Comments on: EFBT: Complementarian Methodology

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:58:00 +0000

Hmm. First I read this:
[Clearer Scriptures should be used to interpret those that are less clear.]
Then I read this:
[Husbands are ultimately responsible for their families (Gen 3:9)]
Then I found Genesis 3:9; “But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”
Is the entire idea that husbands are ultimately responsible for their families resting on an INFERENCE that the reason God called Adam first was to indicate Adam was ultimately responsible?
Couldn't we just as easily take the fact that God cursed Eve first as meaning that she was more responsible than Adam? Gen 3:16
To me, this is a perfect example of complementarianism driving the interpretation of scripture. The complementarian interpretation of Genesis 3:9 is based on an assumption. Scripture does not clearly state why God called Adam first, nor does scripture even indicate that this has any significance at all.
Likewise, this assertion:
[Men and women, though unique in many ways, are of equal value because they are made in God

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:25:00 +0000

Thanks Roger and Amy for your perspectives.
In response to Roger's second point, I recently read the chapter regarding head coverings in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem). That section, authored by Thomas Schreiner, suggests that the issue is more culturally bound, but that the underlying principle of authority still remains despite our modern day practice of not requiring head coverings for women.
I'm not entirely certain that the cultural context arguments works in the context of the entire book, since there are several other difficult issues that could very well be solved by appealing to cultural context.
My big question is to what extent any of these gender role verses (I'm referring generally to the NT verses in the Pauline epistles) should be “universalized” beyond the context in which they were initially introduced. What I mean is that the instructions were given to specific churches, and although Paul's reasoning was based on creation order, does it necessarily imply that those specific instructions were to last in perpetuity?
That's one of the reasons why I introduced the passage on head coverings since Paul justifies it based on creation order, among other things. From my experience, few churches actually impose head coverings on women, and I think it would be safe to say that this is the general rule throughout American churches.
With this in mind, how are we reconcile applying this entire body of gendered instructions, when only certain instructions are being emphasized to the exclusion of others (e.g. head coverings)?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:54:00 +0000

I thought your comment about biases and assumptioms was leading toward a discussion about motives, so I decided to deal with that issue as well. I didn't think you were attacking my motives, and I apologize for not being clear about that.
Of course the ESV breaks between 5.21 and 5.22, and presents 5.18-21 as one sentence. Unfortunately the passage breaks aren't inspired It would have been rather helpful if Paul inserted them himself. Working on the assumption that the break is above 5.21, the outline would be:
1) Submit to one another.
2) Wives submit to your husbands
3) Husbands love your wives
In order for point 1 to apply to points 2 & 3, the reasoning Paul gives for 2 & 3 has to also support point 1. But this is not the case. The repeated analogy in support of both points is Christ's relationship with the church- being the head (authority) of the church. Unless we are prepared to say that Christ also submits to the church, point 1 cannot be talking about the same thing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:11:00 +0000

I reread my post trying to figure out whether I attacked your motive. I'm not sure, but I do apologize if you felt I was attacking your motives and undermining and not giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I believe in the full authority of scripture in my life and the life of my community, yet do not hold to the inerrant point of view (and I am an egalitarian). And like you said, it's probably difficult to discuss those passages because they might lend themselves to a discussion of that than Grudem.
However, this post was about your methodology, which is why we went down that route.
Using your methodology, I doubt that an egalitarian position will hold any water. And I'm sure that the complementarian position will lose quickly using a different framework of interpreting scripture.
Finally, I do believe that 5.21 belongs with 5.22, but the logic doesn't necessarily have to go down to where you are taking it. And in reading that passage, the structure of the sentence fits with 5.22 and down rather than above it. There is a clear shift in topics at 5.21 (and I know popular bible versions like the NIV do not acknowledge that, but glad that the TNIV does).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:34:00 +0000

Your first question, “Does Paul trump Jesus?”, is based on the assumption that Scripture contradicts itself. As I stated in the post, one of our hermeneutical assumptions is that Scripture does not contradict itself (hence there

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:06:00 +0000

You think women are that different now?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:50:00 +0000

Amy, while I appreciate your attempt to respond to this question, I'm wondering if it's actually tongue in cheek?? I mean surely, 21st century observations in your particular church context, in your particular regional context and your particular culture, translated to 1st century palestinian/greek/hebrew/roman culture is not a fair way of interpreting scripture.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:48:00 +0000

While I respect your methodology, I find it a bit wanting. Particularly in regards to interpreting Paul, there needs to also be a method of understanding how to interpret Paul. Does Paul trump Jesus? Or does Jesus trump Paul? I would say a hermeneutical framework to understanding Paul is necessary to interpret Paul.
Second, there is a problem with your second point that “scripture never contradicts itself.” surely you don't believe this. Some would conclude that contradiction would prove something false or illegitimate. I don't agree with that conclusion. However, I do believe that scripture has many examples of contradictions. Now some of those things are trivial, but they are contradictions nevertheless.
Third, you have no problem of choosing passages and verses out of context. Scripture must be interpreted within its specific context. And especially with the new testament books (and especially the letters), we have to understand the community that is receiving the letter and its relationship to the letter writer, so that we can better understand the content of the letter.
For example, you pull Eph. 5.22 “Wives submit to your husbands.” Without its appropriate context, this is a strong statement about the wife's role to her husband. However, when you go even just one verse above, we are called to submit to one another. And with the choice of words and the context and the structure of this particular paragraph, the author is clearly calling men and women to submit to another. However, within your framework, you fail to draw that out.
As for any method, I believe that most of the time they lend to prove whatever point we want them to prove. It is not alone to understand and point out our methods, but to also point out our biases and working assumptions. When we do that, we put ourselves in a place of humility when interpreting scripture.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:45:00 +0000

I actually have a different idea from Grudem of what the first passage means. If you look at the whole section, it's about order in the church. Some people were speaking out of turn and causing confusion. Paul is telling people when they can speak and when they need to be silent. For example, if there's no interpreter, the person who speaks in tongues is commanded to be silent, or if one person is giving a revelation, the other needs to be silent. We're all to subject our spirits to ourselves and keep silent if our speaking is going to disrupt the service.
And then we come to the women. It seems to me a huge stretch that this passage is referring to the evaluation of prophecies. It clearly seems like a new topic (within the larger topic) to me. We know just a few verses earlier, Paul says that “each one” (not each man) takes part in contributing to the service in a different way, and we also know that the women prophesied (because Paul gave instructions for that), so this most likely does not mean that women can't take part in the service at all.
Here's what I think it means in the context I described above: women have a tendency to talk to their neighbors in church. It's true. I have to fight this tendency. However, men don't tend to chat. They have more of a single-focus attitude than do women, so they're usually quiet. They don't need this exhortation. If anyone is gabbing in church I can almost guarantee you it's a woman. So Paul's telling us women that we need to subject ourselves, and if we have questions and comments we should discuss them after the service so that we don't disrupt the service.
I think that interpretation fits better with the context (not to mention experience) than Grudem's interpretation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:16:00 +0000

1) Actually, this was brought up in a comment on the 2.2 post. Paul's teaching in this context provides an affirmation (women can prophesy) and a restriction (women are to remain silent). Whatever interpretation we offer must make sense of both, ie- women should not be completely silent or else they could not prophesy, or women should not be given utter liberty or else Paul's restriction is meaningless. I think the position that the restriction applies to discussing prophecy in church makes the most sense of the passage.
2) I haven't studied this passage and therefore have no conclusion about it. I welcome whatever insights you have to offer