You scored as Anselm
Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'
Anselm100%
Karl Barth87%
Jürgen Moltmann80%
Jonathan Edwards73%
Friedrich Schleiermacher67%
John Calvin67%
Charles Finney40%
Augustine33%
Martin Luther33%
Paul Tillich7%
You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan.
You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan100%
Fundamentalist82%
Reformed Evangelical71%
Neo orthodox68%
Charismatic/Pentecostal54%
Classical Liberal46%
Emergent/Postmodern36%
Modern Liberal29%
Roman Catholic11%
Wow, i didnt think i was this loosely based, I was answering the questions through a friend, so i will do this again in 6 months and see if my theology has changed, but i think this isnt a acurate representation of me. what do you think?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Fundamentalism Article Review
Article Review
“A Thriving Movement”
Joel A. Carpenter
For this assignment I have found it best to describe Fundamentalism as I see it first then go into more depth of what the chapter “A thriving Moment”.
The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term, `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."
The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian Fundamentalists. Indeed, if there is one single thing that binds Fundamentalists together, it is their insistence that the Bible is to be understood as literally true. Further, Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others' interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalism in other faith traditions similarly proclaims guardianship of truth.
The Book by Joel A. Carpenter, Revive us Again, in his important work on the history of fundamentalism, gives us a clue as to how fundamentalism ended up with the doctrineand theology which is prominent in many of its churches today.
As heirs of the American revival tradition, fundamentalist’s greatly valued being able to reach the masses and to communicate their message in a popular attractive way. They were, in other words, intensely audience-conscious, market-driven, and concerned to see immediate returns from their efforts. A strong streak of anti corrupt ruling class, coupled with democratic appeals to popular opinion, also ran through the movement. Fundamentalists inherited most of these values directly from the evangelistic drive, spearheaded by Dwight L. Moody in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
Page 3 Jared AmbroseChurch HistoryArticle Review
Moody’s partners in this new wave of popular outreach were a group of gifted and respectable urban pastors such as Presbyterians A. T. Pierson of Philadelphia and A. B. Simpson of New York, and Baptists A. J. Gordon of Boston and A. C. Dixon of Baltimore. These ministers mortified their own higher class tastes and values and revamped their congregations to reflect the popular, revivalistic style of the urban evangelists. In order to prepare tightly knit group of zealot religious workers quickly for new evangelistic offensives, they formed Bible and missionary training schools. Therefore, even though most of these early leaders were well-educated and culturally refined their movement quickly lost touch with the nation’s intellectual currents.
Carpenter’s perspective certainly differs from the perspective as found in __The Life of Dwight L. Moody__ by Wm. R. Moody (his son). ©1900 by Fleming H. Revell Company.
When I read of Moody’s walk with God in private, his character when alone and at home with those who knew him best, how he would often interrupt his own conversation on rides through the countryside, “…and reining in his horse, pour out his heart in praise to God for His mercies, or unburden his soul in a simple prayer for guidance and relief. The very spontaneity of such prayers revealed the atmosphere of his life, which was one of constant communion with God. It was not surprising, then that he should seldom have long seasons of agonizing prayer such as some have esperienced, for his closeness to God was not limited to special seasons, but was a continuous and unterrupted experience.” (p 508) I for one am inclined to trust the Almighty’s assessment of the man’s life and work to be the final word.
Still, there’s much to criticize about American fundamentalism, More recently other evangelicals have criticized fundamentalist failings:
Historian George Marsden has called fundamentalism 'militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.'
Joel Carpenter describes it as 'a crabbed and parochial mutation of Protestant orthodoxy', and talks about the movement's 'cultural alienation, sectarian behaviour, and intellectual stagnation.'
And Richard Mouw, the current Fuller provost, has frequently written about fundamentalism's tangled legacy.
Page 4 Jared AmbroseChurch HistoryArticle Review
Carpenter criticized fundamentalism for its many flaws, but he also acknowledged its accomplishments. In The Smell of Sawdust, Richard Mouw mourns the fact that fundamentalism has left the evangelical movement with three common defects: anti-intellectualism, otherworldliness, and a separatist spirit.
However Carpenter’s quote struck me as a hit piece against Fundamentalism, which seems all too prevalent in a lot of theology in New Zealand and around the world today. It’s not a perfect movement by any stretch, but it is the heritage we have come into as Bible-believing separatists, and I think it should be critiqued carefully, as well as appreciated for what it has been, and continues to be.
I feel that what these men (the fundamentalists) who forged on through times when it seemed that the world was closing in on them, are enormouse men of God. They have single handedly, through every man made obstacle stood their ground. I believe very strongly that with out them, we would have a very much watered down version of the Bible and probably our ministers and Lecturers wouldn’t take the word of God seriousely and teach us what the Lord wants us to hear and not what they think is what we should learn. I am very proud to be known myself as a Fundamentalist, and wish that more people would be called this because in the end it means that I stick to the Word of God for all my decisions and trust only in Christ. I am not fully convinced that the early church fathers did everything right, But if they wouldn’t have at least tried we wouldn’t be here today studying at Carey.
Bibliography
The Life of Dwight L. Moody by Wm. R. Moody1900 by Fleming H. Revell Companyhttp://books.google.co.nz/books?id=anpF-BdAEFQC&pg=PA116&ots=zuhsia72wv&dq=The+Life+of+Dwight+L.+Moody+H.+Revell+Company&sig=xA5niTRMEhJSrqucZKpUdAKeVUg
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (1923). http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=WVBgg00gJLcC&pg=PP5&ots=76rcaAly5D&dq=%C2%B7%09J.+Gresham+Machen,+Christianity+%26+Liberalism+(1923).&sig=NozAjYLTQMyl_MkexMk6sryHb10#PPP8,M1
Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947, 2003). http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=2WVu5YK20HUC&pg=PR19&ots=6TW2jCQGTk&dq=%C2%B7%09Carl+F.+H.+Henry,+The+Uneasy+Conscience+of+Modern+Fundamentalism+(1947,+2003).&sig=BulriiyQKlyh_9Yzc2eRKdgvDTI
Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again: the Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (1997).
Richard Mouw, The Smell of Sawdust: What Evangelicals Can Learn from Their Fundamentalist Heritage (2000).http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4miy8fECCP4C&pg=PP1&ots=9NlqWwM6Hf&dq=%C2%B7%09Richard+Mouw,+The+Smell+of+Sawdust:+What+Evangelicals+Can+Learn+from+Their+Fundamentalist+Heritage+(2000).&sig=0BOcRsvk6HE7uhOvENXLG12H05o
Bibliography
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (1980); http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=9swPktfLJigC&pg=PA244&ots=yS1wIZxB1g&dq=%C2%B7%09George+M.+Marsden,+Fundamentalism+and+American+Culture:+The+Shaping+of+Twentieth+Century+Evangelicalism,+1870-1925+(1980)%3B&sig=PEFdFiiNkzOfx3PaNEsqAY6hnT4
Books I studied to get a better understanding of what I needed to cover but did not quote in my Review are as follows.
Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994).http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=J2fmHHqc-vIC&pg=PA217&ots=Cv286VrRip&dq=%C2%B7%09Mark+Noll,+The+Scandal+of+the+Evangelical+Mind+(1994).&sig=5rL4Nd9I8VxNiQVKpUq4pAGg51s
Alan Wolfe, "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind," The Atlantic Monthly, Article October 2000.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/01/letters.htm
Martin Marty and Scott Appleby, The Glory and the Power: The Fundamentalist Challenge to the Modern 1992.
Jeffery L. Sheler, Believers: A Journey Into Evangelical America (2006).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1001/excerpt.html
“A Thriving Movement”
Joel A. Carpenter
For this assignment I have found it best to describe Fundamentalism as I see it first then go into more depth of what the chapter “A thriving Moment”.
The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term, `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."
The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian Fundamentalists. Indeed, if there is one single thing that binds Fundamentalists together, it is their insistence that the Bible is to be understood as literally true. Further, Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others' interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalism in other faith traditions similarly proclaims guardianship of truth.
The Book by Joel A. Carpenter, Revive us Again, in his important work on the history of fundamentalism, gives us a clue as to how fundamentalism ended up with the doctrineand theology which is prominent in many of its churches today.
As heirs of the American revival tradition, fundamentalist’s greatly valued being able to reach the masses and to communicate their message in a popular attractive way. They were, in other words, intensely audience-conscious, market-driven, and concerned to see immediate returns from their efforts. A strong streak of anti corrupt ruling class, coupled with democratic appeals to popular opinion, also ran through the movement. Fundamentalists inherited most of these values directly from the evangelistic drive, spearheaded by Dwight L. Moody in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
Page 3 Jared AmbroseChurch HistoryArticle Review
Moody’s partners in this new wave of popular outreach were a group of gifted and respectable urban pastors such as Presbyterians A. T. Pierson of Philadelphia and A. B. Simpson of New York, and Baptists A. J. Gordon of Boston and A. C. Dixon of Baltimore. These ministers mortified their own higher class tastes and values and revamped their congregations to reflect the popular, revivalistic style of the urban evangelists. In order to prepare tightly knit group of zealot religious workers quickly for new evangelistic offensives, they formed Bible and missionary training schools. Therefore, even though most of these early leaders were well-educated and culturally refined their movement quickly lost touch with the nation’s intellectual currents.
Carpenter’s perspective certainly differs from the perspective as found in __The Life of Dwight L. Moody__ by Wm. R. Moody (his son). ©1900 by Fleming H. Revell Company.
When I read of Moody’s walk with God in private, his character when alone and at home with those who knew him best, how he would often interrupt his own conversation on rides through the countryside, “…and reining in his horse, pour out his heart in praise to God for His mercies, or unburden his soul in a simple prayer for guidance and relief. The very spontaneity of such prayers revealed the atmosphere of his life, which was one of constant communion with God. It was not surprising, then that he should seldom have long seasons of agonizing prayer such as some have esperienced, for his closeness to God was not limited to special seasons, but was a continuous and unterrupted experience.” (p 508) I for one am inclined to trust the Almighty’s assessment of the man’s life and work to be the final word.
Still, there’s much to criticize about American fundamentalism, More recently other evangelicals have criticized fundamentalist failings:
Historian George Marsden has called fundamentalism 'militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.'
Joel Carpenter describes it as 'a crabbed and parochial mutation of Protestant orthodoxy', and talks about the movement's 'cultural alienation, sectarian behaviour, and intellectual stagnation.'
And Richard Mouw, the current Fuller provost, has frequently written about fundamentalism's tangled legacy.
Page 4 Jared AmbroseChurch HistoryArticle Review
Carpenter criticized fundamentalism for its many flaws, but he also acknowledged its accomplishments. In The Smell of Sawdust, Richard Mouw mourns the fact that fundamentalism has left the evangelical movement with three common defects: anti-intellectualism, otherworldliness, and a separatist spirit.
However Carpenter’s quote struck me as a hit piece against Fundamentalism, which seems all too prevalent in a lot of theology in New Zealand and around the world today. It’s not a perfect movement by any stretch, but it is the heritage we have come into as Bible-believing separatists, and I think it should be critiqued carefully, as well as appreciated for what it has been, and continues to be.
I feel that what these men (the fundamentalists) who forged on through times when it seemed that the world was closing in on them, are enormouse men of God. They have single handedly, through every man made obstacle stood their ground. I believe very strongly that with out them, we would have a very much watered down version of the Bible and probably our ministers and Lecturers wouldn’t take the word of God seriousely and teach us what the Lord wants us to hear and not what they think is what we should learn. I am very proud to be known myself as a Fundamentalist, and wish that more people would be called this because in the end it means that I stick to the Word of God for all my decisions and trust only in Christ. I am not fully convinced that the early church fathers did everything right, But if they wouldn’t have at least tried we wouldn’t be here today studying at Carey.
Bibliography
The Life of Dwight L. Moody by Wm. R. Moody1900 by Fleming H. Revell Companyhttp://books.google.co.nz/books?id=anpF-BdAEFQC&pg=PA116&ots=zuhsia72wv&dq=The+Life+of+Dwight+L.+Moody+H.+Revell+Company&sig=xA5niTRMEhJSrqucZKpUdAKeVUg
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (1923). http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=WVBgg00gJLcC&pg=PP5&ots=76rcaAly5D&dq=%C2%B7%09J.+Gresham+Machen,+Christianity+%26+Liberalism+(1923).&sig=NozAjYLTQMyl_MkexMk6sryHb10#PPP8,M1
Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947, 2003). http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=2WVu5YK20HUC&pg=PR19&ots=6TW2jCQGTk&dq=%C2%B7%09Carl+F.+H.+Henry,+The+Uneasy+Conscience+of+Modern+Fundamentalism+(1947,+2003).&sig=BulriiyQKlyh_9Yzc2eRKdgvDTI
Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again: the Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (1997).
Richard Mouw, The Smell of Sawdust: What Evangelicals Can Learn from Their Fundamentalist Heritage (2000).http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4miy8fECCP4C&pg=PP1&ots=9NlqWwM6Hf&dq=%C2%B7%09Richard+Mouw,+The+Smell+of+Sawdust:+What+Evangelicals+Can+Learn+from+Their+Fundamentalist+Heritage+(2000).&sig=0BOcRsvk6HE7uhOvENXLG12H05o
Bibliography
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (1980); http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=9swPktfLJigC&pg=PA244&ots=yS1wIZxB1g&dq=%C2%B7%09George+M.+Marsden,+Fundamentalism+and+American+Culture:+The+Shaping+of+Twentieth+Century+Evangelicalism,+1870-1925+(1980)%3B&sig=PEFdFiiNkzOfx3PaNEsqAY6hnT4
Books I studied to get a better understanding of what I needed to cover but did not quote in my Review are as follows.
Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994).http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=J2fmHHqc-vIC&pg=PA217&ots=Cv286VrRip&dq=%C2%B7%09Mark+Noll,+The+Scandal+of+the+Evangelical+Mind+(1994).&sig=5rL4Nd9I8VxNiQVKpUq4pAGg51s
Alan Wolfe, "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind," The Atlantic Monthly, Article October 2000.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/01/letters.htm
Martin Marty and Scott Appleby, The Glory and the Power: The Fundamentalist Challenge to the Modern 1992.
Jeffery L. Sheler, Believers: A Journey Into Evangelical America (2006).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1001/excerpt.html
Friday, April 13, 2007
Heaven or Hell???
Hey Guys,
I dont normally recomend movies found on Youtube or Google Video because everything is open to interpretation, BUT this one i think all christians should watch.
Where do you go when you die???
Big question, as a christian i believe i have been saved by the blood of Jesus and that im going to spend eternity in heaven. I dont fully grasp heaven or what il do in it, but thats not the purpose of this video.
If your a christian and you think your going to heaven ,awesome, if your a christian and dont believe in heaven or hell, you really need to wake up and smell the roses. READ your BIBLE.
But you say i want proof. Watch the movie and see what your missing out on in hell and begin a brand new relationship with your father in heaven and start to be gratefull for everything he has done for you!!! Just as i have.
I know this is a long video, and some may not believe he actually went, but by the end you will be convinced this is true and he is not lying. I give it a 9/10. its long but woke me up spiritually!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
theres a few versions of this on the net and this one is about 10 years old now, ther in a brand new version of him telling this and more in 2006 see link below this one for that, but watch this one first.
23 Minutes in HELL, by Bill Wiese, he explains the torments of what Hell is like
SpiritLessons.com - 1 hr 37 min - Mar 31, 2006 -
(161 ratings)
... Please View the REFERENCE EDITION version of 23 Minutes is Hell Video, It is much Higher quality) Bill Wiese saw the searing flames of hell, felt total ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=648563944666093503
2006 version:
23 Minutes in Hell - Bill Wiese (Newest Version - Dec 2006) More Details
1 hr 7 min - Jan 28, 2007 - (8 ratings)
... of God lifting him out of the pit. Wiese's visit to the devil's lair lasted just twenty-three minutes, but he returned with vivid details etched in ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-750107269338052182
I dont normally recomend movies found on Youtube or Google Video because everything is open to interpretation, BUT this one i think all christians should watch.
Where do you go when you die???
Big question, as a christian i believe i have been saved by the blood of Jesus and that im going to spend eternity in heaven. I dont fully grasp heaven or what il do in it, but thats not the purpose of this video.
