Many evangelicals unwittingly live as feminists

[I am not really sure what this headline means. What does it mean to “live as feminists” or to do so “unwittingly”? I would prefer if he gave his definition of what he means by “feminism”. Feminism is a broad term that encompasses numerous smaller movements. I suspect that he means feminism that “largely focuses on limiting or eradicating gender inequality and promoting women's rights, interests, and issues in society.” Such is the simplest and most commonly held notion of the term.]

Egalitarians are winning the gender debate because evangelical complementarian men have largely abdicated their biblically ordained roles as head of the home and have, in practice, embraced contemporary pagan feminism, XXXXXX said in a presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Nov. 17 in Valley Forge, Pa.

[Notice two things: 1) He is suggesting that conservative evangelical men, while advocating the complementarian view, are in fact practicing the egalitarian view. 2) He says that “egalitarians are winning” because men are embracing “contemporary pagan feminism”. From this last point, I do not know if he is suggesting egalitarianism is “pagan feminism” or not. This phrase “pagan feminism” is probably rhetorical exaggeration and not to be taken literally. I doubt that he is saying that evangelical men are worshipping pagan goddesses.]

Complementarianism is the view that men and women have been created equally in God's image but have different yet complementary roles. Egalitarianism is the view that that men and women have been gifted equally so that no role is limited to one sex.

[This is a good and fair definition of egalitarianism on the part of this news site.

Allow me to give some definitions of my own:

Many Christians are egalitarians. They believe that the Bible plainly teaches equality among the sexes and women should therefore have equal access to roles in the church and family. They generally believe that husbands and wives share leadership of their family and that both men and women may serve as senior pastors. That the Scriptures never mention the role of “senior pastor” at all, let alone assigning such a role exclusively to men, is enough reason to disregard the unscriptural notion that such a modern role is forbidden to women.

The recently formulated complementarian view holds that men and women are of equal value but should have different roles in the church and family. Complementarians generally believe that a husband is the proper head of his family and that only men should serve as senior pastors. The roles that women are given is rarely mentioned or advocated. While there are roles that men have that women are prohibited from holding, there are no roles that women have that men are prohibited from holding, albeit biologically unsurpassable roles.

Unsurprisingly, conservatives who hold to the complementarian view believe their view to be the traditional one. Even if it were true that the Scriptures advocate the complementarian view, it is certainly not the case that such a view has been the traditional interpretation and understanding of Scripture by the Church. The Church has traditionally held to the hierarchical view that men should hold positions superior to women in every aspect of society (church, home, business and state).

It has always amazed me that conservatives come to certain opinions about what the Scripture teaches about certain concepts and then try to argue that, despite all evidence to the contrary, such a belief is not just Scriptural but also the traditional view that the Church has held. Examples include: penal substitutionary atonement, pre-tribulation rapture dispensationalism, inerrancy, nouthetic counseling, eternal security, believer’s Baptism, predestination, expository preaching, parachurch organizations and mission boards. I’m not saying any of these beliefs are right or wrong in my estimation. In fact, in my estimation, I believe some of these concepts to be scripturally sound but I would never suggest that any of these are “traditional”.

The Complementarian view is a fairly recent doctrine that developed as the evangelical response for the generally accepted views of the feminist movement but also as a response against the views of feminism that the conservative evangelical church could not generally accept. Thankfully, mainstream evangelical conservatism has generally rejected the hierarchal view of gender roles. However, the evangelical community is still debating the egalitarian view. Conservative evangelicals are now promoting their recently constructed view of gender roles against the egalitarian alternative but suggesting that their view has always been held by the Church. I imagine that in 20 years the sons and daughters of today’s evangelicals will state that their evangelical view of egalitarianism was always held by the Church.]

XXXXX called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. XXXXX is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at XXXX Seminary.

[Now, as one who has given some time to the issue of “women and the faith” (which is in of itself a broad phrase of identification) allow me to suggest a 9 concepts (or doctrines, if you prefer) commonly misunderstood by conservative evangelicals that lead to the present discussion about the roles of women in the body of Christ.

