Odds & Ends

My findings regarding the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in the first edition of Women in the Church were widely accepted even among feminist scholars (though, of course, they still do not agree with the book's overall thrust on other grounds). There has been a recent exception, though, in the case of Philip B. Payne, who recently published an article in the journal New Testament Studies ("1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of oude, to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea," NTS 54 [2008]: 235-53). In my 1995 essay in the first edition, I provided a thorough critique of Payne's earlier unpublished 1988 paper on oude. Now Payne, in turn, has responded to my study, claiming that nine of the over 100 syntactical parallels to 1 Tim 2:12 I presented do not match the pattern. I will respond in detail to Payne's article in a forthcoming publication, Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Broadman & Holman). In brief, let me say, however, that, first, even if Payne is right and nine of the over 100 instances don't fit the overall pattern, that would still be an over 90 percent success rate!

What is more, I carefully looked at Payne's article and each of the nine instances he discusses, and I found that Payne's analysis does not hold true. Essentially, he seems to be operating on the basis of the notion that verbs are "positive" or "negative" largely in and of themselves. More property, however, verbs convey a positive or negative connotation in context. For example, one of the nine instances in which Payne disputes the validity of my argument is 2 Thess 3:7-8 ("For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you"). I maintained that both being idle and eating others' bread without paying for it are viewed negatively by the author (Paul). Payne objects that there's nothing wrong with accepting "free meals," so here one negative and one positive verb are joined. I continue to maintain that, in context, "eating anyone's bread without paying for it" is viewed by Paul negatively, as is made clear by the following clause "that we might not be a burden to any of you" (clearly not viewed positively by Paul).

For this reason, I would argue that Payne's rebuttal is itself invalid and that my original conclusion stands. The other eight instances Payne cites can be answered similarly, and I have done this in the forthcoming publication mentioned above. For now, I'm content to let the reader decide if Payne's argument with regard to 2 Thess 3:7-8 is convincing or not. That's the beautiful thing about scholarship, isn't it, especially in the age of blogs and the internet? In the end the most compelling argument will prevail, and people must make up their own mind on a given issue based on the strength of the evidence. It's not a matter of oratory or rhetorical skill, but of substance and the most likely explanation of the available evidence.

[The foregoing originally appeared online in an interview with Andy Naselli about the second edition of Women in the Church: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/07/interview-with-andreas-j-ksterberger-on.html.]

Another Response to Philip Payne

At an alumni symposium held last Spring at Wheaton College, Philip Payne rendered an opinion on the state of contemporary evangelicalisman opinion which consists largely of an indictment of complementarian interpreters of the Bible. Here is a transcription of his remarks, followed by a brief response.

Philip Payne, class of 1969. My field is New Testament studies, and I agree with what John Piper has said. There has been in my opinion a hollowing of the trunk of theology. And it concerns me. But I think part of the fault is due to some of us in that we have misrepresented the truth of the Bible in a way that has led to a rejection of the Bible as truth. Two examples:

One, in the nineteenth century there was a defense of slavery by the church using the Bible which led to a dismissive view of the Bible in that era.

Number two, there has been in the twentieth century and the twenty-first century a defense of the subordination of women, leading to hatred of Paul by the feminist movement. And sadly much of the exegetical defense of that position has been based on lies, misrepresentation of the data.

There's an article that just came out in New Testament Studies that I authored in which I pointed out a couple of scholars ... from the evangelical movement ... who have misstated the data in order to convince. Sometimes, because we haven't had the intellectual rigor and the commitment to truth, scholars have been willing to say, "The end justifies the means. I can twist the data in order to make it say what I think it means."

And I think it's as we come to a commitment to understanding and exegeting God's word truly that we will be able to undermine some of these traps which have caused people to hate the Bible and instead to open up a greater willingness to listen to God's word and let that shape it ("Changes in Evangelicalism Over the Last 40 Years," Wheaton Alumni Symposium [May 10, 2008]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MediaPlayer/2750/Audio. The remarks from Payne begin at 58:39).

In light of Kostenberger's forthcoming response to Payne's article (see above), we will leave aside for the moment the exegetical discussion of 1 Tim 2:12. But what does deserve our attention here is Payne's transparent concern about how the wider culture views evangelical interpretations of the Bible. Payne has missed a crucial difference between the slavery issue in the nineteenth century and the gender issue in our own day. In the nineteenth century, the wider culture was by and large not scandalized by slavery, and thus the abolitionist movement began as a distinctly countercultural phenomenon. If Christian abolitionists had been overly concerned about what the wider culture thought about their views, perhaps slavery would still be with us. Aren't we all grateful that the abolitionists stood against the culture for the sake of the culture when it came to slavery?

Likewise, contemporary evangelicals cannot look to prevailing cultural mores to adjudicate what is and what is not true vis a vis the gender debate. It is true that the egalitarian view is more amenable to the spirit of the age. But that fact is hardly a reason for concluding that egalitarianism is true. On the contrary, it may very well be a sign that it is not.