If your a christian and you think your going to heaven ,awesome, if your a christian and dont believe in heaven or hell, you really need to wake up and smell the roses. READ your BIBLE.
But you say i want proof. Watch the movie and see what your missing out on in hell and begin a brand new relationship with your father in heaven and start to be gratefull for everything he has done for you!!! Just as i have.
I know this is a long video, and some may not believe he actually went, but by the end you will be convinced this is true and he is not lying. I give it a 9/10. its long but woke me up spiritually!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
theres a few versions of this on the net and this one is about 10 years old now, ther in a brand new version of him telling this and more in 2006 see link below this one for that, but watch this one first.
23 Minutes in HELL, by Bill Wiese, he explains the torments of what Hell is like
SpiritLessons.com - 1 hr 37 min - Mar 31, 2006 -
(161 ratings)
... Please View the REFERENCE EDITION version of 23 Minutes is Hell Video, It is much Higher quality) Bill Wiese saw the searing flames of hell, felt total ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=648563944666093503
2006 version:
23 Minutes in Hell - Bill Wiese (Newest Version - Dec 2006) More Details
1 hr 7 min - Jan 28, 2007 - (8 ratings)
... of God lifting him out of the pit. Wiese's visit to the devil's lair lasted just twenty-three minutes, but he returned with vivid details etched in ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-750107269338052182
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Implications for pastoral care of being made in the Image of God
Implications for pastoral care of being made in the Image of God
Name: Jared Ambrose
Tutor: Brian Krum
Pastoral Care MM561
30 March 2007
Page 2 Jared Ambrose
Pastoral Care
Image of God Essay
Implications for pastoral care of being made in the Image of God
The question of being made in the Image of God and what are its implications for pastoral care, are sometimes over explained and confusing. The writer will try to simplify their argument and point out the main points they believe affect this area of interest.
Firstly, “What is a person?” One should be careful not to look too deeply and search for the mystical part of one’s inner self. One needs to go deeper into the Word to find out who is God and what was his purpose for creating us. How he created us is also very important.
Three major views have risen to the surface to formulate a definition of God.
•The Substantive View views the image as a definite characteristic or quality within humans. This could be physical, psychological or spiritual. ⁴
•The Relational View affirms that only those who have faith in Christ fully possess the image of God. ⁴
•The Functional View considers what man does, i.e., man’s God-Given function is to have dominion over the rest of creation⁴
In considering who and what man really is, we are compelled to investigate the Biblical assertion that “God Created man in His own Image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them (Gen 1:27).” ¹ Understanding this leads us to the fact that we are created in God’s image. Man in the bible is depicted “not as an evolved animal, but as an uniquely endowed creature specifically distinguished from the lower animal world, and specially related to God by the divinely bestowed image.” ² So we have concluded that we are created in God’s image, but we are not God because, like the animals, we were created. But are we different to the animals in any other way? The creation account indicates that man’s creation consisted of God breathing into his nostrils, and becoming a living soul as a result (Genesis 1:27-28; Psalms 8:5-6). This indicates that Man is created in the image of God but also includes man’s immaterial part. “God is spirit (John 4:24) and so consequently the image of God finds expression in man’s spirituality.” ³
We should then conclude that a person is created in the image of God but not God; They have has a spiritual side, a soul/spirit (not just a body but a spirit in the body, unlike animals with no spirit just flesh) that God has gifted to man. We should then build that idea in to our Christian walk as Pastoral care facilitators. Trying to walk every day in the Image of Jesus, the Son of God who is the revelation of the Image of God when he was here one earth.
Page 3 Jared Ambrose
Pastoral Care
Image of God Essay
We should remember too that the secular world doesn’t revolve on our ideas as Christians, they look elsewhere to solve their problems. As Christians we should be continually refocusing our attention on God, and in the scripture. In this way we will be able to become more conformed to the image of God.
We should apply this knowledge of God in knowing that all humans were created in the Image of God. We should not treat people differently because of race, colour, accent, gender or personal disability. Everyone is created equally in the sight of God and therefore also in the Image of God.
As Pastoral Care facilitators we should treat everyone with the respect that God gives us. “There is no part of man, not even his body, which is not adorned with some rays of the glory of the image of God.”³ So we should show everyone God’s love. Knowing that the Image of God is universal, all people have points of sensitivity to spiritual things. We should respect these and apply them in everyone we meet, being respectful of their beliefs and to try to show God’s love in the way he showed it when he created you.
Finally we can see that no matter who we are or where we are, we should apply these principles to our daily walk, trying to respect everyone else, no matter what they say or believe. We should respect everyone and love everyone equally. Trying one’s best to show God’s love shining through us from the Image he made us in.
Bibliography
Kypers, W. In Gods Image. Theology 111. 2000
Krum, Brian. Course Notes. Page 1-8.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2d ed. Baker Books, 1983
¹ All references are taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise stated.
²G.C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, Trans. Dirk W. Jellema 1976, 125.
³Berkouwer, 76.
⁴ Kypers, W. In Gods Image. Theology 111. Page 2
Name: Jared Ambrose
Tutor: Brian Krum
Pastoral Care MM561
30 March 2007
Page 2 Jared Ambrose
Pastoral Care
Image of God Essay
Implications for pastoral care of being made in the Image of God
The question of being made in the Image of God and what are its implications for pastoral care, are sometimes over explained and confusing. The writer will try to simplify their argument and point out the main points they believe affect this area of interest.
Firstly, “What is a person?” One should be careful not to look too deeply and search for the mystical part of one’s inner self. One needs to go deeper into the Word to find out who is God and what was his purpose for creating us. How he created us is also very important.
Three major views have risen to the surface to formulate a definition of God.
•The Substantive View views the image as a definite characteristic or quality within humans. This could be physical, psychological or spiritual. ⁴
•The Relational View affirms that only those who have faith in Christ fully possess the image of God. ⁴
•The Functional View considers what man does, i.e., man’s God-Given function is to have dominion over the rest of creation⁴
In considering who and what man really is, we are compelled to investigate the Biblical assertion that “God Created man in His own Image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them (Gen 1:27).” ¹ Understanding this leads us to the fact that we are created in God’s image. Man in the bible is depicted “not as an evolved animal, but as an uniquely endowed creature specifically distinguished from the lower animal world, and specially related to God by the divinely bestowed image.” ² So we have concluded that we are created in God’s image, but we are not God because, like the animals, we were created. But are we different to the animals in any other way? The creation account indicates that man’s creation consisted of God breathing into his nostrils, and becoming a living soul as a result (Genesis 1:27-28; Psalms 8:5-6). This indicates that Man is created in the image of God but also includes man’s immaterial part. “God is spirit (John 4:24) and so consequently the image of God finds expression in man’s spirituality.” ³
We should then conclude that a person is created in the image of God but not God; They have has a spiritual side, a soul/spirit (not just a body but a spirit in the body, unlike animals with no spirit just flesh) that God has gifted to man. We should then build that idea in to our Christian walk as Pastoral care facilitators. Trying to walk every day in the Image of Jesus, the Son of God who is the revelation of the Image of God when he was here one earth.
Page 3 Jared Ambrose
Pastoral Care
Image of God Essay
We should remember too that the secular world doesn’t revolve on our ideas as Christians, they look elsewhere to solve their problems. As Christians we should be continually refocusing our attention on God, and in the scripture. In this way we will be able to become more conformed to the image of God.
We should apply this knowledge of God in knowing that all humans were created in the Image of God. We should not treat people differently because of race, colour, accent, gender or personal disability. Everyone is created equally in the sight of God and therefore also in the Image of God.
As Pastoral Care facilitators we should treat everyone with the respect that God gives us. “There is no part of man, not even his body, which is not adorned with some rays of the glory of the image of God.”³ So we should show everyone God’s love. Knowing that the Image of God is universal, all people have points of sensitivity to spiritual things. We should respect these and apply them in everyone we meet, being respectful of their beliefs and to try to show God’s love in the way he showed it when he created you.
Finally we can see that no matter who we are or where we are, we should apply these principles to our daily walk, trying to respect everyone else, no matter what they say or believe. We should respect everyone and love everyone equally. Trying one’s best to show God’s love shining through us from the Image he made us in.
Bibliography
Kypers, W. In Gods Image. Theology 111. 2000
Krum, Brian. Course Notes. Page 1-8.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2d ed. Baker Books, 1983
¹ All references are taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise stated.
²G.C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, Trans. Dirk W. Jellema 1976, 125.
³Berkouwer, 76.
⁴ Kypers, W. In Gods Image. Theology 111. Page 2
Monday, March 26, 2007
But what should women do in the church?
But what should women do in the church?
— By Wayne Grudem
Okay, I agree with you that only men should be pastors and elders. But what about other activities in the church? What exactly do you think a woman should and should not do, according to the Bible?”
This is probably the most frequent question I hear when I speak on manhood and womanhood in the church. Sometimes people say, “Just where do you draw the line? Can women teach adult Sunday School classes? What about serving communion, or chairing a committee? We want to follow Scripture, but there aren’t any verses that talk about these specific things.”
I think in most cases men and women who ask these questions genuinely want to encourage more opportunities for women in the overall ministry of the church. They sense that many evangelical churches have been too “traditional” and too restrictive on ministries available to women. These people want to question “the way we have always done things” in the light of Scripture. But they also do not want to encourage anything that is contrary to Scripture.
In this article I will try to answer those questions, partly in the hope of encouraging churches to examine their traditions to see if there are more areas of ministry which they could open to women as well as men. On the other hand, I also want to explain why I think that certain kinds of activities are restricted to men.
For the purposes of this article, I will assume that my readers are in agreement that Scripture teaches some restriction on the roles women may fill in the church. Generally these restrictions fall in three areas: (1) governing authority, (2) Bible teaching, and (3) public recognition or visibility.
In fact, almost all the questions of application pertain to at least one of these areas. This is because Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” (1 Tim. 2:12), and the other passages which speak of restrictions on women’s roles in the church also deal with questions of governing and teaching (1 Cor. 14:33–35; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; Matt. 10:2–4; etc.). I have included area (3), public recognition or visibility, because some activities in the church are very visible but may not include governing or teaching authority, yet people easily confuse these issues in their minds. If we keep this issue distinct, it helps us think more clearly about specific applications.
What follows here are three lists of activities.
In List 1, I proceed from areas of greater governing authority to areas of lesser authority.
In List 2, I proceed from areas of greater teaching responsibility and influence on the beliefs of the church to areas of lesser teaching responsibility and lesser influence on the beliefs of the church.
In List 3, I proceed from areas of greater public recognition and visibility to areas of lesser visibility.
Finally, one word of caution is appropriate: These lists do not rank importance to the church! In fact, Paul tells us that all the members of the body are needed (1 Cor. 12:14–21). And he tells us that “the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor.” (1 Cor. 12:22–23). Jesus said, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43). These statements remind us that when we talk about levels of governing authority, or Bible teaching responsibility, or public recognition, we are not talking about greatness or importance.
Then why talk about such levels at all? We must do so, because Scripture tells us that there are some kinds of governing and teaching that are inappropriate for women. In order to think clearly about what kinds of governing and teaching roles those are, we first must list the actual kinds of activities we are talking about. Then we can ask, in each case, if this was the kind of governing or teaching that Scripture intended us to understand in these passages. In short, we need to make such a list for purposes of clearer thinking on this issue.
Here then, on the following pages, are the three lists. (The actual order of items on each list is approximate, and churches may think that some items should be moved up or down on the list according to the way they assess their own situations).
List 1: Areas of Governing Authority
Areas of greater governing authority to areas of lesser authority
1. President of a denomination
2. Member of the governing board of a denomination
3. Regional governing authority (such as bishop in some denominations, district superintendent or similar office in others)
4. Member of regional governing board
5. Senior pastor in local church
6. Member of governing board with authority over whole church (for example, elder in many churches, deacon or board member or church council member in others)
7. Presiding over a baptism or communion service (but see List 3 for serving communion or performing a baptism)
8. Giving spoken judgment on a prophecy given to the congregation (I think this is what Paul forbids in 1 Cor. 14:33–36)
9. Permanent leader of a fellowship group meeting in a home (both men and women members)
10. Committee chairman (or “chairperson") (explanation: this item and the following two have some kind of authority in the church, but it is less than the authority over the whole congregation which Paul has in mind in 1 Cor. 14:33–36, 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Tim. 3, and Titus 1)
11. Director of Christian Education
12. Sunday School Superintendent
13. Missionary responsibilities: many administrative and organizational responsibilities in missionary work in other countries
14. Moderating a Bible discussion in a home Bible study group
15. Choir director
16. Leading singing on Sunday morning (note: this could be listed between 8 and 9 above, depending on how a church understands the degree of authority over the assembled congregation that is involved)
17. Deacon (in churches where this does not involve governing authority over the entire congregation)
18. Administrative assistant to senior pastor
19. Church treasurer
20. Church secretary
21. Member of advisory council to regional governing authority
22. Meeting periodically with church governing board to give counsel and advice
23. Regular conversations between elders and their wives over matters coming before the elder board (with understanding that confidentiality is preserved)
24. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling one man)
25. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling a couple together)
26. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling another woman)
27. Speaking in congregational business meetings
28. Voting in congregational business meetings (Explanation: each person voting has some influence over the whole congregation, but it is significantly less than the governing authority held personally by elders or a senior pastor, and does not seem to be what Paul has in view in 1 Tim. 2. By analogy, an 18-year old American can vote for the President of the United States, but cannot be President of the United States, and the authority residing in the office of President far exceeds the authority of any individual voter.)
List 2: Areas of Bible Teaching
Areas of greater teaching responsibility and influence on the beliefs of the church to areas of lesser teaching responsibility and lesser influence on the beliefs of the church.
1. Teaching Bible or theology in a theological seminary
2. Teaching Bible or theology in a Christian college
3. Preaching (teaching the Bible) at a nationwide denominational meeting
4. Preaching (teaching the Bible) at a regional meeting of churches
5. Preaching (teaching the Bible) regularly to the whole church on Sunday mornings
6. Occasional preaching (teaching the Bible) to the whole church on Sunday mornings
7. Occasional Bible teaching at less formal meetings of the whole church (such as Sunday evening or at a mid-week service)
8. Bible teaching to an adult Sunday school class (both men and women members)
9. Bible teaching at a home Bible study (both men and women members)
10. Bible teaching to a college age Sunday school class
11. Bible teaching to a high school Sunday school class
12. Writing a book on Bible doctrines (Explanation: I have put four examples of writing activities here on the list because the author of a book has some kind of teaching authority, but it is different from the teaching authority over the assembled congregation that Paul prohibits in 1 Tim. 2. The teaching relationship of an author to a reader is much more like the one-to-one kind of teaching that Priscilla and Aquila did when they explained the way of God more accurately to Apollos in Acts 18:26. In fact, with a book the element of direct personal interaction is almost entirely absent. Moreover, the book comes not only from the author but also with input from the editors and publisher.)
13. Writing or editing a study Bible
14. Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible
15. Writing notes in a study Bible
16. Writing or editing a study Bible intended primarily for women
17. Bible teaching to a women’s Sunday school class
18. Bible teaching to a women’s Bible study group during the week
19. Bible teaching to a junior high Sunday school class
20. Teaching as a Bible professor on a secular university campus. (Explanation: I have put this here on the list because I see this task as essentially a combination of evangelism and teaching about the Bible as literature, mainly to non-Christians. Even though there may be Christians in some classes, the professor has no church-authorized authority or doctrinal endorsement, as there would be with a Bible teacher in a church or a professor in a Christian college or seminary.)
