No wonder women flocked to serve Jesus. He's just like them!

If anybody's still out there reading this, then let me apologize. I hadn't realized so much time had elapsed since my last post. In my defence, I can only plead busyness: a new job that requires me to work longer hours than my last one, studying to become a lay minister with my church, and my home life with my husband. Add to that traveling back to the States in November to visit my family, and the Christmas holidays. Looking back, it all seems a blur. Anyway, I wanted to comment on an issue that seems to be rearing its ugly head lately.

It's called "structural subordinationism" (hereafter shortened to SS), and basically it's the headship teaching applied to the Trinity. Jesus is subordinate to the Father, therefore women should be subordinate to men. Of course, the advocates of this belief try to dress it up a little by saying that Jesus and God have different "roles," but, as we'll see, they're basically advocating the subordination of both Jesus and women. As the immortal Mammy said in Gone With the Wind, "A mule in horse's harness is still a mule."

Now, despite the fact that I'm studying to be a minister, I actually hate theology. Sitting around having arguments about abstract concepts that only a handful of people understand (and most people have never heard of), bores me. I'm a down-to-earth woman, who likes to get to the point. (Dare I say I have a masculine brain? Perish the thought!) If you'd like an in-depth theological discussion of the issue, then by all means, help yourself. Here are a couple of excellent sites.

http://blog.cbeinternational.org/

http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/grudemcbmw-and-the-trinity-part-two/

Now, where was I? Ah, yes. The basic issue is this: are Jesus and God equal to each other in the Trinity (as I and most people I know were always taught), or do they have different roles? Here are a few thoughts that popped into my head.

1. Assuming that Jesus does have a different role, did He assume it voluntarily? If He did, then you've got a problem. You see, the whole concept of headship teaching is based on the idea that women have no choice. They are to fill a "different role" simply by virtue of the fact that they were born women. Obviously, then, if you're going to link headship and the Trinity, then the subordination of Jesus has to be non-voluntary.

2. So, Jesus did not voluntarily take on this "separate role." He simply is different. Always has been, always will be. The phrase I've heard used to describe this is "eternal immutable submission of the Son [to the] authority of the Father." (As quoted in CBE's blog.) I looked up "immutable" in a dictionary and it said "unable to change."

Now think about this, folks. Step back for a moment, shake your head to clear the fuzzy thoughts, and think. What we are saying is that Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe, is unable to change something about Himself. Just like women, Jesus is involved in a submissive, subordinate relationship based on the simple fact of who He is. Does this sound right to you? That the King of the Universe, who could raise people from the dead, make demons tremble, and who could conquer death Himself, is unable to say, "You know, I'm tired of being submissive. I'd like to change that now." What would happen if Jesus did say that? Would the Father punish Him, just like women are told they're rebellious and sinful if they decide they no longer believe in headship teaching? Because of course, in order for SS to hold up as an exact analogy to headship on earth, that's exactly what would have to happen. Are you comfortable worshipping this kind of God?

3. I wish I could take credit for this next point, but I can't. It's so good, though, that I just have to repeat it. (The original is on The Scroll. See #7 and my response under "The Meaning of the Son's Submission".) One of the reasons given as to why there has to be an overall authority figure, both in church and in the home, is that somebody has to lead. Somebody has to make the final decisions. If not, chaos will set in and everything will fall apart. I myself have seen this argument advanced in more than one interview with headship couples. So...does this mean that if there is no submission between Jesus and God, then They'll be disagreeing with one another? That nothing would get done because nobody will make a final decision? Is that why Jesus has to be submissive? And of course that raises even more questions. What if God makes a decision that Jesus doesn't like? Does Jesus simply swallow His feelings and go along because He has to?

Just one final note since this post is getting long. Can anybody provide evidence for the SS theory that does not come from a contemporary souce? I mean, Gruden claims that SS is the orthodox teaching of the church. So, can anybody quote any mainstream, orthodox sources that outline this idea before the 20th century? Or, like the idea of submission being found in the creation account, is this simply an interpretation imposed upon pre-existing ideas?