1) Headship
2) Submission
3) Pre-Fall vs post-Fall reality (including pre-Advent ethics vs post-Advent ethics)
4) ANE culture vs Christian ethics (including OT ethics vs NT ethics)
5) Practical exemptions of the general Headship rule
6) Pastorship
7) Authority
8) Leadership
9) Church vs Society

Time prevents me from delving too deeply into all of these issues, but I shall mention a few as it relates to the points made in this news report.

First, the doctrine of “headship” (doctrine 1) as taught by Paul in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians is NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I cannot stress this enough. No where does Paul teach that “headship” is about “leadership.” Nowhere does Paul teach that “leadership” has to do with “headship”. This has been a perennial and general assumption without Scriptural basis.

“Headship” has to with sanctification. “Headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family.

Read the appropriate Pauline passages concerning headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:21-32 and gender issues. Also, read these passages in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 and Ephesians 5:26.

Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. HOWEVER, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 points out, if the husband is an unbeliever but the wife a believer, the believing wife is the means by which God sanctifies the husband and children. Therefore, although the general rule in terms of headship is the husband, by Gods’ grace, the wife can be “head” if the husband is unbelieving (doctrine 5).

As the complementarians so state, “headship” is not about value or worth but about role. However, unlike what complementarians state, “headship” is not about leadership and, although such a role is generally held by men, in some cases such a role is held by women. Furthermore, the issue of “headship” is unrelated to pastoralship.]

Many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, and research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the “softest” when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness and emotional health, XXXX said.

[I do not know what he means by “soft”.]

“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” XXXX said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism -- and our foremothers, too.”

[I am not going to comment; I don’t think I need to. You know how I feel.]

Egalitarian views are carrying the day within evangelical churches and homes, XXXX said, because complementarians have not dealt sufficiently with the forces that drive the feminist impulse: Western notions of consumerism and therapy.

[Is he saying that men are leaning to shop like women and that is fueling egalitarianism? The previous line is a joke because I am unable to take this seriously.

Basically he is admitting that egalitarians are winning the current debate over “women in ministry” if not in theory than definitely in practice.]

This therapeutic and consumerist atmosphere has led evangelicals away from a view that sees Scripture as the external, objective standard of truth and has pushed them to look inside themselves to find ultimate truth, XXXX said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches hold complementarian views but practice egalitarianism, he said.

[Notice that he is not saying that egalitarians are not “misinterpreting Scripture” but are “denying Scripture.” I think this is one of the main problems with modern evangelical conservatives: they cannot even allow for someone to have a differing opinion on what Scripture is teaching. No, anyone who doesn’t agree with them on what Scripture is teaching is intentionally denying Scripture. To them, people cannot be wrong in their interpretation; no, these people (the egalitarians) are rejecting what they (the egalitarians) believe Scripture is teaching. This current crowd of evangelical conservatives believes that their interpretation of Scripture is THE interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, anyone who disbelieves their interpretation of Scripture is disbelieving Scripture. Our group of the Church has for so long been told and convinced themselves that THEY and THEY ALONE have the proper attitude toward Scripture and ONLY correct hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture that they automatically assume that anyone who holds their attitude is doctrinally sound and whoever does not is heterodox. This is a VERY dangerous mind set. It breeds pride and (I’m sorry to say) heresy. Unfortunately, it explains the last thirty years of American conservative Christianity.

Remember: the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church believe that they had the correct interpretation of Scripture. They believed that theirs was the only interpretation because it was the right interpretation. Luther challenged this.]

“Complementarian churches are just as captive to the consumerist drive of American culture as egalitarians, if not more so,” Moore said.

If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, XXXX said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.

[Again, I am not going to comment; I don’t think I need to. You know how I feel.]

XXXX pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.

[Again …]

“Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ,” XXXX said.

[We need to be extremely careful to distinguish between ANE cultural practices and universal mandates. And, just because God recognizes a particular ANE custom in the Bible, does not mean that it is God’s will for us.

Example: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had slaves. God did not seek to abolish slavery among the Israelites or the early Church. Many of Jesus’ parables used slavery to describe the kingdom of God. However, no one in evangelical life today states that slavery is okay.