21. Evangelistic speaking to large groups of non-Christians (for example, an evangelistic rally on a college campus)
22. Working as an evangelistic missionary in other cultures
23. Moderating a discussion in a small group Bible study (men and women members)
24. Reading Scripture aloud on Sunday morning
25. Reading Scripture to other, less formal meetings of the church
26. Giving a personal testimony before the congregation (a story of how God has worked in one’s own or others’ lives)
27. Participating in a discussion in a home Bible study (men and women members)
28. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling one man)
29. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling a married couple)
30. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling a woman)
31. Teaching children’s Sunday school class
32. Teaching Vacation Bible School
33. Singing a solo on Sunday morning (a form of teaching, since it often has Biblical content and exhortation)
34. Singing to the congregation as a member of the choir
35. Singing hymns with the congregation (in this activity, sometimes we “teach” and exhort one another in some sense: Col. 3:16)
List 3: Areas of Public Visibility or Recognition
Areas of greater public recognition and visibility to areas of lesser visibility
1. Ordination as pastor (member of the clergy) in a denomination
2. Being licensed to perform some ministerial functions within a denomination
3. Paid member of pastoral staff (such as youth worker, music director, counselor, Christian Education director)
4. Paid member of administrative church staff (church secretary or treasurer, for example)
5. Performing a baptism (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)
6. Helping to serve the Lord’s Supper (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)
7. Giving announcements at the Sunday morning service
8. Taking the offering
9. Public reading of Scripture
10. Public prayer
11. Prophesying in public (according to 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:29, where this is not understood as having authority equal to scripture or Bible teaching)
12. Singing a solo on Sunday mornings
13. Giving a personal testimony in church
14. Giving a prayer request in church
15. Being a member of a “prayer team” that will pray for people individually after the service.
16. Welcoming people at the door (a greeter)
17. Editing church newsletter
18. Singing in the choir
19. Singing of hymns with congregation on Sunday morning
20. Participating in the responsive reading of Scripture on Sunday morning
*Note: I put these three items in both columns because there is some amount of authority and some amount of Bible teaching involved in them. I should also say that I am not here commenting on whether it is ordinarily wise or most effective for one woman to counsel one man; I am just listing these activities according to the degree of governing or teaching authority they exhibit over the congregation of a church. Moreover, people may put these activities at different places on these lists, depending on the style of counseling and the degree of authority they think attaches to it.
Even such long lists are of course incomplete. For one thing, there are specialized ministries (sometimes called parachurch organizations) which would have similar charts but with different titles in many places. For example, mission agencies, campus organizations (Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators) and other specialized ministries such as Focus on the Family or Prison Fellowship could all have similar lists of activities, but with slightly different specific items.
In addition, it is very important to recognize that this list of activities simply cannot include the very important factors of variation in attitudes which can make a big difference in the actual degree of governing authority in a specific situation (does a particular woman have a domineering attitude? or a gracious servant heart?).
This list also cannot take into account any variation in goals which a person is trying to attain (is a woman seeking more and more authority over men, or genuinely seeking to use gifts for the benefit of the church?). In situations which churches see as “borderline” situations, it may be hard to decide in advance, and the difference may well depend on variations in attitudes and goals found in the specific people involved. Moreover, this table cannot take into account the widely varying situations which occur in different churches. One church may have a college age class of three students, while another may have a college age class of 500. Surely what it means to teach and have authority over men applies differently in the two situations. Once again, in such “borderline” situations, churches will need to use mature wisdom and sound judgement to make a correct evaluation of what is appropriate in light of biblical principles. But I think these lists, though not exhaustive, are helpful as far as they go.
What is the Solution?
These lists now present us with a dilemma: Everyone who agrees with the principles of the Danvers Statement will agree that some of these uses of authority are appropriate for women, and some are not. Everyone will also agree that some of these kinds of Bible teaching are appropriate, and some are not. And I think that everyone who agrees with the Danvers Statement will agree at least that ordination as a pastor in a denomination is inappropriate for women, while there may be differences on whether the other areas of public visibility are appropriate. At this point we must state the obvious: the Bible does not give us a specific verse on each of these situations! But it is that way with the entire Christian life. Each day we face thousands of decisions, very few of which are covered by a specific verse. We agree that it is wrong to steal, but can we use the office phone to call home? Can we take an unused bar of soap from a hotel room, or a box of tissue? Surely not the table lamp! Between what is clearly right and clearly wrong we make decisions every day, seeking to be faithful to Scripture as we apply it to everyday life.
We must simply recognize the fact that God in his wisdom has given us a Bible which specifies many principles for conduct, and does give some specific examples of application. But by its very nature the Bible cannot speak in specific detail to the thousands, and even millions of real life situations that people will encounter throughout the centuries.
What then do we do? We understand the principles that allow certain activities. We understand the principles that prohibit other activities. Then between these parameters, we attempt to make a mature judgment based on the wisdom that God gives us and our knowledge of the situation.
In all such situations, I have found the following chart useful:
Now regarding the question of women in the church, what actions should we put on this scale? On the left side of the scale we can put verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul prohibits a woman from teaching or having authority over men. Since I think it is very evident from the context that Paul is talking about the assembled congregation in this passage (see 1 Tim. 2:8–10; 3:15), and he is giving principles that apply to the entire congregation (see 1 Tim. 3:1–16), I think that the left end of the scale prohibits women from teaching or having governing authority over the whole congregation.
What shall we put on the right end of the scale? Here we would put verses such as Acts 18:26, where, in a less formal setting apart from an assembled congregation, we find that Priscilla and Aquila were talking to Apollos, and “they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.” This situation is similar to a small group Bible study in which both men and women are participating and in that way “teaching” one another. Another verse that we can put on the right end of the scale is Titus 2:4 which tells the older women to “train the younger women to love their husbands and children…”
Moreover, since Paul specifically prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men, we may also put on the right end of the chart the activity of teaching children, for surely both mothers and fathers teach their children, and I think all would agree that it is appropriate that this family teaching activity be extended into the Sunday School where women function as the “mothers” of the church and teach other children as well as their own. So our scale would look like this:
With this scale in mind, we could place all of the activities in the long lists above at one point or another on the scale. Some activities, such as serving as senior pastor in the local church, would clearly fall on the “no” side of the scale. Others, such as performing a baptism or leading a home fellowship group or chairing a committee, would fall somewhere in the middle of the scale. And it is at this point that individuals and churches will need to prayerfully consider just where they will “draw the line” in saying what activities are encouraged and what activities are prohibited for women in their local churches.
The Decision of the Danvers Statement
When we wrote the Danvers Statement in 1987, we realized that no brief statement could possibly include all the varieties of activities that are mentioned in a list like the one above. We wanted a brief statement that would apply broadly across denominations and in all kinds of different churches. I think we came up with an excellent statement. We said that:
Some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men.
While we did not wish to exclude applications to areas outside the local church, I believe that our primary focus here was to indicate how this would work in the local church. In terms of the local church, this statement means that, on list one, the Danvers Statement definitely would prohibit activities 1–6 for women, and probably also items 7 and 8: We affirm that the office of senior pastor, the office of elder (or equivalent), together with activities specifically connected to those positions, are not open to women. But all the other activities on the list, from item 9 to the end, would be open to women.
In the areas of Bible teaching, in order for “some” teaching roles within the church to be restricted to men, the Danvers Statement would draw the line between 5 and 6 on list two: regular Bible teaching to the assembled church on Sunday morning is restricted to men. But the rest of the list, from item 6 to the end, would be open to women as well as men.
The Danvers Statement did not specifically address areas of public visibility or recognition (list 3 above), but since we intended to restrict the offices of pastor/elder to men, then in the third column we would draw the line after number 1, and say that the ordination to the clergy, which in most or all denominations implies recognition of an ability to serve as senior pastor, would be restricted to men. But all other items, from item 2 to the end, would be potentially open to women as well as men.
By saying that “some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men,” the Danvers Statement draws a definite line: it differs decisively with all evangelical feminists (or egalitarians), who simply could not agree with this statement. They would insist that no governing or teaching roles within the church should be restricted to men—that all should be open to women and men alike.
In this way the Danvers Statement draws a very broad circle. It asks only for what seems to us and to so many evangelicals to be clearly affirmed in Scripture: that when the church assembles, there is a teaching and governing authority over the congregation which is reserved for men. Christians who agree with this foundational principle agree with us in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and agree with the Danvers Statement. People who differ with this put themselves in the egalitarian camp.
Personally, I believe that this brief phrase in the Danvers Statement is going to become very important in the ongoing discussions between complementarians and egalitarians in the evangelical world. In spite of the many varieties of ways in which churches will work out this principle in their own congregations and denominations, this phrase points to a decisive difference in understanding Scripture and in understanding how a church will function. This brief phrase, then, defines the foundational difference between egalitarians and complementarians over the role of women in the church.
My own personal convictions
When we wrote the Danvers Statement in 1987, we drew it up in such a way that it was intentionally broader in what it allowed than the personal convictions of many of us on the Council. We did this because we recognize that applying Scripture to specific situations not addressed by Scripture is an area which requires much wisdom and mature judgment, and an area in which Christians may differ. Therefore we wanted to specify what we thought the Bible at the very least would require of us.
In areas of difficulty in application, it is right for us to talk with each other and attempt to persuade one another of what exactly God would have us do in our specific situations. At this point I will speak for myself, and probably for many other members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but I do not here purport to be speaking for all of the Council or for the Danvers Statement itself.
My own personal judgment in this matter is that in the area of governing authority I would draw the line between numbers 9 and 10; that is, I would approve of a woman as Director of Christian Education or Superintendent of the Sunday School, or as a committee chairman within the church. These activities do not seem to me to carry the sort of authority over the whole congregation that Paul has in view in 1 Timothy 2, or when he specifies that elders should be men (in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1).
On the other hand, I would not think it appropriate for a woman to be a permanent leader of a home fellowship group (item 9), especially if the group regularly carries out pastoral care of its members and functions as a sort of mini-church within the church. This is because the leader of such a group carries a governing authority that seems to me very similar to the authority over the assembled congregation that Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2. Given the frequently small nature of churches meeting in homes in the first century, and given the “pastoral” nature of the responsibility of leading a home fellowship group, I think Paul would have thought of this as included in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.”
But I must say at once that that is my personal judgement. And in fact at one time I was a member of a church that differed with me at that specific point, and that had some women leading home fellowship groups. I differed with that decision, but I found that I could in good conscience continue as an active and supportive member of the church. However, I don’t think that I personally could have participated in good conscience in a fellowship group in which I myself was a member and there was a woman who functioned in that local “pastoral” role with regard to me and my wife.
With regard to areas of Bible teaching, I would personally draw the line between points 10 and 11. Once again, I think there is a strong similarity between a home Bible study which is taught by a woman (item 9) and the local church meeting in a home in the ancient world. Therefore I do not think it would be appropriate for a woman to be the regular instructor in a home Bible study. On the other hand, my own personal judgment is that the moderating of a discussion in a small group Bible study may at times be appropriate for women. The teaching and governing component is less than it would be if she were regularly teaching or had pastoral responsibility over the entire group, and does not clearly resemble the teaching authority over the assembled congregation that Paul prohibited in 1 Timothy 2.
For similar reasons, I think it would be inappropriate for a woman to be the Bible teacher in an adult Sunday School class where much instruction is carried out. This looks so much like what Paul prohibited in 1 Timothy 2 that I could not personally endorse it. (I have already heard many stories of women doing such teaching effectively, but I don’t want to base my decision just on people’s experiences: I am trying to say how I think Scripture applies, and then to let Scripture govern our experiences, and I think Scripture applies here—though I admit that God may bless his Word with good fruit anyway no matter who teaches it. The final question still must be what Scripture tells us to do and not to do).
When do children become adults, and when does teaching boys become teaching men? I think we must recognize that this will vary from society to society and from culture to culture. It may even vary from subculture to sub-culture within our own country.
In our own culture, if children graduate from high school, move away from home, and begin to support themselves, then surely they are no longer under the instruction of their mothers at home, but are functioning as adults on their own. A new household has been formed. In that case, the young men are certainly adult men, and it would not be appropriate for a woman to teach a class with them as members.
Many college students are already living away from home, supporting themselves at least in part, and functioning in our society in all other ways as independent adults. In fact, most college students would be insulted if you called them “children”! For these reasons, it seems to me that a college age Sunday School class (item 10) should have a male teacher.
The situation with a high school class is different, because high school students are still at home, and still under the instruction of their mothers. Sunday School class might be seen as an extension of this home instruction, and therefore I do not think it would be wrong for a woman to be a Bible teacher in a high school Sunday School class. However, many churches may well think it preferable for a man to teach a high school Sunday School class, because of the modeling of male leadership in the church that these young adults will grow to appreciate and in fact to imitate.
But what about activity number 6, occasional preaching to the whole church on Sunday morning? It is fair to say at this point that a number of evangelical scholars who publicly identify themselves as complementarians have decided that Scripture allows this activity. Evangelical leaders such as J.I. Packer, James Montgomery Boice, James Hurley, and John Wimber, have all publicly written or stated that this kind of activity seems to them to be allowed from time to time. Their argument is that 1 Timothy 2:12, which focuses on governing authority and teaching in the church, thereby indicates to us that what Paul really has in mind is the office of elder. And as long as a woman does not hold the office of elder or regularly perform the functions that an elder performs, then 1 Timothy 2 would not prohibit her from occasional preaching.
Personally I differ with this because Paul is speaking of activities and not the office of elder in 1 Timothy 2:12. He does not say, “I permit no woman to have the teaching or governing authority over men that belongs to elders,” but rather he mentions certain activities in the assembled congregation which are prohibited to women: He says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent” (1 Tim. 2:12). For this reason, though I have pondered this matter, I simply cannot bring myself to think that Paul meant that women could teach and have authority over the congregation “occasionally,” but that they could not teach and have authority on a regular or permanent basis. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 14:33–36 prohibits an activity (judging prophecies), not an office.
I mention this difference among people who agree with the Danvers Statement simply to point out that there is room for legitimate difference of understanding of how these biblical teachings apply to specific situations. We agree in principle, and we differ slightly in one specific application. I hope that as we talk and pray and search Scripture more, we may come to agreement. But this kind of difference in specific application should not bother us too much, because such differences are inevitable in a world in which churches vary so widely in the nature of service, the kind of governing structures that they have, and in their understanding of specific situations. In all areas of church life, differences on specific applications can occur within broader guidelines on which all are agreed.
Finally, in the areas of public visibility and recognition, I personally would also draw the line between items 1 and 2. I do not think that women should be ordained as pastors, but I think it is entirely appropriate for them to have other full-time positions on the “pastoral staff ” of the church (such as youth worker, music director).
Conclusions
I hope that these guidelines will be helpful for many churches in coming to their own understanding of where to “draw the line” on what they think appropriate for women and what they think to be inappropriate. I fully realize that many churches will draw such a line in a way that is more restrictive than what I have mentioned here. I would simply encourage churches in all of this to be careful not to prohibit what the Bible doesn’t prohibit, while they are also attempting to preserve male leadership in a way Scripture directs.
What is left below the line? Many activities that have not “traditionally” been open to women. And I have not even mentioned hundreds of other kinds of ministries in a local church that women and men are already carrying out. Therefore I suspect that almost every person reading this article will realize that there are some areas of ministry that are not currently open to women in his or her church, areas to which the church should give careful and prayerful consideration.
In fact, I hope that this entire controversy in the evangelical world will prompt churches to give earnest consideration to the possibilities of many more kinds of ministries for women than have “traditionally” been open to them in the past. I know I speak for the entire membership of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood when I say that it is our sincere desire to “open the doors wide” to all the areas of ministry in the church that God intends for women to have.
And I think we are all conscious of the fact that these areas of ministry may indeed be more numerous, more publicly visible, and more prominent in the life of the church than we had previously thought. If that happens, this entire controversy will have served a wonderful purpose and the church will be far stronger, and far more pleasing to God, as it enters the twenty-first century.
Words Matter
It is helpful in the discussion of manhood and womananhood to consider the fine but significant distinction between complement and supplement. A complement is “something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.” For example, one might say, “His tie complements the suit he’s wearing.” The suit in itself is a complete unit, as is the tie.
On the other hand, a supplement is “something added to complete a thing, to make up for a deficiency.” This usage is reflected in the statement, “Bob works nights to supplement his income.” Obviously, the earnings from Bob’s day job are inadequate to meet his financial needs.
The application of this distinction in theological discussion can be seen in the fact that men and women as individuals are image bearers. A single man or a single woman fully bears the image of God.
In marriage, then husband and wife as male and female complement one another; they are equal in terms of their dignity, personhood and value. One is not superior to the other, though they have different functions. Since they are individually complete before God as bearers of His image, they do not supplement one another in this way at all.
In CBMW, we have chosen the term complementarian to represent our position. The careful choice of words makes a difference in how we express and understand Biblical, theological and practical concepts.
Words do matter.
