceptablefor evangelical Christian theology. In so doing,the approach of this article will be to demonstrateboth the feminist arguments against the malenessof Jesus Christ, as well as their alternative proposalsfor a Christology inclusive of feminist concerns.Finally, this article will conclude with an evaluationand critique of the contours of feminist Christologypresented here, plus an affirmation of the necessityof the maleness of Christ.Feminist Arguments against the Malenessof JesusFeminists advance numerous argumentsagainst the maleness of Jesus. Feminist concernstouch various aspects of Christian theology as itrelates to Christology—namely, anthropology,soteriology, and ecclesiology. <strong>The</strong> main argumentsagainst the maleness of Jesus, with these broadtheological areas in mind, are as follows.A Tool for the Subordination of WomenElizabeth Johnson argues that within theworldview of traditional Christology, the historicalJesus,who was indisputably a male humanbeing, is interpreted as the incarnationof the Logos, an ontological symbol connectedwith rationality and thus, accordingto Greek philosophy, with maleness.<strong>The</strong> Word made flesh is then related tohuman beings defined according to anandrocentric anthropology that sees menas normative and women as derivative. 16What results is a Christology that functions as asacred justification for the superiority of men overwomen. Because of this theological justification,Johnson surmises, “Women are inevitably relegatedto a marginal role both in theory and practice, giventhe priority of the male savior figure within a patriarchalframework.” 17 If the maleness of Jesus ismaintained, given such a pronounced anthropologicaldualism, as feminists argue it has been in thehistory of the church, then Christology must movein “an increasingly misogynist direction that notonly excludes woman as representative of Christ inministry but makes her a second-class citizen inboth creation and redemption.” 18<strong>The</strong> crux of the issue related to the use of28 JBMW | Spring 2008

Jesus’ masculinity as a tool for the subordination ofwomen surfaces in the ecclesial reality of a maledominatedministerial leadership. Although sheoverstates her case a bit by claiming that “much ofthe history of the doctrine of Christ clearly deniesthe relevance of Jesus’ maleness, uplifting only thatJesus is a human being,” Sondra Stalcup divulgesa (perhaps the) critically important objection onbehalf of feminist theologians:[I]t is in fact the maleness of Jesus thathas been used by the official church tocontinue the subordination of women bylimiting their roles—most obviously, bydenying women ordination to the priesthoodor representative ministry. Feministsdid not create the problem of Jesus’maleness, the official church did by usingit inappropriately as a barrier, as a dividingline against women. 19<strong>The</strong> rejection of women from representativeministry as priest or pastor is evidence of the sociallocation of this problematic usage of Jesus’ masculinityagainst women. That is, feminists argue, in“an ecclesial community where official voice, voteand visibility belong by law only to men,” 20 women’ssubordination grounded in “the maleness ofChrist as imaged through the centuries has damagedwomen’s self-esteem by relegating [them]to second-class citizens.” 21 Thus, “[t]he belief thatthe Word became flesh and dwelt among us as amale indicates that thanks to their natural bodilyresemblance, men enjoy a closer identification withChrist than do women. Men are not only theomorphicbut, by virtue of their sex, also christomorphicin a way that goes beyond what is possible forwomen.” 22This male-dominated theology, that relegateswoman to inferior status in both creationand redemption, has enjoyed considerable revivalin recent years as the keystone of the conservativereaction to the movements for women’s ordination(primarily in the Roman Catholic, Anglican,and Orthodox traditions), 23 but finds particularhistorical support from the theology of ThomasAquinas. 24 Rosemary Radford Ruether argues thatAquinas’s position that the male is the normativeor generic sex of the human species places womenin an inferior status. Aquinas argues that womenwere inferior to men, and in essence, defective.Thus, for Aquinas, “it follows that the incarnationof the Logos of God into the male is not a historicalaccident, but an ontological necessity.” 25 We mightargue, however, that the problem with Aquinas isnot his Christology, but rather his anthropology.Anne Carr clarifies Ruether’s problem with Aquinas’sChristology:Little of this argument occurs in Aquinas’treatise on Christology but is derivedfrom his discussions of human natureand sacramental priesthood. Like the restof the tradition, his Christological statementsare general, and emphasize thefullness of the divine and human naturesin Christ. Yet when Aquinas’ anthropologyis incorporated with his Christology,the distortion is clear: the Christologicalemphasis on the truly human is skewedby androcentric bias. 26So, the fact that Jesus was a man is used tolegitimize men’s superiority over women in thebelief that a particular honor, dignity, and normativityaccrues to the male sex because it was chosenby the Son of God “himself ” in the incarnation.Indeed, Johnson sharply avers, thanks to their sex,men are said to be more conformed to the imageof Christ than are women. In the end, “women’sphysical embodiment thus becomes a prison thatshuts them off from full identification with Christ,except as mediated through the christic male. Forthis mentality, the idea that the Word might havebecome female flesh is not even seriously imaginable.”27Inadequate Metaphor/SymbolAs seen above, the claim has been made byfeminist theologians that the “maleness” of Jesusvalidates the oppression of women. Mary Daly’sscathing insight cuts to the heart of the issue forfeminist Christological exploration: “If the symbol[of a masculine Christ] can be ‘used’ [to oppressJBMW | Spring 2008 29

women] and in fact has a long history of being‘used’ that way, isn’t this an indication of someinherent deficiency of the symbol itself?” 28 Sincethe Christ symbol (as masculine) has been usedagainst women, Daly is not alone in asserting thatthe symbol should be changed to become moreamenable to women.<strong>The</strong> biblical referents for Jesus as “Son” andGod as “Father” must not be taken to reflect anyreality about who God is, it is argued, but shouldbe taken metaphorically to help us understand Godin the terms of our own language. Thus, feministssay, the maleness of the historical Jesus has nothingto do with manifesting a male “Son” who, inturn, images a male “Father.” Since the symbol ismerely metaphorical, feminists posit that the divine“Father” is equally “Mother,” and the “Son” is equally“Daughter.” Yet even the parental metaphor is lackingaccording to Ruether: “Perhaps the parentallanguage for transcendence and immanence itselfshould be relativized by some metaphor other thanparent and child to better state this relationshipbetween God transcendent and God manifest increation and history.” 29 Further, the title “Son ofGod” is an inadequate metaphor for divine immanence,since it has been taken literally and seen asfurther indication that the Logos is male. <strong>The</strong>senotions of the maleness of God, in turn, affect theChristian interpretation of the imago dei. 30Barbara Darling-Smith presents a metaphoricalChristology as a solution to this problem.“Through metaphors we make connectionsbetween unlike things; metaphors undercut literalismbecause a metaphor, as a new and unconventionalinterpretation of reality, means that thetwo objects both are and are not like each other.” 31Sallie McFague also prefers a metaphorical theology,since “all talk of God is indirect: no words orphrases refer directly to God, for God-languagecan refer only through the detour of a descriptionthat properly belongs elsewhere.… <strong>The</strong> point thatmetaphor underscores is that in certain mattersthere can be no direct description.” 32So, through metaphorical theology feministsare able to perceive Jesus as a “parable of God.”Darling-Smith says, “As opposed to incarnationalChristology, which sees Jesus as ‘the Godhead,veiled in flesh,’ parabolic Christology is not Jesusolatry.…It rejects any idolatry or any identificationof a finite creature with God, including Jesusof Nazareth, who both is and is not God.” 33 Since aparabolic approach says Jesus is and is not God, itrelativizes Jesus’ particularity, viz., his maleness, atthe same time that it universalizes the God whomJesus metaphorically represents. 34<strong>The</strong> feminist move toward a metaphoricalChristology is a strategy against the traditionalChristological commitment to a patriarchal worldview.<strong>The</strong> masculine Christ symbol is part and parcelof the androcentric perspective offered in the Bible.Feminists claim that “since the records about Jesusgathered in the New Testament were written andcollected by men for men (so it is claimed), and thecanon ratified by hierarchical androcentric politicalmaneuvering, women’s voices were excluded fromthe canon.” 35 For this reason the Christ symbolis deficient and needs revision. Johnson contends,“Given the intrinsic link between the patriarchalimagination in language and in structures, to liberateChristological language from a monopoly ofmale images and concepts is to create a necessary,even if not sufficient, condition for further changein the church’s consciousness and social order.” 36Another reason why the symbol is deficient isthat traditional Christology is built upon an androcentricimage of deity. Isherwood notes, “WhileChristianity has never claimed that God was literallymale, the Hellenistic underpinning has led tomany assumptions about the nature of God andnormative humanity. <strong>The</strong>re has been an unspoken,yet enacted, androcentric bias, which has reducedthe place of women and men in the world, holdingthem as it does to very outmoded and reductivenotions of humanness.” 37 Since the man Jesus is confessedto be the revelation of God, the Christ symbolpoints to maleness as an essential characteristicof divine being itself. This is exacerbated by exclusiveuse of father and son metaphors to interpret Jesus’relationship to God. 38 Perhaps the only option forfeminist Christology is to castrate Christianity andrelease it from its patriarchal trappings. 3930 JBMW | Spring 2008

Jeopardy of Women’s SalvationAlthough the ecclesial subordination ofwomen from representative ministry (assumed tobe grounded in Jesus’ maleness) is the most obviouslocation of feminist angst, Jesus’ masculinity alsoraises important soteriological concerns for women.<strong>The</strong> concern for women’s salvation related to themaleness of Jesus is drawn from several importanthistorical affirmations. First, Johnson reminds us,“the Nicene Creed confesses, ‘et homo factus est’(‘and was made man’). But if in fact what is meantis et vir factus est, if maleness is essential for thechristic role, then women are cut out of the loop ofsalvation, for female sexuality was not assumed bythe Word made flesh.” 40 Indeed, the Chalcedonianaffirmation that Jesus was “truly God and trulyman” could raise this problem, whether or not themaleness of Jesus is a point of necessity “for us andfor our salvation.”Second, given the anthropological dualism(i.e., Aquinas) that essentially divorces male fromfemale humanity, feminists argue, the malenessof Christ puts the salvation of women in jeopardy.Thus, Gregory of Nazianzus’s famous aphorism,“What is not assumed is not healed” 41 takeson incredible significance for women. Since Jesusassumed a male human body, what does this meanfor women? Johnson believes this has enormousramifications for women and their inclusion in salvation:In addition to casting both God and thehuman race in an androcentric mold,sexist Christology jeopardizes women’ssalvation, at least in theory.… <strong>The</strong> earlyChristian axiom “What is not assumedis not redeemed, but what is assumed issaved by union with God” sums up theinsight that Christ’s solidarity with allof humanity is what is crucial for salvation.…If maleness is constitutive forthe incarnation and redemption, femalehumanity is not assumed and thereforenot saved. 42So, to Ruether’s searching question, “Can a malesavior save women?”, interpretation of the malenessof Christ as essential must answer “No,” despiteChristian belief in the universality of God’s savingintent. 43Relevant to this issue is the feminist allegationthat Jesus, as a man, was unable to understandthe experiences of women, since he did not assumea female human body. For this reason many haveabandoned Christianity because of its patriarchalframework. Ruether questions whether Christologycan be liberated from patriarchy at all becauseof its strong link with symbols of male-dominance.She states, “Certainly many feminists have alreadyconcluded that the maleness of Christ is so fundamentalto Christianity that women cannot seethemselves as liberated through him.” 44Radical feminists such as Mary Daly or membersof the Women’s Spirituality Movement havealready declared that women must reject Christas redeemer for women and seek instead a femaledivinity and messianic symbol. 45 So, if there is tobe found or constructed a feminist Christologythat includes woman as well as man in “the icon ofGod, the male hegemony must be deconstructedsuch that the image of God made Flesh is seen andexperienced as female as well as male.” 46Feminists conclude that the maleness ofChrist, as an essential component of the incarnationand revelation of God in human flesh, removeswomen as beneficiaries of salvation. In fact, “goodnews [of Jesus’ redemption] is stifled when Jesus’maleness, which belongs to his historical identity,is interpreted as being essential to his redeemingchristic function and identity. <strong>The</strong>n the Christfunctions as a religious tool for marginalizing andexcluding women.” 47Maleness as an Irrelevant ParticularityAside from the fact that many feminists arewilling to admit that the historicity of Jesus’ malenessis important for his mission and ministry (tobe discussed below), others deem “maleness” as anirrelevant particularity of Jesus. Ruether notes thatfeminists could accept Jesus’ particularities, but mustnot confuse them—especially his maleness—with“the essence of Christ as God’s Word incarnate.”Unfortunately, she avers, “what we find in mostChristology is an effort to dissolve most aspects ofJBMW | Spring 2008 31

Jesus’ particularity (his Jewishness, as a first-centurymessianic Galilean) in order to make him the symbolof universal humanity; yet an insistence that thehistorical particularity of his maleness is essentialto his ongoing representation.” 48Stalcup is willing to say much more, however.“<strong>The</strong>ologically, in the matter of understanding theredemptive experience of Jesus as the Christ, thereis no material significance in Jesus’ biological makeup,or in any fact about him in the past. As an event ofGod, as the eschatological event in every new present,Jesus’ sex—or Judaism or race or marital status orany fact of what he said or did in and of himself—is notrelevant in confessing him as the Christ.” 49 Perhapsthe only reason why any of these particularities aresignificant—Jesus’ being male especially—or whythey have revelatory importance is because of themeaning of maleness in patriarchal history and culture.50 Nevertheless, even if feminists acknowledgethat Jesus’ maleness is theologically irrelevant, theystill have a potential problem with the impact ofmale symbols. Stalcup is right: “In most churchestoday, the reliance on traditional and historical languageand imagery makes it quite difficult to ‘getaround’ the maleness issue,” even if it is deemed tobe irrelevant to who Jesus was and is. 51If Jesus’ maleness was simply accidental, thenfeminists posit the possibility of a female incarnation.Johnson is surely not unique in her conclusion:“Could God have become a human being asa woman? <strong>The</strong> question strikes some people as sillyor worse. <strong>The</strong>ologically, though, the answer is Yes.Why not? If women are genuinely human and ifGod is the deep mystery of holy love, then what isto prevent such an incarnation?” 52Feminist Alternatives for an“Inclusive” Christology<strong>The</strong>re is, as yet, no universally agreed feministChristology, at least one that addresses all of the critiquesleveled at traditional Christology. What we dohave, however, is a number of explorative possibilitiesthat seek to open up traditional Christology toan inclusive, feminist perspective. 53 Feminist theologianshave struggled to revise traditional Christologyin a way that is “consonant with their own experienceand embraces the perceptions, values, aspirations andembodiedness of what it means to be a female intoday’s world.” 54 Broadly speaking, much of feministChristology shares with modern Christology a preferencefor a Christology from below.<strong>The</strong> approaches considered here are not completeChristologies; rather, they are attempts tore-image Jesus in ways that take women’s experiencesseriously. Each of them seeks to “make roomfor the female within the male image.” 55 <strong>The</strong> underlyingimpetus for feminist Christological reconstructionsis due, in large part, to the argumentspresented above, but another important factor spurson feminist revision: the notion that Jesus may needwomen to redeem him, to free him from the chainsof male arrogance and patriarchal abuses. 56Jesus as Iconoclastic ProphetOne alternative proposal to guard against themaleness of Jesus in traditional Christology is tofocus on Jesus’ message and not his person. Ruetherposes the question as to how we should understandthe relationship of Jesus as a historical individualin all his particularity, and yet also make the particularitiesno longer limits on his representationas the embodiment of God’s universal new Word?She then provides her answer: “We should do that,not by emphasizing biological particularities, butrather by emphasizing his message as expressedin his ministry.… In this perspective we see thatthe emphasis on Jesus’ maleness as essential to hisongoing representation not only is not compatiblebut is contradictory to the essence of his message asgood news to the marginalized qua women.” 57According to Ruether and other liberationtheologians, what is most significant about Jesusis his message of good news to the poor and themarginalized. What is paradigmatic about Jesusis not his biological ontology, but rather his personas a lived message and practice. For Ruether, “thatmessage is good news to the poor, a confrontationwith systems of religion and society that incarnateoppressive privilege, and an affirmation of thedespised as loved and liberated by God.” 58<strong>The</strong> prophetic iconoclastic Christ, representedprimarily through liberation theologies (such as32 JBMW | Spring 2008

