Dorothy Sayers: Are Women Human?

From Scot McKnight’s blog:

God, of course, may have his own opinion, but the Church is reluctant to endorse it. I think that I have never heard a sermon preached on the story of Martha and Mary that did not attempt, somehow, somewhere, to explain away its text. Mary’s of course was the better part – the Lord said so and we must not precisely contradict Him. But we will be careful not to despise Martha. No doubt He approved of her too. We could not get on without her, and indeed (having paid lip-service to God’s opinion) we must admit that we greatly prefer her. For Martha was doing a really feminine job, whereas Mary was just behaving like any other disciple, male or female; and that is a hard pill to swallow.

Perhaps it is no wonder that women were the first at the Cradle and the last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man – there never has been another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them as “The women, God help us?” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words or deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.

But we might easily deduce it from his contemporaries, and from His prophets before Him, and from His Church to this day. Women are not human; nobody shall persuade that they are human; let them say what they like, we will not believe it, though One rose from the dead. (p. 46-47 from 1981 printing)

William Lane Craig on the “generation” of the Son

At William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith website, Dr. Craig answers a complex question about the Trinity and prior causation. Although most of the article is dedicated to explaining the “First Cause” argument for God’s existence, there are a few interesting quotes about the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. He says,

Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Father’s will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.

So I regard God the Father as neither ontologically nor causally prior to God the Son, and I view Augustine and the Damascene’s views as extra-biblical and unfortunate.

From this it is not clear whether there is an eternal subordination of the Son; only an eternal generation is denied. But many complementarian scholars seem to conflate the two thinking that the Son’s eternal generation is evidence (or perhaps better said, the explanation) of His eternal subordination. Still, Craig does not see the economic Trinity as reflecting the ontological Trinity, which is fundamental to the complementarian scheme.

Is Complementarianism at the very center of orthodoxy?

Recently Scot McKnight wrote about his concerns over what he calls the “NeoReformed” (part 1, part 2). According to him, these ardent Calvinists “are more than happy to call into question the legitimacy and fidelity of any evangelical who doesn’t believe in classic Reformed doctrines, like double predestination.” Whether or not that is the case, he also observes something else that is equally alarming:

“And here’s another issue: the NeoReformed are deeply concerned with complementarianism and see it as a test case of fidelity. Fine, argue your points, but complementarianism is hardly the center of orthodoxy. You wouldn’t know that by the way they write or talk. Some see it as the litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy these days. This grieves me. Don’t we have more significant battles to wage?”

Denny Burk objected to this, without commenting on the merits of McKnight’s label, saying that complementarianism is not understood by the “NeoReformed” to be “the center of orthodoxy” or at “the heart of their doctrinal priorities.” Nevertheless, he goes on to say that egalitarianism is a threat to the auhority of the Bible. To me, this smacks of double-speak because it seems to be the case that to deny complementarianism is to deny the authority of Scripture–which of course, puts the very “center of orthodoxy” at stake!

There is some evidence to back up McKnight’s complaint. For example, the Together for the Gospel statement reads:

We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the church, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.

We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

The message could not be anymore clear: if you deny such an order exists between man and woman you undermine the church’s witness to the gospel. For decades evangelicals of all stripes, complementarians and egalitarians, have found unity in the gospel message of Christ. But with this statement, there can be no unity in the gospel as egalitarians are subtly denounced as undermining it. And there is nothing more at the center of orthodoxy than the gospel itself.

Al Mohler reviewed Wayne Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? and came to this conclusion:

Nothing less than the future of the Christian church in North America is at stake in this controversy. Evangelicals no longer have the luxury of believing that this controversy is nothing more than a dispute among scholars.

If the future of the church in North America is contingent upon the repudiation of egalitarianism, then the advancement of complementarianism is (and ought to be) “the heart the NeoReformer’s doctrinal priorities.

If complementarianism’s understanding of hierarchy is essential to the Christian worldview (as Mary Kassian argued in her book Women, Creation, and Fall, p. 45), then how could it not be in dispute that the NeoReformed see complementarianism as a litmus test of orthodoxy? If they deny that it is they should qualify or even recant some of the things said above.

A Correction to “The Logic of Equality”

My inexperience with working with publishers shows. When I opened the fall issue of Priscilla Papers I was happy to see my piece “The Logic of Equality” published. I was not happy to see that I had submitted an incorrected draft to the editor. I had a number of different versions I was working with, and it seems I missed the opportunity in the final review to catch the error.

