Annotated Bibliography for Gender-Related Articles in 2005

In this issue of the journal we profile some of the most significant gender-related articles from 2005. Here is a brief reminder about the categories we are using and our intent in using them. Complementarian designates an author who recognizes the full personal equality of the sexes, coupled with an acknowledgment of role distinctions in the home and church. Egalitarian classifies evangelicals who see undifferentiated equality (i.e., they see no scriptural warrant for affirming male headship in the home or the church). Under the Non-Evangelical heading, we have classified important secular works and books that address the subject of biblical gender issues from a religious, albeit, non-evangelical point of view. This category also serves as our classification for liberal scholars wanting to retain some sort of Christian identity. Finally, under the Undeclared heading, we have listed those books that do not give sufficient indication of their fundamental stance for us to classify them more specifically.

Complementarian Authors/Articles

Brighton, Louis A. "Where is the Holy Family Today?: Marriage a Holy Covenant Before God-The Biblical Role of Man and Woman." Concordia Journal (July 2005): 260-68.

Brighton believes that marriage is a holy covenant created by God and that when the respective roles of the husband and wife are lived out according to Scripture, then it is both a blessing to the world and "an icon that illustrates and points to the love of God through Christ for all mankind." Using Joseph and Mary as the supreme example to be emulated by families today, his main points are (1) for husbands to be imitators of Christ as they "give themselves to their wives in order to care for them and nourish them in the giving and sacrificial love of Christ," and (2) for wives to "become such icons and living examples of the church's subjection to the Lord Christ as they place themselves under the loving care and protection of their husbands." When Christians strive to be faithful to God's design for marriage, "they emulate the holy family of Joseph and Mary as they collectively and individually proclaim the blessed Gospel of Christ's salvation within the manner in which the husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church and as the wife submits herself to the husband as the church does to Christ."

"JBMW Responds to Discovering Biblical Equality (IVP, 2004)." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10, no. 1 (2005).

The Spring 2005 issue of JBMW provides a timely and valiant response to the egalitarian work, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (DBE), edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, with contributing editor Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004). DBE is clearly a response to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, and is intended to provide a comprehensive, scholarly argument for the egalitarian position. Although every chapter in DBE is not treated, the most important chapters are evaluated and critiqued by an extraordinary group of complementarian scholars, namely, J. Ligon Duncan III, Wayne Grudem, H. Wayne House, Rebecca Jones, George Knight III, Andreas Köstenberger, David Nelson, Dorothy Patterson, Paige Patterson, Robert Saucy, Peter R. Schemm Jr., Thomas Schreiner, Justin Taylor, and Bruce Ware, who present a unified front for the traditional understanding of the Bible's teaching concerning the roles of men and women in the home and church. Each article is packed with rich exegetical and theological insights from Scripture that demonstrate the clear biblical teaching regarding God's good design in the created order. Contrary to DBE's use of the term "complementarity," the contributors show why there is no middle ground between the two groups since complementarity has always included the idea of male headship. This critique will be used for years to come to demonstrate why the complementarian position presents the most faithful teaching of the Word of God.

"JBMW Responds to the TNIV." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10, no. 2 (2005).

The Fall 2005 issue of JBMW was devoted entirely to an evaluation of the completed Today's New International Version (TNIV), released in early 2005. Since the TNIV is a revision of the popular and widely read New International Version (NIV), the aim was to give a "charitable yet discerning" critique of the TNIV and to provide a thorough response. While not wanting to judge the motives of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) for the translation of the TNIV, the contributors honestly questioned if their pre-understandings and presuppositions that guided the translation process resulted in an improved translation. In other words, to what extent should modern culture and ideologies influence the use of the English language in translating God's written Word? Does their translation methodology actually "distort or obscure the message of the text" as a result of "limiting readers' interpretive options"? To what degree does the TNIV misrepresent the Bible's overall teaching on gender? Although the need for modern translations of the Bible is acknowledged, it is agreed that those translations should follow "certain proven principles" which have benefited the church since its inception. This will result in a translation that is "accurate and faithful to the original languages, not one informed by contemporary ideologies or modern sensibilities." The contributors to the journal are Robert Cole, Russell Fuller, Wayne Grudem, Russell Moore, Vern Poythress, John Mark Reynolds, Peter R. Schemm Jr., Justin Taylor, and Michael Travers.