feminist theology), shows that Jesus’ significance“does not reside in his maleness, but, on the contrary,in the fact that he has renounced this systemof [male] domination and seeks to embody in hisperson the new humanity of service and mutualempowerment.” 59Johnson concludes, “While Jesus was indeeda first-century Galilean Jewish man, and thus irredeemablyparticular, as we all are, what transpires inthe Incarnation is inclusive of the humanity of allhuman beings of all races and historical conditionsand both genders.” 60 Jesus’ ability to be Savior doesnot reside in his maleness but in his loving, liberatinghistory lived in the midst of the powers of eviland oppression and male-domination. 61Envisioning Christ as a FemaleA second alternative Christological explorationinvolves envisioning Christ’s humanity infemale terms, which Ellen Leonard claims has along history in the Christian tradition. 62 Leonardoverstates her case, however, since her “long history”only includes obscure thinkers from medievalspirituality. Notwithstanding the (very) limitedand ambiguous historical references for thinkingof Jesus in female terms, some contemporary feministsare adopting this approach for Christologicalreconstruction.Almost unbelievably, some feminists claimthat Jesus was actually genetically female. Citingmedical and scientific studies, 63 Letha Scanzoniand Nancy Hardesty argue that since Jesus wasborn of a virgin and had only one human parent,a female, he “was undoubtedly genetically femaleeven though phenotypically male.… His genesmust have been XX rather than XY.… Thus, [at theleast] Jesus may well have been biologically bothmale and female.” 64Three objections are in order. First, this positionis extremely rare. While many feminists downplayor reject the importance of Jesus’ maleness, theyat least recognize the historical fact that he was ahuman male. Second, Millard Erickson argues thatit is possible that Mary did not contribute anythingin the incarnation (not even an ovum), but thatGod could have implanted in her an already fertilizedovum. 65 Third, Jack Cottrell notes that while aprocess such as this is possible (which he calls parthenogenesis),which will produce offspring thatare of the same gender as the parent (like cloning),“the virgin birth, however, is not a purely naturalevent but an intensely supernatural act on the partof God.… <strong>The</strong> very fact that his maleness requireda special miracle demonstrates the truth that themaleness of the Messiah was a deliberate choice onthe part of God.” 66Although the proposal of Scanzoni and Hardestyis rare, they point to a more common feministconsideration for including the female into theincarnation, and that is the idea of Jesus as androgynous.<strong>The</strong> androgynous Christ, feminists claim, isrepresented in church history through people likeJulian of Norwich, the Shakers, and some formsof Pietism. All androgynous Christologies exhibita sense that a masculinist Christ is inadequate toexpress full human redemption, that Christ must insome way represent both male and female. 67Not all feminists agree that an androgynousChrist is the way to take feminist Christology,however. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza arguesthat androgynous Christologies do not challenge“the Western cultural sex/gender system and itsandrocentric language,” and since it does not sayenough, other alternatives should be offered fromfeminists. 68 Ruether is also critical of androgynousChristologies because they simply mask the realproblem: “<strong>The</strong> very concept of androgyny presupposesa psychic dualism that identifies malenesswith one-half of human capacities and femalenesswith the other. As long as Christ is still presumedto be, normatively, a male person, androgynousChristologies will carry an androcentic bias.” 69Nevertheless, androgynous Christology is increasinglypopular among feminists as an explanationfor incarnation in light of Jesus’ maleness.Relocation of Christ to the CommunityPerhaps the more radical solution for feministChristological reconstruction is found in a completedefinition of what “Christ” is supposed to be.Some feminists are willing to dislocate Christianityfrom the historical person Jesus Christ completely.JBMW | Spring 2008 33

Rita Nakashima Brock asserts that “Jesus Christneed not be the authoritative center of a feministChristian faith.” 70 Brock relocates Christ in thecommunity of which Jesus is one historical part,such that it is the community, not Jesus that is thelocus of redemption. 71 Brock is clear that Jesus hasbeen eclipsed by “Christa/Community”:<strong>The</strong> feminist Christian commitment isnot to a savior who redeems us by bringingGod to us. Our commitment is tolove ourselves and others into wholeness.Our commitment is to a divinepresence with us here and now, a presencethat works through the mystery ofour deepest selves and our relationships,constantly healing us and nudging ustoward a wholeness of existence we onlyfitfully know. That healed wholeness isnot Christ; it is ourselves. 72When feminists remove the exclusive, perfect GodmanJesus Christ from the center of Christology,women may reclaim themselves and, then, reclaimthe historical Jesus. Brock states, “We may reclaimJesus as a remarkable man for his time. De-divinizinghim allows us to appreciate his remarkabilitywithout his humanity or theology being the measuringrod for our existence.” 73Thus, feminists contend, Jesus’ historical identityis not significant for Christology. Jesus becomesirrelevant for Christology, save the prophetic messagethat he embodied. In this way, his particulars,especially maleness, “[do] not constitute the essenceof Christ, but, in the Spirit, redeemed and redeeminghumanity does,” 74 since the community of thebaptized now embodies the same message. Feministsconclude, then, that Christ is quite accuratelyportrayed as black, old, Gentile, female, Asian orPolish, etc., or whatever the demographic of thecommunity exhibits. 75 Ruether concurs, “Christ, asredemptive person and Word of God, is not to beencapsulated ‘once-for-all’ in the historical Jesus.<strong>The</strong> Christian community continues Christ’s identity.As vine and branches Christic personhoodcontinues in our sisters and brothers.” 76Closely aligned with this Christological reconstructionis the argument that Jesus’ significance istied to his iconoclastic prophetism. By prioritizingthe message and not the gender of Jesus, Christiansbecome a “redemptive community not by passivelyreceiving a redemption ‘won’ by Christ alone, butrather by collectively embodying this path of liberationin a way that transforms people and socialsystems,” men and women alike. 77 Feminists resistseparating this ongoing redemptive work from theChristian community. In as much as the communityembodies the message of Jesus, then redemptionis carried on and communicated through them.So, “Christ can take on the face of every person andgroup and their diverse liberation struggles. Wemust be able to encounter Christ as black, as Asian,as Aboriginal, as women. <strong>The</strong> coming Christ, then,the uncompleted future of redemption, is not thehistorical Jesus returned, but rather the fullnessof all this human diversity gathered together inredemptive community.” 78Jesus as the Incarnation of Female DivinityA final alternative from feminist theologiansfor Christology explores the notion of Jesus as theincarnation of feminine divinity. This alternativeis probably the most influential and substantive ofthe proposals offered by feminists. Although thesubject of Jesus as the incarnation of Sophia, or wisdom,merits its own treatment, a brief examinationwill be presented here. Wisdom Christology providesa textual alternative to traditional Christology,which many religious and evangelical feministsfind attractive. “Sophia” has become an importanttheological construct over the past ten years infeminist theology. 79 Greene-McCreight observesthat this perspective cannot be passed off as mereflight of imaginative fancy. While creative feministChristology makes much use of the imaginationin theological reflection, the proposal of Jesus asSophia incarnate is grounded in historical and biblicalreconstructions of the feminine divine. 80Some feminists prefer to see the biblical canonitself as the vehicle that allows for and encouragesthe reemergence of the feminine divine. 81 Feministsappeal to biblical texts, such as Job 28, Proverbs8, Luke 11:49, Matt 23:34, and 1 Cor 1:24, 30,34 JBMW | Spring 2008

for evidence of a remaining Sophia tradition withinthe canon itself. 82 Greene-McCreight declares, “Itis thus the scriptures [sic] themselves which leantoward the emergence of Sophia, and the reemergenceof Sophia can therefore be furthered by carefulexamination and rereading of biblical texts.” 83When feminists interpret the incarnation interms of the enfleshing of the sophia/wisdom ofGod, the woman-ness of God actually takes historicalshape in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.Jesus in his embodied existence expresses the intimate,seeking, embracing, longing, passionate consummatinglure of the divine Wisdom of God.As Johnson suggests, such a Christology has thepotential not only to relativize traditional Christology,with its androcentric bias, but also to present aJesus who is both male and female. 84Johnson believes that using the female figureof personified Wisdom to speak about Jesus as theChrist facilitates an inclusive rather than exclusiveinterpretation of the incarnation. <strong>The</strong> foundationalmetaphor of “Jesus, the Wisdom of God” relievesthe monopoly of the male metaphors of Logosand Son and destabilizes patriarchal imagination.“Whoever espouses a wisdom Christology,” Johnsonstates, “is asserting that Sophia in all her fullnesswas in Jesus so that in his historicity he embodiesdivine mystery in creative and saving involvementwith the world.” 85Here we seem to be getting at the heart ofthe matter, for the metaphor “Son” and the relationbetween Father and Son have been the controllingcategories of classical Christology. Feminists insistthat, when we release the symbol of Wisdom fromsubordination to Word or Son, different possibilitiesfor Christology open up to us. So, according tothis feminist explanation of the incarnation, Jesusis the human being Sophia became. 86<strong>The</strong> importance of Jesus as Sophia incarnatebecomes clear with reference to the subject ofthis article: Jesus as Sophia incarnate “breaks thestranglehold of androcentric thinking which fixateson the maleness of Jesus, the male metaphors ofLogos and Son, and the relationship between Fatherand Son. This leads to the situation where genderis decentered, where it is not constitutive for theChristian doctrine of incarnation or for speechabout Christ.” 87 For feminists, Christ as incarnatewisdom has genuine possibilities for an inclusiveChristology. <strong>The</strong>y argue, however, since the Jewishunderstanding of Sophia and the Christian viewof Jesus as Sophia developed within a patriarchalsocial structure, the resulting theology and Christologyin the biblical record are not truly inclusive. 88That is, “[t]he male human incarnation overwhelmsthe female divine persona of Sophia.” 89Two objections to the feminist position ofWisdom Christology need to be raised. First, feministsare inconsistent on whether Sophia is actuallythe God of traditional theism. For example, Brockclaims that “Wisdom, or Sophia, is not currentlya feminine equivalent to Yahweh or logos, thoughwe might work to make her so.” 90 But Fiorenzaand Johnson both assert (in response to the allegationthat their views are “pagan”) that “Wisdomtheology does not posit a second divine power tocompete with Yahweh but takes up the language ofpagan goddesses to speak of Yahweh, thus, in effect,subverting paganism.” 91 <strong>The</strong> latter case seems to saythat Sophia is just another name for Yahweh, theGod of the Bible. Ultimately, as discussed above,the term is metaphorical; so as long as Sophia, orthe feminine is represented as divinity, feministsmay conclude either way and still retain the forceof their reconstruction.Second, Douglas McCready clarifies that“Wisdom” in the Scriptures (i.e., Proverbs 8) is apersonification and is a created entity. 92 <strong>The</strong> Wisdomliterature, particularly “Proverbs, the Wisdomof Solomon and Ecclesiasticus describe the wisdomof God in personified language, yet these personificationsdo not appear to be or to be intended tobe persons or hypostases.” 93 Other New Testamentscholars, such as F. F. Bruce, N. T. Wright, BenWitherington, and Martin Hengel agree that Paulapplied and modified everything previously attributedto Wisdom to Christ. 94 Thus, the feministposition that Jesus is Sophia incarnate is nothingbut conjecture. <strong>The</strong>re is no suggestion in the NewTestament anywhere that Jesus is the incarnation ofsome female deity. While on the surface this alternativeChristological proposal from feminist theo-JBMW | Spring 2008 35

logians seems attractive because of their appeal tobiblical texts, their proposal is unacceptable on thegrounds that it cannot sustain itself under properbiblical exegesis and sound hermeneutics.Evaluation and CritiqueAlthough feminist arguments against themaleness of Jesus and their Christological reconstructionsare extreme in response to traditionalChristological claims, several important fundamentalcritiques from feminists deserve clarification.Feminists raise important questions related tothe nature of God’s essence, the nature of salvation,and the nature of the image of God in humanity.<strong>The</strong> feminist anthropological concern may besummarized as such: “<strong>The</strong> basic problem identifiedfrom the feminist academic perspective is thatJesus Christ has been interpreted within a patriarchalframework, with the result that the good newsof the gospel for all has been twisted into the badnews of masculine privilege.” 95 Whereas feministsreact negatively to the theological anthropologyof Aquinas, evangelicals may also stand againstsuch erroneous thinking. Aquinas was wrong onthis issue. Women are not inferior to men biologicallyin any way, neither is the image of God lesserin and through them (Gen 1:27). Unfortunately,church and society have played a huge role in thesubordination of women. However, Christian theologymay affirm—even in a patriarchal, complementarianworldview—the biblical doctrine of theimage of God as male and female, without distortion,neither in a chauvinistic nor a feminist interpretation.96Feminists also raise an important soteriologicalconcern. When traditional Christology upholdsthe necessity of Jesus’ maleness, feminists contendthat the salvation of women is in jeopardy. Assumingcomplete egalitarianism, feminists cannot allowthe traditional claim for the necessity of Jesus’ maleness.Once the inappropriate anthropology lurkingin the background of feminist concerns is met,there is no basis to allege that Jesus, as a male, cannotbe the savior of all people, including women.Bruce Ware concurs,Women need not fear that since Christdid not come as a woman he cannotunderstand them, because in coming asa man, he came as a human being andso understands the human natures commonto men and women alike.… Christthe man shared our (common) humannature, so that men and women alike canhave full confidence that he understandsour plight (e.g., Heb 2:18; 4:15–16). So,while Scripture clearly indicates Christcame as a man … we also realize that hiscoming as a man was therefore also asa human. As a man, he partook of ournature to live a human life and bear oursins. Christ the man, yes. But, Christin the human nature of every man andwoman, also, yes. 97So in response to feminist soteriological concerns,“This means that there is no basis for the claim orthe fear that if the identity of Christ is that of male,then in the incarnation he represents males onlyand is able to redeem males only. <strong>The</strong> commonhuman nature of both sexes is fully represented byeither sex.” 98Finally, feminists raise an important theologicalconcern related to the ontology of God. Johnsonstates, “Jesus’ historical maleness is used toreinforce an exclusively male image of God. If Jesusas a man is the revelation of God, so the usuallyimplicit reasoning goes, then this points to malenessas an essential characteristic of divine beingitself.” 99 Feminists assume that since Jesus wasmale, and he was God incarnate, then God is male.<strong>The</strong> problem is not, then, the divinity of Jesus, noreven his humanity, but his very maleness. 100Greene-McCreight clarifies,Here is the problem: the maleness ofJesus “leaks” into the Godhead like aninfectious disease, rendering unclean ourunderstanding of God and therefore alsoour understanding of our own malenessand femaleness. Now, decades after MaryDaly’s charge that “if God is male thenmale is God,” as the result of its tacitacceptance across the denominationalspectrum of American Christianity, we36 JBMW | Spring 2008

have seen numerous revisions of prayerbooksand hymnals, new “translations”and paraphrases of the scriptures, not tomention the reworkings of Christologysuch as we have seen here. This is donewith the intent of plugging up and blockingthe leaking masculinity of Jesus frominfecting the Godhead, thus preventingthe perception of the masculinity of Godfrom deifying the human male. 101What is the answer to the charge that if Jesus wasmale, then God is male? Perhaps we should understandthat God has chosen to reveal himself in acertain way, using certain language to define himself.Ware argues, “Now, it is true that God is not inessence male, so also is it true that neither the eternalFather nor the eternal Son is male; neither thedivine essence, nor the eternal Persons of the Godheadare gendered, literally and really.” He continues,“So, why is the First Person of the Trinity theeternal ‘Father,’ and the Second Person, the eternal‘Son’? Must this not be the language God has chosento indicate the type of eternal relationship thatexists between the first and second Persons?” 102With feminist concerns presented, two majorcritiques will conclude this paper. First, much offeminist reconstruction may be attributed to afaulty starting point, namely, women’s experience.Second, as follows, is that the loss of a textualapproach (with proper exegetical and hermeneuticalissues included) to Christology results in wrongconclusions about the maleness of Jesus.Faulty Starting Point: Women’s ExperienceGiven a “hermeneutic of suspicion” towardsScripture and the Christian tradition, feministtheologians see women’s experience as a new, legitimatefocus of theological concern and inquiry. 103<strong>The</strong> problem is, however, that it is very difficult todefine what is meant by women’s experience. Nevertheless,feminists insist that women’s experience isnormative for constructive Christian theology, andthus, is essential to the formulation of an inclusiveChristology. Isherwood raises the critical feministassumption here:If [ Jesus] was fully a man, to argue thathe was fully human negates the place offemale experience in humanness, and hedid not know how it felt to be a woman.If he did somehow experience beingboth male and female, then he was eithertransgendered or not fully human. Beinghuman is an experience and that experienceis, in our day, and was in the time ofJesus, a gendered experience. 104<strong>The</strong> error here is to assume that “someone who isfully male (and presumably, someone who is fullyfemale) would not possess this common humannature.” Cottrell rightly argues that a “fully male(or female) individual possesses the commonhuman nature but also possesses something in additionto it: maleness (or femaleness). Being male, aswas Jesus, in no way subtracts from the fullness ofhumanity shared by males and females alike. Eliminatinghis maleness does not make him morehuman; it makes him less than human.” 105Certainly we could take Isherwood’s contentionto its logical conclusion. Since Jesus did notknow how it felt to be a heroine addict, diabetic,a white male, homosexual, handicapped, geriatric,Albino, quadriplegic, deaf, etc., then are noneof these able to be redeemed by Jesus? He did not“assume” any of these particularities in his flesh. Itseems, contextually, then, if what Jesus “assumed”is saved, then only Jewish males will be redeemed.But the issue is much greater than simply the issuesof women’s salvation in Jesus; the issue is whetheror not Jesus is the Messiah at all, and the savior ofthe world.This is exactly the point that feminists missrelated to the humanity of Jesus, especially withreference to their reaction to historical statementsrelated to Christology, such as Jesus was “truly Godand truly man” and “what he has not assumed hehas not healed.” <strong>The</strong> point they miss is that Jesushas take upon himself in the incarnation a commonhuman nature inclusive of all people, male andfemale alike. 106 This does not mean that Jesus wasandrogynous, however, since he was a man. Whatthis does mean—and this would relieve many ofthe feminist arguments of their potency—is thatJBMW | Spring 2008 37