Newsbriefs from the world
Episcopal bishops voted to require all dioceses to ordain qualified women to the priesthood. At their national conference in Portland in September, the bishops voted 121–15 to end exemptions from church rules for bishops who, in conscience, oppose women’s ordination. A group of conscientiously objecting bishops called the vote a “denial of the basic Anglican principle that the church cannot demand that which cannot be proven from the plain teaching of Scripture.” National & International Religion Report (NIRR),October 16, 1995
The Japanese government plans to allow married couples to use different last names (Washington Post, September 17, 1995). Japanese law now requires married couples to take one last name —almost always the husband’s —but that is set to change in 1996 based on new government recommendations.
In recent years, many Japanese women have been keeping their maiden names while officially registering their marriage under their husband’s name. Meanwhile public pressure challenged the Japanese government to change the rules.
Takeshi Usami, who works in Tokyo’s Ginza district, said, “The image and the identity of family is symbolized by having the same name.” A co-worker, Osamu Toyoda, added “In Japan, we have a long tradition of family, and it is very unique. Having two names contradicts that feeling of family.”
But continuing a practice based on mere tradition, symbol or feeling is inadequate. The significance of the above news item is highlighted in an insightful article in the November issue of First Things. Excerpts follow.
“The husband who gives his name to his bride in marriage is thus not just keeping his own; he is owning up to what it means to have been given a family and a family name by his own father—he is living out his destiny to be a father by saying yes to it in advance. And the wife does not so much surrender her name as she accepts the gift of his, given and received as a pledge of (among other things) loyal and responsible fatherhood for her children. A woman who refuses this gift is, whether she knows it or not, tacitly refusing the promised devotion or, worse, expressing her suspicions about her groom’s trustworthiness as a husband and prospective father.”
“Fathers who will not own up to their paternity, who will not ‘legitimize’ their offspring, and who will not name themselves responsible for child-rearing by giving their children their name are, paradoxically, not real fathers at all, and their wives and especially their children suffer. The former stigmatization of bastardy was, in fact, meant to protect women and children from such irresponsible behavior of self-indulgent men…who would take their sexual pleasures ans walk away from their consequences.”
“The change of the woman’s name, from family of origin to family of perpetuation, is the perfect emblem for the desired exogamy of human sexuality and generation. The woman in marriage not only expresses her humanity in love (as does the man); she also embraces the meaning of marriage by accepting the meaning of her womanly nature as generative. In shedding the name of her family of origin, she tacitly affirms that children of her womb can be ligitimated only exogamously. Her children will not bear the same name as—will not “belong to”—her father; moreover, her new name allows her father to recognize formally the mature woman his daughter has become.” For full article, see Amy R. Kass and Leon R. Kass, “What’s Your Name?” in First Things, November, 1995,
Amid the controversies in the Episcopal Church USA, we note that Bishop Browning’s appointee for evangelism coordinator was the Rev. Linda Strohmier, who “says she isn’t sure that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation. Perhaps, she adds, a relationship with Christ is merely ‘optional.’…and God is someone to whom she refers as ‘she,’ ‘the god,’ or ‘it’ on occasion.” World, September 30, 1995
The Conservative Mennonite Conference informs us that they have adopted the Danvers Statement as their offi-cial position paper on the ministry and marriage responsibilities of men and women. They overprint a caption indicating this as their conference position on copies of the Danvers Statement which they distribute. This is a practice we heartily endorse. The Conservative Mennonite Conference, headquartered in Irwin, Ohio, is an autonomous affiliation of Mennonite congregations in North America, with mission programs in Latin America, Germany, and Muslim locations in the near East and Asia. They are also at work with CBMW on producing a Spanish language translation of the Danvers Statement, which we hope will be available soon.
A disturbing sidelight to the Beijing Conference was the strange silence of the Church. James Dobson observed, “There on the world stage was an event… [where] Christians had every reason to be alarmed. At stake was the future of the family, the safety of every unborn baby, sexual purity before marriage and the heterosexual basis for marriage. Also under siege was the delicate relationship between men and women upon which families are based. Scripture was mocked and the Christian faith was contradicted.…yet the collective voice of the Protestant community was virtually mute. God forgive us!”
Should Headship Be A Power Play?
Often, the relational tensions between men and women are described in terms of power or control. This semantic slant on the discussion often wrongly leads egalitarians to the conclusion that headship includes the forceful use of power by a man, resulting in domination if not outright abuse of his wife. Because of this, egalitarian efforts to level the distinctions between men and women in the home and the church are easily focused on the woman’s reclamation or assertion of power or control in the relationship.
A glimpse at some Biblical injunctions should correct this false assumption and its conclusion. Jesus’ reminded the disciples in Luke 22:25–26. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it overthem; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Likewise, Peter describes leadership and authority as gentle service, “serving as overseers…eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you” (1 Pet. 5:2–3). In the home, Paul does not command husbands to dominate, rather he instructs them to lovingly and sacrificially serve their wives as Christ does His church (Eph. 5:25–33).
Along these lines, Diane Knippers of the Institute on Religion and Democracy declared in Beijing, “I am likewise skeptical of the use of the concept of power in the family…. What a sterile and bankrupt view of the most private and intimate human relationship!…The root problem is husbands who do not love their wives. Our goal should be to change their minds and hearts, not merely to restrict their behavior.”
In a letter to First Things (Jan., 1995) a woman reader underscored these issues as she wrote, “I know a woman whose husband has Alzheimer’s disease. She cares for him with loving patience and constancy such as she used with their small children many years ago. I know a man whose wife has an incurable debilitating disease. He bathes her, dresses her, and feeds her. He lovingly tries to understand her sadly garbled attempts to speak. Where does the concept of power come into these marriages? The healthy spouses are obviously making all the decisions.
Are they therefore powerful? Or might we consider that the helpless spouses are exercising power because they are commanding constant service?
“Feminists in academe, feminist syndicated columnists, and talk show hosts on TV have been highly effective in promoting the practice of analyzing all human relationships in terms of power, oblivious to the distortions that ensue. Concomitant with this is the unexamined assumption that power per se is desirable. The tragedy is that so many Christians are docilely accepting this.”
Clearly, sacrificial service, not power is what is desired and required in Jesus’ pattern of leadership.
For Those Who Hate Feminists—And Those Who Don’t
On December 8, 1989 a clean-shaven man in his early 20’s walked into the faculty of engineering at the University of Montreal, Canada. He wandered about the hallways of the structure for quite some time—dark eyes searching, analyzing, scrutinizing —and finally chose a crowded classroom on the second floor. Calmly, and with resolve he entered and commanded the male students to move away from the females. When they hesitated, he methodically separated them with the nub of his semiautomatic rifle and ordered the men out of the room. Confusion exploded into terror as the execution began. “You are all feminists!” the young man screamed. Those were the last words those female engineering students ever heard. In the wake of one man’s fury against feminism, fourteen women were killed and numerous others critically injured.
Marc Lepine hated feminists. But the media informed citizens that his actions gave credence to the very system of ideology which he had so brutally attacked. The slaughter was simply an extremist enactment of society’s attitude towards women. As one journalist argued, “A madman took to demented extremes a battle against the more vulnerable sex which is enacted daily without gunfire on so many fields across this country.”
The journalist was right. A battle is raging across the nations. It is a spiritual battle. And although the battle is not isolated to role relationships between men and women, much of it does take place on that front. Those of us who have experienced the goodness of God’s plan for malefemale relationships must be careful not minimize or trivialize its severity. Countless women experience extreme pain and suffering from the hands of the very men who ought to guard and protect them. It is real. It is damaging. And from my perspective, it is increasing in violence and intensity.
My personal experience
I have been extremely fortunate to have had good men in my life. My grandfather, father, brothers, husband, and male friends have all blessed me in both action and word. But consider the woman who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband and ridiculed by her male friends. She reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of her worth and value as a woman. And no wonder!
To be sure, such a woman needs truth. But most often, she needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.
A story of a changed life
I am reminded of Sandra—a friend I met in University. Sandra was studying to be a medical doctor. When I met her, she was contemplating becoming a Christian, but was struggling with how to reconcile Christianity with her feminist world-view. Sandra did give her life to Christ, but continued to hold on to feminist beliefs. She even forced her future husband to sign a contract agreeing to stay home half-time should they have children.
That was almost fifteen years ago. Today Sandra is a different woman. She is at home with her three children and is delighting in being a wife and a mother. She is increasingly joyful and at peace with submitting to her husband and supporting and encouraging him in leadership in their home and in the church.
Why the change? Two reasons. First, Sandra’s husband is a godly man who loves and blesses her as a woman. Over the years—as she experienced his love—she began to believe in the goodness of God’s pattern. Second, Sandra was willing to face her woundedness, repent of bitterness and unforgiveness, and release her pain to Jesus. She has received significant healing from the assault on her personhood as a woman. And as she has been healed, her heart has grown softer and more eager to obey God’s Word.
Sandra and I have often talked about the theological rationale and Scriptural directives regarding biblical manhood and womanhood. But as persuasive as I would like to think my arguments were, I doubt whether they played much of a role in changing her heart. No. It was the Spirit of God, the faithful love of a good man, and her willingness to forgive those who had wounded her that made the difference.
I loved Sandra when she was a feminist just as I love her now. I was grieved by the wounding of her spirit and by the cords of anger, bitterness and self-sufficiency she had wrapped herself in. So understand this: It was the desire for freedom and wholeness for Sandra and not the desire for theological perfection that motivated my desire to see Sandra turn to truth. For truth is not an end in and of itself, but rather the means to see and know Jesus fully—and in knowing Him fully to be set fully free.
So let me relate my experience with Sandra to the University of Montreal tragedy.
If the truth be told, there are complementarians who hate feminists. And just like Mark Lepine, they would injure, wound, and kill the spirits—if not the bodies—of those women who adhere to feminist philosophy. Marc Lepine’s calculated and brutal attack did nothing to convince his audience of the evils of feminism. On he contrary, many turned to feminism to understand and come to terms with his senseless violence.
The call for compassion
In the same way, I believe that some Christians turn to egalitarianism because of complimentarians who bombard them with intellectual arguments whilst being filled with hatred or simply lacking in compassion toward women. Of this, we must repent.
As an executive member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood I believe that theological integrity and careful reasoning are important in setting for the biblical model for the roles of men and women. But just as important is our compassion for the wounded and our desire to see them walk in wholeness and freedom.
Therefore, while we provide you with materials that carefully and logically explain the biblical position, I would humbly ask that God provide you with a heart of compassion and grace towards those who have been deceived by feminist philosophy. Most feminists will not be persuaded by theological finesse or expertise. Theirs is a wounding of the heart and their minds will only be set aright as their hearts are healed.
So as the sixth anniversary of the Montreal slaying approaches, let us remember all the women who were senselessly murdered and wounded because of Marc Lepine’s hatred. Let us remember that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance. And above all, let us remember to love and pray for all the Sandras.
Papal Letters Are Complementarian
Pope John Paul II, in recent letters to the church concerning women, has made several clearly complementarian statements. While there are significant theological differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics, we rejoice in and affirm much of the stance that the pontiff has taken in these documents.
In January, 1995, in a papal letter entitled “Women as Teachers of Peace,” the pope reaffirmed the creation order and differences between men and women.
“Indeed, from the very first pages of the Bible God’s plan is marvelously expressed: He willed that there should be a relationship of profound communion between man and woman, in a perfect reciprocity of knowledge and of the giving of self. In woman, man finds a partner with whom he can dialogue in complete equality. This desire for dialogue which was not satisfied by any other living creature, explains the man’s spontaneous cry of wonder when the woman, according to the evocative symbolism of the Bible, was created form one of his ribs: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn. 2:23). This was the first cry of love to resound on the earth!
“Even though man and woman are made for each other, this does not mean that God created them incomplete. God “created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be a ‘helpmate’ to the other, for they are equal as persons (‘bone of my bones’) and complementary as masculine and feminine.” Reciprocity and complementarity are the two fundamental characteristics of the human couple.
“Sadly, a long history of sin has disturbed and continues to disturb God’s original plan for the couple, for the male and the female, thus standing in the way of its complete fulfillment. We need to return to this plan, to proclaim it forcefully, so that women in particular—who have suffered more from its failure to be fulfilled—can finally give full expression to their womanhood and their dignity.”
Again, this past summer, in anticipation of the Beijing World Conference on Women, the Vatican distributed a papal letter to the women of the world in which the pope reaffirmed his opposition to the ordination of women, reaffirmed the complementarity of the sexes as male and female, and expressed sorrow over the way in which women have been regarded through the years.
He wrote that:
“From the very beginning, man has been created “male and female” (Gn 1:27).… Men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the “human” as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.
“…In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference.
“…The presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way prejudicial to women, provided that this diversity is not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but is rather an expression of what is specific to being male and female. This issue also has a particular application within the church. If Christ…entrusted only to men the task of being an ‘icon’ of his countenance as ‘shepherd’ and ‘bridegroom’ of the church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women or for that matter, from the role of the other members of the church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in… the ‘common priesthood.’”
But how does it work in marriage?
Question:
In a practical way, in your marriage relationship, how do you balance malefemale equality with male headship?
This question will be answered by six of our Council members: Bruce Ware, Mary Kassian, Ray Ortlund, Dorothy Patterson, George Knight and Rhonda Kelley.
Answer:
MY WIFE, JODI, AND I enjoy a deep, growing and genuine love and respect for each other. I admire her gifts and abilities, and I offer my help to her in ways I can. She, likewise, seeks to assist me in all the ways she is able, and I am so appreciative of her support, encouragement, advice and contribution.
While we enjoy, then, a relationship of mutual service to one another, it is clear to both of us that I am God’s designated leader in our home. She recognizes her calling to assist me in my calling in a way that extends beyond our normal help to one another. In short, we serve each other, but together, she works particularly to assist me to accomplish my own calling before the Lord.
—Bruce Ware
Answer:
BRENT AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED for almost thirteen years. In that time, he has always honored, blessed and encouraged me. He has never, ever said or done anything that would give me the impression that I am lesser than he. He trusts me completely, and gives up much on my account. When he fails, he is quick to seek forgiveness. I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own, and I feel cherished.
Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so. And because of Brent’s great love, I am delighted—indeed overjoyed—to have the opportunity to respond to his leadership and encourage him in it. I try to do so on a daily basis by communicating to him all that has happened during my day, including what has happened in the lives of our children. I open my heart to him, pour out all my daily disappointments, victories, joys and struggles. I invite him to share himself with me and to provide me with his wisdom, insight and leadership.
On a very practical basis, we seek to set aside some time each day for this to happen. “Couch Time” is a time when the children, the computer, the paperwork, the housework, the phone and all the other demands of life are set aside in order to concentrate on each other.
This simple exercise does a number of things: First, it reinforces the equality part of our relationship. My views, perceptions and opinions are voiced equally alongside his. Second it provides Brent with the information necessary to establish God’s vision and direction for our family. If he does not know what I am thinking and feeling, he cannot lead wisely.
“Couch Time” also provides me with a glimpse of his heart. I delight in responding to his leadership because I know that he has listened to me, heard me, and that he considers my views very, very seriously. I have seen how his heart is motivated, not for pleasing himself, but for doing what is right.
“Couch Time” builds trust. I trust Brent’s leadership, and he trusts me that I will be honest with him, support him and never ridicule or mock his efforts to lead. Finally, “Couch Time” is just a lot of fun! We have a lot of laughs and enjoy the beauty and goodness of all God intended marriage to be.
—Mary Kassian
Answer:
MY WIFE JANI AND I are joint heirs together of the grace of life. I also have the privilege of serving her as the head of the home. So how do I know when my service as head is on target? It seems to me that I have not properly listened to my wife until she feels listened to. I have not properly understood my wife until she feels understood. I have not properly cared for my wife until she feels cared for, and so on. So, as we negotiate the challenges of everyday life, alert attention to my wife’s feelings teaches me how to conduct myself toward her so that my headship truly translates into blessing for my wife. She deserves it.
—Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.
PAIGE AND I ARE BOTH COMMITTED to the vows we made at the time of our marriage: he promised to cherish me, and I promised to obey him. God’s plan is based on a beautiful tension—as Paige offers to me provision, protection and leadership (Gen. 2:15–17), I respond with submission to accept his provision, protection and leadership.
