Sarah Sumner's Men and Women in the Church: A Review Article¹

Tools: Print E-mail

Men and Women in the Church by Sarah Sumner, associate professor of ministry and theology at Azusa Pacific University, unfolds as the journey of a woman tracing a dream from her earliest childhood. Her purpose in writing this book is to attempt to present the positions of complementarianism and egalitarianism and point out her perceived inconsistencies with each in order to bring some clarity to the subject of men and women's roles in the church. Unfortunately, Sumner's work brings more confusion than clarity.

Sumner's first chapter gives the reader a look at her presuppositions. On one hand, every genuine evangelical can heartily affirm some of these:

• She values her relationship with God as the center of life (13).
• She believes that she holds a high view of Scripture.
• She loves and honors her parents (14).
• She sees the importance of laity in the work of the kingdom (15).

On the other hand, there are a number of concerns regarding her theological and hermeneutical methods, since Sumner seems to make decisions and affirm positions using guidelines gleaned with the underlying priority of experience, which has frequently characterized biblical interpretation within egalitarianism:

• Sumner was energized by her discovery that a woman is teaching the Bible to "people" and another woman is planting churches (15). Immediately Sumner seems drawn to what these women were doing with success. Obviously to affirm a task because others are doing it, and even if doing it with success, is a jump from the moorings of biblical principles to the whims of personal experiences.
• As a fourth-grade girl, Sumner copied sermons to be delivered by her layman father "three or four" times. This task felt "natural" to Sumner (15) and thus seemed to be for her a catalyst drawing her to a ministry of preaching-again experience over biblical mandate.
• Sumner, as a child, caricatured her pastor's wife and expressed her own distaste for "planning skating parties and potluck dinners." Her "heart's desire was to do something more [than planning for skating parties and potluck dinners], but I didn't know how to picture a woman doing more" (16).
• Sumner embraces role models for what they do rather than who they are (16).²
• Sumner seems comfortable in sanctifying a task- whatever it may be-with seemingly whatever credibility is necessary regardless of the compromises involved (16, 18).

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 40

Despite her stated goal of bringing complementarians and egalitarians together, I fear Sumner's account of her spiritual journey is yet another volume that projects confusion rather than clarity into the ongoing gender debate among evangelicals. While purporting to have found the bridge to bring two opposite views into harmony, she comes down squarely on one side with some Sumnertarian touches of innovative and novel interpretations of Scripture. I would be surprised to find egalitarians (whether "biblical" or "evangelical" feminists) who would directly contradict Sumner's interpretations, but I find even fewer positions with which I as a complementarian am comfortable.

Egalitarianism vs. Complementarianism per Sumner 

Egalitarians would be pleased that Sumner represents their position with Rebecca Groothius, but complementarians might be surprised that Sumner was not able to name a woman who is speaking and writing from a complementarian perspective as her parallel example (since there are a number of female complementarians whose credentials would match those of Rebecca Groothius or her husband Doug). One might conclude that Sumner wanted to see egalitarianism as pro-female, with the corresponding impression that complementarianism excludes women.

Egalitarians would be pleased to see Rebecca Groothuis identified as a "strict inerrantist"; whereas complementarians might be wondering why Wayne Grudem is described merely as one who "upholds the doctrine of inerrancy in the sense that he believes all Scripture is authoritative and true and inerrant in the original manuscripts" (37). Egalitarians would be delighted to see testimony that "conservative Christian scholars" are members of Christians for Biblical Equality and that they "have a [sic] built a biblical case for women in leadership" (38). On the other hand, as a complementarian and a Southern Baptist I read with interest that Wayne Grudem and John Piper "copioneered" and "cofounded" the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, as if CBMW had been established as a "male" organization. Grudem and Piper did "coedit" the Council's initial publication, which contained essays from three women, and have been very much a part of this organization as have some women, including this reviewer. I note in the minutes for a 1987 meeting of CBMW that the chairman for the founding council was Dr. Wayne House.