Egalitarian Authors/Articles

Bearden, Alexander.  "On Whether 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Allows an Egalitarian Exegesis." Priscilla Papers 19, no. 4 (2005): 16-21.

Bearden sets out to uphold an egalitarian interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16, believing that this interpretation "can be fully justified from the text itself." He uses Gal 3:27-28 as the starting point for all interpretations of passages pertaining to men and women's relationship and states that "when a proper and thorough exegesis, with attention to the world behind of, and in front of the text, is complete, it will reflect the egalitarian view and not contradict other biblical passages." In shifting to the passage, he points out that "to solve the problem in the Corinthian church, Paul uses a metaphor, and therefore does not lay down a universal command which is applicable cross-culturally." In doing so Bearden fails to see that Paul grounds his argument in the Trinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son, thus demonstrating that it does apply cross-culturally. As is common among egalitarians, in v. 3 he takes kephalē to mean "source" and says that there is "no mention of authority in the text (except for a woman's over her own head); if authority were to be understood in that way, it would have to be read into the text." This understanding permeates his interpretation of the rest of the passage. Citing Bultmann, Bearden is correct in stating that "exegesis cannot be done without presuppositions" and confesses that his own "are egalitarian by nature." However, in accusing complementarians of beginning with a "presupposition of subordination," he denies the most natural reading of the text and cannot see how unity can exist when men exercise godly headship in marriage. This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Gal 3:27-28 where men and women can be both spiritually equal in Christ before God yet different in respect to roles (for a response see Peter R. Schemm's "Galatians 3:28-Prooftext or Context?" JBMW 8, no. 1 (2003): 23-30 [accessible online]).

Belleville, Linda. "Ἰουνιαν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials." New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 231-49.

Belleville argues that, although early church tradition and fathers onward affirm a female apostle in Rom 16:7, twentieth-century translations have not been comfortable with this rendering.  She employs the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae computer database to assert that Junia was "of note among the apostles" and to argue that "the masculine Junias and the attribution ‘well-known to the apostles' are without linguistic or grammatical foundation." Arguing primarily against Michael Burer and Daniel Wallace in "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16:7," NTS 47 (2000): 76-91, Belleville concludes that the overwhelming "time-honored attribution" of Junia being feminine and "esteemed among the apostles" places the burden of proof on those who would argue that the apostolate excludes women.

Hess, Richard S. "Adam, Father, He: Gender Issues in Hebrew Translation." The Bible Translator 56, no. 3 (2005): 144-53.

Hess's aim in this article is to present new evidence in the gender-inclusive translation debate by examining three pivotal areas in the OT: (1) the rendering of adam in Hebrew in Genesis 1-4, (2) the term for "father" or "parent" in Proverbs, and (3) the "so-called generic ‘he'" in Hebrew.  From the beginning of his article, he clearly affirms his position as that of favoring gender-inclusive translations.  He rejects "male orientation," "male emphasis," and "various patriarchal concerns," and also the dichotomies that exist in the gender roles and translation debates.  Hess argues that the gender distinctions in Genesis 1-4 do not support a male/female hierarchy, but, rather, serve to communicate "harmonious relationships as created by God."  However, he fails to address why Paul appeals to Genesis 1-3 to affirm that God has placed the man as the godly head of the woman.  He then looks at the context of Proverbs and, by reading through the lens of the father/mother parallel in 1:8, he concludes that translating the word for "father" as "parent" is supported when it occurs in phrases that "do not require a biological male."  Lastly, Hess examines the extrabiblical and pre-Hebrew third person pronoun for "he" and concludes that wherever the text does not require an "exclusively masculine or feminine pronoun," it may allow for "either gender, i.e. ‘one', ‘someone', ‘anyone', etc."  He then applies this assumption to other books of the Bible and brings into question the "so-called masculine oriented forms."

Johnson, Kristin L. "Just as the Father, So the Son: The Implications of John 5:16-30 in the Gender-Role Debate." Priscilla Papers 19, no. 1 (2005): 13-17.