Because God gave me to Paige to be his helper, Paige takes advantage of the “help” God has given to him. He asks for my input and listens respectfully to the insights I have to share. I feel loved and useful, even when Paige does not accept my counsel; Paige accepts the challenging responsibilities God has given him to love me, even if sometimes I am unlovable, and to lead me, even though I have a sometimes independent and stubborn spirit. There is a beautiful reciprocity in the equality of our standing before God and the diversity in our responsibility to the Father.
—Dorothy Patterson
Answer:
OUR EQUALITY AS IMAGE BEARERS OF GOD and as joint-heirs of the grace of Christ is the most basic factor that governs the relationship that Virginia and I have as husband and wife. Biblical principles are the driving force in our marriage. Constantly we work on the way in which we lovingly express and carry out the roles God has given to each one in accordance with those Biblical principles.
In applying those principles on a day-to-day basis, there are many decisions which are a question of application, wisdom and judgment. In these situations where we are seeking wisdom and God’s guidance, there may be several options that appear open to us.
In the decision making process, I must take into consideration the needs, thoughts and feelings of my wife, as the Apostle Peter tells me to do (1 Pet. 3:7), so I might exercise a godly and loving leadership for the two of us who are one by marriage.
—George W. Knight, III
Answer:
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF Biblical teachings about the husband-wife relationship impacts our marriage daily. For the past twenty-one years, Chuck and I have respected each other’s unique personalities and gifts. We have acknowledged that we are both created in the image of God, equal in worth and value, but different in role and function. Our marriage has grown as we have each fulfilled a role and together have become a stronger unit.
On a daily basis, with the help of the Lord, we are able to combine male headship with male-female equality in a healthy and positive way. We have found distinctive roles helpful especially when we are making significant lifechanging decisions.
Two years ago as I faced the challenges of a full-time career, a growing ministry, and a family commitment, and Chuck faced increasing demands in his work, we prayed together about God’s leadership in our lives. Chuck provided invaluable feedback and ongoing support.
Ultimately, I made the decision to “retire” from my professional work in order to pursue full-time ministry and time with my family.
At this time in our lives, we face another time of decision. We are praying together about God’s leadership in our lives. As it is Chuck’s work that may change, I offer personal advice and provide encouragement. I have true confidence in him to make the right choice for us at this time. I am at peace knowing that God can use me wherever He might lead us.
—Rhonda Kelley
Egalitarian/Complementarian Bibliography
We thought our readers might find it helpful to have a bibliography listing most or all of the influential books on this subject from both the egalitarian side and the complementarian side. Note: unless these books are listed in our order form on page 15, we do not stock or distribute these books. You will have to obtain them from your own library or book dealer. [If we have omitted important books written by evangelicals on this issue, please let us know! The works by non-evangelicals number several hundreds, and are surveyed in the 1992 books by Cottrell and Kassian below.]
From an evangelical feminist (egalitarian) position
1974 Letha Scanzoni & Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Word)
1975 Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Eerdmans)
1976 Richard & Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul’s View of Women (Baker)
1977 Patricia Gundry, Woman, Be Free! (Zondervan)
1977 Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible (Abingdon)
1979 Berkeley & Alvera Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?”, Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1979, pp. 23–29. Also: “The ‘Head’ of the Epistles,” CT, Feb. 20, 1981, 20–23. [widely influential articles]
1982 E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Zondervan)
1983 Mary J. Evans, Woman in the Bible (IVP)
1984 Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, GNC (Harper)
1985 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Baker)
1985 Aida Spencer, Beyond the Curse (Thomas Nelson)
1986 Janette Hassey, No Time for Silence (Zondervan)
1986 Alvera Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority and the Bible (IVP)
1987 Ruth Tucker & Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church (Zondervan)
1987 Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Revell)
1987 Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIC (Eerdmans)
1988 Faith Martin, Call Me Blessed (Eerdmans)
1989 Bonnidell & Robert Clouse, eds., Women in Ministry: Four Views (IVP) [listed in this category because of the clear editorial sympathies of the editors]
1990 Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Gender and Grace (IVP)
1992 Richard & Catherine Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman (Baker)
1992 Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives (Hendrickson)
1992 Ruth Tucker, Women in the Maze (IVP)
1994 Rebecca Groothuis, Women Caught in the Conflict (Baker)
1996 (forthcoming) Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church (IVP)
From a complementarian position
1977 George W. Knight III, The NT Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker)
1980 Susan Foh, Women and the Word of God (Presbyterian & Reformed)
1980 Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Servant)
1981 James Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Zondervan)
1981 Douglas J. Moo & Philip Payne, interchange in Trinity Journal, 1981 (reprinted, with additional material, by the Evangelical Free Church: Moo is complementarian, while Payne is egalitarian).
1984 Dee Jepsen, Women: Beyond Equal Rights (Word)
1985 George W. Knight III, The Role Relation of Men and Women (Moody). This is a revision of the author’s 1977 book; it also includes a new appendix by W. Grudem, “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples.” [also in Trinity Journal 6 NS (1985), 38–59].
1987 Samuele Bacchiocchi, Women in the Church (Biblical Perspectives)
1987 Weldon Hardenbrook, Missing from Action: Vanishing Manhood in America (Thomas Nelson)
1989 F. LaGard Smith, Men of Strength for Women of God (Harvest House)
1990 Wayne House, The Role of Women in Ministry Today (Thomas Nelson) [see also 1995]
1990 Mary Kassian, Women, Creation, and the Fall (Crossway)
1991 Larry Crabb, Men and Women: Enjoying the Difference (Zondervan)
1991 R. Kent Hughes, Disciplines of a Godly Man (Crossway)
1991 Robert Lewis & William Hendricks, Rocking the Roles (Navpress)
1991 Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective, trans. by Gordon Wenham (Crossway)
1991 John Piper & Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway)
1992 Jack Cottrell, Feminism and the Bible (College Press, Joplin, Mo.)
1992 Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel (Crossway)
1992 George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Eerdmans)
1993 Stu Weber, Tender Warrior, (Multnomah)
1994 Michael Harper, Equal and Different (London: Hodder & Stoughton)
1995 The Woman’s Study Bible, edited by Dorothy Patterson and Rhonda Kelley (Thomas Nelson)
1995 Wayne House, The Role of Women in Ministry Today (Baker) Revised and updated edition
1995 (forthcoming) Thomas Schreiner, H. Scott Baldwin, and Andreas Köstenberger, Women and the Church: A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2 [tentative title] (Baker)
A Look Back To D-Day
Times have changed in the last fifty years. Our attitudes about men, masculinity, national loyalty, war, and legitimate authority have all changed markedly….Fifty years ago, men were less doubtful than they are today about their role in the culture. They were the breadwinners and protectors of women and children against external threats and dangers.… Today there are very strong forces at work reshaping men’s role in their relationship to women and society.
Beginning in school, and perhaps earlier, little boys and young men are nowadays taught that they must be sensitive, compassionate, not-too-competitive, nottoo-aggressive, not-tooambitious or lustful for power, not-too-sexually assertive; they are taught also to disavow their natural discomfort about homosexuality, and to disavow the importance of the so-called “manly virtues” as childish or adolescent or declass, or reactionary, or mindless—notions like courage, honor, duty, loyalty, comradeship.
At the next Battle of Omaha, where will we find the Sgt. Streczyks and Lt. Spauldings to lead us off the beach?
Yale Kramer, in a gripping account of the Allied assault on Normandy, “Day at the Beach,” in The American Spectator, August, 1994
Reviews And Notices
“1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Reconsideration of Paul’s Limitation of the Free Speech of Some Corinthian Women,”
L. Ann Jervis, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995): 51-74
Jervis’ basic thesis is that the interpolation theory for 1 Cor. 14.34-35 should be rejected and the words be regarded as authentically Paul’s. She postulates that Paul wrote the passage out of concern that some women’s speech was detrimental to the Corinthians’ exercise of prophecy because it was self-focused and unloving. Paul’s prescription for the problem was to invoke the patriarchal mores of his contemporary society.
The author, who teaches at Wycliffe College in Toronto, Canada, demonstrates an overall interpretive skill and even-handedness that is too often lacking in more popular works which promote an egalitarian viewpoint. And yet, in the end, she betrays her loyalties with her summarization, which in fact implies that Paul cannot be trusted for faithful teaching on male/female roles because of his cultural patriarchal bias. Thus, her article has both positive and negative aspects.
To begin, she effectively challenges egalitarian scholars who propose that the passage is inauthentic and represents an editorial insertion to Paul’s letter after his death (cf. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 699 who comments “they were not part of the original text but an early marginal gloss.”). She demonstrates that the arguments used to label this passage as an editorial insertion are problematic. For example, she correctly questions why a hypothetical Christian editor with an anti-women bias, who was seeking to eradicate the evidence of women’s influence and leadership with the early community, would tamper with the location of 1 Cor. 14.34-35 within the letter but “leave untouched Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11.2-16?” (p. 55). Indeed, the most satisfactory conclusion is that the words are Paul’s.
A second positive feature is that Jervis concedes that Paul’s injunction applies to all women in the local church and not just wives. While she does not pursue the implications of this line of thinking, this is also a major concession to a complementarian position.
A third positive feature is that she argues that the context of the passage revolves around prophetic utterances in the worshipping community.
Finally, she is to be commended for her intellectual honesty as she acknowledges that “Paul accepted the patriarchal ordering of the Christian’s home life [they are not told to ask their questions of other women].(p. 69).”
Jervis’ weaknesses are as follows. First, while she correctly observes that the context of the passage revolves around prophetic utterances in the worshipping community, she does not marshall enough support to supplant the preferred interpretive position that the issue is the public evaluation/discernment of prophecy. Her contention that the Corinthian church en masse shared the same philosophical mindset with Philo is speculative and even historically naive.
Second, while Jervis accepts that Paul has given a threefold injunction to the Corinthian women: that they be silent, they ask questions of their men at home, and they submit to their men, she proposes that his command is simply a utilitarian utilization of the patriarchal values of his society. According to Jervis, Paul “was willing to get them (and the Corinthian community) to change their behavior by appealing to a value system in which women were obliged to accept the social control of men.” Paul is thus an apostle who is tarnished with “chauvinism” (p. 69) and guilty of manipulating contemporary social mores to regulate Christian behavior in the local church.
This is Jervis’ major downfall. She refuses to allow or even acknowledge the possibility that Paul has in fact not parroted the temporal values of an unjust, unholy, and patriarchal Hellenistic society, but that he has instead articulated the eternal values and ethics of a just and holy and wise God whose perspective on order in the home and the assembly sovereignly supersede the fluctuations of all cultures of all times. While there is no denying Jervis’ observation that Paul was concerned that the believer’s sensitivity and love for each other be the cardinal testimony to God, this is simply not an adequate reason to believe that God’s order and God’s love are two contradictory ethics which cannot co-exist at the same time and in the same place.
In conclusion, Jervis, unlike many egalitarian authors, does not waste her time trying to rescue Paul from himself, but she is content to let Paul be Paul. For this I am pleasantly surprised and appreciative.
However, her deconstruction of Paul into a chauvinist of convenience, and her reluctance to consider God’s ability to hold together equality of value and diversity in masculine-feminine roles, leads me to believe that she is not yet content to let God be God.
-Brent E. Kassian
Women’s Magazines Update
Cal Thomas surveyed September’s magazine rack and gleaned these teasers from women’s magazines: “Cosmopolitan offers ’11 Secrets of World Class Lovers’ and ‘You’re Sexier as You Grow Older, Can He Keep Up?’ Glamour has ‘How to Really Talk to a Man About Sex:’ and ‘Smart, Sexy Clothes.’ Mademoiselle carries ‘A Sexy Body, a Great Love…’ and an article about ‘sexy hair.’ New Woman offers ’10 Tips on Having an Affair.’ Redbook prints ‘7 Secrets of Great Sex.’”
The usually identified perpetrators of such demeaning or abusive titles are the socalled “men’s” magazines; now that women’s magazines are so urgently pursuing the debasement and devaluing of women, men, and the sexual relationship, we see that pornography, whether visual or verbal, has invaded our lives in an unprecedented occupation and assault.
Thomas calls upon parents, educators and community leaders to pressure entertainment leaders to reduce “the level of poison they are pumping into the lives of morally defenseless children and newly pubescent teen-agers.”
[1]
[1]Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 1995; 2002. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Volume 1 . Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
— By Wayne Grudem
Okay, I agree with you that only men should be pastors and elders. But what about other activities in the church? What exactly do you think a woman should and should not do, according to the Bible?”
This is probably the most frequent question I hear when I speak on manhood and womanhood in the church. Sometimes people say, “Just where do you draw the line? Can women teach adult Sunday School classes? What about serving communion, or chairing a committee? We want to follow Scripture, but there aren’t any verses that talk about these specific things.”
I think in most cases men and women who ask these questions genuinely want to encourage more opportunities for women in the overall ministry of the church. They sense that many evangelical churches have been too “traditional” and too restrictive on ministries available to women. These people want to question “the way we have always done things” in the light of Scripture. But they also do not want to encourage anything that is contrary to Scripture.
In this article I will try to answer those questions, partly in the hope of encouraging churches to examine their traditions to see if there are more areas of ministry which they could open to women as well as men. On the other hand, I also want to explain why I think that certain kinds of activities are restricted to men.
For the purposes of this article, I will assume that my readers are in agreement that Scripture teaches some restriction on the roles women may fill in the church. Generally these restrictions fall in three areas: (1) governing authority, (2) Bible teaching, and (3) public recognition or visibility.
In fact, almost all the questions of application pertain to at least one of these areas. This is because Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” (1 Tim. 2:12), and the other passages which speak of restrictions on women’s roles in the church also deal with questions of governing and teaching (1 Cor. 14:33–35; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; Matt. 10:2–4; etc.). I have included area (3), public recognition or visibility, because some activities in the church are very visible but may not include governing or teaching authority, yet people easily confuse these issues in their minds. If we keep this issue distinct, it helps us think more clearly about specific applications.
What follows here are three lists of activities.
In List 1, I proceed from areas of greater governing authority to areas of lesser authority.
In List 2, I proceed from areas of greater teaching responsibility and influence on the beliefs of the church to areas of lesser teaching responsibility and lesser influence on the beliefs of the church.
In List 3, I proceed from areas of greater public recognition and visibility to areas of lesser visibility.
Finally, one word of caution is appropriate: These lists do not rank importance to the church! In fact, Paul tells us that all the members of the body are needed (1 Cor. 12:14–21). And he tells us that “the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor.” (1 Cor. 12:22–23). Jesus said, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43). These statements remind us that when we talk about levels of governing authority, or Bible teaching responsibility, or public recognition, we are not talking about greatness or importance.
Then why talk about such levels at all? We must do so, because Scripture tells us that there are some kinds of governing and teaching that are inappropriate for women. In order to think clearly about what kinds of governing and teaching roles those are, we first must list the actual kinds of activities we are talking about. Then we can ask, in each case, if this was the kind of governing or teaching that Scripture intended us to understand in these passages. In short, we need to make such a list for purposes of clearer thinking on this issue.
Here then, on the following pages, are the three lists. (The actual order of items on each list is approximate, and churches may think that some items should be moved up or down on the list according to the way they assess their own situations).
List 1: Areas of Governing Authority
Areas of greater governing authority to areas of lesser authority
1. President of a denomination
2. Member of the governing board of a denomination
3. Regional governing authority (such as bishop in some denominations, district superintendent or similar office in others)
4. Member of regional governing board
5. Senior pastor in local church
6. Member of governing board with authority over whole church (for example, elder in many churches, deacon or board member or church council member in others)
7. Presiding over a baptism or communion service (but see List 3 for serving communion or performing a baptism)
8. Giving spoken judgment on a prophecy given to the congregation (I think this is what Paul forbids in 1 Cor. 14:33–36)
9. Permanent leader of a fellowship group meeting in a home (both men and women members)
10. Committee chairman (or “chairperson") (explanation: this item and the following two have some kind of authority in the church, but it is less than the authority over the whole congregation which Paul has in mind in 1 Cor. 14:33–36, 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Tim. 3, and Titus 1)
11. Director of Christian Education
12. Sunday School Superintendent
13. Missionary responsibilities: many administrative and organizational responsibilities in missionary work in other countries
14. Moderating a Bible discussion in a home Bible study group
15. Choir director
16. Leading singing on Sunday morning (note: this could be listed between 8 and 9 above, depending on how a church understands the degree of authority over the assembled congregation that is involved)
17. Deacon (in churches where this does not involve governing authority over the entire congregation)
18. Administrative assistant to senior pastor
19. Church treasurer
20. Church secretary
21. Member of advisory council to regional governing authority
22. Meeting periodically with church governing board to give counsel and advice
23. Regular conversations between elders and their wives over matters coming before the elder board (with understanding that confidentiality is preserved)
24. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling one man)
25. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling a couple together)
26. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling another woman)
27. Speaking in congregational business meetings
28. Voting in congregational business meetings (Explanation: each person voting has some influence over the whole congregation, but it is significantly less than the governing authority held personally by elders or a senior pastor, and does not seem to be what Paul has in view in 1 Tim. 2. By analogy, an 18-year old American can vote for the President of the United States, but cannot be President of the United States, and the authority residing in the office of President far exceeds the authority of any individual voter.)