Ok, this will be my final note. I'm sorry, but I just thought of this. Since Jesus is modeling the submission that women are supposed to be following, does this make Him a Her? Or like her? Does Jesus have feminine characteristics? That would make sense, since God is called the Father. And since the Trinity is supposed to be modeling earthly marriages....


p.s. I'll go into why "separate but equal" really doesn't mean equal at all next time.

News About My Novel

I've been thinking, and I've decided it might not be wise to publish my ideas where anybody can read them. It's not that I mean to be paranoid, just prudent. I know my friends and acquaintances in the egal. community would be honorable and not steal my idea, but y'all may not be the only people reading this! Therefore, after thinking carefully, I've decided to set up another blog to discuss my writing. I'm not going to publicize it here, but if anybody wants to come join the discussion, then please drop me a line at anamcharapd.

As a preview, let me say that we'll be talking about women's writing (and what the comps. think about it), the Protestant Da Vinci Code, the secrets of York Minster, and the mad queen's ghost who roams through the tunnels under Nottingham Castle.

Plaster Saints, Part 3

I had hoped to move on to another subject, but I really feel that I should explore a few more thoughts on this issue. I promise this will be my last post on Packer. (I'm an English major, so you'll have to forgive me for the occasional alliteration.)

Remember that we've been talking a great deal about context. Well, Wayne Leman had an interesting comment on McCarthy's interview.

Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers.

Suzanne, it seems to me unlikely that Paul would have used a male-only word with the meaning of English "brothers" when the preceding proper name at the end of the named individuals is that of a Christian sister.

If the ESV team were to claim that English "brothers" is inclusive here, as they suggest as one meaning footnoted for Rom. 12:2, we have a dilemma, namely, how can readers of the ESV know when their English masculine words are intended to refer to males and when are they intended to refer to gender-inclusive groups.

Now, that's a very good question. How are readers of the ESV supposed to know when the context means only "brothers/men" and when it means "brothers and sisters/men and women"? Wouldn't it simply be easier if you said "brothers and sisters/men and women"? I remember a couple of years ago, I heard Wayne Grudem speak on Focus on the Family. He was talking about why the TNIV is such a bad translation and how we should all avoid it, primarily because of its gender-inclusive language. "I think that's patronizing to women," Grudem said. "When women read verses that say 'brothers' or 'men' they know that they're included. They don't need it spelled out for them."

Really? If you're a woman and you've been drilled in comp. theology, will you know that Paul meant to say "men and women" in 2 Tim 2:2? Or, based on "context," will you assume that you're excluded? Even if you're not a comp. woman, would you know to include women in that verse? Maybe or maybe not. Therefore, I find it rather patronizing that Grudem claims to understand what women think.

But then that gets back to the issue of translation. What if you don't believe that Paul should have included women in certain verses? By translating adelphoi as "men" you can leave your audience with the impression that Paul meant "men only." Again, rather than leaving your reader to play some sort of guessing game, or worse, to assume the wrong thing, wouldn't it be easier to simply state what the text says?


And now let me return to a thought I first mentioned in the original "Plaster Saints" post. I said that there is a possibility that Packer may have been dishonest in his endorsing of comp. theology. This is what I was talking about. It comes from the second part of McCarthy's interview with him.

I later came back to this and asked him if he had, in fact, read The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Controversy by Poythress and Grudem, which they wrote on this topic [the meaning of adelphoi]. He said that he had not read the book, it was a matter of priority, there is only so much time.

However, there is an endorsement on the back cover, stating, "This is the best book on its theme." J I Packer.