In an early draft of a chapter of this manuscript sent to me by Sumner, she casually throws in the statement, "The leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention are also complementarian." In this published copy she revised her statement as "Though Piper and Grudem have been extremely influential in Southern Baptist circles, neither of them is Southern Baptist" (38). At the time CBMW was founded, I was the only Southern Baptist on the Council, but that information doesn't support Sumner's picture. As an aside, I, and countless other female and male complementarians, can make a biblical case for and do support women in leadership. We also accept the simple biblical boundaries defining that leadership.

Summer even assigns to complementarian professors the view of "limited roles for women in church leadership." Why not be explicit and say they believe that women should not "teach men or have authority over men" in the church (1 Tim 2:12), the words of Scripture and a clear statement of the complementarian position.

Sumner's use of egalitarian sources, such as the article by Bruce Waltke, underscores the fact that her volume is positioned as an egalitarian work despite the author's stated efforts to the contrary. While this review does not allow interaction with Waltke's article, one cannot help but note that Waltke takes a great leap in his discussion when he suggests that the woman of Proverbs 31 moves to a business of property acquisition and agricultural enterprises as a result of spinning her own thread (86)!

Sumner wants to distance herself from egalitarianism, but she is a perfect fit. For example, she goes into a lengthy litany of many ways women are valued in the kingdom of Christ but then declares her problem as one of limiting the use of the spiritual gifts of women in the presence of the full congregation. For one committed to biblical authority (as opposed to "spiritual" authority), the course is clear. The congregation is important, but ultimately what enables you to distinguish between those who get it right and those who get it wrong is Scripture. What does Scripture say? Scripture is preserved from contradiction within its content because the Holy Spirit inspired its words, which means it is inerrant or without error. Jesus promised the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit to those believers who sought truth (John 14:26; 15:13). Scripture then is sufficient to lead you the right way.

The process of careful inspiration, if it means anything, affirms that interpreters cannot support two contradictory interpretations from the same Bible. Egalitarianism and complementarianism are not the same; in fact they are not compatible. Even one who embraces Sumnertarianism must choose to embrace egalitarianism or complementarianism; she cannot open her heart to a combination of both views. And limitations should not be surprising, for there was limitation even in the perfect Garden of Eden (Gen 1:16-17). Aristotle's law of noncontradiction and of the excluded middle applies here, and Sumner needs to observe these basic principles of both logic and clear communication.

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 41

Finally, egalitarians may be disappointed that Sumner said, "I am not a member of CBE" (38), but I can assure you that I, and perhaps some other complementarians, am disappointed that she does not also state clearly, "I am not a member of Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." Of course, Sumner would not endorse the CBMW confessional statement, while espousing the views expressed in this volume. Sumner consistently puts complementarianism in a bad light. Even in allusions to church history, she is guilty of using an anachronistic pen that colors the limited vignettes she presents in such a way as to support her positions. For example, she criticizes Tertullian for his caution to women against learning with "over-boldness" (42). Sumner quotes Tertullian as saying, "For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with overboldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing!" (41-42).

What does "over-boldness" actually mean? The Oxford Dictionary defines "boldness" as meaning "presumptuous, forward, and immodest," and the use of "over" would intensify these qualities. In fact, "over" would at least suggest more than is necessary. But Sumner presents Tertullian's admonition as being a prohibition for women to learn with "zeal" (defined in Oxford's dictionary as "hearty and persistent endeavor")- quite a different connotation. Her twisting of words and casuistry seems to give the reader a completely different view of Tertullian's statement.

Endorsements of Integrity or Entitlements of Expedience

Sumner has introduced a new and innovative use of endorsements (a concept defined in most dictionaries as "confirmation or ratification or approving testimony").³ If Sumner had used the names of the myriad of complementarian professors she mentioned to endorse herself as a bright and capable woman pursuing theology, I could be impressed; and I would imagine that those who affirmed her enthusiasm and interest in theological studies would be honored to use any means to encourage Sumner to pursue excellence in theological studies. However, for Sumner and IVP to place endorsements from prominent complementarians on the backcover of a volume affirming views diametrically the antithesis of the positions these men have clearly written in their own published works, in my opinion, goes beyond chutzpah.