Complementarianism is a decidedly countercultural posture in our day. We believe it to be a faithful summary of the Bible's teaching on gender and a necessary condition of faithful Christian discipleship. Even though feminists and the wider culture may despise us for it, we can nevertheless teach and live what we believe the Bible enjoins.

In addition, Payne's charge that "a couple of scholars ... from the evangelical movement ... have misstated the data in order to convince" and that "[s]ometimes, because we haven't had the intellectual rigor and the commitment to truth, scholars have been willing to say, 'The end justifies the means. I can twist the data in order to make it say what I think it means'" is an ad hominem argument that is unworthy of a serious scholar. Who are those "couple of scholars" Payne has in mind? A perusal of his article suggests that one of these scholars appears to be Andreas Kostenberger, author of the definitive study on the syntax of oude in 1 Tim 2:12. Now Payne certainly has a right to disagree with Kostenberger's findings on the subject, but it is inappropriate for him to charge, by insinuation, Kostenberger and other non-egalitarian scholars with "misstating the data to convince," with lacking "intellectual rigor and the commitment to truth," and with operating on the premise that "[t]he end justifies the means. I can twist the data in order to make it say what I think it means." This sounds more like partisan politics than scholarly discourse and is precisely the kind of rhetoric that should be avoided by those engaged in scholarly discourse on the gender issue.

C. S. Lewis, Prince Caspian, and Women in Combat

The big screen version of Prince Caspian, the second film installment of C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia, was released in theaters last Spring. One significant difference between Lewis's book and the Disney film caught my attention. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, though Father Christmas gave Susan and Lucy Pevensie weapons, he did not intend for them to use them in battle, for "battles are ugly when women fight." In the film version, this is altered to "battles are ugly affairs." Thus, the question of women in combat is neatly avoided.

Not so in Prince Caspian. Unlike the book, the film clearly depicts Susan as a warrior, actively engaging in physical combat alongside her brothers. When asked about this deviation from Lewis's story, director Andrew Adamson responded,

When the issue of Susan not participating in the fight for Narnia was introduced in the first film, I rejected it then. I was like, "Well if she's just gonna make sandwiches then give her a plate and a knife." It's something that I don't agree with so I wasn't going to make a movie like that (Megan Basham, "The Return of the Lion," World, 17 May 2008).

On whether or not this change is a disservice to Lewis's work, Adamson continues, "You have to remember, these books were written in a different time and place by somebody who I think evolved in his views over the years." Adamson justified this to Lewis's stepson and film co-producer Douglas Gresham by arguing, "I think C. S. Lewis evolved after meeting [Gresham's] mother, and that's why you start to see stronger female characters in his later books."

Regardless of the relative merits of the film as a whole, what is one to make of Adamson's interpretation regarding this particular issue?

(1) It was not until I read the World article that I realized anyone actually made claims about the "evolution" of C. S. Lewis's thoughts on gender. However, having read some recent debate on this very issue, I remain unconvinced that Lewis's later writings reflect an embrace of gender egalitarianism. In the end, of course, this question will remain unanswered, since Lewis is unavailable for questioning. Regardless, though, it seems the question was really moot from the start, for Adamson confesses, "It's something that I don't agree with so I wasn't going to make a movie like that." Ultimately, then, modern views eschewing any notion of gender roles for men and women won the day.

(2) Recently, Douglas Gresham was interviewed by Rebecca Cusey for National Review Online ("Crowning Prince Caspian: Behind the Movie," 16 May 2008). Gresham admits that Adamson persuaded him that "Lewis's attitude toward women changed to some extent after he married my mother." (However, the anecdote Gresham shares does little to convince that Lewis had changed his views of male headship as taught in Scripture.) What I found most interesting, though, is how Gresham responds to the thought of a world where women take part in battles.

That becomes a very difficult thing to define. I don't really think women should be involved in active combat. I don't think it's fair for the men who are fighting beside them, or the men who are fighting against them. And it's not fair for the women themselves. I think the idea that women have to become men in our current society is a very bad one.

(3) Adamson contends that one starts to see "stronger female characters" in Lewis's later books. But what is meant by stronger? In Prince Caspian, Lucy sees Aslan, who beckons for the children to follow him. The other children are unable to see him, though, and reject Lucy's appeals. Eventually, they relent and take the route to which Lucy (and Aslan) pointed.

In the print version, Lucy's fortitude is much more evident (a fact strangely absent in the film). When she sees the lion a second time, he commands her to tell the others to follow. But even if they will not, Aslan urges, "Then you at least must follow me alone." Lucy is shaken by the prospect of telling people "something they probably won't believe and making them do something they certainly won't like." But she is resolute to follow Aslan in spite of her fears. Thus, when she wakes the others and urges them to follow, Lucy proclaims "in a tremulous voice,"

And I do hope that you will come with me. Because-because I'll have to go with him whether anyone else does or not.