Johnson's aim in this article is to show that, since Jesus argues that "his equality in function with the Father is what demonstrates the equality of his divine status," then a parallel is to be made in the relationship between men and women-namely, that "the spiritual equality of Christian men and women is revealed in their functional equality" [author's emphasis]. Johnson denies the subordination of the Son to the Father claiming that this view has historically been rejected by church fathers and the reformed councils and confessions. This claim fails to recognize the distinction between ontological subordination, which the church has historically rejected, and functional subordination, which the church has historically affirmed. She accuses those who affirm the differentiated roles of men and women of reading this "hierarchy" back into the relationship between the Father and the Son. While one can agree with Johnson that as male and female we are made in the image of God and, therefore, should "look for our true reflection in our Creator," the biblical teaching of the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father cannot be denied. It is irresponsible scholarship and unfair to readers to claim that this view has been rejected by Christians and councils throughout church history. The Trinitarian doctrine that Johnson rejects is in fact the unanimous position of the church fathers and councils throughout the history of Christianity. Complementarians affirm the scriptural teaching that the Son is both equal to the Father with respect to his essential being and eternally subordinate to the Father with respect to role. For more detailed interactions concerning these issues see Peter R. Schemm's "Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles," JBMW 6, no. 1 (2001): 13-20, and Bruce Ware's "Tampering With the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to His Father," JBMW 6, no. 1 (2001): 4-12 (accessible online).

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women." Priscilla Papers 19, no.2 (2005): 5-11.

Kaiser argues that there are mistranslations and misinterpretations in modern translations of key passages concerning the biblical teaching on women. For example, Gen 2:18, he argues, should be translated as the woman possessing "power" or "strength" corresponding to the man, or to be "his equal." He then uses this to argue in 1 Cor 11:2-16 that women are to exercise authority and that neither veils nor symbols of authority are required, since this "false and thoroughly intrusive" thought was "forced into the translations of this verse from the days of the Gnostic religions . . ." He uses passages such as Exod 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22 and examples such as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah to argue that God sent women to serve in leadership positions over men.  He also argues from 1 Tim 2:8-15 that Paul's restriction on a woman "not to teach or to have authority over a man" applies only to women who have not been taught; however, once they have been taught they are allowed to prophesy, which he equates to preaching. While complementarians agree with Kaiser that women are "joint heirs in the grace of life (1 Pet 3:7, 11)" and are given "places of honor and credit along with their male counterparts," they do not agree that to differentiate roles for men and women based on God's created design diminishes this equality in any way.

Miller, J. David. "Can the ‘Father of Lights' Give Birth?" Priscilla Papers 19, no. 1 (2005): 5-7.

Miller discusses a "less common text" in Scripture that uses imagery of God giving birth, which, he argues, is less common because "its imagery has often been suppressed in the copying and translating of Scripture." The reason he gives for this suppression of birth imagery is "the discomfort some scribes and translators have for a feminine image of God." He finds this particularly interesting among those who hold to a more "literal reading of Scripture," such as the English Standard Version. He concludes with a reminder for translators to take seriously that "metaphors mirror meaning, and imagery influences interpretation," especially in the case of Jas 1:18 where "the Father of Lights gives birth." However, while the Bible may on occasion use feminine figures of speech for God, it should be noted that (1) all feminine metaphors for God are verbal-describing some of his actions-not names or titles, like "Father"; (2) the Bible also uses similar feminine figurative language to speak of the actions of male human beings (2 Sam 17:8; Isa 60:16; Gal 4:19; 1 Thess 2:7), but this is a literary device-not an affirmation about one's gender; and (3) the Bible consistently uses masculine names, titles, and pronouns for God.

Preato, Dennis J. "A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority in Marriage."  Priscilla Papers 19, no. 1 (2005): 20-25.