Some may erroneously assume that these gracious statements and the good names of these complementarian scholars affirm Sumner's conclusions. In my opinion, that would be a mistake. At the very least this exogenous use of a professor's encouragement to a promising student should not be allowed to tear down the principles and truths to which the professor is committed. One can encourage research and affirm a project without agreeing with the conclusions. I would encourage serious readers to look at what men like Harold O. J. Brown and Carl F. H. Henry have written with their own pens rather than relying on any natural assumptions that their endorsements extend to the authenticity of Sumner's conclusions.

Sumner, in my view, has used people inappropriately, especially the distinguished theologian Carl F. H. Henry. Sumner's use of private conversations with Henry without his verification is disappointing. Does Sumner remember conversations happening a decade ago in great detail? Did she record the conversations? Has she used these conversations with recent permission from Dr. Henry, familiarizing him with the full context in which his words, as she remembered them, are used? It is inappropriate to insinuate that this great theologian would contradict himself or reverse himself (presumably because of his great confidence in Sarah Sumner). Do readers believe Henry's opposition is only to abortion, lesbianism, and goddess worship? Letters from Henry to Sumner may exist; lists may exist-although both, per Sumner's recollection, seems to contain words in contradiction to what Henry has believed and taught and written (51). However, respect ought to demand publication of primary documentation with Henry's permission. At the very least Sumner should acknowledge that the gracious encouragement of a gentlemanly theologian for a woman to excel in study is quite different from his approval of her position-especially when he himself has written to the contrary.

No one would identify Carl Henry as an egalitarian. Nor would I or anyone acquainted with Henry and his theological positions dare to suggest that he would affirm or endorse two contradictory positions. Sumnertarianism is certainly the antithesis of the complementarianism espoused by Henry over the years:

Paul declares the sexes equal in their relation to God (Gal 3:28). Women, he teaches, are to be subject not to men in general but to their own husbands in particular (Eph 5:22); this subjection, moreover, he considers to be voluntary and "as unto the Lord."⁴

Any implication moreover that Paul's ethical admonitions concerning women had their basis only in culture-relative considerations is patently false.⁵

I have friendships with many egalitarians; some have spoken to me about my work in affirming ways. However, I do not feel comfortable in voicing these affirmations in public ways that might appear to lend the support of these egalitarians to my positions. Such would be inappropriate for me and could be embarrassing for them (20-21).

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 42

Misunderstanding Baptists

Sumner's references to denominations sometimes border on irresponsibility. For example, what "conservative Baptist church" is asking her to preach? Which body of "Baptists" is she identifying? How is she defining "conservative" (21)?

Sumner accuses Southern Baptists of "practical egalitarianism" as opposed to public complementarianism because they, i.e., the denomination, "invited two women to participate at the decision-making table to help determine the future of their entire denomination." Here she refers to the appointment of Mary Mohler and me to the committee appointed to add an article on the family to the Baptist Faith and Message, the doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Convention. Such a rash and unsubstantiated statement reveals Sumner's lack of understanding of Baptist church polity as well as her ignorance of how women functioned in their service on the Baptist Faith and Message committee.

First, regarding Baptist polity, it is widely accepted that Baptist confessions have not been determined by small groups of men and women. Committees do research, make proposals, and answer questions; but the official adoption of all Southern Baptist confessional statements has been done by the body of messengers from member churches in annual assembly.

Mary Mohler and I were asked to serve on the aforementioned Baptist Faith and Message committee. We were not surprised that women were asked to serve on a committee studying what the Bible teaches about the home and family (199-200). Neither of us would have accepted an assignment to teach men or rule over men, but we were honored to assist in the research and discussion as well as in the drafting of a proposed article for the convention on such an important topic.

I am the woman interviewed by David Wegener. In "Southern Baptists Lead the Way," the article cited by Sumner (199), she has clearly chosen to enhance the published interview done by Wegener with her own slant. In the interview cited, I did not say, "He [referring to my husband] also let her know that she [emphasis Sumner's] would be the one to take care of it [reference to the dog I did not feel we should get]." Sumner goes even further in stating "... the wife was assigned against her will to care for her husband's dog" (200).