Jesus became a human being in order to representour race, including women (Rom 5:12–21).Loss of Textual ApproachIn tandem with the normativeness of women’sexperience for theological construction is the propensityamong feminists to jettison the Bible altogether.A common criticism of the Bible is that itis nothing more than an androcentric, patriarchaldocument, created by men and for men, and as aresult it is not acceptable for women as a source ofauthority. In fact, many feminists who decry themasculine images for God and Christ suggest thatfor a genuine theology of liberation for women, theBible and its Christ need to be left behind. 107Not all feminists want to surrender the Bibleto traditional Christianity, however. <strong>The</strong> Bible carriesenormous political and social power that manyfeminists want to harness for their own theologicalagendas and explorations. Carter Heywardcontends that feminists must “claim the authorityto play freely with both Scripture and subsequenttradition” in order to re-image Jesus and validatetheir experiences as women. 108 She concludes,“To re-image Jesus [involves] letting go of oldimages.… It is to sketch images of Jesus within, andfor the benefit of, our communities—of seminarians,women, gay people, black people, poor people,whoever our people are. Our images do not necessarilyreflect Mark’s image, or John’s or Augustine’s,or Luther’s.” 109<strong>The</strong> loss of a textually defined Christ opens updescriptors for who Jesus is, or ought to be, that areinappropriate for Christology. Yet some feministsargue that other cultures or demographics inculturateJesus into their own language, etc. If this is thecase, then why cannot women do the same thing?Teresa Berger notes, “It is worth thinking about whywe have become so accustomed to a Black Christfigure or a Campesino on the cross or a ChineseHoly Family as legitimate forms of the inculturationof the Gospel—while a female Christ child inthe manger or woman on the cross appear to manyof us as incomprehensible or unacceptable.” 110<strong>The</strong> inculturation of a Black Christ or aCampesino Christ are illegitimate forms to representthe biblical Christ, though. Jesus was notBlack, or Campesino, nor could he be as the Messiah;he was a Jew and that is how we must understandhim biblically and theologically. So, thisargument or question itself is misguided. <strong>The</strong> pointis, for feminists, if Christian theologians allow ortolerate the image of Christ as a Black or Chineseman, then why is there no toleration or allowancefor a female Christ?Christology must be obtained from thecanonical narrative of Scripture. Apart from thisbasic methodological and theological commitment,Christology will take the shape of whatever the“community” desires, including feminine reconstructions.For the purposes of this article, however,Greene-McCreight rightly targets the mainissue: “the claim about the importance of Jesus’maleness is a specifically theological claim basedon the logic of narrative reading of the scriptures.While it makes sense to say that Jesus’ malenessis an accident in the technical philosophical sense,the narrative context, such as it is, would not allowa female savior. 111Few feminist theologians, as we have seen,want actually to deny Jesus’ maleness. But theydo want to deny that his being male is related tohis soteriological significance. Greene-McCreightcontends, “However, since Jesus was a Jew who fulfilledthe promises to Israel and offered up onceand for all the perfect sacrifice, he had to be male. Ifhe were not male and a Jew—indeed, a free Jewishmale—how could the baptismal promise of Galatians3:27–29 have been granted?” 112Must Jesus, as the Christ, have been male?If Christian theology desires to place itself underthe inspiration and authority of Scripture, thenthe answer must be yes. <strong>The</strong> maleness of Jesusmust be understood in the context of a “thicktext” narrative. 113 That is, an “intratextual” readingof the reliable narrative of Scripture is necessaryfor Christology. 114 <strong>The</strong> particularities of who Jesuswas, and was meant to be, are not irrelevant tothe story of Scripture related to the Messiah andhis mission.Ware’s article, “Could Our Savior Have Beena Woman?” helpfully shows the relevance of Jesus’38 JBMW | Spring 2008

maleness for his incarnational mission, as it arisesfrom the narrative of Scripture. Ware offers twelveimportant reasons “for concluding that the malegender of Jesus was essential both to the reality ofhis incarnation identity and to the accomplishmentof his incarnation mission.” 115 His twelve reasonsare (with scriptural references):(1) Jesus Christ’s pre-incarnate existenceand identity is clearly revealed to be thatof the eternal Son of the Father.(2) Jesus came as the Second Adam, theMan who stands as Head over his newand redeemed race (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor15:21–22).(3) <strong>The</strong> Abrahamic covenant requiresthat the Savior who would come, as thepromised descendant of Abraham, wouldbe a man (Genesis 12; 15; 17; genealogiesof Matthew 1 and Luke 3; Galatians 3).(4) <strong>The</strong> Davidic covenant explicitlyrequires that the One who will reignforever on the throne of David be a Sonof David, and hence a man (2 Samuel7; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–28; Luke1:31–33).(5) <strong>The</strong> new covenant of Jer 31:31–34requires that the Savior who comes willactually accomplish the forgiveness ofsins it promises, and to do this, the Saviormust be a man.(6) <strong>The</strong> Savior who would come mustcome as a prophet like unto Moses, aspredicted by Moses and fulfilled in JesusChrist, and so he must be a man (Deut18:15; Acts 3:22).(7) Our new and permanent High Priest,whose office is secured as sins are atonedfor and full pardon is pleaded on ourbehalf before the Father, must be a man.(8) Christ came also as the glorious Kingof Kings, reigning over the nations insplendor and righteousness, and to bethis King, he must be a man (Isa 9:6–7;Heb 1:8 [reflecting Ps 45:6–7]; Matt19:28; Rev 19:11–21).(9) <strong>The</strong> incarnate mission and ministryof Jesus required that he come as a man.(10) Because the risen Christ is now presentedto the Church, not only as herLord and King, but also as her Bridegroom,the Savior to come must havebeen a man (Ephesians 5; Rev 18:23;19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17).(11) Because our Savior came as the “Sonof God” it is necessary that he come asa man.(12) Because our Savior came as the“Son of Man” it is necessary that he comeas a man.<strong>The</strong>se reasons, reflecting the messianic trajectory ofthe narrative of Scripture, present a strong case forthe necessity of Jesus’ gender as a male.ConclusionFeminist arguments against the maleness ofJesus, as well as their Christological reconstructiveproposals, have been demonstrated and foundunacceptable. While feminists offer certain importantcritiques (albeit clouded by their worldview)related to traditional Christology, their reactions tocertain abuses of biblical doctrine are unwarrantedfor a complete revision of the nature and purposeof Jesus the Christ.McCready’s conclusion is fitting: “Rejectionor reformulation of the doctrine of [Christ] wouldeviscerate Christianity. <strong>The</strong> result would be nothinglike that which has grown and spread for nearly twothousand years.” He adds, “Every distinctive Christianbelief would have to be discarded, from thedoctrine of God and a realistic picture of humansinfulness to the ethical expectations and promiseof divine grace. <strong>The</strong> modern attempt to makeChristianity relevant by removing one of its morechallenging teachings would end by making Christianityirrelevant and even destroying it.” 116ENDNOTES1Rosemary Radford Ruether, “<strong>The</strong> Liberation of Christology fromPatriarchy,” in Feminist <strong>The</strong>ology: A Reader (ed. Ann Loades; Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1990), 140.2Namely, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. SeeEdward R. Hardy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1954), 15–38. For the actual text drafted at the<strong>Council</strong>, see pages 371–74.3<strong>The</strong> term “feminist” is a convenient generalization for the perspectiveanalyzed in this paper. <strong>The</strong>re are, however, various streams ofthought within the feminist movement. H. M. Conn helpfully categorizesfeminist thinkers into three categories: (1) radical (post-JBMW | Spring 2008 39

Christian/secular), (2) reformist (religious/biblical), and (3) loyalist(evangelical); see H. M. Conn, “Feminist <strong>The</strong>ology,” in New Dictionaryof <strong>The</strong>ology (ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, andJ. I. Packer; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 255. In thispaper, almost all of the feminist theologians cited represent thereformist (religious) perspective. Some, like Mary Daly and CarterHeyward, represent the radical (secular) perspective. For additionalreference, see Rebecca S. Chopp, “Feminist and Womanist <strong>The</strong>ologies,”in <strong>The</strong> Modern <strong>The</strong>ologians (2d ed.; ed. David F. Ford; Malden,MA: Blackwell, 1997): 389–404; and Ann Loades, “Feminist <strong>The</strong>ology,”in <strong>The</strong> Modern <strong>The</strong>ologians, 575–84.4Ellen Leonard, “Women and Christ: Toward Inclusive Christologies,”in Constructive Christian <strong>The</strong>ology in the Worldwide Church(ed. William R. Barr; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 325.5Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction (GrandRapids: Baker, 2003), 197.6Colin J. D. Greene, Christology in Cultural Perspective (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2003), 239.7Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions of ChristianDoctrine (New York: Oxford University, 2000), 73.8Julie M. Hopkins, Towards a Feminist Christology (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994), 83.9Lisa Isherwood, Introducing Feminist Christologies (Cleveland: Pilgrim,2002), 15.10Ibid.11Elizabeth A. Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” in Freeing<strong>The</strong>ology (ed. Catherine Mowry LaCugna; San Francisco: Harper-SanFrancisco, 1993), 130.12Ibid., 131. For the charge of heresy upon those who emphasizeJesus’ maleness, Johnson cites Patricia Wilson-Kastner, Faith Feminismand the Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 90; Sandra Schneiders,Women and the Word (New York: Paulist, 1986), 55; AnneCarr, Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women’s Experience(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 178.13Hopkins, Towards a Feminist Christology, 85.14Anne-Claire Mulder, “Vrouw, lichaam, subjectiviteit en het ‘imagoDei’,” Mara 7, no. 1 (1993): 3–13.15Hopkins, Towards a Feminist Christology, 85. Daly’s dictum comesfrom her book Beyond God the Father: Towards a Philosophy of Women’sLiberation (London: <strong>The</strong> Women’s Press, 1986), 19.16Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 118.17Ibid.18Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk (Boston: Beacon,1993), 135.19Sondra Stalcup, “What About Jesus? Christology and the Challengesof Women,” in Setting the Table (ed. Rita Nakashima Brock,Claudia Camp, and Serene Jones; St. Louis: Chalice, 1995), 126.20Elizabeth A. Johnson, “<strong>The</strong> Maleness of Christ,” in <strong>The</strong> Power ofNaming (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,1996), 308.21Isherwood, Introducing Feminist Christologies, 31.22Johnson, “<strong>The</strong> Maleness of Christ,” 308.23Rosemary Radford Ruether, To Change the World (New York:Crossroad, 1981), 45–46.24See, e.g., Summa <strong>The</strong>ologica, I, 92, q. 1–2; III (supplement), 39, q. 1;III, q. 1-59; and especially III, 31, q. 4.25Ruether, To Change the World, 45.26Carr, Transforming Grace, 164.27Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 119.28Daly, Beyond God the Father, 72.29Ruether, “<strong>The</strong> Liberation of Christology,” 146–47.30Ibid., 139.31Barbara Darling-Smith, “A Feminist Christological Exploration,”in One Faith, Many Cultures (ed. Ruy O. Costa; Maryknoll, NY:Orbis, 1988), 73 (emphasis in original).32Sallie McFague, Models of God (Philadephia: Fortress, 1987), 34.See also Sallie McFague, Metaphorical <strong>The</strong>ology: Models of God inReligious Language (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).33Darling-Smith, “A Feminist Christological Exploration,” 73(emphasis in original).34Ibid., 74.35Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions, 71.36Elizabeth A. Johnson, “Wisdom Was Made Flesh and PitchedHer Tent Among Us,” in Reconstructing the Christ Symbol (ed.Maryanne Stevens; New York: Paulist, 1993), 109.37Isherwood, Introducing Feminist Christologies, 16.38Johnson, “<strong>The</strong> Maleness of Christ,” 307.39Daly, Beyond God the Father, 71–72.40Johnson, “<strong>The</strong> Maleness of Christ,” 308.41Gregory of Nazianzus, “To Cledonius Against Apollinarus (Epistle101),” in Christology of the Later Fathers (ed. Edward R. Hardy;Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), 218.42Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 119–20.43Johnson, “<strong>The</strong> Maleness of Christ,” 308.44Ruether, To Change the World, 47.45See, e.g., Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism andthe End of Traditional Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1979), ch.1.46Eleanor McLaughlin, “Feminist Christologies: Re-Dressing theTradition,” in Reconstructing the Christ Symbol, 121.47Johnson, “<strong>The</strong> Maleness of Christ,” 307.48Ruether, “<strong>The</strong> Liberation of Christology,” 147.49Stalcup, “What About Jesus?,” 127 (emphasis added).50Ellen K. Wondra, Humanity Has Been a Holy Thing: Toward a ContemporaryFeminist Christology (Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica, 1994), 304.51Stalcup, “What About Jesus?,” 127.52Elizabeth A. Johnson, Consider Jesus: Waves of Renewal in Christology(New York: Crossroad, 1990), 197.53Greene, Christology in Cultural Perspective, 236.54Ibid., 239.55Leonard, “Women and Christ,” 334.56Isherwood, Introducing Feminist Christologies, 24–25.57Ruether, “<strong>The</strong> Liberation of Christology,” 147.58Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Can Christology Be Liberated FromPatriarchy?,” in Reconstructing the Christ Symbol, 23.59Ruether, To Change the World, 56.60Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 131.61Ibid.62Leonard, “Women and Christ,” 326. She offers these sources forsupport to this claim: André Cabassut, “Une dévotion médievalpeu connue. La dévotion à Jésus notre mère,” Revue d’ascétique et demystique 25 (1949): 234–45; Eleanor McLaughlin, “‘Christ MyMother’: Feminine Naming and Metaphor in Medieval Spirituality,”Nashotah Review 15 (1975): 228–48; and Caroline WalkerBynum, “Jesus as Mother and Abbot as Mother: Some <strong>The</strong>mes inthe Twelfth Century Cisterian Writing,” in Jesus as Mother: Studiesin the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Los Angeles: Universityof California, 1982): 110–69. Although Leonard asserts that suchimportant thinkers such as Origen, Ireneaus, Augustine, andAnselm refer to Christ as “mother,” she provides no source for justification.Julian of Norwich, however, is typically held up as a representativehistorical source for this position, since she developedthe image of mother to describe Jesus’ nurturing love for allhumanity.40 JBMW | Spring 2008