R. Mansfield added this comment to Suzanne's post.

Blurbs on the back of books usually mean nothing. The dirty little secret in the publishing industry is that the statements are already drafted and sent to a "reviewer" along with a copy of the book. All the reviewer has to do is sign the previously drafted statement regardless of whether the book has actually been read. I've even heard of some statements having been read over the phone with the "reviewer" asked if he or she agrees. This dishonest policy goes across the publishing industry, but it's even more shameful that it takes place in Christian publishing. And, unfortunately, it's not to say that some promotional blurbs aren't genuine, but how in the world would the person picking up the book in a store know the difference?

I don't know if this is what Packer did or not. Only he knows that. However, I agree with Mansfield. If this practice really is going on in the Christian publishing industry, then shame on anybody who participates in it. We Christians are supposed to be a light in the world. How can we be that if we indulge in the same dark practices that they do?

Plaster Saints, Part 2

I'm going to follow up last week's entry by posting a few more thoughts about J.I. Packer.

First, some more background about him. Back in 1997, he signed the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," along with Grudem and a host of other leading comps. The CSG expressed concern over gender-neutral language being used in Bible translation (i.e the TNIV). From the CSG flowed the English Standard Version, a new Bible translation designed to eliminate such language. Here is a description from the Bible Researcher website of how the ESV came about.

The following paragraphs from WORLD magazine (June 5, 1999) reveal the interesting circumstances in which the ESV was conceived: The English Standard Version (ESV), announced in February by Crossway Books, had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

Unfortunately, Suzanne McCarthy from the Better Bibles Blog has a problem with the CSG.

On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read, "Brother" (adelphos) and "brothers" (adelphoi) should not be changed to "brother(s) and sister(s)."

Later, they changed their minds.

The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997, "Brother" adelphos should not be changed to "brother or sister"; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated "brothers and sisters" where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.

So why did they change their minds?

In Poythress and Grudem's own words, "in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, 'brother" sometimes means "brothers and sisters" (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).

This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines - we weren't previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines."

[emphasis mine throughout]

And Suzanne's reaction?

By their own admission, these men were of an age where they had already established their own personal theology, and had presumed to write theology for others, without ever learning to use a variety of the most standard Greek lexicons. They came to Colorado Springs with their gender guidelines already prepared, based on a narrow view of what the Greek said, and attempted to make these guidelines binding on the Christian community.

I highly reccommend reading the rest of Ms. McCarthy's post on this issue. It makes for fascinating reading. (Also, check out her entry about how even the KJV would not meet the Colorado Guidelines. Surely anyone proposing Bible translation guidelines for an entire nation should meet certain basic biblical literacy standards. ) Packer had declcared his comp. views well before signing the CSG, however. In an article written for Christianity Today in 1991 entitled "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters," he gave the following reasons for not allowing women to have authority in the church.

1. Feminism has infiltrated the church. According to Packer, “feminist ideology demands equal rights everywhere, on the grounds that anything a man can do a woman can do as well if not better.”(1)

2. The socialization of women since World War I has permitted them to enter spheres previously open only to men.(2)

3. The New Testament passages on women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) and teaching men (1 Tim 2:11-14) have proved “problematic” both in their interpretation and application.(3)

4. God apparently has blessed ministries led by women.

5. Ordination with its incumbent status and privileges has provided a certain degree of “job-satisfaction” to females in professional ministry roles.(4)

Points 1,2,4 and 5 deserve a post of their own (and I'm sure y'all will provide some lively commentary on them!). Right now I'm just going to comment on point number 3. Packer admits that the infamous verses that form the basis of comp. theology are difficult to translate and understand. And yet they form the basis of comp. theology! My response to this comes from the CBE article written to refute Packer's.

Packer asserts that 1 Corinthians 14:34f debars women from “speaking in church” and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 prohibits women from “teaching and giving directions to men.”(8) However, any interpretation which builds “a universal church order”(9) on a few verses which are highly debatable both exegetically and theologically is suspect.

(Note: the quote from Packer's own article also came from the CBE one.)

