Annotated Bibliography for Gender-Related Articles in 2003
Rob Lister
In this issue of the journal we profile some of the most significant gender-related articles from 2003. Here is a brief reminder about the categories we are using and our intent in using them. By Complementarian we simply seek to designate an author who recognizes the full personal equality of the sexes, coupled with an acknowledgment of role distinctions in the home and church. By Egalitarian then, we intend to classify evangelicals who see only 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 as well as articles that broach 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 articles that do not give sufficient indication of their fundamental stance for us to classify them more specifically.
Complementarian Authors/Articles
Bray, Gerald. "Review Article: The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate." Churchman 117 (2003) 267-272.
On the issue of gender role relationships, Bray finds that Kevin Giles (author of The Trinity and Subordinationism) writes with an "all-too-transparent bias" and that in a sweeping manner "he dismisses biblical texts which do not fit his thesis. . . (271). On the Trinitarian question, Bray rejects Giles's argument that the Son's submission to the Father is only temporal and thus limited to the incarnation. Bray rather maintains that this submission is part of the eternal relationship of Father and Son, though he personally cautions against using the term "subordination." Here Bray allows that the term ("subordination") can have a "perfectly orthodox meaning," but he is personally concerned that it will be misunderstood in the current context.
Ennis, Patricia A. "Portraying Christian Femininity." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/2 (2003) 47-55.
Ennis sketches a portrait of Christian femininity by way of expositing Prov 31:10-31. In so doing, she highlights eleven distinctive features emphasized in the passage. Upon completing her exposition, Ennis turns to other biblical passages to demonstrate what possible rewards might come to women who, by the grace of God, live increasingly in accord with the principles of Proverbs 31. Christian women who are seeking wisdom for discerning biblical priorities for their lives will find much in the way of encouragement here.
Felix Sr., Paul W. "The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/2 (2003) 35-46.
Felix's purpose in this article is to demonstrate that egalitarian hermeneutics fall short of adequate grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible. He makes his case by demonstrating the weaknesses of egalitarian interpretation as they are applied to seven common hermeneutical principles. This article provides a very nice overview and critique of traditional egalitarian presuppositions with respect to biblical interpretation. And, at the conclusion of the article, a very helpful chart is included that will allow the reader, quickly and summarily, to scan the differences between egalitarian interpretation and a more consistent grammatical-historical hermeneutic, as it concerns the seven principles in question.
Hutchens, S. M. "Children of a Better God: A Reply to ‘Is God Masculine'." Touchstone 16/1 (2003) 46-51.
This essay marks Hutchens's reply to Alan Padgett's article in the same issue of Touchstone. Padgett had argued that there is no sense in which God should be understood as masculine. According to Padgett, it seems that the exclusive male naming used of God and the predominating masculine images of God in the Bible merely reflect God's accommodation to a sinful patriarchal culture. Hutchens, in turn, offers very insightful rebuttals of Padgett's (representative) egalitarian hermeneutics and exegesis, several of his key egalitarian presuppositions, and his treatment of orthodox history.
Jones, David W. "Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/2 (2003) 5-19.
Jones begins his article by noting (1) that for some time complementarians have been concerned that the logic of egalitarians opens the door to a possible affirmation of homosexuality and (2) that many egalitarians have personally disavowed such a connection. The primary burden of his article then is to investigate the historical evidence found in one parachurch ministry (the Evangelical Women's Caucus) and three denominations (PC-USA, ELCA, and UMC) to ascertain whether there is historical warrant to substantiate the concern over a possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. Jones provides massive historical documentation in support of the conclusion that some form of connection is clearly discernible. Then, in the next section of his article, Jones posits a more specific thesis as to the nature of the connection. According to Jones, although many egalitarians profess to acknowledge distinct gender identities (e.g. they disavow androgyny) between men and women, their refusal to acknowledge gender roles (i.e. complementarity of function) so minimizes the content of distinct gender identities that "the end result is a view of human sexuality that is unable to resist arguments waged by advocates of the progressive homosexual movement." Jones is quick to recognize that not all egalitarians have followed this path, nor is it the case that all of them will. But given the historical record and the practical minimization of distinct gender identities, Jones concludes that there is a "non-requisite logical connection" between egalitarianism and homosexuality.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. "Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles." The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7/3 (2003) 4-17.