63E.g., Edward L. Kessel, “A Proposed Biological Interpretation ofthe Virgin Birth,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (September1983): 129–36.64Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Nancy A. Hardesty, All We’re Meantto Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation (Waco: Word,1974), 71.65Millard J. Erickson, <strong>The</strong> Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids: Baker,1991), 546. This speculation has problems as well, viz., if this wasthe case, then in what way is Jesus a human like us?66Jack Cottrell, “<strong>The</strong> Gender of Jesus and the Incarnation: A CaseStudy in Feminist Hermeneutics,” 7 [cited 11 April 2006]. Online:http://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/cottrell_jack/genderofjesus.pdf. Originally published in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Fall2000): 171–94.67Ruether, To Change the World, 49, 53.68Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet(New York: Continuum, 1994), 47.69Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk, 130. See also Greene’s discussion,Christology in Cultural Perspective, 234–36.70Rita Nakashima Brock, “<strong>The</strong> Feminist Redemption of Christ,” inChristian Feminism: Visions of a New Humanity (ed. Judith L.Weidman; New York: Harper & Row, 1984), 68. See also TomDriver, Christ in a Changing World: Toward a Ethical Christology(New York: Crossroad, 1981).71Leonard, “Women and Christ,” 333.72Brock, “<strong>The</strong> Feminist Redemption of Christ,” 69.73Ibid.74Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 129.75Schneiders, Women and the Word, 54.76Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk, 138.77Rosemary Radford Ruether, Introducing Redemption in ChristianFeminism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 93. Cf. Isherwood,Introducing Feminist Christologies, 23.78Ruether, “Can Christology Be Liberated?,” 23–24.79Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions, 86–87. Greene-McCreight traces the development and inclusion of Sophia on thepopular and academic levels. Of course, it was not feminists whofirst “discovered” a Sophia-Christology in the New Testament. SeeM. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel(Cambridge: Harvard University, 1970); Felix Christ, Jesus Sophia:Die Sophia Christologie bei Den Synoptikern (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag,1970); and James Robinson, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia,” inAspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Robert L.Wilken; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1975).80Ibid., 87.81See, e.g., Gail Paterson Corrington, Her Image of Salvation: FemaleSaviors and Formative Christianity (Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox, 1992). Note also the work of Schüssler Fiorenza here.82Many feminists include John 1 in this list by arguing that theLogos is actually Sophia.83Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions, 91–92.84Johnson, “Wisdom Was Made Flesh,” 108. See also Elizabeth A.Johnson, “Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for a Non-Androcentric Christology,” Ephemerides <strong>The</strong>ologicae Lovaniensis 61(1985): 261–94.85Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 127.86Johnson, “Wisdom Was Made Flesh,” 107–08.87Ibid., 108 (emphasis in original).88Leonard, “Women and Christ,” 329–30.89Ibid.90Rita Nakashima Brock, Journeys by Heart: A Christology of EroticPower (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 61.91Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions, 93. See ElisabethSchüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983),134; and Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: <strong>The</strong> Mystery of God inFeminist <strong>The</strong>ological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 92–93.92Douglas McCready, He Came Down From Heaven (DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 145–46, 176–78.93Ibid., 61. Cf. Cottrell, “<strong>The</strong> Gender of Jesus,” 8.94Ibid., 82–85.95Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 118.96For further consideration on this issue of gender distinctions androles related to the image of God, see Anthony A. Hoekema, Createdin God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); John M.Frame, “Men and Women in the Image of God,” in RecoveringBiblical Manhood & Womanhood (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem;Wheaton: Crossway, 1991): 225–32; and Bruce A. Ware,“Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God,” inBiblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (ed. Wayne Grudem;Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 71–92.97Bruce A. Ware, “Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman?,” Journalfor Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8, no. 1 (2003): 38.98Cottrell, “<strong>The</strong> Gender of Jesus,” 9.99Johnson, “Redeeming the Name of Christ,” 119.100Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions, 73.101Ibid.102Ware, “Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman?,” 33. See alsoKärkkäinen, Christology, 197.103Greene, Christology in Cultural Perspective, 225.104Isherwood, Introducing Feminist Christologies, 21.105Cottrell, “<strong>The</strong> Gender of Jesus,” 9.106Note Thomas Morris’s discussion of the distinctions betweenindividual-essence and kind-essence, as well as the distinctionbetween common properties and essential properties. See ThomasV. Morris, <strong>The</strong> Logic of God Incarnate (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,2001), ch. 3.107Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods, 22.108Isabel Carter Heyward, <strong>The</strong> Redemption of God: A <strong>The</strong>ology ofMutual Relation (New York: University Press of America, 1980),30.109Ibid.110Teresa Berger, “A Female Christ Child in the Manger and aWoman on the Cross, Or: <strong>The</strong> Historicity of the Jesus Event andthe Inculturation of the Gospel,” trans. Mary Deasey Collins, Feminist<strong>The</strong>ology 11 (1996): 33.111Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions, 109.112Ibid.113C. Stephen Evans, <strong>The</strong> Historical Christ & <strong>The</strong> Jesus of Faith(Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), ch. 1.114We should say more than Evans, however, and argue that the reliablenarrative of Scripture is inspired by God and, thus, inerrant.Without inerrancy, a thick text narrative reading does not makesense.115Ware, “Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman?,” 33.116McCready, He Came Down, 317. McCready’s contention specificallyrelates to preexistence, but given Ware’s argument, we mayalso apply this contention to Jesus’ maleness.JBMW | Spring 2008 41

Method Mistake: An Analysis of theCharge of Arianism in ComplementarianDiscussions of the TrinityBenjamin B. PhillipsAssistant Professor of Systematic <strong>The</strong>ologySouthwestern Baptist <strong>The</strong>ological SeminaryHouston CampusHouston, Texas<strong>The</strong> debate between complementarians andegalitarians over the intra-Trinitarian relationsbetween the Father and the Son has intensifiedsignificantly. In 2006, at the National Meeting ofthe Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society (ETS), KevinGiles presented a paper in which he alleged thatcertain complementarian expressions of the Trinityhave degenerated into Arianism. 1 Bruce A. Warealso read a paper in which he defended his owncomplementarian view against Giles’s accusationof Arianism. 2 <strong>The</strong> charge of Arianism is a weightyaccusation primarily because of the church’s traditionalcondemnation of it as a fundamental heresy—Arianism betrays a core teaching of Scripture. <strong>The</strong>allegation also has an immediate impact within theETS. As Giles pointedly notes, “In the Evangelical<strong>The</strong>ological Society Doctrinal Basis only two mattersare made fundamental to the evangelical faith:belief in the inerrancy of the Bible in its originalautographs and belief in a Trinity of Father, Sonand Holy Spirit, three ‘uncreated’ persons, who are‘one in essence, equal in power and glory.’” 3<strong>The</strong> charge of Arianism hinges on a philosophicalintuition about the nature of being. <strong>The</strong>defenses for this philosophical position offered byGilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles, however, areincompatible with Scripture because they undercutthe very possibility of Trinitarian theology. <strong>The</strong>failure of these arguments calls into question thevalidity of the position they defend. Because ofthese problems, current versions of the egalitariancase that the complementarian view of the Trinityconstitutes Arianism are seriously flawed. Thisarticle provides an analysis of the flaw in the egalitarianaccusation and suggests how the debate overthe Trinity should proceed.<strong>The</strong> Core of the Debate Concerning the TrinityMany complementarians argue that the Sonis eternally functionally submissive to the Fatherwhile still possessing absolute ontological equalitywith Him. <strong>The</strong> thesis of Ware’s 2006 ETS paperwas,<strong>The</strong> Father and Son are fully equal intheir deity as each possesses the identicallysame divine nature, yet the eternaland inner-Trinitarian Father-Son relationshipis marked, among other thingsby an authority and submission structurein which the Father is eternally in authorityover the Son and the Son eternally insubmission to the Father. <strong>The</strong>re is, then,an eternal and immutable equality ofessence between the Father and the Son,while there is also an eternal and immutableauthority-submission structure thatmarks the relationship of the Father andthe Son. 4Wayne Grudem 5 and Robert Letham 6 each expressviews in keeping with Ware’s thesis, as the 1999Sydney Anglican Diocesan Doctrine CommissionReport, “<strong>The</strong> Doctrine of the Trinity and Its42 JBMW | Spring 2008

Bearing on the Relationship of Men and Women,”also clearly intends to do. 7 <strong>The</strong> view of the Trinityexpressed by Ware posits an ontology in which “onecan possess a different function and still be equal inessence and worth.” 8Most egalitarians assert that the view held byWare, Grudem, et al. is essentially the Arian heresyin a new guise. 9 In his magisterial work, <strong>The</strong> Searchfor the Christian Doctrine of God: <strong>The</strong> Arian Controversy318–381, R. P. C. Hanson provides the definitivedescription of the ideas central to what cameto be known as “Arianism.” Arian theologians heldthat the nature of divine transcendence requires abeing of lesser divinity in order to accomplish revelationand redemption through the incarnation. 10According to the Arians, the distinction betweenFather and Son must be made in terms of differentnatures, not merely different relations. 11 <strong>The</strong> Arianontology served a soteriology in which God (albeita lesser god, Christ) suffered on behalf of humanity.12 When egalitarians charge complementarianswith Arianism, they are clearly not suggesting thatcomplementarians affirm an Arian soteriology.Rather, they are claiming that the Arian ontologyof God has resurfaced in modern complementarianexpressions of the Trinity. In his 1997 article,“Hermeneutical-Bungee Jumping,” GilbertBilezikian alleges that Robert Letham’s “view ofan ontologically stratified, split-level Trinity lead[s]him straight into the trap of Arianism.” 13 Morebroadly, Giles has stated that,To argue that the Son is eternally subordinatein authority, set under the Father,denies both that he is one in power withthe Father and the Spirit and by implication,that he is one in essence/beingwith the Father and the Spirit. To deny,explicitly or implicitly that Jesus is onein being/essence with the Father is ofcourse the Arian heresy. 14<strong>The</strong> Egalitarian Ontological AxiomAt its core, the charge of Arianism againstcomplementarians is grounded on a philosophicalposition concerning the nature of being, a positionthat plays a determinative hermeneutical role foregalitarians. Millard Erickson suggests that “a temporal,functional subordination without inferiorityof essence seems possible, but not an eternal subordination.”15 Giles hardens this view into a directassertion: “It is my case that once the word eternalis added to the word subordination, you have ontologicalsubordination.” 16 In short, the view seems tobe something like this: eternal functional subordinationentails ontological subordination.Bilezikian defends this view, which we shallcall the “egalitarian ontological axiom,” in his“Bungee-Jumping” essay,A subordination that extends into eternitycannot remain only functional but . .. it also becomes ipso facto an ontologicalreality. . . . Since the attribute of eternityinheres in the divine essence, any realitythat is eternal is by necessity ontologicallygrounded. Eternity is a quality ofexistence. <strong>The</strong>refore if Christ’s subordinationis eternal, as both Grudem andLetham claim, it is also ontological. 17Unfortunately, if it is valid, Bilezikian’s argumentseems to present us with a Faustian choice. Anydistinction between the Trinitarian Persons in eternity,being eternal, would also be ontological. Thusany distinction between Persons, not merely functionalsubordination, results in them being ontologicallydifferent. To make any distinction betweenthe divine Persons in eternity would be to succumbto either Arianism or tri-theism. If, on the otherhand, we make no distinctions between the Personsin eternity, we in effect abandon immanent Trinityand run the risk of conceiving God in eternity as amonad. Christians would be able to think of Godas Triune only in relation to creation. In otherwords, the argument seems to render futile anyattempt to talk of the immanent Trinity; it is anargument that proves too much. 18 If Bilezikian’sargument being valid leaves us with such a choice,it is better to conclude that the argument itself isnot valid.Giles offers a more developed and nuanceddefense of the egalitarian ontological axiom whenJBMW | Spring 2008 43

he ties it to the unity of God’s being and God’sacts.Whatever words are used to permanentlyset the Son under the Father in workdivides who God is (his being) fromwhat God does (his works). This divisionbreaches divine unity, equality, and “simplicity.”It suggests that in the immanentTrinity the divine three do not work asone. To speak of the voluntary and temporal“functional or role subordination” ofthe Son in the work of salvation is acceptable,but the minute the word eternal isintroduced, a profound theological erroris embraced. <strong>The</strong> word eternal indicatesthat the Son does not merely functionsubordinately in the incarnation; he iseternally subordinated to the Father. Hissubordination defines his person. As theSon he is subordinated to the Father—subordinated in his person or being. 19Though more sophisticated than Bilezikian’scase, this argument also has fatal difficulties. Giles’scase here seems to rest on a view of God’s work thatrequires God to be, and function as, a monad—“IfGod is a monad (ultimately unitary), he must beone in being, work, and authority.” 20 This assertionis not quite in line with the Christian tradition,which conceived of God as ultimately triune(ultimately one and three) rather than ultimatelyunitary. 21 <strong>The</strong> view of God as a monad is one thatmodern philosophical theologians such as AlvinPlantinga have rejected on the grounds that ityields a God who is either non-relational or nonpersonal.22 Furthermore, if Giles is correct that howGod works ad intra indicates who God is ad intra(and I believe he is correct on this point!), then theview that God’s work ad intra is absolutely unitaryand not susceptible to distinction would yield aGod who is not and cannot be triune ad intra. Inshort, Giles’s argument kills off immanent Trinity.In this way, Giles’s argument, as Bilezikian’s, provestoo much.Giles’s argument also raises a specter of category-confusion.Just prior to his argument for theidea that eternal functional subordination entailsontological subordination (quoted above), Gilesprovides a helpful table (see below) in order to clarifythe different terms used in discussing the unityand differentiation within God. Giles complains,“<strong>The</strong>se two sets of terms should not be confused,as they invariably are in evangelical literature.” Hethen correctly notes that,No progress can be made in this painfuldebate among evangelicals until thereis agreement on the meaning and forceof the technical terms being used. To useterms incorrectly . . . does not further thecause of meaningful communication. 23Terminology for the Divine Unityand Divine Differentiation 24Greek Latin EnglishOne ousia subtantia being/substanceessentia essencephysis natura natureThree prospopa peronae personshypostases subsistentiae subsistences, modesof subsistencetropos hyparxeosmodes of ways ofbeing/existingGiles’s own argument, however, seems to conflate“person” and “being.” He states that eternal subordination“defines his [Christ’s] person;” it is “subordinationin his person or being” (emphasis in theoriginal). 25 Given the context, the charge of Arianism,it seems that Giles means “subordination inhis person, i.e., in his being.” This would appear tobe a confusion of a term referring to the way inwhich God is one (being), and a term referring tothe way in which God is three (person).Both Bilezikian’s and Giles’s defense of theegalitarian ontological axiom are fundamentallyflawed. Both prove too much in that they bothmake either Unitarianism or Arianism an inescapableresult—they undercut the very possibility ofTrinitarian theology. Neither of these results areones that either Bilezikian or Giles (nor any otherevangelical!) would wish to affirm. As such, theyare unsuccessful as a defense for the philosophicalidea that eternal functional subordination entailsontological subordination.44 JBMW | Spring 2008

