Book critique: two views on women in ministry

___________________

A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Dietmar Schulze
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course
THEO 530 Systematic Theology II

___________________

by
Peter Heikkinen
February 17, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………..….1
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………….1-3
EGALITARIAN EQUALITY…………………………………………………………..1-2
COMPLIMENTARIAN ROLES…………………………………………………….…2-3
CRITICAL INTERACTION……………………………………………………………………3-6
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………....6-7
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………....8

Introduction Within Christian controversial topics that divide the Church as a whole Woman in Ministry is one of the most divisive. The two main sides of this debate are; egalitarian’s who believe there are no role differences in gender to authority or teaching in the church biblically. The complementarian view also known as the traditional view holds that men have a position of authority before God in church teaching and authority in the church and home governing. James Beck gathers four New Testament scholars two for each side on the issue and sets out to show case two arguments for each side and room for rebuttal in consideration of the New Testament scripture dealing with woman in ministry. With my own view being that of a soft complementation; women have a role in teaching and authority in the home and church setting but man has positional headship of responsibility, this position will be defended with these arguments in this book and other scholarly sources in this paper.
Summary
Egalitarian Equality The beginning chapter sees Linda Bellville present a strong egalitarian view with three critiques from the books other contributors. Bellville establishes the debate no longer lies in gender specific spiritual giftedness as most all believe that both receive all spiritual gifts (p.22). The crux of the issue now lies not in the ability of women to lead and have authority, but if women should lead due to a prohibiting biblical mandate. Bellville argues from the impetus of Adam and Eve that; there is a sameness in function (spiritually accountable, be fruitful 26) role (dominion over earth 26), even in name woman and man “part of” shows equality (29). Her summation of the Genesis account is; “the portrayal in Genesis1-2 of male and female as personal, social, and spiritual equals is compelling” (26). Rather in her opinion the female submissive role has taken place due to societal norms as result of the fall (34-35). Through an in depth look at woman in ministerial roles in scripture and Bellville argues that they have indeed held all positions of authority and teaching already in scripture. The general critique of Bellville from the other contributors is that she is not giving enough precedence to the order of creation as indicator to the role and the headship of man as indication of authority from the New Testament texts (1 Cor.14:34-35; 1Tim.2:11-15; 2 Cor. 11:2-16). Craig Keener is the second egalitarian perspective given in the book. Keener notes in chapter three that with the sheer plethora of mention of woman in ministerial that they then have scriptural authority in so doing (207-224). Next he contends that the instances that Paul mentions submission of women, and authority and the headship of man he is referring to culturally specific norms of that time, specific situational problems, or general conditions to both genders and in all instances not universal ordinances (224-240). The complementarian camp in turn rejects his understanding of submission and head coverings as transcultural, and his keeping silent references by Paul as circumstance specific within that church as stretching beyond known parameters in culture and specific church conditions.
The Complementation View Craig Blomberg is first to represent the complementarian view in chapter two. He intends to show from Adam’s order and authority in the creation narrative; through normative patriarchy seen in the entirety of scripture that man has authoritative positions and women do not generally. He treats verses such as Galatians 3:28; 1Corinthians11:2-16; 14:33-38, 1Timothy 2:8-15, to show that of equality is in salvation, instances of teaching require a role of quiet submission as well for both genders, but not in authority or role of the male (153-172). Blomberg takes a soft complementarian in regards to “Paul restricted women from only one position-again that of elder or overseer” (180-181). This middle of the road stance causes Blomberg to take issue from contributor’s critiques. He is either being general in exegesis on scripture concerning teaching and headship, or is too dogmatic in looking to a patriarchy in scripture and history using general cultural norms to determine his argument. Thomas Schreiner gives the final case for the complementarian view in chapter four. Schreiner looks foremost to the lack of concrete, non-ambiguous, or contextually stretched instances of women in roles of authority (pastor, elder or overseer, and Apostle) and denotes that this entails that woman are involved in ministry but not in authoritative positions (276-288). He then affirms the roles of priority and authority of man and the role of submission and help of women seen from the creation narrative through the New Testament teaching of marriage and church leadership (288-321). Yet again the contributor’s opposing critique view Schreiner as either to general in application of specific occurrences, or to bias to the priority of creation.
Critical Interaction In my stance as a soft complementarian there are many points that James Beck’s book and this student are in agreement on this will be the first part of interaction. Linda Bellville develops not only in her article in this book the aspect of equality from the phrase “helpmeet” in Genesis 2:28-20, she and Gordon Fee also develop this theory further in Discovering Biblical Equality. In Genesis 2:18-20 she uses the terms ezer and kenegdo to mean “strong partnership” rather than the traditional interpretation of the words to mean “help” “in correspondence to” (27-28). The term in reference to the other uses where the help is often God himself would seem by context of its use to denote more of a partnership or correspondence of help not so much the traditional complementarian view of implied submission in helping. Though noting that the existence of Adam first, and the mission and purpose of humanity given first to Adam, and God purposefully noting the inability of Adam to fulfill his mission and relational needs alone seen in the complementarian view must not be overlooked in the Genesis