Under the heading "hermeneutical challenges," Köstenberger addresses the issues of authorship, genre, and background. Here, he argues adeptly for Pauline authorship, and he critiques the extreme ad hoc interpretations of the pastorals by several recent commentators. In the section on "exegetical challenges," Köstenberger specifically addresses questions related to the instruction concerning elders/overseers as well as deacons. With respect to the elder/overseer issue, two of his key conclusions are as follows: (1) the two terms are synonymous, thereby designating one office, (2) only otherwise qualified men are eligible for this office. On the issue of deacons in the pastorals, Köstenberger observes that: (1) this is a formal church office (part of a two-tiered structure), (2) the office is set off from the role of elders in that deacons do not have responsibilities in teaching or rulership. He also favors the understanding of 1 Tim 3 that understands "women deacons"-not merely "wives of deacons-to be in view.
Merkle, Benjamin L. "Hierarchy in the Church? Instruction from the Pastoral Epistles concerning Elders and Overseers." The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7/3 (2003) 32-43.
Merkle argues that according to the evidence in the pastoral epistles, the terms "elder" and "overseer" (along with "pastor") refer to one and the same office. Consequently, he maintains: (1) that local churches should operate with a two-tier office structure, namely, elders/overseers and deacons, (2) that local churches "should be led by a plurality of elders/overseers," and (3) that the elders/overseers "should be viewed as equal in status."
Patterson, Dorothy. "Sarah Sumner's Men and Women in the Church: A Review Article." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/1 (2003) 39-50.
Patterson thoroughly exposes the flaws in Sumner's recently acclaimed volume. She (i.e. Patterson) correctly sees clearly that Sumner's conclusions are egalitarian despite her claim to articulate a middle way. Patterson also exposes Sumner's routine (and troubling) elevation of personal experience over biblical norms and authority. Alongside of its exegetical deficiencies, Patterson also notes, in conclusion, that Sumner's book is laced with continual misrepresentations of complementarians and that it often comes across with an air of intellectual condescension.
Poythress, Vern S. "How Have Inclusiveness and Tolerance Affected the Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG)?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003) 577-588.
Poythress notes with concern a few sample changes in the new BDAG, and he points to the likely possibility that a concern for "inclusiveness and tolerance" has unhelpfully made its presence felt in this standard Greek lexicon. The three examples that Poythress considers are listed under the following headings: (1) "Father" or "Parent," (2) "Brother," (3) "Jew" versus "Judean." The first two obviously reflect the debate over gender neutrality in translation. In all three cases, Poythress's main complaint is that, due to Bauer's self-stated concern for inclusiveness and tolerance, the lexicon confuses two tasks: (1) "reporting . . . as accurately as possible the semantic senses within the ancient setting;" and (2) "suggesting what might be best as translation policy . . ." (580). Poythress concludes that the mingling of these two tasks, in some cases leads to the result that BDAG "fails to do the best possible job with lexical description (task 1)," which should be seen as the main task of a lexicon that aspires to set the standard for NT exegesis (587).
Schemm Jr., Peter R. "Galatians 3:28-Prooftext or Context?" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/1 (2003) 23-30.
Given the debated nature of Gal 3:28 in the gender role debate, Schemm undertakes an exposition of the passage in order to clarify the issues. The pivotal question is what did Paul intend when he asserted that in Christ there is "neither male nor female." In examining the issue, Schemm recounts the egalitarian view that this passage extends all the way to a negation of gender specific roles, and he critiques that position for failing to give adequate consideration to contextual exegesis. He then demonstrates the superiority of the complementarian exegesis of this passage, which reflects a more thorough concern to treat Gal 3:28 in its context.
Stinson, Randy. "Our Mother Who Art in Heaven: A Brief Overview and Critique of Evangelical Feminists and the Use of Feminine God-Language." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/2 (2003) 20-34.