‘Evangelicals should ask why slavery seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ’.]

“We must remember that ‘evangelical’ is also a negative term in many contexts. We must allow the patriarchs and apostles themselves, not the editors of ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine,’ to define the grammar of our faith.”

[So is “liberal”.

Yes, I’m sure all egalitarian evangelicals and non-practicing complementarians are getting their gender theology from ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine’.]

The model of biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied to Scripture’s teaching of the fatherhood of God, XXXX said. The Bible portrays God the Father as existing in covenant relationship with the Son in a way that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers, he said.

[The problem with this reasoning is that “headship” either male or female is not synonymous with “rule”.

I’ve thought he has been a bit short on definitions in this article. This could be just the fault of the news reporters and not his paper. Nevertheless, I think we need a definition of “patriarchy”.

“Patriarchy (from Greek: patria meaning father and arché meaning rule) is the anthropological term used to define the sociological condition where male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; with the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position.”

Here is another definition:

The term "patriarchy' is distinct from patrilineality.

"Patrilineal defines societies where the derivation of inheritance (financial or otherwise) originates from the father's line; a society with matrilineal traits such as Judaism, for example, provides that in order to be considered a Jew, a person must be born of a Jewish mother.”

Again, “headship” is not about “leadership”; it is about “sanctification”.

Furthermore, the existence of a patriarchy in the OT does not exclude the existence of a matriarchy.

First, the Patriarchs, known as the Avot in Hebrew, are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Collectively, they are referred to as the three patriarchs (sh'loshet ha-avot) of Judaism.

Second, the Matriarchs, known as the Ima-[h]ot (literally "mothers") in Hebrew, are four important women mentioned in the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible. They are Sarah, wife of Abraham, Rebecca, wife of Isaac, and Leah and Rachel, the wives of Jacob. They are considered to be the ancestral "mothers" of the ancient Children of Israel as well as of the Jewish people.

What are some of the other matriarchs of the Bible? Naomi, Deborah, Miriam, Zipporah, Esther, Bathsheba, Mary, Elizabeth, Priscilla, Phoebe, Hanna, Abigail, Huldah, Noahdiah, Anna, and many other prophetesses. Yes, there are many prophetesses in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Let me ask you some questions:

Are prophetesses only allowed to be prophets for women? No, God speaks to men through prophetesses throughout the Scriptures.

Do prophets in the Bible have authority? Yes.

Do prophetesses in the Bible have authority? Yes.

Do prophets in the Bible have authority over men and women? Yes.

Do prophetesses in the Bible have authority over men and women? Yes.

Therefore, do not women in some instances have authority over men? Yes.

The problem that modern Christians (both conservative and liberal) have with authority as it is taught in the Bible is that they assume that when a person (either male or female) has authority that it is that person’s authority … and its not! A person who has authority in the Bible has it not because they are powerful or wealthy or wise or old or male or female. A person has authority because of God. God gives them that authority and such authority is not that person’s and is only authoritative when the person uses it as God wills. A pastor does not have the authority to make me sin. If a pastor sins, a child has the authority to tell a pastor that he is sinning and should repent because it is not the child that is the source of this authority but God. Therefore, a woman can tell a sinning man to repent not because she has authority over him but because God has authority and is speaking through the woman. Prophetesses do this throughout the Bible; are they sinning because of 1 Timothy 2:12?

But I see from this paragraph another fallacy inherent in his thinking and, to be much more broad and general, a flaw in conservative hermeneutics:

Just because the Bible uses a cultural practice metaphor to describe something good or truthful in the Bible does not mean that the cultural practice is good. Again, Jesus uses slavery as a metaphor to describe the kingdom and the relationship between God and Man. This does not mean that God approves of slavery. Why is slavery wrong then? Well, because all people are created in God’s image and have equal worth, therefore slavery is against God’s Will. But we do make an exception with gender differences don’t we.]

The fatherhood of God is central to the Gospel and male headship, and, when practiced biblically, offers a living picture of the redemption believers have in Christ, XXXX said.

[Again, so does slavery.]