Lucy is presented as a model of steadfast faith in the face of adversity. After she apologizes to Aslan for not obeying him the first time and announces her determination to follow him, he tells her, "Now you are a lioness. And now all Narnia will be renewed." Lewis chooses a female protagonist to play a crucial role (and not "just make sandwiches") in the overall effort to win back Narnia. It is difficult to see how anyone would not regard her as a "strong female character."

Unless, of course, women are only considered "strong" when they act like men.

California Ruling on Gay Marriage is Revolutionary and Radical

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court fired what was, shocking for many, an unexpected shot across the bow when its judges ruled 4-3 to strike down the state's ban on gay marriage.

This action overturns Proposition 22, which Golden State voters overwhelmingly approved in 2000 to protect the traditional definition of marriage. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by gay rights groups alleging that they were unlawful victims of discrimination. California authorities are now required to issue same-sex marriage licenses. California voters will likely have another opportunity to protect marriage in the November election when the electorate will consider a proposed constitutional amendment.

Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called last week's ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."
"California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.
Minter's comment seems to get to the heart of the original intent of the lawsuit: homosexual activists are hoping that the California ruling will have a domino effect on the rest of the nation and will lead to a carte blanche affirmation of same-sex marriage. R. Albert Mohler Jr., CBMW Council Member, said the ruling by activist judges is comprehensive and drastic; the ruling imbues "sexual orientation" with protected status equal to biological factors such as gender and race:

By a one-vote margin, their state Supreme Court renounced the will of the people. The ruling is both revolutionary and radical. It sets the stage for a much broader reorganization of human society.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, pushed the argument for same-sex marriage far beyond where any court had taken it before. The decision identified marriage as a 'fundamental right,' thus opening the door for infinite challenges beyond same-sex marriage.

The court also declared sexual orientation to be a class protected by a 'strict scrutiny' test of all legislation and regulation. In so doing, the California court became the first in the nation to apply this test on the basis of sexual orientation. This move also opens the door for much broader challenges to laws and regulations across the board.

California voters will have another opportunity to protect marriage in November, when a proposed constitutional amendment will come before the electorate. The stakes now could not be higher.

Scripture is unambiguous regarding the place of honor that marriage-as biblically defined- must hold within the city of man among those whose future hope lies in the City of God: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." (Heb 13:4)

As Mohler pointed out, there is indeed much at stake in the California ruling and the possibility of a marriage amendment in November 2008 in that state.

Manliness of Thought

I was reminded how much language has changed while reading the latest issue of Modern Age. One article cites Russell Kirk writing in the mid-1950's about the need for a new serious journal of opinion (which eventually became Modern Age). Kirk had stated that the new journal would attempt to conserve

the intellectual traditions, the free constitutions, and the old heartiness of our civilized society; it would be forthrightly opposed to political collectivism, social decadence, and effeminacy in thought and literature.... It would not be ashamed of an avowed prejudice in favor of religion, in favor of prescriptive justice, in favor of liberty under law, in favor of the wisdom of our ancestors, in favor of manliness in thought and society But it would not be afraid to face the problems of our age.

- Ray Van Neste

Harvey Mansfield on Manliness

Harvey Mansfield's book, Manliness (Yale University, 2006), is a significant contribution to the wider discussion on gender roles and deserves a good hearing from the readership of this journal. It is true that it is not grounded in a biblical worldview (as previously noted in the 2006 JBMW Annotated Bibliography), but it is important and helpful to note when others share our concerns. This book is a strong challenge to the pursuit of a gender-neutral society. Simply, the fact that Mansfield, political science professor at Harvard, wrote such a book in our current climate qualifies him for "manliness." Even though we would say he does not get all the pieces straight, he does make some very good and very important points- and does it with a flourish that makes reading enjoyable.

Mansfield challenges, head on, the current pursuit of a gender-neutral society, a pursuit which is largely taken for granted today. He addresses the findings of social sciences while also noting the fundamental shortcomings of such science, critiquing their attempt to deny manliness and to rename it "masculinity." Mansfield's jabs at science for its inability to quantify the intangibles of life, its inability to deal with the soul of matters are of the sort which could make C. S. Lewis smile. In fact, his critique of Darwinism is itself worthy of reading on various levels. Mansfield is also instructive in calling us to look to literature and history more than to current science when seeking to understand humanity. There is much good to be gleaned from this book.

One place where Mansfield does miss it is in his juxtaposition of manliness and the life of the mind, between the man of action and the poet (p. 20, and elsewhere). This contrast is a common one in our current culture, but our era is the aberration. Sure, it is hard to imagine John Wayne (one of Mansfield's images) reciting a poem, but it has not always been so. In practically all the old sagas of Western civilization, the heroes were also poets. In fact it was expected that the hero would recount his mighty deeds in song. This is seen in such diverse places as Charles Kingsley's Hereward the Wake, the legends of the Huns, and practically all the Norse tales. Even in The Hobbit the one who emerges to slay the dragon is not Bilbo but a character relatively unknown until that point- a man named Bard!

No, it is our current culture that has driven a wedge between manliness and poetry, between manliness and thinking, and we are the worse for it.

- Ray Van Neste