List 2: Areas of Bible Teaching
Areas of greater teaching responsibility and influence on the beliefs of the church to areas of lesser teaching responsibility and lesser influence on the beliefs of the church.
1. Teaching Bible or theology in a theological seminary
2. Teaching Bible or theology in a Christian college
3. Preaching (teaching the Bible) at a nationwide denominational meeting
4. Preaching (teaching the Bible) at a regional meeting of churches
5. Preaching (teaching the Bible) regularly to the whole church on Sunday mornings
6. Occasional preaching (teaching the Bible) to the whole church on Sunday mornings
7. Occasional Bible teaching at less formal meetings of the whole church (such as Sunday evening or at a mid-week service)
8. Bible teaching to an adult Sunday school class (both men and women members)
9. Bible teaching at a home Bible study (both men and women members)
10. Bible teaching to a college age Sunday school class
11. Bible teaching to a high school Sunday school class
12. Writing a book on Bible doctrines (Explanation: I have put four examples of writing activities here on the list because the author of a book has some kind of teaching authority, but it is different from the teaching authority over the assembled congregation that Paul prohibits in 1 Tim. 2. The teaching relationship of an author to a reader is much more like the one-to-one kind of teaching that Priscilla and Aquila did when they explained the way of God more accurately to Apollos in Acts 18:26. In fact, with a book the element of direct personal interaction is almost entirely absent. Moreover, the book comes not only from the author but also with input from the editors and publisher.)
13. Writing or editing a study Bible
14. Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible
15. Writing notes in a study Bible
16. Writing or editing a study Bible intended primarily for women
17. Bible teaching to a women’s Sunday school class
18. Bible teaching to a women’s Bible study group during the week
19. Bible teaching to a junior high Sunday school class
20. Teaching as a Bible professor on a secular university campus. (Explanation: I have put this here on the list because I see this task as essentially a combination of evangelism and teaching about the Bible as literature, mainly to non-Christians. Even though there may be Christians in some classes, the professor has no church-authorized authority or doctrinal endorsement, as there would be with a Bible teacher in a church or a professor in a Christian college or seminary.)
21. Evangelistic speaking to large groups of non-Christians (for example, an evangelistic rally on a college campus)
22. Working as an evangelistic missionary in other cultures
23. Moderating a discussion in a small group Bible study (men and women members)
24. Reading Scripture aloud on Sunday morning
25. Reading Scripture to other, less formal meetings of the church
26. Giving a personal testimony before the congregation (a story of how God has worked in one’s own or others’ lives)
27. Participating in a discussion in a home Bible study (men and women members)
28. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling one man)
29. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling a married couple)
30. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling a woman)
31. Teaching children’s Sunday school class
32. Teaching Vacation Bible School
33. Singing a solo on Sunday morning (a form of teaching, since it often has Biblical content and exhortation)
34. Singing to the congregation as a member of the choir
35. Singing hymns with the congregation (in this activity, sometimes we “teach” and exhort one another in some sense: Col. 3:16)
List 3: Areas of Public Visibility or Recognition
Areas of greater public recognition and visibility to areas of lesser visibility
1. Ordination as pastor (member of the clergy) in a denomination
2. Being licensed to perform some ministerial functions within a denomination
3. Paid member of pastoral staff (such as youth worker, music director, counselor, Christian Education director)
4. Paid member of administrative church staff (church secretary or treasurer, for example)
5. Performing a baptism (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)
6. Helping to serve the Lord’s Supper (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)
7. Giving announcements at the Sunday morning service
8. Taking the offering
9. Public reading of Scripture
10. Public prayer
11. Prophesying in public (according to 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:29, where this is not understood as having authority equal to scripture or Bible teaching)
12. Singing a solo on Sunday mornings
13. Giving a personal testimony in church
14. Giving a prayer request in church
15. Being a member of a “prayer team” that will pray for people individually after the service.
16. Welcoming people at the door (a greeter)
17. Editing church newsletter
18. Singing in the choir
19. Singing of hymns with congregation on Sunday morning
20. Participating in the responsive reading of Scripture on Sunday morning
*Note: I put these three items in both columns because there is some amount of authority and some amount of Bible teaching involved in them. I should also say that I am not here commenting on whether it is ordinarily wise or most effective for one woman to counsel one man; I am just listing these activities according to the degree of governing or teaching authority they exhibit over the congregation of a church. Moreover, people may put these activities at different places on these lists, depending on the style of counseling and the degree of authority they think attaches to it.
Even such long lists are of course incomplete. For one thing, there are specialized ministries (sometimes called parachurch organizations) which would have similar charts but with different titles in many places. For example, mission agencies, campus organizations (Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators) and other specialized ministries such as Focus on the Family or Prison Fellowship could all have similar lists of activities, but with slightly different specific items.
In addition, it is very important to recognize that this list of activities simply cannot include the very important factors of variation in attitudes which can make a big difference in the actual degree of governing authority in a specific situation (does a particular woman have a domineering attitude? or a gracious servant heart?).
This list also cannot take into account any variation in goals which a person is trying to attain (is a woman seeking more and more authority over men, or genuinely seeking to use gifts for the benefit of the church?). In situations which churches see as “borderline” situations, it may be hard to decide in advance, and the difference may well depend on variations in attitudes and goals found in the specific people involved. Moreover, this table cannot take into account the widely varying situations which occur in different churches. One church may have a college age class of three students, while another may have a college age class of 500. Surely what it means to teach and have authority over men applies differently in the two situations. Once again, in such “borderline” situations, churches will need to use mature wisdom and sound judgement to make a correct evaluation of what is appropriate in light of biblical principles. But I think these lists, though not exhaustive, are helpful as far as they go.
What is the Solution?
These lists now present us with a dilemma: Everyone who agrees with the principles of the Danvers Statement will agree that some of these uses of authority are appropriate for women, and some are not. Everyone will also agree that some of these kinds of Bible teaching are appropriate, and some are not. And I think that everyone who agrees with the Danvers Statement will agree at least that ordination as a pastor in a denomination is inappropriate for women, while there may be differences on whether the other areas of public visibility are appropriate. At this point we must state the obvious: the Bible does not give us a specific verse on each of these situations! But it is that way with the entire Christian life. Each day we face thousands of decisions, very few of which are covered by a specific verse. We agree that it is wrong to steal, but can we use the office phone to call home? Can we take an unused bar of soap from a hotel room, or a box of tissue? Surely not the table lamp! Between what is clearly right and clearly wrong we make decisions every day, seeking to be faithful to Scripture as we apply it to everyday life.
We must simply recognize the fact that God in his wisdom has given us a Bible which specifies many principles for conduct, and does give some specific examples of application. But by its very nature the Bible cannot speak in specific detail to the thousands, and even millions of real life situations that people will encounter throughout the centuries.
What then do we do? We understand the principles that allow certain activities. We understand the principles that prohibit other activities. Then between these parameters, we attempt to make a mature judgment based on the wisdom that God gives us and our knowledge of the situation.
In all such situations, I have found the following chart useful:
Now regarding the question of women in the church, what actions should we put on this scale? On the left side of the scale we can put verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul prohibits a woman from teaching or having authority over men. Since I think it is very evident from the context that Paul is talking about the assembled congregation in this passage (see 1 Tim. 2:8–10; 3:15), and he is giving principles that apply to the entire congregation (see 1 Tim. 3:1–16), I think that the left end of the scale prohibits women from teaching or having governing authority over the whole congregation.
What shall we put on the right end of the scale? Here we would put verses such as Acts 18:26, where, in a less formal setting apart from an assembled congregation, we find that Priscilla and Aquila were talking to Apollos, and “they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.” This situation is similar to a small group Bible study in which both men and women are participating and in that way “teaching” one another. Another verse that we can put on the right end of the scale is Titus 2:4 which tells the older women to “train the younger women to love their husbands and children…”
Moreover, since Paul specifically prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men, we may also put on the right end of the chart the activity of teaching children, for surely both mothers and fathers teach their children, and I think all would agree that it is appropriate that this family teaching activity be extended into the Sunday School where women function as the “mothers” of the church and teach other children as well as their own. So our scale would look like this:
With this scale in mind, we could place all of the activities in the long lists above at one point or another on the scale. Some activities, such as serving as senior pastor in the local church, would clearly fall on the “no” side of the scale. Others, such as performing a baptism or leading a home fellowship group or chairing a committee, would fall somewhere in the middle of the scale. And it is at this point that individuals and churches will need to prayerfully consider just where they will “draw the line” in saying what activities are encouraged and what activities are prohibited for women in their local churches.
The Decision of the Danvers Statement
When we wrote the Danvers Statement in 1987, we realized that no brief statement could possibly include all the varieties of activities that are mentioned in a list like the one above. We wanted a brief statement that would apply broadly across denominations and in all kinds of different churches. I think we came up with an excellent statement. We said that:
Some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men.
While we did not wish to exclude applications to areas outside the local church, I believe that our primary focus here was to indicate how this would work in the local church. In terms of the local church, this statement means that, on list one, the Danvers Statement definitely would prohibit activities 1–6 for women, and probably also items 7 and 8: We affirm that the office of senior pastor, the office of elder (or equivalent), together with activities specifically connected to those positions, are not open to women. But all the other activities on the list, from item 9 to the end, would be open to women.
In the areas of Bible teaching, in order for “some” teaching roles within the church to be restricted to men, the Danvers Statement would draw the line between 5 and 6 on list two: regular Bible teaching to the assembled church on Sunday morning is restricted to men. But the rest of the list, from item 6 to the end, would be open to women as well as men.
The Danvers Statement did not specifically address areas of public visibility or recognition (list 3 above), but since we intended to restrict the offices of pastor/elder to men, then in the third column we would draw the line after number 1, and say that the ordination to the clergy, which in most or all denominations implies recognition of an ability to serve as senior pastor, would be restricted to men. But all other items, from item 2 to the end, would be potentially open to women as well as men.
By saying that “some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men,” the Danvers Statement draws a definite line: it differs decisively with all evangelical feminists (or egalitarians), who simply could not agree with this statement. They would insist that no governing or teaching roles within the church should be restricted to men—that all should be open to women and men alike.
In this way the Danvers Statement draws a very broad circle. It asks only for what seems to us and to so many evangelicals to be clearly affirmed in Scripture: that when the church assembles, there is a teaching and governing authority over the congregation which is reserved for men. Christians who agree with this foundational principle agree with us in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and agree with the Danvers Statement. People who differ with this put themselves in the egalitarian camp.
Personally, I believe that this brief phrase in the Danvers Statement is going to become very important in the ongoing discussions between complementarians and egalitarians in the evangelical world. In spite of the many varieties of ways in which churches will work out this principle in their own congregations and denominations, this phrase points to a decisive difference in understanding Scripture and in understanding how a church will function. This brief phrase, then, defines the foundational difference between egalitarians and complementarians over the role of women in the church.
My own personal convictions
When we wrote the Danvers Statement in 1987, we drew it up in such a way that it was intentionally broader in what it allowed than the personal convictions of many of us on the Council. We did this because we recognize that applying Scripture to specific situations not addressed by Scripture is an area which requires much wisdom and mature judgment, and an area in which Christians may differ. Therefore we wanted to specify what we thought the Bible at the very least would require of us.
In areas of difficulty in application, it is right for us to talk with each other and attempt to persuade one another of what exactly God would have us do in our specific situations. At this point I will speak for myself, and probably for many other members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but I do not here purport to be speaking for all of the Council or for the Danvers Statement itself.
My own personal judgment in this matter is that in the area of governing authority I would draw the line between numbers 9 and 10; that is, I would approve of a woman as Director of Christian Education or Superintendent of the Sunday School, or as a committee chairman within the church. These activities do not seem to me to carry the sort of authority over the whole congregation that Paul has in view in 1 Timothy 2, or when he specifies that elders should be men (in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1).
On the other hand, I would not think it appropriate for a woman to be a permanent leader of a home fellowship group (item 9), especially if the group regularly carries out pastoral care of its members and functions as a sort of mini-church within the church. This is because the leader of such a group carries a governing authority that seems to me very similar to the authority over the assembled congregation that Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2. Given the frequently small nature of churches meeting in homes in the first century, and given the “pastoral” nature of the responsibility of leading a home fellowship group, I think Paul would have thought of this as included in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.”
But I must say at once that that is my personal judgement. And in fact at one time I was a member of a church that differed with me at that specific point, and that had some women leading home fellowship groups. I differed with that decision, but I found that I could in good conscience continue as an active and supportive member of the church. However, I don’t think that I personally could have participated in good conscience in a fellowship group in which I myself was a member and there was a woman who functioned in that local “pastoral” role with regard to me and my wife.
With regard to areas of Bible teaching, I would personally draw the line between points 10 and 11. Once again, I think there is a strong similarity between a home Bible study which is taught by a woman (item 9) and the local church meeting in a home in the ancient world. Therefore I do not think it would be appropriate for a woman to be the regular instructor in a home Bible study. On the other hand, my own personal judgment is that the moderating of a discussion in a small group Bible study may at times be appropriate for women. The teaching and governing component is less than it would be if she were regularly teaching or had pastoral responsibility over the entire group, and does not clearly resemble the teaching authority over the assembled congregation that Paul prohibited in 1 Timothy 2.
For similar reasons, I think it would be inappropriate for a woman to be the Bible teacher in an adult Sunday School class where much instruction is carried out. This looks so much like what Paul prohibited in 1 Timothy 2 that I could not personally endorse it. (I have already heard many stories of women doing such teaching effectively, but I don’t want to base my decision just on people’s experiences: I am trying to say how I think Scripture applies, and then to let Scripture govern our experiences, and I think Scripture applies here—though I admit that God may bless his Word with good fruit anyway no matter who teaches it. The final question still must be what Scripture tells us to do and not to do).
When do children become adults, and when does teaching boys become teaching men? I think we must recognize that this will vary from society to society and from culture to culture. It may even vary from subculture to sub-culture within our own country.
In our own culture, if children graduate from high school, move away from home, and begin to support themselves, then surely they are no longer under the instruction of their mothers at home, but are functioning as adults on their own. A new household has been formed. In that case, the young men are certainly adult men, and it would not be appropriate for a woman to teach a class with them as members.
Many college students are already living away from home, supporting themselves at least in part, and functioning in our society in all other ways as independent adults. In fact, most college students would be insulted if you called them “children”! For these reasons, it seems to me that a college age Sunday School class (item 10) should have a male teacher.
The situation with a high school class is different, because high school students are still at home, and still under the instruction of their mothers. Sunday School class might be seen as an extension of this home instruction, and therefore I do not think it would be wrong for a woman to be a Bible teacher in a high school Sunday School class. However, many churches may well think it preferable for a man to teach a high school Sunday School class, because of the modeling of male leadership in the church that these young adults will grow to appreciate and in fact to imitate.
But what about activity number 6, occasional preaching to the whole church on Sunday morning? It is fair to say at this point that a number of evangelical scholars who publicly identify themselves as complementarians have decided that Scripture allows this activity. Evangelical leaders such as J.I. Packer, James Montgomery Boice, James Hurley, and John Wimber, have all publicly written or stated that this kind of activity seems to them to be allowed from time to time. Their argument is that 1 Timothy 2:12, which focuses on governing authority and teaching in the church, thereby indicates to us that what Paul really has in mind is the office of elder. And as long as a woman does not hold the office of elder or regularly perform the functions that an elder performs, then 1 Timothy 2 would not prohibit her from occasional preaching.