narrative. Though Man is unable to fulfill the God given purpose of humanity without the partnership of woman in equality, man has creation order the role of responsibility to God and commissioning from God of purpose for humanity. Mankind is to show the image of God, to have dominion and stewardship of the earth Gen. 1:26-30, this is given first to Adam and Eve is his partner in this but he is responsible. Blomberg mentions headship/kaphale from the 1Cor. 11:2-16 passages as meaning “source” or “authority” (156). Though he admits that even though egalitarians who prescribe to the definition being “prominent” or “preeminent” (156; Grenz 1995, 112), “but again it is unclear if an entity can be most or even more prominent without implying at least some kind of functional superiority in the context at hand” (156). However one views this word kaphale from verse three as either authority, or preeminent the fact remains that Christ is the “head” of man and man is the “head” of woman, with God as the “head” of Christ. When taken in context we see the subject that is the “head” is most certainly of a superior position relationally to God the Father. This headship though is contrasted with the element not of a domination or selfish rule by the head but rather a qualitative superiority shown in the example of Christ’s self-sacrificial love for the Church to whom he is the head as seen in Eph. 5:25-30 (174-175). As Blomberg notes; “Paul [in Eph. 5:25-30] radically redefines the authority husbands and fathers retain. Their authority is not one of privilege but of responsibility… If anything, Paul’s model is that the husband chooses what is in the wife’s best interest, even if it comes at great cost to himself and his aspirations” (174-175). This idea of headship responsibility and a stewardship for the wife and family before God is wonderfully explained in Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership by Sarah Summer pages 183-189. Thomas Schreiner is the other contributor who though rigid at times this student agrees most with. He deals with the popular Galatians 3:28 verse used by egalitarians from Bellville and Keener in this work to Alan Johnson’s How I Changed my Mind about Women in Leadership: Compelling stories from Prominent Evangelicals. This verse is the hallmark by which all other references to gender or role discussion by Paul is to be filtered through as many egalitarians admit. God views all as equal no man, or woman, slave or free is the message of the verse and Paul’s teaching on equality. Schreiner makes two great points of this in argument against them. He notes of their hermeneutics “they will say Galatians 3:28 is a clear text, and the text that women from some ministries are unclear. Then they proceed to say that clear texts must have sovereignty over unclear ones” (269). This is great as he notes but still to say that this verse is speaking of gender equality while in context of the chapter and book it is obviously referring to our equal availability to the grace and salvation of Christ is more common a rendering. The fact that this verse is so taken out of context from such a powerful section on the grace of God showing no preference is almost lessoning the awesomeness of so great a salvation. We are equal in not deserving salvation, we are equal in God showing unmerited love on those whom receive salvation we are all equally going to receive eternal reward for this salvation but to pull more is abstracting something that is contextually not there. The last point that agrees with my position and also shows my contention with the opposing view is that of women’s teaching that Schreiner makes. He indicates that all are called to encourage and teach each other in informal settings, (1 Cor. 14:26; Col. 3:16). But formal teaching in a church wide setting as in the office of pastor, elder, overseer, or apostle is not seen in the New Testament (279). All attempts that egalitarians use to show that women held the office of pastor or elder are as he notes weak hermeneutically, (276-288). The rendering or other common rendering or context is stretched to meet the presupposition. The author is trying to show the two major views in the hotly contested debate of woman in ministry. In so doing he shows the contention on both sides as he gives all contributors a chance to respond to each other and in turn offer their best to be critiqued as well. The effect gives a great effect of understanding from opponents on both sides of the debate and their real views and not just a lecture or book cataloging the various components of the discussion. The intent to give fair evaluation of both sides of the issue was well treated with equal space for all contributors to give their best case. This most certainly is a topic that all seminary students are in need of researching and understanding as it will in some way affect them in ministry. Women in our culture are finally being given an equal standing with men and the effect of this is more women in church settings contributing to the health of the church how a governing church body deals with and uses these assets are important for the future of the Church at large.
Conclusion
There are a lot of references to women in ministry in the Bible as the egalitarians mention in this book. The fact that Christ and Paul both work with and mention women in high regards is a major factor in both camps admitting equality in spiritual gifts and abilities of women also brought out in the book. I personally am in complete agreement with aspect that functionally women are in no way unable to perform ministerial tasks. The fact though is as is brought out in the complementarian view man has a headship and preeminence before God that causes him to be responsible for his wife before God. This preeminence and responsibility therefore leaves man as the role bearer for authoritative positions within the church, (overseer, pastor, elder, teacher of men). Women are to therefore in quiet respect to that headship be in submission to let men have the authority to teach and oversee the church but all other aspect of ministry is open to them as God has gifted them.

Bibliography
Grenz, Stanley J. Jesbo, Muir Denise. Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 1995.

Grudem, Wayne Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions Sisters, OR: Multnomah Pub. 2004.

Johnson, Alan J. editor How I Changed my Mind about Women in Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2010.

Pierce, Ronald W. and Groothuis, Rebecca M. editors. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarily Without Hierarchy Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity 2004.

Sumner, Sarah Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 2003.