To which I can only add: Amen! It seems that today too many Christians have a "buffet Bible" theology. You pick and choose the verses that seem to support your viewpoint, and throw the rest of it out. To do so, however is dangerous and, well, suspect. I don't know about you, but I always wonder what people are hiding when they say "the Bible clearly supporst my view on Issue X" and then throw out a single verse.

And so, on that note, let me add a few concluding thoughts. Now, I must confess that this next insight only came to me after re-reading McCarthy's interview with Packer. (Previously I had written about it for The Scroll under "Better Bible Translation.") Notice how Packer keeps harping about context. In fact, at the end of the interview, he tells McCarthy, Let me say straightaway, we will have to agree to disagree. I get to specifics from the context. I start with the flow of the context, what is the whole thing about, the paragraph, things like that."

Now, I don't know about y'all, but whenever I speak to comps. and try to bring up the context of Paul's verses, I get hostility. "You're just trying to twist things. It says right there in plain English that women can't have authority over men, so why don't you just accept it?" So, does this mean that what's good for the comp. goose is not good for the egal. gander? Why is it ok for one leading comp. figure to be able to place such importance on context, but we cannot do the same?

At the end of his article about Packer (mentioned in the original "Plaster Saints" post), Wilson discusses an article Packer wrote in the 50's critiquing British evangelicals, and how it could describe American evangelicals today. He adds that In his own life and work, Packer has always been the antithesis of such a cramped conception of the Christian life. With all due respect to Wilson, I cannot imagine anything more cramped than living under the comp. way of life. I thank the Lord that my parents believed in allowing me to serve however the Lord called me, and that my husband feels that way about me now. If you remember, the title of the conference sponsored by Beeson Divinity School was "J.I. Packer and the Evangelical Future." Well I hope that Packer's future is not mine. I want my future daughters to grow up in freedom, and not have to go back to the outdated belief system of patriarchy.

Plaster Saints

Many years ago I read A.N. Wilson's biography of C.S. Lewis. Like many Christians, I had grown up believing that Lewis was about the closest thing we had to a Protestant saint, at least in this century. He was the beloved author of the Narnia stories for children and the mighty warrior who defended Christianity to the outside world and made it all seem so reasonable. Imagine my surprise, then, to find that Lewis led a less-than-perfect life. Like most of us, he made mistakes and even generated a bit of controversy. And I'll never forget what Wilson said in his introduction. "Lewis may have been a saint, but he was a plaster saint. Just because he is so highly respected doesn't mean we can't look at his faults."

I have these same ambivalent feelings towards J.I. Packer. Yesterday in my e-mail I got the latest newsletter from Books & Culture, a division of Christianity Today magazine. In an article entitled Packer Stomp the author, John Wilson, discusses how Beeson Divinity School recently hosted a conference called "J.I. Packer and the Evangelical Future." At the conference, they had various speakers lionize Packer for his many years of contribution to Christian thought.

David Neff's paper was devoted to an aspect of Jim Packer's work that is not sufficiently appreciated but that is particularly close to my heart—Packer's commitment to first-rate journalism, both as a writer and as one of the presiding spirits of Christianity Today.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about Packer. I have heard his name uttered in reverential tones by other Christians, so I am willing to accept that he is a man of great importance in the history of 20th century Christianity. However, I also know that he is biased towards the complementarian cause, and may have been dishonest in advocating it.

In February of this year, Suzanne McCarthy of the Better Bibles Blog interviewed Packer about his association with Wayne Grudem and their work in translating the ESV.

Suzanne: I have to ask you about 2 Tim. 2:2. [and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (ESV) ] Did you think that anthropos referred to 'men' in this verse?

Dr. Packer: I think it means 'men' exegetically. We think that it means 'men'....

Suzanne: I was brought up with that verse in our Christian Fellowship and I always thought that it was 'men and women'. It was quite a shock to me to find that people would think that it was 'men only'.