<strong>The</strong> egalitarian ontological axiom is the keymove upon which the charge of Arianism in thecomplementarian view of the Trinity depends. Inthe absence of an adequate philosophical defenseof the axiom, the charge of Arianism over-reachesthe evidence. <strong>The</strong> failure of the two philosophicalarguments for the axiom also suggests that theegalitarian ontological axiom itself is incompatiblewith Scripture, though it does not prove conclusivelythat the egalitarian ontological axiom isindefensible. At best, we should view the axiom asan intuition about the nature of being which standsin need of further explanation and defense.<strong>The</strong>ological Method: Moving the TrinityDebate ForwardOne of the oldest and most widely-acceptedunderstandings of the theological task is “faithseeking understanding.” 26 This means that the faithis a given; its truths are the axioms that cannot bechallenged but that instead must be accepted inorder to be understood. <strong>The</strong> evangelical theologicaltask, then, is a response to the Word that deliversto us the Faith. 27 On this view, theology becomes “asecond-order discipline pursued ‘from within.’ <strong>The</strong>enterprise is a critical, reflective activity that presupposesthe beliefs and practices of the Christiancommunity.” 28It is critical for evangelicals that in thismethod, Scripture is the norma normans non normata,the norming norm which is not itself normed.For Stanley Grenz, the Bible’s place as the supremeauthority “forms the ongoing legacy of the Reformationwithin the evangelical tradition.” 29 <strong>The</strong>deliverance of any source in theology—tradition,culture, reason, experience, even the creeds—mustbe judged by Scripture. 30Philosophy is one such source that theologiansmust judge in light of Scripture. Scriptureitself warns of the danger of deceptive philosophy(Col 2:8). Tertullian accused philosophy of beingthe instigator of heresy. 31 Luther warned that whoeverwould use philosophy (Aristotle in particular)without danger to his soul must first be a fool forChrist. 32 <strong>The</strong>se somewhat hyperbolic warnings byTertullian and Luther point to the danger of usingphilosophical speculation that is incompatible withScripture as the hermeneutical lens through whichone reads Scripture.Historical theology provides ample examplesof the failure against which Col 2:8, Tertullian, andLuther warn. Meister Eckhart attempted to integratethe Plotinian concept of the One withoutdivision with the orthodox concept of the Trinity.He first posited a distinction between God(the Trinity) and the Godhead (the absolutely one“God beyond God”). Unfortunately, this made theTrinity less than ultimate. To avoid this problem,Eckhart identified the Godhead with the Father,but this only served to compromise the equality ofthe three divine persons. 33<strong>The</strong> Arians also allowed a philosophical positionincompatible with Scripture to control theirreading of Scripture when they assumed an ontologyin which a simple divine nature could not besimultaneously shared (i.e., fully possessed) bythree divine persons. <strong>The</strong> result for the Arians wasthat to admit the consubstantiality of the Son withthe Father would be to affirm that something ismore ontologically basic than God is, or to affirmthe mutability of God. 34 <strong>The</strong> failure of Trinitariantheology in both Eckhart and the Arians indicatesthe danger to orthodox theology of importing biblicallyincompatible philosophical intuitions intotheology as hermeneutical rules—no matter howobvious those intuitions may seem.Modern theologians have reiterated much thesame kind of concern. For example, Pannenbergwarns that,Christian theology can effect a link-upwith the philosophical concept of Godonly when it undertakes a penetratingtransformation of the philosophical conceptright down to its roots. Whereverphilosophical concepts are taken over,they must be remolded in the light of thehistory-shaping freedom of the BiblicalGod. 35<strong>The</strong> point here is neither that all philosophy isdeceptive, nor that Christian theologians mustabandon it as an unhelpful tool. Rather, evangelicalJBMW | Spring 2008 45

theology must judge any philosophical claim inlight of the biblical evidence, rejecting what is—contrary to the faith, affirming that which iscompatible with it. 36<strong>The</strong> application of this theological methodto the current Trinity debates among complementariansand egalitarians means that the egalitarianontological axiom may not serve as an untestedpresupposition in the reading of Scripture. Presuppositionlessreading of Scripture is not possible, ofcourse. However, the fact is that our presuppositions“tend to determine what we take from Scripture”and other texts. 37 As long as the compatibilityof the egalitarian ontological axiom with Scriptureis in question, that axiom may not also be used as ahermeneutical presupposition in reading the Scriptureor the tradition. 38<strong>The</strong> supremacy of Scripture also determinesthe way in which the egalitarian ontological axiomcan be decisively invalidated. If complementarianscan show that the Scripture requires us to affirmthe functional/role/relational subordination of theSon to the Father alongside the ontological equalityof the Son and the Father, then functional subordinationcannot entail ontological subordinationno matter how well reasoned the philosophical casefor it. This does not render useless a well-reasonedphilosophical defense of the egalitarian axiom; sucha defense would serve to require a much strongerand clear case for the functional subordination ofthe Son from Scripture than would otherwise benecessary.<strong>The</strong> way in which complementarians are makingtheir case attempts to paint egalitarians intoprecisely this corner. Kovach and Schemm haveoffered a brief two-pronged argument from Scripture.<strong>The</strong> first is that Scripture describes the Son asbeing eternally the Son of the Father, indicating asubordinate relation to the Father. <strong>The</strong> second isthat the Son is the “agent” through whom the Fatherworks. 39 Ware has argued that the Scripture indicatesthe eternal functional subordination of theSon to the Father through the names “Father” and“Son,” the Father’s authority over all things, andthe submission of Son to the Father in the Son’smission. 40 He has also argued that Scripture providesevidence of the submission of the Son to theFather in eternity-past and eternity-future. 41 Additionally,Ware and Grudem have made a broad casefrom the Church Fathers that a reading of Scripturethat affirms some sense of monarchia uniqueto the Father is consistent with the Nicene faith,specifically, and the tradition, generally. 42Complementarians can strengthen their casefurther by taking greater care to be both preciseand consistent in their use of technical Trinitarianterms. Giles’s concern here should be a pointwell taken. Complementarians would benefit byproviding a well-developed, coherent philosophicaldescription of the ontology required by theirposition, and a rigorous philosophical critique ofthe egalitarian ontological axiom using the toolsof analytic philosophy. A more explicit defense ofthe Augustinian category of “relations” as a Trinitariancategory that does not make the Son lessa person or possessed of a lesser being than theFather, would serve to round out the categories oftechnical Trinitarian language described by Giles. 43Complementarians also need to provide a moreexplicit defense of their own key presupposition,“the economic Trinity reveals the immanent Trinity,”and the way this principle functions in theirown reading of Scripture. 44Finally, it seems likely that egalitarians willbe unable to provide direct biblical warrant fortheir position that eternal functional subordinationentails ontological subordination. However,under the theological method described in thisessay, it should be clear that it is not necessary forthem to do so! While a stronger and more coherentdefense of the egalitarian ontological axiomwould strengthen their case, they need only showthat the Scripture does not require us to affirm thatthe Son is eternally functionally subordinate to theFather. A reading of the Fathers and the rest ofthe tradition, which accounts for all of the relevantdata, including language about the monarchia of theFather and other counter-indicators, would alsostrengthen the egalitarian case that their reading ofScripture is consistent with the tradition. In short,all that egalitarians lose by not presupposing theirontological axiom is the ability to rule out other-46 JBMW | Spring 2008

wise superior readings of Scripture and the abilityto utilize the charge of Arianism as an ad hominemattack against complementarians.ENDNOTES1Kevin Giles, “Father and Son: Divided or Undivided in Power andAuthority?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical<strong>The</strong>ological Society, Washington, D.C., 16 November2006).2Bruce A. Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal FunctionalAuthority and Submission Among the Essentially EqualDivine Persons of the Godhead” (paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society, Washington, D.C.,16 November 2006).3Giles, “Father and Son,” 1.4Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles,” 1.5Wayne Grudem, Systematic <strong>The</strong>ology: An Introduction to Biblical<strong>The</strong>ology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 454–70.6Robert Letham, “<strong>The</strong> Man-Woman Debate: <strong>The</strong>ological Comment,”Westminster Journal of <strong>The</strong>ology 52 (1990): 65.7<strong>The</strong> clarity and success of the Sydney Report is, however, anothermatter.8Thomas Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1Corinthians 11:2–16,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:A Response to Evangelical Feminism (ed. John Piper andWayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 128.9One notable exception to this is the egalitarian author CraigKeener. See his “Is Subordination within the Trinity Really Heresy?A Study of John 5:18 in Context,” Trinity Journal n.s. 20, no.1 (1999): 39–52.10R. P. C. Hanson, <strong>The</strong> Search for the Christian Doctrine of God:<strong>The</strong> Arian Controversy 318–381 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005),100.11Ibid., 103–04.12Ibid., 122–23.13Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordinationin the Godhead,” Journal of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society40, no. 1 (1997): 64.14Giles, “Father and Son,” 1.15Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretationof the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 309.16Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinventthe Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 28.17Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping,” 63–64.18My thanks go to Justin Grace, a doctoral candidate in philosophyat Southwestern Baptist <strong>The</strong>ological Seminary, for the conversationsthat helped me to refine my analysis of Bilezikian’s argument.Any flaws in the analysis are mine alone.19Giles, Jesus and the Father, 58–59 (emphasis in original).20Ibid., 53.21Stephen Holmes, Listening to the Past: <strong>The</strong> Place of Tradition in<strong>The</strong>ology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 53. Holmes notes that theidea of divine simplicity in the Fathers is not that of an ontologicallybasic monad. See also Hanson (<strong>The</strong> Search for the ChristianDoctrine of God, 87) on the characterization of God as an indivisiblemonad as a core conviction of Arianism!22Alvin Plantinga, Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee, WI: MarquetteUniversity, 1980), 42, 53.23Giles, Jesus and the Father, 54.24Reproduced from ibid.25Ibid., 59.26Augustine, Sermon 43.7, 9; and Anselm, Proslogion 1.27Kevin Vanhoozer, “Exploring the World; Following the Word: <strong>The</strong>Credibility of Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ology in an Incredulous Age,” TrinityJournal 16, no. 1 (1995): 18.28Stanley Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ology: A Fresh Agendafor the 21 st Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 75.29Ibid., 93.30Ibid., 97.31Tertullian, Against Heretics 732Martin Luther, Career of the Reformer I (vol. 31 of Luther’s Works;ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999), 41.33David Clark, To Know and Love God (Wheaton: Crossway, 1995),306.34Hanson, <strong>The</strong> Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 92.35Wolfhart Pannenberg, Basic Questions in <strong>The</strong>ology (3 vols.; trans.George H. Kehm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 2:139.36See Clark, To Know and Love God, 296, 302.37Giles, Jesus and the Father, 74.38That the egalitarian ontological axiom functions as the kind of filterGiles warns against is most evident in Giles’s own use of theFathers. See esp. Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles,”11–12, 15–16.39Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, “A Defense of the Doctrineof the Eternal Subordination of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical<strong>The</strong>ological Society 42, no. 3 (1990): 461–76.40Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles,” 2–5. <strong>The</strong>se instancesare representative, not exhaustive of the number of complementarianauthors who have argued such a case. Though it is not the pointof this article, I do find their case to be quite strong.41Ibid., 5–9.42Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: AnAnalysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions (Sisters, OR: Multnomah,2004), 415–22; Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct inRoles,” 9–12. <strong>The</strong>se are but representative instances of complementariansarguing that their view is not incompatible with theChurch Fathers, and indeed is supported by them. Once again,though it is not the point of this paper, I find their case to be quitestrong.43Ware touches on this in his discussion of Augustine, but does notdevelop it as an ontological category. Ware, “Equal in Essence,Distinct in Roles,” 10.44Though this principle is a critical part of the traditional Trinitarianargument against modalism, a fresh and clear exposition of thewarrant for it and how it can and cannot be used to speak of theimmanent Trinity would be very helpful. I also believe that it mighthave the potential to turn a common egalitarian admission againsttheir own view. Egalitarians readily acknowledge that the Son wasfunctionally subordinate to the Father in the incarnate mission ofthe Son. If the principle of “economic reveals immanent” appliesto the relations of the Trinitarian persons, then the evidence offunctional subordination already admitted by the egalitarianswould become evidence against their position on the Trinity.JBMW | Spring 2008 47

From the Sacred Desk<strong>The</strong> Beautiful Faith of Fearless Submission(1 Peter 3:1–7) 1John PiperPastor for Preaching and VisionBethlehem Baptist ChurchMinneapolis, MinnesotaLikewise, wives, be subject to your ownhusbands, so that even if some do notobey the word, they may be won withouta word by the conduct of their wives,when they see your respectful and pureconduct. Do not let your adorning beexternal—the braiding of hair and theputting on of gold jewelry, or the clothingyou wear—but let your adorning bethe hidden person of the heart with theimperishable beauty of a gentle and quietspirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.For this is how the holy womenwho hoped in God used to adorn themselves,by submitting to their own husbands,as Sarah obeyed Abraham, callinghim lord. And you are her children, if youdo good and do not fear anything that isfrightening (1 Pet 3:1–7).We continue in our series on marriage, andtoday we focus on what it means for a wife to besubmissive to her husband. I am very eager thatmen and women, single and married, old and young(including children) hear this as a call to somethingstrong and noble and beautiful and dignified andworthy of a woman’s highest spiritual and moralefforts.To set the stage for that impact, notice twophrases in 1 Pet 3:1: “Likewise, wives, be subjectto your own husbands.” Notice the word own in“your own husbands.” That means that there is auniquely fitting submission to your own husbandthat is not fitting in relation to other men. You arenot called to submit to all men the way you do toyour husband. <strong>The</strong>n notice the phrase at the beginning:“Likewise, wives.” This means that the call fora wife’s submission is part of a larger call for submissionfrom all Christians in different ways.First Peter 2:13–3:12In 1 Pet 2:13–17, Peter admonishes us all to besubject, for the Lord’s sake, to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, orto governors as set by him. In other words, keepthe speed limits, pay your taxes, and be respectfultoward policemen and senators.<strong>The</strong>n in 2:18–25, Peter addresses the householdservants (oiketai) in the church and admonishesthem to be submissive to their masters withall respect, both to the kind and to the overbearing.<strong>The</strong>n, in 3:1–6, Peter instructs the wives to besubmissive to their husbands, including the husbandswho are unbelieving. This is the part we arefocusing on as part of our series on marriage.<strong>The</strong>n, in verse 7, he instructs husbands to liveconsiderately with their wives as fellow heirs of thegrace of life.Finally, in 3:8–12, Peter tells the whole churchto have unity and sympathy and love and tenderheartednessand humility toward one another, andnot to return evil for evil. In other words, submit toeach other and serve each other. So, as we saw in48 JBMW | Spring 2008

Ephesians 5, submission is a wider Christian virtuefor all of us to pursue, and it has its unique andfitting expressions in various relationships. Todaywe are focusing on the relationship of a wife to herhusband. What does submission look like there?Peter’s Powerful Portrait of WomanhoodBefore I describe what submission isn’t andwhat it is, let’s gaze for a few minutes at the powerfulportrait of womanhood that Peter paints for usin these words. What we see is deep strong roots ofwomanhood underneath the fruit of submission.It’s the roots that make submission the strong andbeautiful thing that it is.Start with verse 5: “This is how the holywomen who hoped in God used to adorn themselves,by submitting to their own husbands.”<strong>The</strong> Deepest Root of Womanhood:Hope in God<strong>The</strong> deepest root of Christian womanhoodmentioned in this text is hope in God. “Holywomen who hoped in God.” A Christian womandoes not put her hope in her husband, or in gettinga husband. She does not put her hope in her looks.She puts her hope in the promises of God. She isdescribed in Prov 31:25: “Strength and dignity areher clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.”She laughs at everything the future will bring andmight bring, because she hopes in God.She looks away from the troubles and miseriesand obstacles of life that seem to make the futurebleak, and she focuses her attention on the sovereignpower and love of God who rules in heavenand does on earth whatever he pleases. She knowsher Bible, and she knows her theology of the sovereigntyof God, and she knows his promise thathe will be with her, help her, and strengthen her nomatter what. This is the deep, unshakable root ofChristian womanhood. And Peter makes it explicitin verse 5. He is not talking about just any women.He is talking about women with unshakable biblicalroots in the sovereign goodness of God—holywomen who hope in God.Fearlessness<strong>The</strong> next thing to see about Christian womanhoodafter hope in God is the fearlessness thatit produces in these women. So verse 5 said thatthe holy women of old hoped in God. And thenverse 6 gives Sarah, Abraham’s wife, as an exampleand then refers to all other Christian womenas her daughters. Verse 6b: “And you are her children,if you do good and do not fear anything thatis frightening.”So this portrait of Christian womanhood ismarked first by hope in God and then what growsout of that hope, namely, fearlessness. She does notfear the future; she laughs at the future. <strong>The</strong> presenceof hope in the invincible sovereignty of Goddrives out fear. Or to say it more carefully and realistically,the daughters of Sarah fight the anxietythat rises in their hearts. <strong>The</strong>y wage war on fear, andthey defeat it with hope in the promises of God.Mature Christian women know that followingChrist will mean suffering. But they believe thepromises like 1 Pet 3:14, “But even if you shouldsuffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed.Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,” and 1 Pet4:19, “<strong>The</strong>refore let those who suffer according toGod’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creatorwhile doing good.”That is what Christian women do: <strong>The</strong>y entrusttheir souls to a faithful Creator. <strong>The</strong>y hope in God.And they triumph over fear.A Focus on Internal AdornmentAnd this leads to a third feature of Peter’s portraitof womanhood, a focus on internal adornment,rather than external. First Peter 3:5 begins, “This ishow the holy women who hoped in God used toadorn themselves.” This adornment refers back towhat is described in verses 3–4:Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on ofgold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden personof the heart with the imperishablebeauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, whichin God’s sight is very precious.JBMW | Spring 2008 49