Preato's aim in this article is to present a "fresh perspective" on submission and authority in marriage in order to promote healthy and happy marriages. Using statistics and empirical data, Preato rightly sees a serious problem with divorce in America's churches; however, his diagnosis goes against God's created design as he argues that marriage be based on equality of roles and the mutual submission of husband and wife. He says that "promoting healthy marriages may require that some churches look beyond current understanding of how marriages should function and discover how healthy marriages really do function" (author's emphasis). In the end, this pragmatic approach is damaging to marriages because it denies God's good and wise design for husbands and wives to faithfully live out their God-ordained roles for his glory and their good.

Non-Evangelical Authors /Articles

Downing, F. Gerald. "The Nature(s) of Christian Women and Men" Theology (May/June 2005): 178-84.

Downing's aim is to place Gal 3:28 in its first-century context in order to better understand its role in the gender debate. Recognizing a "defect in previous discussions," that only dealt with issues of social standings and functions, he argues that status and function follow from an understanding of the nature of men and women. He says that although Paul might have "succumbed to social pressure" in other places, such as 1 Cor 11:2-14, the new natures of men and women in Christ guarantee equality for "any service [and] any ministry in the Christian community."

Hester, J. David. "Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19.12 and Transgressive Sexualities." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 1 (2005): 13-40.

Hester argues that the eunuch in Matt 19:12 stands in opposition to the traditionally accepted sex-gender distinction between male and female. He explores the "problem" of the eunuch in an effort to reject any notion of the Christian identity existing only as a "binary sex paradigm."  He sees this problem caused by a "conservative heterosexist reading of the Bible" throughout history and argues that Jesus' literal example of the eunuch "confronts us and demands that we face up to and reassess the assumptions we have about the sanctity of heterosexist ideology." It is important to note that he sees other places in the canon which affirm this rejection such as Jesus' controversy with the Sadducees in Mark 12:18-27 and the "pre-Pauline baptismal formula of Gal 3:28," which stand in opposition to other texts in the "deutero-Pauline tradition" that affirm this binary paradigm.

Methuen, Charlotte. "Vidua-Prebytera-Episcopa: Women with Oversight in the Early Church." Theology (May/June 2005): 163-77.

Methuen discusses women's leadership in the early church and examines and evaluates reasons for the exclusion of women. In her survey of the NT, she includes many examples of women who served as apostles and overseers in house churches. From this she concludes that, in the early church, regular patterns of leadership were not established and that the use of the gifts of the Spirit was more important than the role or office of men and women. She attributes the change of leadership roles for men and women in the Pastoral Epistles (which she dates around the late first or early second century), as well as the letters of Ignatius, to cultural factors, which ultimately hindered the spread of the gospel. She argues that today this hindrance no longer exists; in fact, the impact of such a hindrance has reversed with the elevated status of women. Thus, the offices and leadership positions within the church should be "(re-)" opened to women.

Scholz, Susanne. "The Christian Right's Discourse on Gender and the Bible." Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21, no. 1 (2005): 81-100.

Scholz presents the main arguments of the three major evangelical Christian views concerning gender and the Bible so that "mainstream and progressive Bible scholars, feminist and otherwise," can learn about and understand their ideas and arguments. Stating that each position upholds the conviction that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, she surveys complementarians, or "traditionalists," egalitarians, and moderate evangelicals, and then considers the implications on "progressive feminist studies on the Bible." Classifying complementarians as the "most influential and politically powerful position" in "the Christian Right," she spends the most time examining them. Scholz sees The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as most prominent among the conservative evangelical organizations and publications, stating that "the mostly male and seemingly white authors" have a wide influence on conservative Christianity.  According to Scholz, the five main characteristics of the complementarian position are (1) a sincere commitment to the Bible, (2) support for patriarchal gender roles, (3) failure to engage mainstream scholarship, (4) response to the challenge of evangelical feminism, and (5) attachment to gender essentialism.  She then briefly surveys the egalitarian position that, along with the complementarian position, also holds to biblical authority and inerrancy. Scholz focuses her discussion on the egalitarian's upholding of equality of men and women. The last position Scholz discusses is the "moderate evangelical" position, a position that is neither complementarian nor egalitarian, but which nonetheless is in agreement on other issues with conservative evangelicals. She describes this position as mostly an antifeministic one which strongly supports retaining masculine God-language. She concludes with a call to "progressive feminist Bible scholars" to recognize these developments and their effect on the "Christian Right" in America.