Personally I differ with this because Paul is speaking of activities and not the office of elder in 1 Timothy 2:12. He does not say, “I permit no woman to have the teaching or governing authority over men that belongs to elders,” but rather he mentions certain activities in the assembled congregation which are prohibited to women: He says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent” (1 Tim. 2:12). For this reason, though I have pondered this matter, I simply cannot bring myself to think that Paul meant that women could teach and have authority over the congregation “occasionally,” but that they could not teach and have authority on a regular or permanent basis. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 14:33–36 prohibits an activity (judging prophecies), not an office.
I mention this difference among people who agree with the Danvers Statement simply to point out that there is room for legitimate difference of understanding of how these biblical teachings apply to specific situations. We agree in principle, and we differ slightly in one specific application. I hope that as we talk and pray and search Scripture more, we may come to agreement. But this kind of difference in specific application should not bother us too much, because such differences are inevitable in a world in which churches vary so widely in the nature of service, the kind of governing structures that they have, and in their understanding of specific situations. In all areas of church life, differences on specific applications can occur within broader guidelines on which all are agreed.
Finally, in the areas of public visibility and recognition, I personally would also draw the line between items 1 and 2. I do not think that women should be ordained as pastors, but I think it is entirely appropriate for them to have other full-time positions on the “pastoral staff ” of the church (such as youth worker, music director).
Conclusions
I hope that these guidelines will be helpful for many churches in coming to their own understanding of where to “draw the line” on what they think appropriate for women and what they think to be inappropriate. I fully realize that many churches will draw such a line in a way that is more restrictive than what I have mentioned here. I would simply encourage churches in all of this to be careful not to prohibit what the Bible doesn’t prohibit, while they are also attempting to preserve male leadership in a way Scripture directs.
What is left below the line? Many activities that have not “traditionally” been open to women. And I have not even mentioned hundreds of other kinds of ministries in a local church that women and men are already carrying out. Therefore I suspect that almost every person reading this article will realize that there are some areas of ministry that are not currently open to women in his or her church, areas to which the church should give careful and prayerful consideration.
In fact, I hope that this entire controversy in the evangelical world will prompt churches to give earnest consideration to the possibilities of many more kinds of ministries for women than have “traditionally” been open to them in the past. I know I speak for the entire membership of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood when I say that it is our sincere desire to “open the doors wide” to all the areas of ministry in the church that God intends for women to have.
And I think we are all conscious of the fact that these areas of ministry may indeed be more numerous, more publicly visible, and more prominent in the life of the church than we had previously thought. If that happens, this entire controversy will have served a wonderful purpose and the church will be far stronger, and far more pleasing to God, as it enters the twenty-first century.
Words Matter
It is helpful in the discussion of manhood and womananhood to consider the fine but significant distinction between complement and supplement. A complement is “something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.” For example, one might say, “His tie complements the suit he’s wearing.” The suit in itself is a complete unit, as is the tie.
On the other hand, a supplement is “something added to complete a thing, to make up for a deficiency.” This usage is reflected in the statement, “Bob works nights to supplement his income.” Obviously, the earnings from Bob’s day job are inadequate to meet his financial needs.
The application of this distinction in theological discussion can be seen in the fact that men and women as individuals are image bearers. A single man or a single woman fully bears the image of God.
In marriage, then husband and wife as male and female complement one another; they are equal in terms of their dignity, personhood and value. One is not superior to the other, though they have different functions. Since they are individually complete before God as bearers of His image, they do not supplement one another in this way at all.
In CBMW, we have chosen the term complementarian to represent our position. The careful choice of words makes a difference in how we express and understand Biblical, theological and practical concepts.
Words do matter.
Newsbriefs from the world
Episcopal bishops voted to require all dioceses to ordain qualified women to the priesthood. At their national conference in Portland in September, the bishops voted 121–15 to end exemptions from church rules for bishops who, in conscience, oppose women’s ordination. A group of conscientiously objecting bishops called the vote a “denial of the basic Anglican principle that the church cannot demand that which cannot be proven from the plain teaching of Scripture.” National & International Religion Report (NIRR),October 16, 1995
The Japanese government plans to allow married couples to use different last names (Washington Post, September 17, 1995). Japanese law now requires married couples to take one last name —almost always the husband’s —but that is set to change in 1996 based on new government recommendations.
In recent years, many Japanese women have been keeping their maiden names while officially registering their marriage under their husband’s name. Meanwhile public pressure challenged the Japanese government to change the rules.
Takeshi Usami, who works in Tokyo’s Ginza district, said, “The image and the identity of family is symbolized by having the same name.” A co-worker, Osamu Toyoda, added “In Japan, we have a long tradition of family, and it is very unique. Having two names contradicts that feeling of family.”
But continuing a practice based on mere tradition, symbol or feeling is inadequate. The significance of the above news item is highlighted in an insightful article in the November issue of First Things. Excerpts follow.
“The husband who gives his name to his bride in marriage is thus not just keeping his own; he is owning up to what it means to have been given a family and a family name by his own father—he is living out his destiny to be a father by saying yes to it in advance. And the wife does not so much surrender her name as she accepts the gift of his, given and received as a pledge of (among other things) loyal and responsible fatherhood for her children. A woman who refuses this gift is, whether she knows it or not, tacitly refusing the promised devotion or, worse, expressing her suspicions about her groom’s trustworthiness as a husband and prospective father.”
“Fathers who will not own up to their paternity, who will not ‘legitimize’ their offspring, and who will not name themselves responsible for child-rearing by giving their children their name are, paradoxically, not real fathers at all, and their wives and especially their children suffer. The former stigmatization of bastardy was, in fact, meant to protect women and children from such irresponsible behavior of self-indulgent men…who would take their sexual pleasures ans walk away from their consequences.”
“The change of the woman’s name, from family of origin to family of perpetuation, is the perfect emblem for the desired exogamy of human sexuality and generation. The woman in marriage not only expresses her humanity in love (as does the man); she also embraces the meaning of marriage by accepting the meaning of her womanly nature as generative. In shedding the name of her family of origin, she tacitly affirms that children of her womb can be ligitimated only exogamously. Her children will not bear the same name as—will not “belong to”—her father; moreover, her new name allows her father to recognize formally the mature woman his daughter has become.” For full article, see Amy R. Kass and Leon R. Kass, “What’s Your Name?” in First Things, November, 1995,
Amid the controversies in the Episcopal Church USA, we note that Bishop Browning’s appointee for evangelism coordinator was the Rev. Linda Strohmier, who “says she isn’t sure that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation. Perhaps, she adds, a relationship with Christ is merely ‘optional.’…and God is someone to whom she refers as ‘she,’ ‘the god,’ or ‘it’ on occasion.” World, September 30, 1995
The Conservative Mennonite Conference informs us that they have adopted the Danvers Statement as their offi-cial position paper on the ministry and marriage responsibilities of men and women. They overprint a caption indicating this as their conference position on copies of the Danvers Statement which they distribute. This is a practice we heartily endorse. The Conservative Mennonite Conference, headquartered in Irwin, Ohio, is an autonomous affiliation of Mennonite congregations in North America, with mission programs in Latin America, Germany, and Muslim locations in the near East and Asia. They are also at work with CBMW on producing a Spanish language translation of the Danvers Statement, which we hope will be available soon.
A disturbing sidelight to the Beijing Conference was the strange silence of the Church. James Dobson observed, “There on the world stage was an event… [where] Christians had every reason to be alarmed. At stake was the future of the family, the safety of every unborn baby, sexual purity before marriage and the heterosexual basis for marriage. Also under siege was the delicate relationship between men and women upon which families are based. Scripture was mocked and the Christian faith was contradicted.…yet the collective voice of the Protestant community was virtually mute. God forgive us!”
Should Headship Be A Power Play?
Often, the relational tensions between men and women are described in terms of power or control. This semantic slant on the discussion often wrongly leads egalitarians to the conclusion that headship includes the forceful use of power by a man, resulting in domination if not outright abuse of his wife. Because of this, egalitarian efforts to level the distinctions between men and women in the home and the church are easily focused on the woman’s reclamation or assertion of power or control in the relationship.
A glimpse at some Biblical injunctions should correct this false assumption and its conclusion. Jesus’ reminded the disciples in Luke 22:25–26. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it overthem; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Likewise, Peter describes leadership and authority as gentle service, “serving as overseers…eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you” (1 Pet. 5:2–3). In the home, Paul does not command husbands to dominate, rather he instructs them to lovingly and sacrificially serve their wives as Christ does His church (Eph. 5:25–33).
Along these lines, Diane Knippers of the Institute on Religion and Democracy declared in Beijing, “I am likewise skeptical of the use of the concept of power in the family…. What a sterile and bankrupt view of the most private and intimate human relationship!…The root problem is husbands who do not love their wives. Our goal should be to change their minds and hearts, not merely to restrict their behavior.”
In a letter to First Things (Jan., 1995) a woman reader underscored these issues as she wrote, “I know a woman whose husband has Alzheimer’s disease. She cares for him with loving patience and constancy such as she used with their small children many years ago. I know a man whose wife has an incurable debilitating disease. He bathes her, dresses her, and feeds her. He lovingly tries to understand her sadly garbled attempts to speak. Where does the concept of power come into these marriages? The healthy spouses are obviously making all the decisions.
Are they therefore powerful? Or might we consider that the helpless spouses are exercising power because they are commanding constant service?
“Feminists in academe, feminist syndicated columnists, and talk show hosts on TV have been highly effective in promoting the practice of analyzing all human relationships in terms of power, oblivious to the distortions that ensue. Concomitant with this is the unexamined assumption that power per se is desirable. The tragedy is that so many Christians are docilely accepting this.”
Clearly, sacrificial service, not power is what is desired and required in Jesus’ pattern of leadership.
For Those Who Hate Feminists—And Those Who Don’t
On December 8, 1989 a clean-shaven man in his early 20’s walked into the faculty of engineering at the University of Montreal, Canada. He wandered about the hallways of the structure for quite some time—dark eyes searching, analyzing, scrutinizing —and finally chose a crowded classroom on the second floor. Calmly, and with resolve he entered and commanded the male students to move away from the females. When they hesitated, he methodically separated them with the nub of his semiautomatic rifle and ordered the men out of the room. Confusion exploded into terror as the execution began. “You are all feminists!” the young man screamed. Those were the last words those female engineering students ever heard. In the wake of one man’s fury against feminism, fourteen women were killed and numerous others critically injured.
Marc Lepine hated feminists. But the media informed citizens that his actions gave credence to the very system of ideology which he had so brutally attacked. The slaughter was simply an extremist enactment of society’s attitude towards women. As one journalist argued, “A madman took to demented extremes a battle against the more vulnerable sex which is enacted daily without gunfire on so many fields across this country.”
The journalist was right. A battle is raging across the nations. It is a spiritual battle. And although the battle is not isolated to role relationships between men and women, much of it does take place on that front. Those of us who have experienced the goodness of God’s plan for malefemale relationships must be careful not minimize or trivialize its severity. Countless women experience extreme pain and suffering from the hands of the very men who ought to guard and protect them. It is real. It is damaging. And from my perspective, it is increasing in violence and intensity.
My personal experience
I have been extremely fortunate to have had good men in my life. My grandfather, father, brothers, husband, and male friends have all blessed me in both action and word. But consider the woman who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband and ridiculed by her male friends. She reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of her worth and value as a woman. And no wonder!
To be sure, such a woman needs truth. But most often, she needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.
A story of a changed life
I am reminded of Sandra—a friend I met in University. Sandra was studying to be a medical doctor. When I met her, she was contemplating becoming a Christian, but was struggling with how to reconcile Christianity with her feminist world-view. Sandra did give her life to Christ, but continued to hold on to feminist beliefs. She even forced her future husband to sign a contract agreeing to stay home half-time should they have children.
That was almost fifteen years ago. Today Sandra is a different woman. She is at home with her three children and is delighting in being a wife and a mother. She is increasingly joyful and at peace with submitting to her husband and supporting and encouraging him in leadership in their home and in the church.
Why the change? Two reasons. First, Sandra’s husband is a godly man who loves and blesses her as a woman. Over the years—as she experienced his love—she began to believe in the goodness of God’s pattern. Second, Sandra was willing to face her woundedness, repent of bitterness and unforgiveness, and release her pain to Jesus. She has received significant healing from the assault on her personhood as a woman. And as she has been healed, her heart has grown softer and more eager to obey God’s Word.
Sandra and I have often talked about the theological rationale and Scriptural directives regarding biblical manhood and womanhood. But as persuasive as I would like to think my arguments were, I doubt whether they played much of a role in changing her heart. No. It was the Spirit of God, the faithful love of a good man, and her willingness to forgive those who had wounded her that made the difference.
I loved Sandra when she was a feminist just as I love her now. I was grieved by the wounding of her spirit and by the cords of anger, bitterness and self-sufficiency she had wrapped herself in. So understand this: It was the desire for freedom and wholeness for Sandra and not the desire for theological perfection that motivated my desire to see Sandra turn to truth. For truth is not an end in and of itself, but rather the means to see and know Jesus fully—and in knowing Him fully to be set fully free.
So let me relate my experience with Sandra to the University of Montreal tragedy.
If the truth be told, there are complementarians who hate feminists. And just like Mark Lepine, they would injure, wound, and kill the spirits—if not the bodies—of those women who adhere to feminist philosophy. Marc Lepine’s calculated and brutal attack did nothing to convince his audience of the evils of feminism. On he contrary, many turned to feminism to understand and come to terms with his senseless violence.
The call for compassion
In the same way, I believe that some Christians turn to egalitarianism because of complimentarians who bombard them with intellectual arguments whilst being filled with hatred or simply lacking in compassion toward women. Of this, we must repent.
As an executive member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood I believe that theological integrity and careful reasoning are important in setting for the biblical model for the roles of men and women. But just as important is our compassion for the wounded and our desire to see them walk in wholeness and freedom.
Therefore, while we provide you with materials that carefully and logically explain the biblical position, I would humbly ask that God provide you with a heart of compassion and grace towards those who have been deceived by feminist philosophy. Most feminists will not be persuaded by theological finesse or expertise. Theirs is a wounding of the heart and their minds will only be set aright as their hearts are healed.
So as the sixth anniversary of the Montreal slaying approaches, let us remember all the women who were senselessly murdered and wounded because of Marc Lepine’s hatred. Let us remember that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance. And above all, let us remember to love and pray for all the Sandras.
Papal Letters Are Complementarian
Pope John Paul II, in recent letters to the church concerning women, has made several clearly complementarian statements. While there are significant theological differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics, we rejoice in and affirm much of the stance that the pontiff has taken in these documents.
In January, 1995, in a papal letter entitled “Women as Teachers of Peace,” the pope reaffirmed the creation order and differences between men and women.
“Indeed, from the very first pages of the Bible God’s plan is marvelously expressed: He willed that there should be a relationship of profound communion between man and woman, in a perfect reciprocity of knowledge and of the giving of self. In woman, man finds a partner with whom he can dialogue in complete equality. This desire for dialogue which was not satisfied by any other living creature, explains the man’s spontaneous cry of wonder when the woman, according to the evocative symbolism of the Bible, was created form one of his ribs: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn. 2:23). This was the first cry of love to resound on the earth!
“Even though man and woman are made for each other, this does not mean that God created them incomplete. God “created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be a ‘helpmate’ to the other, for they are equal as persons (‘bone of my bones’) and complementary as masculine and feminine.” Reciprocity and complementarity are the two fundamental characteristics of the human couple.
“Sadly, a long history of sin has disturbed and continues to disturb God’s original plan for the couple, for the male and the female, thus standing in the way of its complete fulfillment. We need to return to this plan, to proclaim it forcefully, so that women in particular—who have suffered more from its failure to be fulfilled—can finally give full expression to their womanhood and their dignity.”
Again, this past summer, in anticipation of the Beijing World Conference on Women, the Vatican distributed a papal letter to the women of the world in which the pope reaffirmed his opposition to the ordination of women, reaffirmed the complementarity of the sexes as male and female, and expressed sorrow over the way in which women have been regarded through the years.