We know this does not mean that all jewelryand all hair styling is excluded because then allclothing would be excluded as well, because it says,“Don’t let your adorning be external . . . the clothingyou wear.” What he means is: Don’t focus yourmain attention and effort on how you look on theoutside; focus it on the beauty that is inside. Exertmore effort and be more concerned with innerbeauty than outer beauty.And he is specific in verse 4. When a womanputs her hope in God and not her husband and notin her looks, and when she overcomes fear by thepromises of God, this will have an effect on herheart: It will give her an inner tranquility. That’swhat Peter means in verse 4 by “the imperishablebeauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ssight is very precious.”A Unique Kind of SubmissivenessThat leaves one more feature of this portrait ofwomanhood to see. First, there was hope in God.That leads then to fearlessness in the face of whateverthe future may bring. <strong>The</strong>n that leads to aninner tranquility and meekness. And, finally, thatspirit expresses itself in a unique kind of submissivenessto her husband. Verse 1: “Likewise, wives,be subject to your own husbands.” Verse 5: “This is howthe holy women who hoped in God used to adornthemselves, by submitting to their own husbands.”That is a brief look at the portrait of the kindof woman Peter has in mind when he calls a womanto be submissive to her husband. Unshakable hopein God. Courage and fearlessness in the face of anyfuture. Quiet tranquility of soul. Humble submissionto her husband’s leadership.It is a great sadness that in our modernsociety—even in the church—the different andcomplementary roles of biblical headship for thehusband and biblical submission for the wife aredespised or simply passed over. Some people justwrite them off as sub-Christian cultural leftoversfrom the first century. Others distort and misusethem—I actually sat in my office once with a husbandwho believed that submission meant his wifeshould not go from one room to the other in thehouse without asking his permission. That kind ofpathological distortion makes it easier for people todispense with texts like these in the Bible.But the truth of headship and submissionis really here and really beautiful. When you seeit lived out with the mark of Christ’s majesty onit—the mutuality of servanthood without cancellingthe reality of headship and submission—it isa wonderful and deeply satisfying drama. So let’sponder from this text first what submission is not,and then what it is.What Submission Is NotHere are six things it is not, based on 1 Pet3:1–6.(1) Submission does not mean agreeing witheverything your husband says. You can see that inverse one: she is a Christian and he is not. Hehas one set of ideas about ultimate reality. Shehas another. Peter calls her to be submissive whileassuming she will not submit to his view of themost important thing in the world—God. So submissioncan’t mean submitting to agree with all herhusband thinks.(2) Submission does not mean leaving your brainor your will at the wedding altar. It is not the inabilityor the unwillingness to think for yourself. Hereis a woman who heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.She thought about it. She assessed the truth claimsof Jesus. She apprehended in her heart the beautyand worth of Christ and his work, and she chosehim. Her husband heard it also. Otherwise, Peterprobably wouldn’t say he “disobeyed the word.” Hehas heard the word, and he has thought about it.And he has not chosen Christ. She thought forherself and she acted. And Peter does not tell herto retreat from that commitment.(3) Submission does not mean avoiding everyeffort to change a husband. <strong>The</strong> whole point of thistext is to tell a wife how to “win” her husband. Verse1 says, “Be subject to your own husbands, so thateven if some do not obey the word, they may bewon without a word by the conduct of their wives.”If you didn’t care about the Bible you might say,“Submission has to mean taking a husband theway he is and not trying to change him.” But ifyou believe what the Bible says, you conclude that50 JBMW | Spring 2008

submission, paradoxically, is sometimes a strategyfor changing him.(4) Submission does not mean putting the will ofthe husband before the will of Christ. <strong>The</strong> text clearlyteaches that the wife is a follower of Jesus before andabove being a follower of her husband. Submissionto Jesus relativizes submission to husbands—andgovernments and employers and parents. WhenSarah called Abraham “lord” in verse 6, it was lordwith a lowercase l. It’s like “sir” or “m’lord.” Andthe obedience she rendered is qualified obediencebecause her supreme allegiance is to the Lord witha capital L.(5) Submission does not mean that a wife gets herpersonal, spiritual strength primarily through her husband.A good husband should indeed strengthenand build up and sustain his wife. He should be asource of strength. But what this text shows is thatwhen a husband’s spiritual leadership is lacking, aChristian wife is not bereft of strength. Submissiondoes not mean she is dependent on him to supplyher strength of faith and virtue and character. <strong>The</strong>text, in fact, assumes just the opposite. She is summonedto develop depth and strength and characternot from her husband but for her husband. Versefive says that her hope is in God in the hope thather husband will join her there.(6) Finally submission does not mean that awife is to act out of fear. Verse 6b says, “You are her[Sarah’s] children, if you do good and do not fearanything that is frightening.” In other words, submissionis free, not coerced by fear. <strong>The</strong> Christianwoman is a free woman. When she submits to herhusband—whether he is a believer or unbeliever—she does it in freedom, not out of fear.What Submission IsIf that’s what submission is not, then what is it?I suggested a couple of weeks ago from Ephesians5 what is true here as well: Submission is the divinecalling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband’sleadership and help carry it through according toher gifts. It’s the disposition to follow a husband’sauthority and an inclination to yield to his leadership.It is an attitude that says, “I delight for you totake the initiative in our family. I am glad when youtake responsibility for things and lead with love. Idon’t flourish in the relationship when you are passiveand I have to make sure the family works.”But submission does not follow a husbandinto sin. What then does submission say in sucha situation? It says, “It grieves me when you ventureinto sinful acts and want to take me with you.You know I can’t do that. I have no desire to resistyou. On the contrary, I flourish most when I canrespond joyfully to your lead; but I can’t follow youinto sin, as much as I love to honor your leadershipin our marriage. Christ is my King.”<strong>The</strong> reason I say that submission is a dispositionand an inclination to follow a husband’s leadis because there will be times in a Christian marriagewhen the most submissive wife, with goodreason, will hesitate at a husband’s decision. It maylook unwise to her. Suppose it’s Noël and I. I amabout to decide something for the family that looksfoolish to her. At that moment, Noël could expressher submission like this: “Johnny, I know you’vethought a lot about this, and I love it when you takethe initiative to plan for us and take the responsibilitylike this, but I really don’t have peace aboutthis decision, and I think we need to talk about itsome more. Could we? Maybe tonight sometime?”<strong>The</strong> reason that is a kind of biblical submissionis (1) because husbands, unlike Christ, are fallibleand ought to admit it; (2) because husbandsought to want their wives to be excited about thefamily decisions, since Christ wants the church tobe excited about following his decisions and notjust follow begrudgingly; (3) because the way Noëlexpressed her misgivings communicated clearly thatshe endorses my leadership and affirms me in myrole as head; and (4) because she has made it clearto me from the beginning of our marriage that if,when we have done all the talking we should, westill disagree, she will defer to her husband’s decision.<strong>The</strong> Goal: Everlasting Holy JoySo I end with the reminder that marriage isnot mainly about staying in love. It’s about covenantkeeping. And the main reason it is about covenantkeeping is that God designed the relationshipJBMW | Spring 2008 51

etween a husband and his wife to represent therelationship between Christ and the church. Thisis the deepest meaning of marriage. And that iswhy ultimately the roles of headship and submissionare so important. If our marriages are going totell the truth about Christ and his church, we cannotbe indifferent to the meaning of headship andsubmission. And let it not go without saying thatGod’s purpose for the church—and for the Christianwife who represents it—is her everlasting holyjoy. Christ died for them to bring that about.ENDNOTES1This sermon was delivered on April 15, 2007, at Bethlehem BaptistChurch in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is reproduced here withpermission. For more resources by John Piper, visit www.desiringgod.org.52 JBMW | Spring 2008

Gender Studies in ReviewPastors Are Not Elders: A Middle Way?James HamiltonAssistant Professor of Biblical StudiesSouthwestern Baptist <strong>The</strong>ological SeminaryHouston CampusHouston, TexasAt the November 2006 meeting of theEvangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society, Harold Hoehnerpresented a paper asking, “Can a Woman Bea Pastor-Teacher?” Hoehner argued that Eph 4:11indicates that pastor-teacher is a spiritual gift andnot an office in the church. This is consistent withwhat he had earlier written in his commentaryon Ephesians, and his paper has now been publishedin Journal of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society(JETS). 1<strong>The</strong> main thrust of Hoehner’s JETS essay “is toassert clearly that a woman can be a pastor-teacherbecause it is a gift and not an office.” Hoehner thenmakes an astonishing statement: “By distinguishingbetween office and gift, 85–90% of the problemsraised about women’s ministry would be resolved.”Suggesting that 1 Tim 2:12 applies to the contextof a local church, Hoehner goes on to state that“women who have the gift of pastor-teacher couldutilize their gifts in parachurch situations such asmission organizations, colleges, or seminaries.” 2One major problem with the distinctionbetween gift and office is that in Eph 4:11 Paulseems to be saying that Christ has given people asapostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers.In other words, Paul’s language does not seem tocommunicate the idea that the Lord gave apostleshipas a gift, prophecy as a gift, evangelism as agift, and the skill set of pastor-teacher as a gift.Rather, Paul states that Christ “gave the apostles,the prophets, the evangelists, the pastor-teachers”(Eph 4:11). <strong>The</strong> question would then be whetherthe Lord gave any people of the female gender tothe church as pastor-teachers. Hoehner answersthis question in the affirmative, but considerationof what the New Testament says elsewhere aboutpastors might lead to another conclusion—moreon this below.Hoehner’s views, especially the suggestionthat distinguishing between gift and office wouldresolve “85–90% of the problems raised aboutwomen’s ministry,” betray little concern for thedeep significance of humanity’s gendered state. Ifgender is only a superficial accident, then a distinctionbetween gift and office might resolve artificialtensions. But the reality is that gender is at the coreof who we are as human beings, and our distinctpurpose as humans is directly related to the genderGod has assigned to us. God put the man inthe garden to work and keep it (Gen 2:15), andhe put the woman in the garden to help the man(Gen 2:18). Paul interprets the Genesis account tomean that the woman was created for the man (1Cor 11:9), and Paul appears to think these realitiesshould influence how men and women conductthemselves (cf. 1 Cor 11:3–16). A questionable distinctionbetween gift and office will have a hardtime resolving any of the problems that arise whengendered people fail to understand what their genderentails, or worse, reject biblical teaching on theroles appropriate to their gender.<strong>The</strong>se considerations also speak againstHoehner’s suggestion that women can be pastorteachersover men outside the church context. FirstJBMW | Spring 2008 53

Timothy 2:12 is not some arbitrary, pharisaic pieceof red-tape. <strong>The</strong> prohibition on women teachingmen is grounded in the created order and in whattook place at the fall (1 Tim 2:13–15). This prohibitionis given because of what we were created tobe and do as males and females. It is good for us. Byheeding it we experience life, joy, and freedom.One implication Hoehner draws from hisquestionable distinction between gift and office—that women can teach men in seminary settings—reduces 1 Tim 2:12 to an unnecessary legislationthat does not reflect what people really need. Infact, if we read 1 Tim 2:12 the way Hoehner wouldhave us read it, the order of creation in 1 Tim 2:13becomes something we have to obey in church, butotherwise are free to ignore. In other words, it is ameaningless formality. But Paul does not indicatethat his prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 is a meaninglessformality. He grounds the role distinctions betweenmale and female on an appeal to the created order(see 1 Tim 2:13–15).In his commentary on Ephesians, Hoehnerwrites,Some may question the validity of womenpastors or pastor-teachers, but it mustbe remembered that these are gifts andnot offices. Surely, women who pastorshepherdamong women should cause noproblem at all (Titus 2:3–4). But in fact,Priscilla, along with Aquila, taught Apollosthe way of God more accurately (Acts18:25–26) which would indicate that awoman may not be limited to teachingonly women (Ephesians, 546).Hoehner here suggests that women can dowhat Paul forbids them from doing in 1 Tim 2:12.On the basis of an example recorded in the narrativeof Acts, Hoehner is prepared to disregard aprohibition in an epistle written so that its recipientwill know how to conduct church life (1 Tim3:14–15).Aside from the hermeneutical issue of readingthe narrative in a way that contradicts anapostolic prohibition, does this example “indicatethat a woman may not be limited to teaching onlywomen”? For all we know, this conversation withPriscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened only once,whereas there are clear statements in the New Testamentabout gender roles that refer to the way lifeis to be conducted all the time (cf. 1 Cor 11:3–16;14:29–35; 1 Tim 2:9–15, etc.). <strong>The</strong> incident withPriscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened in private,and Luke doesn’t tell us who did the instructingin Acts 18:25–26. Priscilla’s husband may havedone most—or even all—of the talking. <strong>The</strong> incidentdescribed in Acts 18:25–26 is a slight, frayingthread holding up the huge weight of Hoehner’sconclusion that “a women may not be limited toteaching only women.”As for the distinction between gift and office,pastors and elders, there may be a word study fallacyin Hoehner’s interpretation, which seems tolimit its consideration of “pastors” to the noun thatmeans “shepherd” rather than also considering therelated verbal forms that refer to the act of shepherding.If the verbal forms are considered, the textsthat indicate that “elders” are “to shepherd” inclinethe interpretation away from Hoehner’s conclusion.Hoehner can only maintain that “pastor-teacher” isa spiritual gift and not an office if a pastor is not thesame thing as an elder, since “elder” is an office inthe church and not just a spiritual gift.But are elders distinct from pastors? In Acts20:17 Paul summons the “elders” of the church inEphesus. He then tells them, “the Holy Spirit hasmade you overseers, to shepherd the church of God”in Acts 20:28. <strong>The</strong> word “overseers” can also be rendered“bishops,” and the infinitive “to shepherd”is the verbal form of the noun translated “pastor.”Thus, in Acts 20, Paul tells the “elders” that they are“bishops/overseers,” and he tells them that they are“to pastor.”Similarly, in 1 Pet 5:1–2, Peter exhorts the“elders” that they are to “shepherd the flock of God”by “exercising oversight.” Here again, an elder is todo what a shepherd (pastor) does, shepherd, and heis to do what an overseer does, exercise oversight.Hoehner’s novel conclusion that “pastorteacher”is a spiritual gift to the exclusion of it beingan office can only be maintained by committingwhat looks like a word study fallacy of focusing on54 JBMW | Spring 2008

the noun, “pastor,” to the exclusion of the cognateverbal forms, “to pastor,” which are used to describewhat elders do. Add to this the strong sense thatin Eph 4:11 Paul is describing people as gifts ratherthan roles or skill-sets as gifts, the weak appeal toPriscilla and Aquila, the apparent lack of concernfor the realities 1 Tim 2:12 reflects, and Hoehner’sargument begins to look like special pleading for amiddle way that will ultimately satisfy neither complementariansnor egalitarians. Neither egalitariansnor complementarians will appreciate the sacrificeof their fundamental concerns about gender roleson the altar of a technical distinction between giftand role that allows women to teach men as long asthey do not do so in church.ENDNOTES1Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (GrandRapids: Baker, 2002), and “Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?,”Journal of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society 50, no. 4 (2007):761–71.2Hoehner, “Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?,” 771.JBMW | Spring 2008 55

Reassessing Junia: A Review ofEldon Epp’s Junia: <strong>The</strong> First Woman ApostleMichael BurerAssistant Professor of New Testament StudiesDallas <strong>The</strong>ological SeminaryDallas, TexasEpp, Eldon Jay. Junia: <strong>The</strong> First Woman Apostle.Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.Often my friends tease me about my academicwork, usually making the argument that scholarstend to think too much about minor details. Iwould agree that scholars as a whole regularly make“mountains out of molehills.” (Indeed, anyone whohas written a doctoral dissertation recognizes thisas a professional necessity!) <strong>The</strong>re are many times,however, when extreme depth of investigation isimportant and even vital for proper interpretationand appropriate application of the biblical text.My response to this critique changes the metaphorslightly in order to drive this point home: Insteadof a molehill, think of an anthill. It is not very big,but ignore it and you can be in a world of hurt ifyou misstep. (With fire ants, common in the regionof Texas where I live, a misstep can even be dangerous.)Certain issues or texts that on first blush mayappear to be quite ancillary or tangential becomevery important upon closer investigation and havean impact far beyond that which one might initiallysuppose. Such is the case with Rom 16:7.To begin, allow me to cite this verse in twodifferent English versions: (1) “Greet Andronicusand Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners.<strong>The</strong>y are well known to the apostles, and theywere in Christ before me” (NET Bible). (2) “GreetAndronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellowprisoners; they are men of note among the apostles,and they were in Christ before me” (RSV). A quickcomparison reveals two of the “anthills” underthe surface of this verse: the gender of the namevIounian (the spelling given in both NA 27 and UBS 4 ,the current standard critical editions of the GreekNew Testament); and the relationship of the twonamed individuals to the larger group called “apostles.”A review of technical literature on this versereveals two more issues: the identification of thisperson vis-à-vis Andronicus, the other person mentionedin the verse, and the identity and functionof the larger group. <strong>The</strong>se interpretive issues couldvery well remain esoteric and out of sight except forthe way this passage has been used in discussionsof the role of women in the church. Many scholarshave argued that the best interpretation of thisverse is that Junia was a woman and that she wasconsidered to be an esteemed apostle, and that thisinterpretation provides support for the egalitarianviewpoint and a justification for leadership roles forwomen in the ministry of the church. Understandably,then, this verse has received a great deal ofattention in scholarly literature.Because of the multiple issues which comeinto play in determining the proper interpretationof Rom 16:7, it is rare to find works which areexhaustive and discuss all of the issues at length.<strong>The</strong> majority of the scholarly work has been doneon the gender of the name in the biblical text, usuallywith the attendant assumption that the namedindividuals in the text are counted among the apostolicgroup. Next in line for attention would be thenature of the apostolic ministry referred to by theterm “apostle.” My own contribution in an articlecoauthored with Daniel B. Wallace (“Was JuniaReally an Apostle? A Re-Examination of Rom16.7,” New Testament Studies 47 [2001]: 76–91)addressed the question of whether the named56 JBMW | Spring 2008

individuals were to be considered as part of theapostolic group; our conclusion was that the mostlikely meaning of the construction evpi,shmoj + (evn)+ dative was “well-known to,” not “outstandingamong.” When investigating this issue, then, onemust recognize that there are multiple issues at playand a fair handling will take as many of these issuesinto consideration as possible.This broad contribution is what Eldon JayEpp attempts in his work Junia: <strong>The</strong> First WomanApostle. For many years Epp has been one of America’spremier New Testament textual critics. Hiswritings have guided a host of students, the presentauthor included, as they have learned the discipline,and he continues to add to our knowledge of thefield. In 2002 he contributed a chapter discussingRom 16:7 in the light of textual criticism to a Festschriftfor Joël Delobel (“Text-Critical, Exegetical,and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16,7,” in New TestamentTextual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J.Delobel [ed. A. Denaux; Bibliotheca Epheneridum<strong>The</strong>ologicarum Lavaniensium 161; Leuven: LeuvenUniversity Press/Peeters, 2002], 227–91), andthis scholarly work has been revised into the presentwork under consideration. In this present workEpp discusses the interpretation of Rom 16:7 inlight of textual criticism, specifically how textualcriticism often acts as a window to social and culturalissues at play in and around a text.<strong>The</strong> text is divided into two parts: “ContemporaryTextual Criticism” and “Junia/Junias inRom 16:7.” <strong>The</strong> first part sets the stage by discussingthe role of textual criticism in exegesis (chapter1) and, then, a particular textual problem relatedto Rom 16:7 by virtue of the fact that it impingesupon gender issues (chapter 2). <strong>The</strong> first chapter islargely a useful discussion of all the various waystextual criticism can affect exegesis. Epp in essenceargues for a mature understanding of the methodof textual criticism and appropriate caution concerningthe certainty of results. <strong>The</strong> difficulty ofthis chapter is two-fold: Epp shows a tendency toelevate social-cultural issues to primacy of place inconsideration of variant readings, and he weds thisto a troubling agnosticism toward the success ofthe entire enterprise. Epp draws a sound conclusionabout the practice of textual criticism whichtakes into account the broad environment whichproduces variant readings: “Rather, the immediateand larger context of the writing itself and of thehistorical-theological setting from which it aroseand in which it later functioned may all be relevantfactors in deciding between/among variantreadings” (9). This focus upon the setting in whichvariants arose is nothing new, as textual criticshave always considered the factors which gave riseto variant readings, whether they were historical,cultural, or theological. Epp unfortunately wedsthis emphasis to the aforementioned agnosticismof many textual critics, specifically that of DavidC. Parker, whose work <strong>The</strong> Living Text of the Gospels(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997) herefers to with approbation. As a result Epp advocatesa method that gives socio-cultural factors primacyof place over traditional canons of criticismin the determination of the text, as evidenced byhis conclusion to the chapter under the heading “ALoss of Innocence.”<strong>The</strong> second chapter in part one continuesto set the stage for the discussion of Rom 16:7by demonstrating the role of gender issues inanother well-known textual problem, that of 1 Cor14:34–35 as a possible interpolation. <strong>The</strong> introductionto the chapter is more important for my evaluation,rather than the particular problem, becauseof the way Epp uses it to create a new criterion forevaluation. He writes,Because of this kind of text-critical situation,exegetes now are able to view andto interpret—through the several differingand competing variants—the waysin which one issue of special concernto women was being debated and wasexerting pressure in the early centuriesof Christianity. This result may notbe as “clean” or as satisfying as seizingupon a singe variant as “original,” but itis both more realistic and more practical,that is, more likely consonant with thereal-life situations of the early Christiancommunity and therefore more easilyapplicable to present-day Christianity,JBMW | Spring 2008 57

in which varying approaches to divorceand remarriage have surfaced and beenapplied across the array of our Christiancommunities (14–15).In essence this is very similar to the argument currentlymade by many scholars concerning orthodoxyand heresy in the early church: If one candemonstrate that a variety of interpretations andviewpoints existed in the early church and that noone view had primacy, then the claim to a singleorthodoxy vanishes. Compare this to the closingstatement of the chapter, and my concern hopefullywill become clearer:I turn now to a crucial passage that hasbeen the focus of discussion and controversy,especially in the last decade or two,and one that reveals—perhaps surprisingly,perhaps not—a pervasive socioculturalbias that has operated in NewTestament textual criticism and exegesisfor an entire century of what we mighthave regarded as the period of our mostmodern, liberal, and detached scholarlyinquiry (20).In my opinion Epp is loosing the traditional mooringsof the text critical discipline, grounded primarilyin the history of the transmission of the textas scholars could best understand and reconstructit, and replacing it with something more tenuous—namely, the resonance of socio-cultural issuesbetween our present day and the ancient Christianworld. It is certainly fair to agree with Epp when hestates that the discipline of textual criticism hasbeen stagnant for over a century and needs to movebeyond the impasse created by Westcott and Hortwhen they overthrew the Textus Receptus. But thepresence of an impasse in reaching a clear determinationof the original text does not vacate the truththat an original at one time existed and that thevariants which presently exist in our manuscriptevidence are evidence of a transmission from thatoriginal. <strong>The</strong> method Epp advances is, in my opinion,close to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.<strong>The</strong> second part of the book deals directlywith the issue of Junia in Rom 16:7 and can essentiallybe divided into two parts: Chapters 3–10 dealwith the name itself, and chapter 11 deals with therelationship of Junia to the apostolic group. (<strong>The</strong>final unnumbered chapter serves as a conclusionto the entire book.) Topics covered in the firstpart include the name itself as it existed in Greekand Latin, the name in ancient commentary onthe text, the name in past and present editions ofthe Greek New Testament, the name in standardreference works, and the name in English translations.Despite the fact that some of the argumentsand data presented in this second section are quitedetailed, the essential argument can be summarizedeasily: <strong>The</strong>re is little to no evidence that the namevIounian in current editions of the Greek New Testamentshould be understood to refer to a man; theevidence strongly supports the conclusion that thenamed person is a woman. <strong>The</strong> name vIounian canpotentially be accented two ways: vIouni,an with anacute accent on the penult, which is feminine (theassertion that this could be a masculine accentuationis largely unfounded), or vIounia/n with a circumflexaccent on the ultima, which is masculine.<strong>The</strong> clear preponderance of the linguistic evidenceis that the feminine form was widely attested, themasculine not at all. <strong>The</strong> most ancient commentatorsalmost uniformly regard the name as feminine,and this could be considered the consensus up untilthe modern period. Various editions of the NewTestament, reference works, and English translationsall show movement from regarding the nameas masculine to the current, more recent consensusthat the name was feminine. In short, there islittle to no evidence to support a masculine namehere, either from the data itself or from the historyof interpretation, and scholarship has practicallyreached a consensus that when Paul wrote vIounianhe was referring to a woman.Chapter 11 discusses two related issues, thatof the nature of what it means to be an apostleand the relationship of Junia to the larger apostolicgroup. Epp spends some space demonstrating thatall of these issues—the gender of the name, thenature of “apostle,” and the relationship of this personto the apostolic group—are intertwined in the58 JBMW | Spring 2008

history of interpretation and create something of adomino effect, depending upon the point of viewof the interpreter. <strong>The</strong>n the majority of the chapteris spent in a refutation of the aforementionedarticle that I coauthored with Wallace, “Was JuniaReally an Apostle?” Important to mention are twoother critiques of our work, which Epp refers tooften: Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studiesof the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2002), 165–80; and Linda L. Belleville,“ vIounian ... evpi,shmoi evn toi/j avposto,loij: A Re-Examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of PrimarySource Materials,” New Testament Studies 51, no. 2(April 2005): 231–39. My schedule has not permittedme time to develop an in-depth response toany of these reviews. What I can say at this point isthat I have not read anything in any of them thathas dissuaded me from the viewpoint Wallace andI advanced in the original article. (In the next fewyears I hope to develop a suitable response to thesecritiques.)<strong>The</strong>re is much to commend about Epp’s book:It is broad, thorough, and well documented withendnotes and bibliography (although I generallyfind footnotes more serviceable). He discussesissues of fine detail related to language and historyas well as philosophical issues related to hermeneuticsand the bias of the interpreter. It is a useful,sustained treatment that serves to advance thediscussion surrounding Rom 16:7 in particular andgender issues in general. <strong>The</strong>re are notable problems,however, with Epp’s argument. As mentionedabove, Epp appears to be replacing a traditionalunderstanding of the goal of textual criticism as adiscipline—that of recovering the wording of theoriginal text—with that of using textual variationsas a window into socio-cultural concerns that mirrorthose of our own day. What I infer from thisis that Epp would then argue that our contemporarytake on these same socio-cultural issues shouldbe read back into our understanding of the text, astep I am not willing to prescribe as part of eithertext-critical, exegetical, or hermeneutical method.(I acknowledge that interpreters regularly do thisbecause of our inherent presuppositions, but thatin and of itself does not make it proper method.)In addition, Epp at times is somewhat dismissiveof other viewpoints and facets of the discussion; heseems eager to accept what appears to be a foregoneconclusion (as an indication of this, see thededication in the front matter). For example, in theconcluding chapter Epp argues the case that hisinterpretation of Rom 16:7, plus the recognitionthat 1 Cor 14:34–35 is an interpolation, plus therecognition that 1 Tim 2:8–15 is deutero-Pauline(and simply finalizes the subordination of womenwhich began in the other deutero-Pauline books ofEphesians and Colossians!) removes any Paulinerestriction on women teaching in the church. Whathe fails to point out is that each of these premisesis hotly debated within biblical scholarship and notnecessarily widely accepted; for that reason, Eppwill not be able to foreclose debate about the individualtexts mentioned or the larger issue of genderroles in the church.Finally, Epp implies throughout his text thathe is taking the high road of a proper, enlightened,modern attitude toward an important contemporaryissue, that of the role of gender in churchlife. My response is as old as it is predictable: <strong>The</strong>high road is not determined by our present socioculturalnorms, nor is it necessarily pointed out bythe history of interpretation. <strong>The</strong> high road is theroad delineated by the proper understanding ofScripture, and in many respects Epp has advancedthe argument but not proven the point nor evenreflected the depth of contemporary discussion. Ido recommend his text to those who wish to familiarizethemselves with scholarship on Junia andRom 16:7. It should be read only as representativeof ongoing discussion—not as the final word.JBMW | Spring 2008 59

Annotated Bibliography forGender-Related Articles in 2007Compiled and Annotated by Barak TjaderContributing Editor<strong>The</strong> Journal for Biblical Manhood and WomanhoodLouisville, KentuckyIn this issue of the journal we profile someof the most significant gender-related articlesfrom 2007. Here is a brief reminder about thecategories we are using and our intent in usingthem. Complementarian designates an author whorecognizes the full personal equality of the sexes,coupled with an acknowledgment of role distinctionsin the home and church, as articulated inthe Danvers Statement (see back cover of JBMW).Egalitarian classifies evangelicals who see undifferentiatedequality (i.e., they see no scriptural warrantfor affirming male headship in the home orthe church). Under the Non-Evangelical heading,we have classified important secular works thataddress the subject of biblical gender issues from areligious, albeit, non-evangelical point of view. Thiscategory also serves as our classification for liberalscholars wanting to retain some sort of Christianidentity. Finally, under the Undeclared heading, wehave listed those authors who do not give sufficientindication of their fundamental stance for us toclassify them more specifically, or authors whoseposition is too ambiguous to classify in light of thecategory descriptions above.ComplementarianAshford, Bruce. “Worldview, Anthropology, andGender: A Call to Widen the Parameters of theDiscussion.” Journal for Biblical Manhood andWomanhood 12, no. 1 (2007): 7–9.In light of a recent wave of aggressive secularism,Ashford reminds complementarians ofthe need to understand and articulate the biblicalanthropology. In conversation with an unbelievingculture, he argues, believers should present issuessuch as male and female complementarity withinthe framework of humanity’s unique creation inthe image of God.Bjerkaas, Robert. “‘And Adam Called His Wife’sName Eve’: A Study in Authentic Biblical Manhood.”Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood12, no. 1 (2007): 16–20.Drawing principles from the narrative ofGenesis 1-3, Bjerkaas explores the implications ofAdam’s naming of his wife for biblical manhood.As Adam chose the name “life” for his spouse evenafter the curses of Genesis 3, Bjerkaas reasons thatmasculinity as shown in Scripture requires husbandsto believe the promises of God, look forwardin faith, and initiate in speaking grace and truth totheir wives.Burk, Denny, and Jim Hamilton. “Younger Evangelicalsand Women in Ministry: A Sketch of theSpectrum of Opinion.” Journal for Biblical Manhoodand Womanhood 12, no. 2 (2007): 26–40.Burk and Hamilton offer an assessment ofthe current state of young evangelicals concerningwomen in ministry. <strong>The</strong> article focuses on theviews and practices of current evangelical pastorsand leaders, with the authors dividing practitionersinto four categories: (1) hierarchy in principle/hierarchy in practice, (2) hierarchy in principle/no hierarchy in practice, (3) no hierarchy in prin-60 JBMW | Spring 2008