The sixth reason I give for rejecting the complementarian idea of the Trinity reads like this in the journal:

Sixth, subordination that extends into eternity cannot be merely functional, but must also be ontological. God’s authority is a quality that inheres with the attribute of his lordship. Authority, applied to God, means he has the right to govern all things as well as the ability to control all things. If we choose to use the term “authority” as a quality of God’s lordship, we must apply it to both Father and Son, for both share in the divine attribute of lordship. With this principle in mind, it follows that if the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father has a divine attribute that the Son does not have. And since eternity is an intrinsic quality of God’s existence, it logically follows that what the Son is eternally, he is in being. If the Son is eternally subordinate in function, then he is eternally subordinate in being

It should read like this:

Sixth, subordination that extends into eternity cannot be merely functional if it is based on something that is ontological. God’s authority is a quality that inheres with the attribute of his lordship. Authority, applied to God, means he has the right to govern all things, as well as the ability to control all things. If we choose to use the term “authority” as a quality of God’s lordship we must apply it to both Father and Son, for both share in the divine attribute of lordship. Yet this principle conflicts with eternal subordination’s insistence that the Son’s “sonship” subordinates him to a status lower than the Father. If this is the case, it stands to reason that the Father has a divine attribute that the Son does not have, namely that of authority. And since authority is an intrinsic quality of God’s existence it logically follows that what the Son lacks in deity subordinates him not only in function but also in being. If the Son is eternally subordinate in function by virtue of what he is, then he is eternally subordinate in being.

The difference is significant, because it does not follow that if the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father has a divine attribute that the Son does not have. Eternal subordination can be conceived as something like a contract: from all eternity the persons of the trinitarian community mutually agreed to arrange themselves hierarchically (perhaps for the purposes of redemption?). In this scheme, it remains conceivable that a possible world may have been ordained where the Father subordinated to the Son. However, if such a world is not possible then it does follow, for eternal subordination is then determined by the Son’s “sonship.” The problem here is that it makes an essence out of the Son’s personhood (“sonship”) that is altogether different from the Father’s essence.

Either way, the point about God’s attribute of authority is at the center of the “sixth reason” and that is what is lacking in complementarian views of the Trinity. If we take the contractual view, the Son empties himself of the attribute in a way that mimics the kenosis view of the incarnation. I’m not sure any complementarian theologian would embrace that. In seeking to avoid this, we could take the “submission is fitting to sonship” view, but as I have tried to show, this falls into ontological subordination.

Lesson learned: reread your submissions to publishers again and again even if you have read the darn thing a hundred times! I await the fair criticism of my unfortunate non sequitur.

Resistance From Every Nation

The opening sentences of Paul Kjoss Helseth’s article Elect From Every Nation are very odd to read. One will stop to re-read the first few words thinking they have missed something when he says, “Principled opposition to the pursuit of ‘racial reconciliation’ in the church…” How could someone be opposed to racial reconciliation? It seems nonsensical, like having “principled opposition” to human happiness. What is more shocking, he believes that such opposition can be “evidence of eagerness to safeguard the primacy and sufficiency of the gospel.” This is because we “have already been reconciled to God and to one another by the Cross of Christ.”

RMG on Palin and Complementarianism

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis has an insightful post on the Com-Palin controversy here. Money quote:

In the end, it seems that the “clear teaching” and literal meaning of Scripture on “complementary roles” for manhood and womanhood—which up to now has fairly consistently meant that God created men to be leaders and created women to be subordinate to male leadership—is not such a consistent and comprehensive perspective after all. Rather, when push comes to shove, it simply means that in the church and home, men must be the boss and women must be subordinate to male authority. Outside these two realms, gender “complementarity” is either moot or nonexistent. What, exactly, God did at creation is immensely unclear. God did not create man and woman with certain different propensities inherent to the nature of manhood and womanhood, because, after all, outside the church and home, in the world at large, “differences,” whether deemed mandated or inherent, disappear. There is definite confusion in the camp of the complementarians.

My Take on the On Faith Question

My take on the On Faith question is similar to Richard Mouw’s: it is not hyporcritical to suppose that women can serve as governing leaders of a nation but not a church, but it is inconsistent. Hypocrisy entails an insidious level of dishonesty pertinent to the issue that traditionalists avoid.

Nevertheless, the question is interesting, because it reveals deep presuppositions about biblical interpretation that cuts through the fog of rhetoric about traditional gender roles and the evils of feminism. Quite frankly, Sarah Palin is a problem for traditionalists–or “complementarians” as they like to call themselves—because she is a conservative feminist. She is just as big of a problem for CBMW as she is for secular feminists on the Left.

One Faith: Is it hypocritical to think that a woman can lead a nation and not a congregation?

The Washington Post hosts a forum called On Faith that poses this question: Women are not allowed to become clergy in many conservative religious groups. Is it hypocritical to think that a woman can lead a nation and not a congregation?

Here are the highlights of the contributors:

Brian D. McLaren:

I just talked to a leading conservative religious leader about this the other day. He believes that the New Testament texts regarding women only apply to the church and not the secular world. I find that line of interpretation very convenient for conservative churches, and impossible to justify theologically. My guess is that more and more of the daughters of today’s religious conservatives will decide to a) abandon their parent’s approach to interpreting the Bible, b) decide the “secular” world is a more hospitable place and spend more time there and less in the church, or c) change churches

Voddie Baucham: Palin not a Pro-Family Pick

Voddie Baucham is not happy about Sarah Palin and calls her an “anti-family pick.” He writes:

First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office.

CBMW: Does Governor Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?

CBMW has a post up asking the crucial question Does Governor Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?

From the outset we must remember that on November 7 the voters will not elect a national minister or pastor in chief. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.

Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields.