Twenty Facts in the Gender Debate
Author. Andrew Wilson | Publication Date. 18/01/2012
I’m going to make twenty statements, seventeen of which are fairly uncontroversial, two of which are disputed, and one of which is highly controversial. To call them ‘facts’ is, perhaps, slightly provocative, but I felt that calling them ‘statements’ was a bit bland, and ‘theses’ made me sound like Martin Luther – the disputed ones (#9 and #12) cannot really be called ‘facts’ but they appear likely to me, and the highly controversial one (#20), though I emphatically regard it as true, would not be accepted by any scholar who did not see Scripture as divinely inspired. As far as I can tell, though, the other seventeen reflect the best biblical scholarship available, and would be widely agreed upon by leading egalitarian (Fee, Wright, Marshall, Keener, Towner, Witherington, McKnight) and complementarian (Moo, Schreiner, Knight, Blomberg, Carson, Mounce, Köstenberger) scholars. Here goes:
1. Men and women are equally made in God’s image, blessed by God, and given dominion over creation (Gen 1:27-28).
2. Men and women are equally united with Christ, adopted as children, and heirs of God’s promises (Gal 3:28).
3. Jesus travelled with women, accepted financial support from them, and allowed them to sit at his feet as pupils, in defiance of social conventions (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42).
4. Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, and without them, there would be no gospel proclamation (Matt 28:1-8; Luke 24:1-11; John 20:1-2).
5. The Twelve apostles were all required to be men (Acts 1:21-22).
6. At least one woman in the New Testament church explained the word of God to a man (Acts 18:26).
7. Men and women both have the Holy Spirit poured out upon them, empowering them to prophesy (Acts 2:18).
8. Women in the New Testament church served as deacons (Rom 16:1-2; 1 Tim 3:11).
9. At least one woman in the New Testament church publicly read an epistle to the church (Rom 16:1-2).
10. At least one woman in the New Testament church was an apostle, and outstanding amongst them (Rom 16:7).
11. Women in the New Testament church prophesied in church meetings (1 Cor 11:5).
12. Paul did not allow women to chat to each other while others were speaking during church meetings, and/or to interrupt their husbands to ask questions while they were prophesying (1 Cor 14:33-35).
13. When the New Testament church gathered, anyone could bring a song, a teaching, a revelation, a language or an interpretation (1 Cor 14:26).
14. Married women in the New Testament church are instructed to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22, 24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1).
15. In the thought world of the early Christians, relational submission did not necessarily imply ontological inferiority (1 Cor 15:28; Heb 13:17).
16. Husbands in the New Testament church are described as being the head of their wives, and instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:23; 1 Cor 11:3).
17. Paul said to Timothy that he did not allow a woman to teach or exercise/assume authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12).
18. The requirements for elders/overseers in the New Testament included being faithful to their wives, keeping their children submissive, and governing their households well, all of which assume that elders/overseers are men (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
19. No spiritual gift – not prophecy, teaching, leadership or anything else – is identified in Scripture as being exclusively given to men or women (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-13, 27-31).
20. All nineteen of the above statements reflect an internally consistent and coherent vision of the way men and women are to function in marriage and the church.
With the exception of the last one, these statements are essentially exegetical judgments: decisions about what authors and texts meant in their original settings. The last one is more a presupposition about Scripture; but although I said it was highly controversial, it is in fact likely to be affirmed by all self-identifying evangelicals, since it is nothing more than an application of a general evangelical conviction (the consistency and clarity of Scripture) to a specific issue. So frankly, there’s an awful lot for evangelicals to agree about.
The main reason for laying them out like this is to show, once again, how much agreement there can and should be amongst egalitarians and complementarians. (Many will be surprised to find that Gordon Fee and Phil Towner agree with Bill Mounce and Andreas Köstenberger on #17 and #18, for example, or that Tom Schreiner and Doug Moo agree with Scot McKnight and Tom Wright on #8 and #10). This, following my previous posts on how much we agree on marriage and the myths in the gender debate, is therefore intended to provide a platform for two further Wednesday posts, on hermeneutics and application, which move from exegesis (on which there is huge agreement) to how these passages should be applied (on which there is huge disagreement). See you next week.
———————————————————————————————
Andrew’s next book, If God Then What? Wondering Aloud about Truth, Origins and Redemption, will be released in April, published by IVP.
Church: King's Church Eastbourne
Church Website: www.kingschurch.eu
Comments
By Liam Thatcher on 18/01/2012 at 09:37
Great post - clear and thought provoking. It’s amazing how much common ground there is when you lay the statements out like this.
By Claire Musters on 18/01/2012 at 13:06
Thanks for this Andrew - really nice to have a clear list to work through. Will take a look at your older posts - and look forward to next week’s installment! ;)
Having recently started writing in the wider evangelical circle it is interesting to come across so many varied opinions and beliefs - and this issue is such a massive one to so many people. It saddens me to a degree because it can cause such vehment disagreement - but has also made me want to go back and re-check my own beliefs and the reasons behind them (so that I am clear on why I believe what I believe to be biblical). So these postings will be a very useful aid to that! ;D
By Mike Lewis on 18/01/2012 at 13:20
doesnt number 6 conflict with number 17?
By Hugh Griffiths on 18/01/2012 at 14:13
Very helpful list, especially by noting #9 and #12 which are ‘under discussion’. I would probably have included #10 as another point around which there is debate.
I’ve not read all the authors you refer to, but could you point me towards their studies that have convinced you that Junia(s) was a female and definitely not a male apostle?
Since part of the apostolic mandate is to appoint elders in the churches, it would seem to be inconsistent for a woman to have authority over them in an apostolic role. However, I would be interested to see how scholars such as Schreiner help to integrate an understanding of (female) apostolic authority and (male) eldership.
By Andrew Wilson on 18/01/2012 at 15:17
@Mike: I don’t think they do, no, but come back on the next two Wednesdays to find out why!
@Hugh: from egalitarians, see especially Scot McKnight’s recent ebook on Junia; from complementarians, see the sections in Schreiner and Moo’s commentaries on Romans 16:7, Jones’ article at http://www.cbmw.org and D,enny Burk’s recent article at http://www.dennyburk.com/junia-is-a-woman-and-i-am-a-complementarian/ The q.uestion turns on how polyvalently the word apostolos is used by Paul. Does that help?
By Andrew Wilson on 18/01/2012 at 15:19
Apologies for dreadful punctuation. Shame overload.
By Hugh Griffiths on 18/01/2012 at 16:54
Andrew - many thanks for such a prompt reply and the links. Jones’ article on CBMW and Burk’s article are both helpful in pointing out that even if we conclude Junia(s) was a female ‘apostolos’ (Paul, polyvalent), it doesn’t really progress a case for female apostles in the normative contemporary sense, ie with some authoritative contribution to church structure and governance.
However, if you are convinced about the biblical norm of a female apostle, how do you see that role operating today? Within most contemporary understandings of apostolic function, statement #10 does not readily sit with #18 because of the foundational, governmental, doctrinal and disciplinary responsibilities of the role.
Well done for stepping into this field .. it has some crucial implications for ministry and so it is a vital area to engage with. Looks like I’ll have to revisit the blog the next couple of Wednesdays ...
By Andrew Wilson on 19/01/2012 at 09:57
@Hugh: good question! In Junia’s case, we don’t know; in the case of some other apostoloi in the NT (2 Cor 8:23; Php 2:25), we have a bit more idea. I think starting with those examples and working outwards is probably a safe bet - but my concern here, obviously, is with exegesis rather than application.
By Graham on 23/01/2012 at 17:09
Great stuff! A brilliant approach to this issue! Thanks Andrew!
By Michael Snow on 24/01/2012 at 23:01
@Hugh: “...if you are convinced about the biblical norm of a female apostle, how do you see that role operating today? “
The first question is, ‘How do you see it operating then?”
[The same applies to deacon.]
To quote Cranfield, ICC, here “‘the apostles’ must be given a wider sense as denoting those itinerant missionaries who were recognized by the churches…”
By Brian Andrews on 27/01/2012 at 17:56
It seems like #10 and #17 are contradictory if #10 refers to an apostle with governmental authority, as opposed to a “sent out one”, like a messenger.