Stinson carefully examines the recent rise among some egalitarians of revisionist God-language, including references to God with feminine pronouns as well as directly identifying God as "mother." Upon completing his survey of representative egalitarian proponents of feminine God-language, Stinson offers a compelling five-pronged critique of this leftward drift. In the course of his critique, he exposes the faulty presupposition that underlies such a feminist revision. Then, he probes the ways in which feminists confuse the categories of ‘name' and ‘metaphor'-a move that is at the center of their argument. The whole of his argumentation drives toward the necessary conclusion that what is at stake here is much more than a petty squabble over mere pronouns. Rather, as Stinson indicates, such a departure from biblical authority leaves no recourse for opposing a whole-scale revision of the God-world relationship-a revision, which many religious feminists have eagerly taken all the way to the realm of panentheism.
Talley, David Lee. "Gender and Sanctification: From Creation to Transformation, A Comparative Look at Genesis 1-3, the Creation and Fall of the Man and the Woman, and Ephesians 5, the Sanctification of the Man and the Woman in a Redemptive Marriage Context." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/1 (2003) 6-16.
Talley designs this article to investigate the relationship between the creation and fall of man and woman in Gen 1-3 and the subsequent emphasis of Ephesians 5 on the sanctification of man and woman in marriage. He begins by carefully examining the passages in question to ascertain what principles they may illumine concerning gender equality and distinction. Talley's observations are extremely insightful, and they clearly point to gender role distinctions in God's created purpose, in the fall and judgments of Adam and Eve, and in various particularities pertaining to the sanctification of men and women. His arguments are strongly rooted in solid exegesis and theology, and thus it becomes very interesting to note the similarities and the different gender distinctive twists associated respectively with the male and female pursuits of holiness.
Tracy, Steven. "1 Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/1 (2003) 17-22.
Tracy seeks to challenge distorted notions of male headship, while also avoiding an egalitarian overreaction that would attempt to remove even the God-ordained male headship of the Bible in view of the fact that it has sometimes been abused by sinful men. At the center of Tracy's argument is the observation that "Biblical headship patterned after the Trinity is the most powerful biblical corrective to the abuse of male power." It is this assertion that Tracy then expounds, illustrates, and applies through the remainder of his article, by examining key biblical data on both the headship and equality that are observable in the inner Trinitarian life.
Van Neste, Ray. "The Message of Titus: An Overview." The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7/3 (2003) 18-30.
In providing his overview of the book of Titus, Van Neste includes a section on the establishment of proper leadership (1:5-9). Here Van Neste maintains that the biblical model indicates a plurality of elders. This section also offers some especially keen insights on the significance and exercise of teaching authority that distinguishes the office of elder.
Waltke, Bruce. "Personal Reflections on the TNIV." Crux (2003) 27-31.
Waltke recounts eight personal observations-many of them now well rehearsed in the debate-on the TNIV and the issue of gendered language in translation. Most significantly he maintains that masculine generics are no longer understandable by a large segment of society. Consequently, he argues that the developments of the TNIV make for a more "gender accurate" translation. [For an evaluation and critique of this view, the reader will want to take note of JBMW 7/2 published in the Fall of 2002. This particular issue of JBMW was devoted to an evaluation and critique of the TNIV New Testament on the issue of "inclusive" language translation. More particularly still, the reader will be interested to note that Wayne Grudem interacted with an earlier version of Waltkes article in the aforementioned issue. See Grudems article in JBMW 7/2 (2003) 31-66. The article can be accessed on-line by clicking on the journal icon at www.cbmw.org.]
Ware, Bruce A. "Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman?: The Relevance of Jesus' Gender for His Incarnational Mission." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/1 (2003) 31-38.
