A Steady Path Forward: Some Direction for the Gender Debate, Part 1

I make no claim to be any sort of trailblazer for the gender debate. This is not a direction proposal for the next generation of pastors and scholars who will write and think on gender. This is an attempt to be biblically faithful with the present opposition to a biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood in the family and church.

The gender debate does not look exactly the same as it did twenty or so years ago when the Danvers Statement was published in 1988. Nor does it fit what those who crafted the statement expected the debate to evolve into, as Dr. Wayne Grudem mentions in his most recent article in the JBMW, Personal Reflection on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate, saying, “I am surprised that his controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years.”

This short series of three parts will discuss some issues in the current opposition to complementarianism: Part 1 (presently) will look at what needs to be visited afresh or what is neglected textually or hermeneutically in today’s opposition to complementarianism. Part 2 will survey how egalitarians have synthesized their textual and hermeneutical conclusions into a systematic theology. Part 3 will then look at how to relate gender issues to the Gospel in the home and the local church.

Textual and Hermeneutical Issues

Sarah Sumner’s (an egalitarian) Christianity Today article "Wounds of a Friend: Egalitarian" argued that the textual arguments of egalitarians haven’t been faithful to the text, but rather to political ideologies. It could be implied that egalitarians should move beyond the textual battles to a more nuanced hermeneutic. While many egalitarians do not come to this conclusion, some have made that shift. For example, two recent influential egalitarian books on women in ministry — William Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (IVP, 2001) and Scot McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Zondervan, 2008) — raise questions on the legitimacy of how many are reading their Bibles in order to come up with complementarian conclusions to texts. So then, it seems that complementarians should shift their focus to simply hermeneutics.

In a conversation I had with Dr. Tom Schreiner, he says he is not convinced that is the route to take. He comments, “I would add that textual work is never done. It always has to be renewed, or we actually forget it.” This is a helpful statement for the Church who, while we are redeemed, still fight a sinful condition that is often quick to forget. Complementarians should stand upon the shoulders and develop what has gone before us. The phrase “reformed and always reforming” doesn’t mean to always be developing a radical new system. If we are always radically new, then we are never strong and firm, but rather flimsy and able to be “tossed about by every wind of doctrine.”

Schreiner then added, “I would say that we need to constantly keep up in all the texts, especially 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11, Genesis 1-2, and Ephesians 5. It may be that 1 Corinthians needs the most work. I think a major book could be written on it.” When you take a close look at the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 11 and see how much scholarship on, not only gender, but the doctrine of the Trinity and theology proper is related to that single chapter, you begin to see how a major contribution from a complementarian scholar would be welcomed. Schreiner also suggests that, “we need to answer what people are saying about all the texts that relate to women, such as Junia in Romans 16:7 and Pheobe in Romans 16:1.”

Though he doesn’t think the textual battle is over, Dr. Schreiner is no stranger to discussions on hermeneutics (see his New Testament Theology). Questions he suggests pertaining to hermeneutics are how do we move from exegesis to application? What do texts like 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 11 mean for today? Schreiner gives an example, “More work could be done on prophecy since women prophesy but are not to preach. What does that mean exactly? What does it look like in our churches?"

One implication we can take from Schreiner’s suggestion is that while a majority of egalitarians have made the shift from textual arguments to new paradigms of hermeneutics, complementarians should not abandon exegesis. Even when we defend a historical interpretation or hermeneutic, we should never take our finger from the text.

Finally, Schreiner directs our attention to the Trinity and Millard Erickson’s new book (Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?) –“The Trinity still needs to be addressed,” he adds. One can see how these textual and hermeneutical issues lead to systematic issues like spiritual gifts, the Church, the doctrine of God, and the Trinity. That is where we will pick up in Part 2.

Note: Special thanks to Dr. Tom Schreiner for his help in this post.