He wrote that:
“From the very beginning, man has been created “male and female” (Gn 1:27).… Men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the “human” as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.
“…In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference.
“…The presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way prejudicial to women, provided that this diversity is not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but is rather an expression of what is specific to being male and female. This issue also has a particular application within the church. If Christ…entrusted only to men the task of being an ‘icon’ of his countenance as ‘shepherd’ and ‘bridegroom’ of the church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women or for that matter, from the role of the other members of the church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in… the ‘common priesthood.’”
But how does it work in marriage?
Question:
In a practical way, in your marriage relationship, how do you balance malefemale equality with male headship?
This question will be answered by six of our Council members: Bruce Ware, Mary Kassian, Ray Ortlund, Dorothy Patterson, George Knight and Rhonda Kelley.
Answer:
MY WIFE, JODI, AND I enjoy a deep, growing and genuine love and respect for each other. I admire her gifts and abilities, and I offer my help to her in ways I can. She, likewise, seeks to assist me in all the ways she is able, and I am so appreciative of her support, encouragement, advice and contribution.
While we enjoy, then, a relationship of mutual service to one another, it is clear to both of us that I am God’s designated leader in our home. She recognizes her calling to assist me in my calling in a way that extends beyond our normal help to one another. In short, we serve each other, but together, she works particularly to assist me to accomplish my own calling before the Lord.
—Bruce Ware
Answer:
BRENT AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED for almost thirteen years. In that time, he has always honored, blessed and encouraged me. He has never, ever said or done anything that would give me the impression that I am lesser than he. He trusts me completely, and gives up much on my account. When he fails, he is quick to seek forgiveness. I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own, and I feel cherished.
Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so. And because of Brent’s great love, I am delighted—indeed overjoyed—to have the opportunity to respond to his leadership and encourage him in it. I try to do so on a daily basis by communicating to him all that has happened during my day, including what has happened in the lives of our children. I open my heart to him, pour out all my daily disappointments, victories, joys and struggles. I invite him to share himself with me and to provide me with his wisdom, insight and leadership.
On a very practical basis, we seek to set aside some time each day for this to happen. “Couch Time” is a time when the children, the computer, the paperwork, the housework, the phone and all the other demands of life are set aside in order to concentrate on each other.
This simple exercise does a number of things: First, it reinforces the equality part of our relationship. My views, perceptions and opinions are voiced equally alongside his. Second it provides Brent with the information necessary to establish God’s vision and direction for our family. If he does not know what I am thinking and feeling, he cannot lead wisely.
“Couch Time” also provides me with a glimpse of his heart. I delight in responding to his leadership because I know that he has listened to me, heard me, and that he considers my views very, very seriously. I have seen how his heart is motivated, not for pleasing himself, but for doing what is right.
“Couch Time” builds trust. I trust Brent’s leadership, and he trusts me that I will be honest with him, support him and never ridicule or mock his efforts to lead. Finally, “Couch Time” is just a lot of fun! We have a lot of laughs and enjoy the beauty and goodness of all God intended marriage to be.
—Mary Kassian
Answer:
MY WIFE JANI AND I are joint heirs together of the grace of life. I also have the privilege of serving her as the head of the home. So how do I know when my service as head is on target? It seems to me that I have not properly listened to my wife until she feels listened to. I have not properly understood my wife until she feels understood. I have not properly cared for my wife until she feels cared for, and so on. So, as we negotiate the challenges of everyday life, alert attention to my wife’s feelings teaches me how to conduct myself toward her so that my headship truly translates into blessing for my wife. She deserves it.
—Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.
PAIGE AND I ARE BOTH COMMITTED to the vows we made at the time of our marriage: he promised to cherish me, and I promised to obey him. God’s plan is based on a beautiful tension—as Paige offers to me provision, protection and leadership (Gen. 2:15–17), I respond with submission to accept his provision, protection and leadership.
Because God gave me to Paige to be his helper, Paige takes advantage of the “help” God has given to him. He asks for my input and listens respectfully to the insights I have to share. I feel loved and useful, even when Paige does not accept my counsel; Paige accepts the challenging responsibilities God has given him to love me, even if sometimes I am unlovable, and to lead me, even though I have a sometimes independent and stubborn spirit. There is a beautiful reciprocity in the equality of our standing before God and the diversity in our responsibility to the Father.
—Dorothy Patterson
Answer:
OUR EQUALITY AS IMAGE BEARERS OF GOD and as joint-heirs of the grace of Christ is the most basic factor that governs the relationship that Virginia and I have as husband and wife. Biblical principles are the driving force in our marriage. Constantly we work on the way in which we lovingly express and carry out the roles God has given to each one in accordance with those Biblical principles.
In applying those principles on a day-to-day basis, there are many decisions which are a question of application, wisdom and judgment. In these situations where we are seeking wisdom and God’s guidance, there may be several options that appear open to us.
In the decision making process, I must take into consideration the needs, thoughts and feelings of my wife, as the Apostle Peter tells me to do (1 Pet. 3:7), so I might exercise a godly and loving leadership for the two of us who are one by marriage.
—George W. Knight, III
Answer:
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF Biblical teachings about the husband-wife relationship impacts our marriage daily. For the past twenty-one years, Chuck and I have respected each other’s unique personalities and gifts. We have acknowledged that we are both created in the image of God, equal in worth and value, but different in role and function. Our marriage has grown as we have each fulfilled a role and together have become a stronger unit.
On a daily basis, with the help of the Lord, we are able to combine male headship with male-female equality in a healthy and positive way. We have found distinctive roles helpful especially when we are making significant lifechanging decisions.
Two years ago as I faced the challenges of a full-time career, a growing ministry, and a family commitment, and Chuck faced increasing demands in his work, we prayed together about God’s leadership in our lives. Chuck provided invaluable feedback and ongoing support.
Ultimately, I made the decision to “retire” from my professional work in order to pursue full-time ministry and time with my family.
At this time in our lives, we face another time of decision. We are praying together about God’s leadership in our lives. As it is Chuck’s work that may change, I offer personal advice and provide encouragement. I have true confidence in him to make the right choice for us at this time. I am at peace knowing that God can use me wherever He might lead us.
—Rhonda Kelley
Egalitarian/Complementarian Bibliography
We thought our readers might find it helpful to have a bibliography listing most or all of the influential books on this subject from both the egalitarian side and the complementarian side. Note: unless these books are listed in our order form on page 15, we do not stock or distribute these books. You will have to obtain them from your own library or book dealer. [If we have omitted important books written by evangelicals on this issue, please let us know! The works by non-evangelicals number several hundreds, and are surveyed in the 1992 books by Cottrell and Kassian below.]
From an evangelical feminist (egalitarian) position
1974 Letha Scanzoni & Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Word)
1975 Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Eerdmans)
1976 Richard & Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul’s View of Women (Baker)
1977 Patricia Gundry, Woman, Be Free! (Zondervan)
1977 Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible (Abingdon)
1979 Berkeley & Alvera Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?”, Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1979, pp. 23–29. Also: “The ‘Head’ of the Epistles,” CT, Feb. 20, 1981, 20–23. [widely influential articles]
1982 E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Zondervan)
1983 Mary J. Evans, Woman in the Bible (IVP)
1984 Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, GNC (Harper)
1985 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Baker)
1985 Aida Spencer, Beyond the Curse (Thomas Nelson)
1986 Janette Hassey, No Time for Silence (Zondervan)
1986 Alvera Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority and the Bible (IVP)
1987 Ruth Tucker & Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church (Zondervan)
1987 Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Revell)
1987 Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIC (Eerdmans)
1988 Faith Martin, Call Me Blessed (Eerdmans)
1989 Bonnidell & Robert Clouse, eds., Women in Ministry: Four Views (IVP) [listed in this category because of the clear editorial sympathies of the editors]
1990 Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Gender and Grace (IVP)
1992 Richard & Catherine Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman (Baker)
1992 Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives (Hendrickson)
1992 Ruth Tucker, Women in the Maze (IVP)
1994 Rebecca Groothuis, Women Caught in the Conflict (Baker)
1996 (forthcoming) Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church (IVP)
From a complementarian position
1977 George W. Knight III, The NT Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker)
1980 Susan Foh, Women and the Word of God (Presbyterian & Reformed)
1980 Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Servant)
1981 James Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Zondervan)
1981 Douglas J. Moo & Philip Payne, interchange in Trinity Journal, 1981 (reprinted, with additional material, by the Evangelical Free Church: Moo is complementarian, while Payne is egalitarian).
1984 Dee Jepsen, Women: Beyond Equal Rights (Word)
1985 George W. Knight III, The Role Relation of Men and Women (Moody). This is a revision of the author’s 1977 book; it also includes a new appendix by W. Grudem, “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples.” [also in Trinity Journal 6 NS (1985), 38–59].
1987 Samuele Bacchiocchi, Women in the Church (Biblical Perspectives)
1987 Weldon Hardenbrook, Missing from Action: Vanishing Manhood in America (Thomas Nelson)
1989 F. LaGard Smith, Men of Strength for Women of God (Harvest House)
1990 Wayne House, The Role of Women in Ministry Today (Thomas Nelson) [see also 1995]
1990 Mary Kassian, Women, Creation, and the Fall (Crossway)
1991 Larry Crabb, Men and Women: Enjoying the Difference (Zondervan)
1991 R. Kent Hughes, Disciplines of a Godly Man (Crossway)
1991 Robert Lewis & William Hendricks, Rocking the Roles (Navpress)
1991 Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective, trans. by Gordon Wenham (Crossway)
1991 John Piper & Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway)
1992 Jack Cottrell, Feminism and the Bible (College Press, Joplin, Mo.)
1992 Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel (Crossway)
1992 George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Eerdmans)
1993 Stu Weber, Tender Warrior, (Multnomah)
1994 Michael Harper, Equal and Different (London: Hodder & Stoughton)
1995 The Woman’s Study Bible, edited by Dorothy Patterson and Rhonda Kelley (Thomas Nelson)
1995 Wayne House, The Role of Women in Ministry Today (Baker) Revised and updated edition
1995 (forthcoming) Thomas Schreiner, H. Scott Baldwin, and Andreas Köstenberger, Women and the Church: A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2 [tentative title] (Baker)
A Look Back To D-Day
Times have changed in the last fifty years. Our attitudes about men, masculinity, national loyalty, war, and legitimate authority have all changed markedly….Fifty years ago, men were less doubtful than they are today about their role in the culture. They were the breadwinners and protectors of women and children against external threats and dangers.… Today there are very strong forces at work reshaping men’s role in their relationship to women and society.
Beginning in school, and perhaps earlier, little boys and young men are nowadays taught that they must be sensitive, compassionate, not-too-competitive, nottoo-aggressive, not-tooambitious or lustful for power, not-too-sexually assertive; they are taught also to disavow their natural discomfort about homosexuality, and to disavow the importance of the so-called “manly virtues” as childish or adolescent or declass, or reactionary, or mindless—notions like courage, honor, duty, loyalty, comradeship.
At the next Battle of Omaha, where will we find the Sgt. Streczyks and Lt. Spauldings to lead us off the beach?
Yale Kramer, in a gripping account of the Allied assault on Normandy, “Day at the Beach,” in The American Spectator, August, 1994
Reviews And Notices
“1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Reconsideration of Paul’s Limitation of the Free Speech of Some Corinthian Women,”
L. Ann Jervis, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995): 51-74
Jervis’ basic thesis is that the interpolation theory for 1 Cor. 14.34-35 should be rejected and the words be regarded as authentically Paul’s. She postulates that Paul wrote the passage out of concern that some women’s speech was detrimental to the Corinthians’ exercise of prophecy because it was self-focused and unloving. Paul’s prescription for the problem was to invoke the patriarchal mores of his contemporary society.
The author, who teaches at Wycliffe College in Toronto, Canada, demonstrates an overall interpretive skill and even-handedness that is too often lacking in more popular works which promote an egalitarian viewpoint. And yet, in the end, she betrays her loyalties with her summarization, which in fact implies that Paul cannot be trusted for faithful teaching on male/female roles because of his cultural patriarchal bias. Thus, her article has both positive and negative aspects.
To begin, she effectively challenges egalitarian scholars who propose that the passage is inauthentic and represents an editorial insertion to Paul’s letter after his death (cf. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 699 who comments “they were not part of the original text but an early marginal gloss.”). She demonstrates that the arguments used to label this passage as an editorial insertion are problematic. For example, she correctly questions why a hypothetical Christian editor with an anti-women bias, who was seeking to eradicate the evidence of women’s influence and leadership with the early community, would tamper with the location of 1 Cor. 14.34-35 within the letter but “leave untouched Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11.2-16?” (p. 55). Indeed, the most satisfactory conclusion is that the words are Paul’s.
A second positive feature is that Jervis concedes that Paul’s injunction applies to all women in the local church and not just wives. While she does not pursue the implications of this line of thinking, this is also a major concession to a complementarian position.
A third positive feature is that she argues that the context of the passage revolves around prophetic utterances in the worshipping community.
Finally, she is to be commended for her intellectual honesty as she acknowledges that “Paul accepted the patriarchal ordering of the Christian’s home life [they are not told to ask their questions of other women].(p. 69).”
Jervis’ weaknesses are as follows. First, while she correctly observes that the context of the passage revolves around prophetic utterances in the worshipping community, she does not marshall enough support to supplant the preferred interpretive position that the issue is the public evaluation/discernment of prophecy. Her contention that the Corinthian church en masse shared the same philosophical mindset with Philo is speculative and even historically naive.
Second, while Jervis accepts that Paul has given a threefold injunction to the Corinthian women: that they be silent, they ask questions of their men at home, and they submit to their men, she proposes that his command is simply a utilitarian utilization of the patriarchal values of his society. According to Jervis, Paul “was willing to get them (and the Corinthian community) to change their behavior by appealing to a value system in which women were obliged to accept the social control of men.” Paul is thus an apostle who is tarnished with “chauvinism” (p. 69) and guilty of manipulating contemporary social mores to regulate Christian behavior in the local church.
This is Jervis’ major downfall. She refuses to allow or even acknowledge the possibility that Paul has in fact not parroted the temporal values of an unjust, unholy, and patriarchal Hellenistic society, but that he has instead articulated the eternal values and ethics of a just and holy and wise God whose perspective on order in the home and the assembly sovereignly supersede the fluctuations of all cultures of all times. While there is no denying Jervis’ observation that Paul was concerned that the believer’s sensitivity and love for each other be the cardinal testimony to God, this is simply not an adequate reason to believe that God’s order and God’s love are two contradictory ethics which cannot co-exist at the same time and in the same place.
In conclusion, Jervis, unlike many egalitarian authors, does not waste her time trying to rescue Paul from himself, but she is content to let Paul be Paul. For this I am pleasantly surprised and appreciative.
However, her deconstruction of Paul into a chauvinist of convenience, and her reluctance to consider God’s ability to hold together equality of value and diversity in masculine-feminine roles, leads me to believe that she is not yet content to let God be God.
-Brent E. Kassian
Women’s Magazines Update
Cal Thomas surveyed September’s magazine rack and gleaned these teasers from women’s magazines: “Cosmopolitan offers ’11 Secrets of World Class Lovers’ and ‘You’re Sexier as You Grow Older, Can He Keep Up?’ Glamour has ‘How to Really Talk to a Man About Sex:’ and ‘Smart, Sexy Clothes.’ Mademoiselle carries ‘A Sexy Body, a Great Love…’ and an article about ‘sexy hair.’ New Woman offers ’10 Tips on Having an Affair.’ Redbook prints ‘7 Secrets of Great Sex.’”
The usually identified perpetrators of such demeaning or abusive titles are the socalled “men’s” magazines; now that women’s magazines are so urgently pursuing the debasement and devaluing of women, men, and the sexual relationship, we see that pornography, whether visual or verbal, has invaded our lives in an unprecedented occupation and assault.
Thomas calls upon parents, educators and community leaders to pressure entertainment leaders to reduce “the level of poison they are pumping into the lives of morally defenseless children and newly pubescent teen-agers.”
[1]
[1]Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 1995; 2002. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Volume 1 . Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Monday, March 12, 2007
Im Back and Rearing for some Action !!!
Hey all, sorry been so long, i mainly will be replying to your posts but will post on here to. Good to be back and looking forward to chatting.
Love Jared
Love Jared
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