Ware insightfully delineates twelve biblical and theological reasons that necessitate Jesus' masculinity as part of his incarnational mission. His foremost observation concerns the eternal Sonship of Jesus. Thus, as Jesus is eternally the Son of the Father, so the incarnation must take the form of a human son "so that the incarnate Christ may express to the world both his relation to the Father, i.e., as the Son of the Father, and his relation to the Church, i.e., as the Savior, Lord, Head, and Groom of the Church." Following from this observation, Ware then considers eleven additional factors from redemptive history (e.g. Christ's role as the Second Adam; the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants; his role as the new High Priest; etc.) that add support to the claim that Jesus incarnation as a male was theologically necessary. Finally, after having shown that this is so, he concludes with a compelling demonstration of why believers should receive this as something good.
Egalitarian Authors/Articles
Belleville, Linda L. "Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15." Priscilla Papers 17/3 (2003) 3-11.
Belleville proposes to defend the egalitarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 by pointing out what she believes to be four key exegetical fallacies (contextual, lexical, grammatical, and cultural) that have been common in the mishandling of this passage. Belleville then offers a counterproposal with respect to these four areas. Her key points are (1) the letter was occasioned by female false teachers, (2) authentein means "to dominate" not "to exercise authority," (3) 1 Tim 2:12 means "I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man," and (4) the women at Ephesus may well have been influenced by some form of cultic worship that exalted females. While there is inadequate space to respond to all of the specifics of Belleville's article here, it is should be noted how much effort must be put into showing that this passage cannot mean what it says. Accordingly, a lot of attention is given to various speculations, while little attention is displayed toward the actual reasons Paul gives in this passage. [For more detailed responses to the specifics of Belleville's proposal, see sections C. 5, 6, and 8 in Wayne Grudem's article appearing in this issue of the journal.]
Davids, Peter H. "Three Recent Bible Translations: A New Testament Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003) 521-532.
In this issue of JETS, Davids authors one of three articles reviewing the ESV, the NET Bible, and The Message, from different perspectives (one from the OT, one from the NT, and one from a literary and stylistic angle). Each article takes a number of features into consideration, many of which, though helpful, fall beyond the scope of this annotation. Of particular concern to this review, however, is the way in which gender language is treated. Here it is interesting to observe how each article reaches a different conclusion. One of them-the OT article-acknowledges the issue, but offers very little evaluative commentary. Another-the present article-is stridently in favor of gender neutral language, charging that the approach of the ESV, for instance, is far too archaic and outdated to be commonly understood today (531). And the third-the literary and stylistic view-deeply prefers the retention of gender specific language, as in the case of the ESV. It is clearly the case that the article favoring gender specificity offers the most thorough discussion of the issue; it is also my judgment that it-particularly in contrast with the present article-offers the sanest evaluation of the issue.
Haddad, Mimi. "What Language Shall We Use: A Look at Inclusive Language for People, Feminine Images for God, and Gender-Accurate Bible Translations." Priscilla Papers 17/1 (2003)3-7.
Haddad surveys several key issues related to the use of gendered language. Not surprisingly, she favors the use of inclusive language for people as well as in biblical translation. [For a thorough critique of this view, see JBMW 7/2, available on-line at www.cbmw.org.] On the issue of gender language for God, Haddad rightly recognizes that God is not a sexual being. Of a more troubling nature however, Haddad appears to be willing to call God "mother" (5) on the basis of several feminine biblical metaphors for God, despite the fact that God is nowhere named with a feminine term in all of Scripture. [For more on the egalitarian tendency to confuse name and metaphor see Randy Stinson, "Our Mother Who Art in Heaven: A Brief Overview and Critique of Evangelical Feminists and the Use of Feminine God-Language." Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8/2 (2003) 20-34. The article can be accessed on-line by clicking on the journal icon at www.cbmw.org.]
Hurshman, Laurie C. and Christopher R. Smith. "Head-coverings and Women's Roles in the Church: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." Priscilla Papers 17/1 (2003)16-21.
Hurshman and Smith go to great lengths to argue that 1 Cor 11:2-16-which, on a natural reading, supports complementarianism-cannot mean what it appears to mean. Specifically, their rather novel argument is that 1 Cor 11:10 means that a woman has "freedom of choice" over her own head, as opposed to the long-standing translation that a woman should have a "symbol of authority" (NASB) on her head. The authors defend this by appeal to what they sense as Paul's larger libertarianism. In the specific context, they astonishingly claim that the Corinthians were the ones attempting (confusedly) to represent the creation order, and that Paul wanted to liberate them from this practice. By way of response, it should be noted that though this specific interpretation is relatively novel, in many ways, it is representative of how egalitarians often treat passages that pose difficulties for their view. That is to say, that one often finds egalitarians laboring a speculative (and unwarranted) reconstruction of a supposed historical setting, while neglecting reasons that are explicitly given in the text. This article is a perfect example. Most of the space is taken up with a speculative reconstruction of historical context. What is not mentioned at all-to the best of my recollection-is the reason Paul states in 1 Cor 11:10b ("because of the angels," NASB). Though it may initially seem a puzzling reason to give, it is nevertheless Paul's grounding for his requirement in v. 10a. Suffice it to say that an attempt to establish a major new interpretation of this passage on the basis of v. 10, while failing to account for the explicit grounding in v. 10, is an attempt that is clearly lacking. What's more, the view of Hurshman and Smith appears all the more strained when fairly considering the flow of the entire passage, which cannot be taken to mean that Paul was opposing the creation order.
Johnson, Alan. "A Christian Understanding of Submission: A Nonhierarchical Complementarian Viewpoint." Priscilla Papers 17/4 (2003) 11-20.
As a point of clarification, the reader should not assume that Johnson is, in any form, a complementarian just because the word appears in the title of his article. By using that term, he does not profess a belief in the Bible's normative expectation of male headship in the church and home alongside a recognition of the full personal equality of both genders. Rather, Johnson argues that Christians in the NT were called on to accommodate themselves to the patriarchal order of society, so as not to hinder the spread of the gospel in the pagan culture. But now, since the cultural expectations have changed, Johnson believes that believers are no longer bound to this accommodation to patriarchy. In fact, he continues by suggesting that with cultural expectations today that are essentially egalitarian, the principle of cultural accommodation for the sake of the gospel ought to lead us toward an embrace of egalitarian practice. Johnson is to be commended for his acknowledgement that "submission" is a biblical teaching, but he effectively takes that away when he argues that it was merely an aspect of cultural accommodation. What presents difficulty for Johnson (a difficulty that he acknowledges) is the fact that Eph 5:22-33-the primary text he considers-points exclusively to one-way submission. His response to this shows just how strained egalitarian appeals to "mutual submission" can be when, for instance, he alleges that parents are, in some meaningful sense, to submit (or "yield" as he prefers) mutually to their children. This severely misconstrues the nature of biblical submission, however. How much better to see, instead, that authority is built into these relationships (e.g. husband-wife, parent-child; cf. Christ-church) in such a way that while one party is the recognized leader, this leadership is to be carried out (or is perfectly carried out, in the case of Christ and the church) in the context of a recognition of full personal equality and is exercised benevolently for the benefit of those who are being led.
Nyland, Ann. "Papyri, Women, and Word Meaning in the New Testament." Priscilla Papers 17/4 (2003) 3-9.
Nyland argues that papyri and inscription discoveries over the last hundred years have thrown new light on the NT such that long held traditional understandings of gender roles are overturned and egalitarian views are established in their place. Her conclusion is found wanting however. Among other shortcomings, Nyland over-reads or misinterprets the evidence, and she accepts the unsustainable conclusion that Paul's instruction in 1 Tim 2:12-13 was directed at a Gnostic heresy to the effect that Eve was formed first. [For a succinct rebuttal of this last point, see section C. 6 of Wayne Grudem's article in this issue of the journal.]
Padgett, Alan G. "Beginning with the End in 1 Cor. 11:2-16: Understanding the Passage from the Bottom Up." Priscilla Papers 17/3 (2003) 17-23.
Padgett argues that by reading this passage from back to front we will find-contra more traditional interpretations-that Paul was opposing a Corinthian custom requiring men to have short hair and women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying. Accordingly, he suggests that everything that sounds complementarian in the passage is actually not Paul's view, but instead represents the thinking of the Corinthian custom, which Paul was rejecting. Hence, Padgett concludes that Paul was not calling for women to have a "symbol of authority" on their respective heads, but that he was, in fact, proclaiming a woman's liberty to wear her hair in church however she pleased. The short response-once again-is simply that interpretations such as this one appear contrived when they have to strain so hard to contravene what the text naturally appears to mean. Hence, it is not surprising that Padgett's argument advances chiefly on the basis of conjecture as to the backdrop of Paul's epistle and not primarily the reasons and flow of argument that Paul provides in this passage.
Padgett, Alan G. "Is God Masculine? Orthodoxy versus Traditionalism." Touchstone 16/1 (2003) 41-45.
Padgett's article is a response to a number of editorials in Touchstone that favored the idea that, though God is not literally a male, biblical language and naming for God requires an understanding of masculinity. Padgett vociferously resists this view and argues instead that there is no sense in which God should be understood as masculine and that patriarchy is in no way attached to orthodoxy. Instead, Padgett seems to maintain that the exclusive male naming used of God and the predominating masculine images of God in the Bible merely reflect God's accommodation to a sinful patriarchal culture (43). Padgett's main points in this article are that the Touchstone position: (1) confuses traditionalism with orthodoxy, (2) misreads the Bible, (3) misevaluates creedal orthodoxy, and (4) has a view of God that borders on the idolatrous. Unfortunately, Padgett's argument is burdened by special-pleading, a highly selective reading of Scripture, and a failure to exegete contextually. (Note the persuasive rejoinder by S. M. Hutchens in the same issue of Touchstone.)
Preato, Dennis J. "A Female Apostle: Was Junia a Man or a Woman?" Priscilla Papers 17/2 (2003) 23-25.
Preato offers his view that Junia was, in fact, a female apostle. He does not make it entirely clear whether he views her as a capital "A" (commissioned directly by the Lord Jesus) Apostle, though he seems to think that was possible, if not probable. The main weaknesses of Preato's essay, however, is his failure to give adequate attention to the more likely translation of Rom 16:7 that Junia was "well known to the apostles" (ESV). [For a thorough, persuasive, and up to date defense of this translation see Daniel B. Wallace and Michael H. Burer, "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Romans 16:7" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6/2 (2001) 4-11.]
Scorgie, Glen G. "Tracing the Trajectory of the Spirit: Egalitarian Hermeneutics and Biblical Inerrancy." Priscilla Papers 17/2(2003) 12-21.
Scorgie begins by surveying the landscape of egalitarian hermeneutics, and he notes that these have been marked by two traditional strategies. One such strategy attempts to "clarify" problem passages with a view to showing that these passages really undergird egalitarianism. The second approach is classified by Scorgie as a "restrictive" hermeneutic. That is to say, that this approach generally grants the complementarian interpretation of passages like 1 Tim 2, but it goes on to argue that such gender limitations are contextually restricted only to the original audience. Scorgie then suggests that a third, newer approach is needed if the egalitarian case is to be made fully convincing. This model-which Scorgie learned largely from William Webb-employs what is known as a "redemptive movement" hermeneutic. In this model, Scorgie maintains that there is tension, even in the NT, between a patriarchal mindset and a "seed idea" of gender egalitarianism. According to Scorgie, this seed idea, is nowhere fleshed out in Scripture, but a trajectory is established. Consequently, the interpreter must not stop with the "static" understanding of what a given NT passage presumably meant, but the interpreter must proceed "to discern correctly the movement and direction of the Spirit. . . ." By way of a brief response, several things should be mentioned. First, this argument undermines the sufficiency-and finally the authority-of Scripture in that one winds up going outside of the canon for an established ethical norm. Secondly-and in a somewhat different manner-this approach creates a canon within a canon, for according to Scorgie, one of the most crucial keys for discerning this trajectory is measuring "the content of the epistles against the ultimate bench-mark of Jesus' own attitudes and behavior towards women." Third, it may be the case that this view undercuts inerrancy as well-at least insofar as it has been traditionally (and I would argue rightly) understood. Here Scorgie allows that even Paul's own writings (e.g. 1 Cor 11) reveal his conflicted instruction concerning these issues. And so he concludes his article by asserting that the redemptive movement hermeneutic "does not imply that Scripture is ever wrong, just that it is right in a way that we did not fully understand before." Finally, this hermeneutic misappropriates the concept of redemptive history. [For more on this final point, see the article by Wayne Grudem in this issue of the journal, especially those sections which critique William Webb's formulation of this model.]
Warren, Brenda Griffin. "A Woman's Work: How God Used Huldah to Change the Heart of a King and a Nation." Priscilla Papers 17/2 (2003) 7-11.
Warren recounts the narrative of Huldah and examines the background of prophets and prophetesses from the OT. Her conclusion from the Huldah narrative seems to be that this example must entail complete gender role equity. The fact that women in the OT and the NT functioned as prophetesses, however, does not prohibit the Bible from limiting some offices (e.g. elder) and ministries (e.g. teaching Bible and theology to a mixed gender group of adults) to otherwise qualified Christian men. Warren's apparent conclusion fails to take into consideration the difference between prophecy and teaching.
Webb, William J. "The Limits of a Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic: A Focused Response to T. R. Schreiner." The Evangelical Quarterly 75 (2003) 327-342.
Webb here responds to Tom Schreiner's review [see JBMW 7/1, 41-51] and critique of William Webb's volume Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. Central to Webb's article is his unwillingness to accept Schreiner's limitation of redemptive movement hermeneutic to the OT only. In other words, though Webb affirms that the NT is God's final revelation-in the sense that there will be no additions to the canon-he maintains that there is a redemptive spirit beneath the particulars of a given NT text that "goes beyond the whole of Scripture, including the concrete, frozen-in-time particulars of the NT." He illustrates his point via a consideration of OT precedent, NT slavery texts, and a seven-fold analysis of NT women texts. While Webb's statement in this article does give added clarity to his view, it does not alleviate the problems with it. Webb's hermeneutic is still set up in such a way that one's authority is no longer the NT text itself, but some subjectively discerned sense of where the "redemptive spirit" is going. The problem that remains is a misappropriation of the concept of redemptive history, evidenced by an insufficient acknowledgement that all of Scripture is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. [For more response on the details of Webb's argument as they relate to OT precedent, slavery, etc. see the relevant sections of the article by Wayne Grudem in this issue of the journal, which critique William Webb's approach.]
Non-Evangelical Authors/Articles
Bernabe, Carmen. "Of Eunuchs and Predators: Matthew 19:1-12 in a Cultural Context." Biblical Theology Bulletin 33 (2003) 128-134.
Bernabe maintains that the issue under consideration in this passage is less one of divorce and more a case of Jesus' repudiation of oppressive patriarchy. In this vein, she goes on to suggest that Jesus' mysterious statement about eunuchs in verse 12 points to the fact that if men were to abandon the patriarchal model of marriage "this would surely raise doubts about his virility and cause a loss of honor" (133). In other words, according to Bernabe, the man would be "socially castrated," though his rejection of patriarchy would be met with God's approval (133). In response, it is true that Jesus directly challenged the thinking of his interlocutors. Nevertheless, Bernabe's odd conclusions smack of forced interpretation. The passage is fundamentally about the question of divorce and remarriage. What's more, throughout the gospels Jesus is rightly seen to esteem women and to challenge patriarchal abuses. But this is done with a view to promoting godly male headship, not overthrowing it.
Lancaster, Sarah Heaner. "Women, Wesley, and Original Sin." Quarterly Review 23 (2003) 360-372.
Lancaster begins by noting the widespread dissatisfaction that many feminists have with the doctrine of original sin. She then turns to recount some of John Wesley's reflections on this doctrine, as a means to reconceiving it for feminists. In part, Lancaster is unsatisfied with the way that history has more harshly judged Eve. (It appears that Lancaster would not affirm an historical Adam and Eve.) And, in part, she is unhappy with the way that "original sin" has traditionally conveyed a sense of "unworthiness."
Martin, Francis. "Biblical Teaching on Marriage: A Brief Survey." Word & World 23 (2003) 15-22.