Vacek, S.I., Edward Collins. "Feminism and the Vatican." Theological Studies 66, no. 1 (2005): 159-77.

Vacek discusses and critiques the "Letter on the Collaboration of Men and Women," which was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II, in which he affirmed women in church teaching, but "unfairly" critiqued the forms of feminism. Rather than agreeing with the Pope's view of equality, difference, and complementarity between men and women, Vacek proposes a new way to affirm equality and differences without restricting women from roles in parenting or leadership.

Undeclared Authors/Articles

Gombis, Timothy G. "A Radically New Humanity: The Function of the Haustafel in Ephesians." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no.2 (2005): 317-30.

Gombis's aim in this article is to explain the function of the Haustafel (Eph 5:22-6:9) in the argument of Ephesians rather than how it is commonly used in the debate over the role of women in ministry and in the home. He argues that the Haustafel presents a vision of the "eschatological New Humanity" realized under the conditions of this present fallen age. This, he says, paints a picture of how Christians ought to live, thus demonstrating "the triumph of God in Christ." Roles of husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters are to be read as an extension of the command to "be filled by the Spirit" in 5:18-21. The main points of this passage are that there is order in this New Humanity and that it is ordered under the Lordship of Christ, the model of headship and authority "follows that of God in Christ: self-giving and cruciform," that those in positions of subordination are to be subordinate "from the heart," and that this hierarchy in the New Testament reflects the character of Christ. Gombis then compares the Haustafel with other similar traditions prevalent at that time, such as the oikonomia tradition. He rejects reading this passage only as a command for mutual submission, because it is clear as the passage unfolds that Paul has in mind a new humanity, which involves hierarchical structures and subordination. In contrast to other contemporary household traditions, the Haustafel in Ephesians (1) was given for the benefit not only of the "head" of the family, but also for the good, protection, and nurture of those subordinate to them, (2) "accords dignity to women and wives, while denying that the subordinate position is based on any alleged inferiority," and (3) is patterned after Christ and the church.  Gombis then briefly discusses the counter-cultural relationships between parents and children and slaves and masters. As opposed to other traditions at the time, Gombis demonstrates how dignity and value are accorded to children and slaves through being directly addressed and through the father and mother acting on behalf of their best interests-both because of the lordship of Christ.  Through these ordered relationships, the New Humanity-the Church-is displayed as "the new creation people of God, created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth" (Eph 4:24), and wholly oriented by the self-sacrificial love of Christ.

Liefeld, David R. "God's Words or Male Words: Postmodern Conspiracy Culture and Feminist Myths of Christian Origins." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 3 (2005): 449-73.

Liefeld argues that there is a connection between conspiracy theories of Christ and the early church, such as The Da Vinci Code, and feminism, which both undermine the biblical canon and consider history and reality a part of the "creative imagination" rather than fact. It is an epistemological attack that is connected to our "postmodern conspiracy culture," which is dominated by a "hermeneutic of suspicion." Inherent in this suspicion is a distrust of all forms of authority and institutions that results in an undermining of the historical narratives of Scripture. This, he says, opens the door for complete subjectivity. His solution to the problem is for the Church to present a comprehensive defense of the Christian faith, which is objective and rooted in history, which "is grounded in an authoritative Scripture."

Shin, Samuel S. "Homosexual Hermeneutics and its Deadly Implications: A Pastoral Reflection." Trinity Journal 26NS (2005): 91-117.

Shin examines the issue of whether homosexuality is a sin, how passages dealing with it should be interpreted, and how the church should respond. He concludes that homosexuality is a sin because it perverts the image of God both functionally and ontologically. Functionally, it goes against the nature of God's created plan for male and female. Ontologically, it perverts the picture of the perfect relationship of the Trinity, which is the pattern for relationships between men and women. Secondly, it is a sin because the Bible clearly condemns it. Shin says those who reject this position in Scripture either misinterpret it or deny its infallibility. Lastly, he concludes that the response of Christians should be to extend the grace of Christ with the goal that homosexuals, as with every person who is a sinner, might repent from their sin and believe in the God who graciously saves.