Dr. Packer: Well, Paul doesn’t say that it was 'men only', he just says 'men', but in the situation, it was to the teachers, surely it is obvious from the context that they were men.

I looked up anthropos in the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon, available on Crosswalk, and here's what it said.

Anthropos

a human being, whether male or female
generically, to include all human individuals

So, in other words, McCarthy was correct. Paul meant to say that both men and women could be teachers. Later, Packer emphasizes context again.

Suzanne: Luther translated it mensch. He didn’t add the masculine meaning. It was a disappointing verse for me.

Dr. Packer: Remember though until very recently the word, that the masculine word 'men' was understood as generic, 'men' was including women when the context implies it. Are you saying that the context implies women teachers especially in light of the second half of the second chapter of 1 Timothy?

So Packer admits that his translation of 2 Tim 2:2 is based on an interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-12 that says women cannot have any authority in the church. In other words, Packer holds to the complementarian position regarding the second verse and carries that mindset to every verse concerning positions of authority in the church.

I loved McCarthy's response. After concluding her interview, she added her own thoughts.

In any case, this verse had not been translated by the ESV in such a way that it is 'transparent to the Greek....' [McCarthy had handed her Greek Bible to a Greek friend of hers and asked her to read 2 Tim 2:2 in English. The woman automatically translated anthropos as "people." You can see their exchange in McCarthy's personal blog here.]

However, in light of the final verses of 2 Timothy I would be interested in hearing if there is another way of interpreting this epistle so that women could be included.

Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus. Do your best to come before winter. Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers. ESV

The incongruous 'brothers' should also be reconsidered. 'Brethren' was marginally possible, but 'brothers' is downright odd in this context.

So once again we have the comp. paradox: in several verses spread across more than one book, Paul highly commends women, and yet at the same time they were supposed to remain silent and not do anything. It makes you wonder what Priscilla and Junia and Phoebe and Claudia were doing. Were they, like Martha, preparing dinner?

There is much more to say on this issue, so I'll continue next time.

Getting Started

I'm new to this blogging thing, so you'll have to bear with me while I work out the bugs. Oh, well, we all have to start somewhere...

I've created this blog so that egalitarians like me can have a safe place to come talk, hang out, and hopefully, make friends. Towards that end, I guess it would be good if I introduced myself.

I'm originally from Texas, but now I live in Great Britain with my British husband. As we go along, I'll be happy to share cultural observations from being a "stranger in a strange land." I count myself as an egalitarian but, to be honest, I never thought about it until just a few years ago. My parents were not very stereotypical: my mother balanced the checkbook in our family, and she was definitely more outspoken than my father. My father, in turn, is an introvert who's happiest reading a book. Therefore, I didn't realize that there are "roles" each gender is supposed to play. Alas, I have now met many Christians who think the opposite, and have defended their position rather vehemently. They are certainly welcome to their opinion, but I refuse to feel less of a person or a Christian just because I don't fit a stereotype.

Now, I must confess that I've started this blog with an ulterior motive in mind. Well, actually two of them. First, I used to be part of something called Egalitarian Christian Alliance forum, which was pretty much all egalitarian. Unfortunately, that forum no longer exists, and I miss the fellowship. So I've started this blog to make new egal. friends. (And I hope the guys and gals from ECA will somehow hear about this and migrate over here. It would be wonderful to talk to y'all again.)


Second, I'm trying to write a novel featuring a heroine who becomes an egalitarian, and I need help. I'll explain why in future posts, but I really hope we can brainstorm and come up with some good ideas. And if you want, I'll put you in the acknowledgements of the finished book, so you can become famous!

Oh, and in case you're wondering, "anamchara" is the Gaelic word for "soul friend." Back in ancient Celtic times, the word was used to describe an older, experienced monk who became the mentor and confessor to a new one. So come here and share your thoughts and let's encourage one another!