Martin sets out simply to survey biblical teaching on marriage. He begins by examining the social structures of marriage in the OT, and he maintains that "the system, while presuming a certain male privilege, was humane, and contrary to some hasty reading of the material, was designed in large part to protect the woman." After a brief consideration of the wisdom literature, he turns to consider the teaching of Genesis on marriage. Here he concludes that it takes "both male and female to make up the image of God" and that "man and woman bring an equal but asymmetrical contribution to the relationship." At this point, one would wish for additional clarification. Finally, after examining the teachings of Jesus, Martin concludes his article with a look at Ephesians 5, where he appears to mix understandings of male headship and mutual submission.
Vall, Gregory. "Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ." The Thomist 67 (2003) 579-606.
Vall offers a very insightful critique of inclusive language translation theory. His thesis, is that "inclusive-language translation fails because it runs counter to the nature of linguistic innovation and communication and rests on a faulty notion of what is involved in translation." He then attempts to make his case via an extended discussion of the NRSV translation of Gal 3:23-4:7.
Undeclared Authors/Articles
Edwards, Wendy J. Deichmann. "‘Why God Became Man': A Gender-Inclusive Christological Perspective." Journal of Theology 107 (2003) 3-13.
Edwards begins by observing that the incarnation of Jesus as a male has presented a stumbling block to many feminists. Upon investigating further, she concludes that Jesus could just as easily have been incarnated as a woman. Nevertheless Edwards suggests three soteriological reasons that she thinks will help to explain Jesus' incarnation as a male. The first reason, according to Edwards, is that incarnation as a male represents a greater depth of condescension, because "in terms of normative social and cultural expectations and practice" males "were the farthest from what God intended humankind to become" (5). Her second reason is that because of the resident patriarchy, a God-woman would have been more culturally isolated, thus having less impact. Finally, Edwards believes that a perfectly gender inclusive incarnational arrangement had already been reached when the male Jesus was born of a woman. In these ways, Edwards believes that Jesus' incarnation as a male is good news for both genders, even as it calls it for the abolishment of male headship. [For a better treatment of Jesus' incarnation as a male see Bruce A Ware's article in JBMW 8/1 (2003) 31-38.]
Lyons, Michael A. and William A. Tooman. "Three Recent Bible Translations: An Old Testament Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003) 497-520.
In this issue of JETS, Lyons and Tooman author one of three articles reviewing the ESV, the NET Bible, and The Message, from different perspectives (one from the OT, one from the NT, and one from a literary and stylistic angle). On the particular issue of gender language, it is interesting to observe how each of the three articles reaches a different conclusion. As mentioned in an earlier annotation, one of them-the present article-acknowledges the issue, but offers very little evaluative commentary. Another-the NT perspective-is decidedly in favor of gender neutral language. And the third-the literary and stylistic view-deeply prefers the retention of gender specific language, as in the case of the ESV.
Ng, Esther Yue L. "Father-God Language and Old Testament Allusions in James." Tyndale Bulletin 54 (2003) 41-54.
Ng examines three key passages in the book of James to ascertain his intent in referring to God as "father." In consequence of her study, Ng finds that, among other things, James' usage of Father-God language provides no justification for patriarchy, as many feminists fear.
Ritchie, Daniel E. "Three Recent Bible Translations: A Literary and Stylistic Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003) 533-545.
In this issue of JETS, Ritchie authors one of three articles reviewing the ESV, the NET Bible, and The Message, from different perspectives (one from the OT, one from the NT, and one from a literary and stylistic angle). On the particular issue of gender language, it is interesting to observe how each of the three articles reaches a different conclusion. Again, as mentioned earlier, one of them-the OT article-acknowledges the issue, but offers very little evaluative commentary. Another-the NT perspective-is decidedly in favor of gender neutral language, pejoratively charging that the approach of the ESV, for instance, is far too archaic and outdated to be commonly understood today. And the third-the present article-deeply prefers the retention of gender specific language, as in the case of the ESV. This last review offers the most thorough discussion of the issue, and my sense is that it also provides the most level-headed evaluation of it.