“Even the so-called ‘egalitarian proof-texts’ not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, [but] they actually prove the opposite,” he said. “Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy -- a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

[Does a Jew have headship over a Greek? Does a freeman have headship over a slave?

First, the inheritance analogy is an analogy.

Second, the analogy is in fact teaching that because Christ has this inheritance we as Christians (regardless of sexual, ethnic, or economic differences) are equal in Christ, thereby reversing the curse of the fall.

Third, there are MANY other prooftexts for the egalitarian view.

Fourth, it somewhat irks me to see conservative scholars arguing their POV by saying that the opposing view will lead to a denial of God. Yet, I see it all the time.

“This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded, then, in the overarching theme of all of Scripture -- the summing up of all things in Christ [in Ephesians 1:10]. It does not divide God’s purposes, His role as Father from His role as Creator from His role as Savior from His role as King.

“To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to His headship -- a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ [in Hebrews 12:5-11].”

[Okay, the institution of slavery points to man as slaves to Christ and to God. Christ considered himself as a slave to God. Therefore, slavery is okay.]

An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and the unstable “most moved mover” of open theism, he said.

[I do understand this argument, but one could just as easily suggest that a patriarchal view of the faith leads to the abuse as women which, by the way, it doesn’t.]

A rejection of male headship leads to a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty, XXXX said. He pointed to open theism (a view that argues God’s knowledge of the future is limited) as an example of the dangers of rejecting biblical patriarchy. Open theism is built upon a denial of the Scripture’s portrayal of God as the sovereign Head of His creation, he said.

[Again, I do not think the problem is that there is a rejection of male headship among egalitarians. Rather, I think the problem is that evangelical conservatives are 1) misunderstanding the meaning, point, and particulars of “headship” and are 2) attempting to redefine the traditional conservative interpretation of gender roles in light of recent interpretive revelations. This redefinition allows them a) to remain somewhat relevant in modern society and b) to fight further encroachment by progressives on this issue by dismissing egalitarian views as unscriptural and by proclaiming that the complementarian view has always been the correct interpretation.]

“Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different,” XXXX said. “It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.”

[I have been aware of this Trinitarian argument for female subordination a few years now. It seems to be based on Genesis 1:27:

“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

And 1 Corinthians 11:3:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”

Now I am not well versed in this study so please do not take this portion of my comments as “gospel”. I am a novice on this particular issue.

But the benefit of this argument is that it explains how it is possible for two “entities” can be both equal and subordinate.

The drawback of this argument is that it is not made in Scripture and is never even hinted at by the prophets and apostles.]

XXXX pointed out that a growing trend exists within evangelicalism in which “soft” complementarians seek to indict other complementarians for not writing frequently against spousal abuse. This charge is a red herring, XXXX said, because complementarians address the issue consistently.

[Yes, he is right; this is a red herring.]

This charge itself, however, reveals a tacit acceptance by evangelicals of a false egalitarian charge that says male headship leads to abuse, he said. Instead, XXXX said, a biblical view of male headship and gender roles actually protect against spousal and child abuse because it does not posit male privilege, but instead demands male responsibility.

[I do agree that complementarianism doesn’t lead to abuse. He is correct in this assertion. However, concept number 4): ANE culture vs Christian ethics (including OT ethics vs NT ethics). I do believe that one of the most difficult concepts for many conservatives to grasp is the notion that not all of the cultural concepts practiced in the Bible are God’s will for Christians. Furthermore, there are some Ancient Near Eastern cultural practices in the OT that God required believers to adhere to (sometimes even at the threat of death) that are completely immoral for today’s Christians and which God forbids us to practice. Yes, some morality is relative. The rub is trying to ascertain what God wills for us today.

Women must have long hair and not short hair. Women should not have braided hair. Why do we not practice the Biblical view of slavery? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of war? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of levirate marriage? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of polygamy? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of punishment for adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of Jubilee?]

“Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can,” XXXX said.

[I’m sorry. But “soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism”? He is not speaking about egalitarians here. He is speaking about people who agree with him but are not as forceful in their beliefs as he.]

“And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families.”

[But it is just not Scriptural.]