ciple/ hierarchy in practice, and (4) no hierarchy inprinciple/no hierarchy in practice. Burk and Hamilton’scategories helpfully clarify inconsistenciesand disagreements among both complementariansand egalitarians as to how they actually apply theirprincipled views.Davis, Andrew M. “Fathers and Sons in Deuteronomy6: An Essential Link in Redemptive History.”Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood12, no. 1 (2007): 21–31.Davis examines the redemptive-historicalsignificance of Deuteronomy 6 within the overarchingpatriarchal context of Old Testament covenantalpromises, arguing for a multi-generationalapproach of father-son training and discipleship.He makes a compelling case that Deuteronomy’spatriarchal thrust envisions fathers—as representativespiritual heads of their families—raising upfuture generations of spiritual leaders. Davis thenlists practical ways in which Israelite fathers wereexpected to train their sons to lead in the home,before concluding with several derivative applicationsfor Christian fathers seeking to raise futureleaders.Duesing, Jason, and Thomas White. “NeanderthalsChasing Bigfoot? <strong>The</strong> State of the GenderDebate in the Southern Baptist Convention.”Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 12,no. 2 (2007): 5–19.Duesing and White survey the colorful historyof the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) viewson gender. While rank-and-file Southern Baptistshave traditionally understood the pastorate to belimited to men, the authors detail the prominenceof the gender issue in the convention’s escalatingconflict during the 1980s and 1990s—particularlywith regard to its academic institutions. Because ofthe shift in SBC seminaries, as well as the adoptionof the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Duesingand White convey optimism about the present stateof the convention’s gender debate and are hopefulthat Southern Baptist churches will continueto see a practical outworking of their confessionalcomplementarianism.Nelson, P. G. “Inscription to a High Priestess atEphesus.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood12, no. 1 (2007): 14–15.Nelson provides a short description of a firstcenturytribute to an Ephesian high priestess. <strong>The</strong>inscription casts doubt on the popular egalitarianargument that Paul capitulates to cultural normsin advocating male headship in the home andchurch.Storms, Sam. “Women in Ministry in the Vineyard,U.S.A.” Journal for Biblical Manhood andWomanhood 12, no. 2 (2007): 20–25.Storms chronicles the move in Vineyard’sstance on gender. Although early leader John Wimberadvocated a complementarian view of churchleadership, Vineyard churches did not initially takean official position in the gender debate. To clarifyconfusion over gender issues, Storms writes, theVineyard USA Board of Directors penned a letterto pastors affirming egalitarianism at all levels ofthe church’s ecclesial structure.Walden, Wayne. “Ephesians 5:21 in Translation.”Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 12,no. 1 (2007): 10–13.While commentators have disagreed over preciselyhow Eph 5:21 relates to its extended pericope,Walden argues that translation of the verse shouldshow connection to both the preceding and subsequentpassages. Furthermore, rather than espousingmutual submission, the verse actually teaches astructure of submission to proper authorities.EgalitarianBilezikian, Gilbert. “Church Leadership thatKills Community.” Priscilla Papers 21, no. 4(2007): 5–7.Bilezikian argues that most churches operateunder an authority-driven model of governmentborrowed from the corporate business world ratherthan the congregationalism prescribed in the NewTestament. New Testament ecclesiology, he asserts,calls for congregations to “exercise their own leadershipbefore they have it imposed on them byJBMW | Spring 2008 61

an elite group of leaders above them” (6). Whilethe Pastoral Epistles prove exceptions to this rule,Bilezikian reasons that the leadership restrictionsplaced by Paul on women, unmarried men, andothers are given for “situations of terminal crisis”(6). Aside from the exegetical and theological difficultiesin relegating the leadership directives in 1Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus merely to churchesin extreme crisis, Bilezikian ignores the clearinstruction toward strong pastoral leadership givenelsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. Heb 13:17, 1Pet 5:1–5) in addition to the wider biblical teachingon gender.Birungi, Medad. “Gender Injustice Destroys theWhole Family: One Child’s Experience.” PriscillaPapers 21, no. 2 (2007): 20–23.Birungi narrates the story of reconciliationwith his father who had cursed him along withthe rest of his family years earlier, relegating themto lives of poverty. Because of the forgiveness hisfamily now knows, Birungi seeks the inclusion ofwomen in ministerial leadership roles.Cohick, Lynn. “Met with Dancing: <strong>The</strong> ChangingFaces of African Christian Women.” PriscillaPapers 21, no. 3 (2007): 16–24.After asserting that societies construct gender,Cohick relates the ways in which African Christianwomen have been shaped by their identity in community.She parallels the results of her study withthe biblical story of Jephthah’s daughter. Operatingfrom a feminist assumption, Cohick suggeststhat just as Jephthah tragically sealed the fate of hisown daughter, African society suppresses the selfdeterminingpower of choice that would free itswomen to actuate their potential. Cohick, as wellas some of the African interviewees, views headship/submissionstructures in the home and churchas a result of cultural biases rather than prescribedin Scripture.Compleman-Blair, J. Martha. “New Lenses forViewing Submission.” Priscilla Papers 21, no. 3(2007): 4–8.In this article, Compleman-Blair seeks to readjustthe lenses of academic scholarship with regardto interpreting Eph 5:18–22 and Col 3:12–17.She employs typical egalitarian argumentation inunderstanding husbands and wives to be mutuallysubmissive and that the husband is the “source” ofthe wife. After flattening the hierarchical lenses ofthese passages, she offers five principles for reciprocatingsubmissive relationships. Compleman-Blairthen concludes with the troubling assertion thatmutual submission “is righteousness” that “containsthe very essence of eternal life: knowing God” (8).Dinkler, Michal Beth. “Sarah’s Submission:Peter’s Analogy in 1 Peter 3:5–6.” Priscilla Papers21, no. 3 (2007): 9–15.Dinkler considers Peter’s injunction for wivesto submit to their husbands in 1 Pet 3:5–6. Ratherthan a universal directive for all wives at all times,she argues, Peter advocates a “qualified submission”to unbelieving husbands for evangelistic purposes.Appealing to the Jewish and Greco-Roman patternof paterfamilias, the wider context of Peter’sreference to Abraham and Sarah, and the parallelinjunction to slaves, Dinkler contends that the submissionPeter asks of wives is merely temporary andfunctional, not a permanent provision for Christianwives. Dinkler, however, does not adequatelyaccount for the fact that Peter addresses all wivesand husbands, not merely the wives with unbelievinghusbands. Nor does she address how thehusband’s task of honoring his wife as the “weakervessel” fits within the framework of qualified submissionfor the purpose of evangelism.Dugan, Jennie. “Jesus and Trust.” Priscilla Papers21, no. 4 (2007): 19–27.Dugan contrasts Jesus’ cultivation of trust withthe Pharisees’ essentially defensive and mistrustfuloutlook. Laced with enigmatic assertions—suchas, “Jesus would not disregard equality any morethan he would have disregarded empathy” (19) and“To Jesus, equality has no limits, no endpoints”(21)—the article argues for the full equality of allpersons and the abrogation of social and ecclesialhierarchy. Dugan, however, nowhere distinguishesbetween ontological and functional equality and62 JBMW | Spring 2008

does not deal with texts that are problematic to anequality that “has no limits.”Keener, Craig. “Women’s Education and PublicSpeech in Antiquity.” Journal of the Evangelical<strong>The</strong>ological Society 50, no. 4 (2007): 747–59.Keener argues that women in antiquity were,by and large, less educated than men. ThoughKeener—like many other egalitarians—uses this tojustify his understanding of the cultural specificityof texts such as 1 Tim 2:11–12 and 1 Cor 14:34–35,he is careful to point out that the central premiseof his historical evaluation does not necessitate anegalitarian conclusion.Keener, Médine Moussounga. “How SubjectionHarms Congolese Women: A Call to Consciousness.”Priscilla Papers 21, no. 3 (2007): 25–28.Keener details the atrocities endured by womenin the Republic of Congo. Congolese womenface the cruelties of poverty; prostitution; AIDS;physical and sexual abuse in the home, school, andworkplace; and rape in the midst of war-torn areas.Complementarians and egalitarians alike can vehementlyrenounce and seek to prevent and correctthis type of predatory patriarchy that victimizeswomen made in the image of God.Lincoln, Lucy. “Two Gardens.” Priscilla Papers21, no. 1 (2007): 21–26.Lincoln offers an exercise in biblical hermeneuticswith view to the current gender debate.She argues that the garden-tomb of Jesus whereindeath was defeated echoes the garden of Edenfrom which death entered the world. Second, whenMary mistakes Jesus for a gardener, Lincoln assertsthat John points readers back to the failure ofthe first gardener to parallel the second gardenerwhose mission did not fail. Furthermore, Jesusreverses the freedom relinquished by Adam andEve in acquiescing to the tempter’s scheme inEden by freeing Mary of Migdal of her shackled,demonic past. Lincoln concludes that John’s use ofliterary echoes in Jesus’ commissioning of Mary torelay the news of His resurrection helps explainthe “few verses” that seem to contradict the fullinclusion of women in ministry.Manasseh, Elizabeth Leelavathi. “Gender Injustice:Evangelical Initiatives in India.” PriscillaPapers 21, no. 2 (2007): 24–27.Manasseh laments the lack of gender justicein Indian society and churches. She argues thatthe New Testament mandates a “new communityin Christ” in which all racial, class, and genderdivisions are removed. Unfortunately, Manasseh’sperception of three theological assumptions underlyinga “subordinationist” biblical hermeneuticdoes not reflect the views of complementarians.Complementarians reject any notion of woman’sontological inferiority, do not view “all daughtersof Eve” with contempt for Eve’s role in the fall,and certainly deny that woman’s existence is merelyinstrumental rather than fundamental. While allbelievers can join in grieving the state of injusticein India, egalitarian gender roles in the church andhome do not necessarily follow.Pierce, Ronald W. “<strong>The</strong> Feminine Voice of God:Women as Prophets in the Bible.” Priscilla Papers21, no. 1 (2007): 4–8.Pierce traces the prophetic voices of womenthrough the biblical narrative, emphasizing theirleadership role and recounting the stories of howGod has used women to speak to His people. Pierceconcludes that the fact of women prophets legitimatesthe full inclusion of women in the offices ofthe church and the task of preaching. While complementarianscan affirm and celebrate with Piercethe unique and valuable contributions of women inScripture, they will not accept the jump he makesfrom prophet to preaching applications within thechurch.Sider, Ronald J. “Gender and Justice Today.”Priscilla Papers 21, no. 2 (2007): 4–8.Sider details some of the horrific injusticesagainst women prevalent in the world today. <strong>The</strong>article lists statistics concerning (1) cultural preferencesfor boys that result in massive abortion andabandonment of girls, (2) inequality in educationalopportunities, (3) inequality in health care, (4)JBMW | Spring 2008 63

inequality in property ownership and work compensation,(5) physical violence against women,and (6) sexual trafficking and prostitution. Sidernotes that those on all sides of gender discussionscan agree to the outrage of social structures thatpropagate violence and injustice toward women.Story, J. Lyle. “<strong>The</strong> Discipleship of Women—From Jesus’ Birth to the Empty Tomb.” PriscillaPapers 21, no. 1 (2007): 14–20.Story analyzes the draw of Jesus in his interactionwith women followers. Highlighting theradically countercultural inclusive nature of Hisdiscipling relationships, Story shows how the narrativesof Jesus’ encounters with women affirm anddefine their place as genuine disciples.UndeclaredHoehner, Harold W. “Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?” Journal of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ologicalSociety 50, no. 4 (2007): 761–71.Seeking to clarify confusion about proper rolesfor women in ministry, Hoehner argues that theoffice of elder/overseer is distinct from the gift ofpastor-teacher. While the New Testament reservesthe office of elder for men, it does not place restrictionson gifts and, thus, does not exclude womenas pastor-teachers. Hoehner claims that keepingthis distinction clears up “85-90%” of the problemsraised about women in ministry (771). He assertsthat separating gift from office opens up many possibilitiesfor women in ministry, such as teachingin parachurch organizations and academic institutions.In an attempt to clarify uncertainty aboutwomen in ministry, however, Hoehner perhapsconfuses the issue further for local churches, as nospecific applications of this gift inside the churchare discussed. Moreover, exercising a gift outsidethe church so closely related to a function expresslyforbidden inside the church seems to miss thelarger thrust of the New Testament’s teaching ongender. For a more detailed response to Hoehner,readers should consult the review of his article byJames Hamilton in this issue of JBMW.Tracy, Steven R. “Clergy Responses to DomesticViolence.” Priscilla Papers 21, no. 2 (2007): 9–16.Tracy argues that clergy can and often do exacerbatethe problem of domestic violence by askingwomen to submit to abusive husbands, not condemningthe practice from the pulpit, minimizingits significance, and failing to separate women fromabusive men. Positively, he suggests that clergy educatethemselves on the problem of abuse, condemnit from the pulpit, seek help from “professional”counselors, hold abusers fully responsible for theiractions, and protect abused women and children.Tracy, Steven R. “Patriarchy and Domestic Violence:Challenging Common Misconceptions.”Journal of the Evangelical <strong>The</strong>ological Society 50,no. 3 (2007): 573–94.After showing the fact of domestic abuseas a problem in the United States, Tracy seeks toclarify erroneous beliefs about the causal connectionsbetween patriarchy and abuse. According toTracy, the feminist view that sees patriarchy as theultimate root cause of abuse fails to account for thecomplexity of the issue as well as studies that showthat men who regularly attend conservative, patriarchalchurches are the least likely to abuse women.<strong>The</strong> opposite error, he argues, is to see no causalrelationship at all between patriarchy and abuse.Tracy concludes by issuing three challenges tocomplementarians and egalitarians, calling on eachside to address the issue with clarity and to avoidmischaracterization of opposing arguments.Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Scripture as Talisman,Specimen, and Dragoman.” Journal of the Evangelical<strong>The</strong>ological Society 50, no. 1 (2007): 3–30.In describing the biblical-theological methodologyof conservative evangelicals, Yamauchidetails some of the recent developments in thegender debate. While claiming allegiance to neitherside, he compares the “redemptive movement”hermeneutic of egalitarian William Webb with thewritings of complementarian Wayne Grudem.64 JBMW | Spring 2008

Non-EvangelicalAnderson-Rajkumar, Evangeline. “PracticingGender Justice as a Faith Mandate in India.”Studies in World Christianity 13, no. 1 (2007):33–52.For Indian women to claim their rightful placein church leadership, the author contends, genderjustice must precede both theology and ministrybecause of belief in a God who is gender-just.the ultimate end of fatherhood. He criticizes theemphasis that soft patriarchalists place on subjective,therapeutic expressiveness in the home whilejustifying a strict segregation of public/privatespheres. (See also the response by Wilcox in thesame volume.)Bateye, Bolaji Olukemi. “Forging Identities:Women as Participants and Leaders in theChurch among the Yoruba.” Studies in WorldChristianity 13, no. 1 (2007): 1–12.Bateye observes that the rise of Pentecostalismin Africa has given occasion for women to takeleadership roles in the church. <strong>The</strong> female leaders ofthis new generation of churches have emphasizedthe place of women in Jesus’ ministry, the ontologicalequality of women to men, and that problematicPauline texts are culturally specific and non-bindingon the contemporary church.Makoro, <strong>The</strong>lma. “<strong>The</strong> Political Emancipation ofWomen in South Africa and the Challenge toLeadership in the Churches.” Studies in WorldChristianity 13, no. 1 (2007): 53–66.Makoro argues that a culture of male dominancein Southern Africa has led to the exclusionof women from pastoral leadership. She contendsfor women’s “emancipation” in church leadershipusing sociopolitical, rather than biblical, rationale.Furthermore, Makoro suggests that denyingwomen leadership positions in the church classifiesas “abuse and dehumanisation of women” (56).Wall, John. “Fatherhood, Childism, and the Creationof Society.” Journal of the American Academyof Religion 75, no. 1 (2007): 52–76.Wall critiques the “soft” patriarchy advocatedby sociologist Bradford Wilcox in Soft Patriarchs,New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers andHusbands. Wall instead argues for a child-centered,egalitarian “progressive familism” that sees cultivatinga child’s creative participation in society asJBMW | Spring 2008 65