My husband never said that I had to take care of the dog. His plan was quite the opposite; he wanted to pay someone to care for the dog during his absences. However, once my husband decided that we should receive and keep the dog, I willingly chose to help my husband because that is what biblical submission is all about! The biblical concept of "helper" is not one that suggests doing what you want to do or what you feel is right to do but rather doing what needs to be done for the one you are helping.

Sumner says "They bought the dog." The dog was given to us by friends in West Texas. The "grand-dog" is indeed my choice of words, but this beloved dog (the "it" in Sumner's reference) did not live "somewhere else"; the dog that died was part of our household and had been for several years. Sumner continues taking words out of context, putting words in my mouth and even using quotation marks in the process! I can only surmise that she may have done the same with Carl Henry and others when she uses quotes in ways that seem in contradistinction to what individuals say in their own writings. In another misrepresentation of Baptist life, Sumner boasts about confusion and contradiction among Southern Baptists:

Even Southern Baptist Theological Seminary invited her [Anne Lotz] to preach in chapel to a group of graduate students who are regularly being taught that it's wrong for a woman to proclaim the gospel publicly to men (50).

The confusion is in Sumner's mind. This misinformation was corrected for Sumner in her personal conversation with me almost two years before this volume was released. She not only ignored the correction, but also she did not check the information with Mrs. Lotz or SBTS President, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Here are the facts directly from Southern Seminary. Anne Lotz was invited to an event hosted by evangelist Jerry Grace meeting on the campus of SBTS in 1993 or 1994. The group met in the Music Room, which is located behind the chapel. The invitation to Lotz did not come from SBTS or anyone associated with the Seminary, nor did she speak in the seminary chapel service. The seminary has a center named for Dr. Billy Graham and a longstanding association with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. I suspect Mrs. Lotz will be more upset than anyone at SBTS that her good name has been used to suggest a lack of integrity or "double speak" on the part of this seminary and its officials.

Emotions Do Come Into Play

Actually Sumner's personal story "softened my heart," making me more sensitive to what she perceives to be "the severity of women's experience" in the church (23). I've not had her experience of hearing women plead "to hand out a bulletin" or lament that they can't be "greater." However, I have heard many express the sentiments; "I just want ..." and "why can't I ..." and how can I "get a job" and "make money" with an MDiv. I am reminded again that until the hearts of

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 43

women are turned toward the Word of God and away from their own personal desires, toward the narrow path with its divinely appointed boundaries and away from questioning what God has clearly said, toward dying to self and laying aside rights and away from pursuing what seems right because it is successful, they will be distracted from the main God-appointed task before all believers-i.e., obedience, whatever the cost (even if that cost means forfeiting your giftedness in the way you "feel" you ought or "want" to use it). To be selfish is not necessarily synonymous with boundaries and prohibitions; to be loving is not always doing what is in your heart to do and encouraging others to do the same.

"Joint" decision-making is not an egalitarian tenet (202); rather it is a natural outgrowth of servant leadership (a husband approaches his headship with a servant's heart, Eph 5:25-33) and gracious submission (a wife willingly submits to her husband's headship, 1 Pet 3:1-7). Good leaders guide in the decision-making process, but they also take responsibility for final decisions. In complementarian marriages, as my own, husbands and wives gather data, discuss options, and decide together the best choice. Biblical submission is a safeguard to enable couples committed to biblical paradigms to make decisions even when they ultimately cannot agree.

Contrary to Sumner's supposition, I, as a "complementarian-minded" woman, do not find submission easy (203); I just believe it is right! Nor do I see submission as "obedience" in the sense of mindless acquiescence; I choose to "line up under" (a good meaning for the Greek hupotasso, "submit") my husband in the home because in so doing I am also lining up under the mandate of the Lord to whom I ultimately submit.

My husband is indeed my peer; our lives are intricately entwined in ministry as well as marriage, but he is also my leader not because of his "mentality," as Sumner suggests, but because of his assignment from God and my willingness to help him complete that assignment in a complementary way (201). I concur with Sumner that "walking" must be in line with "talking"-at least if the talking is a clear commitment to what God is saying without trying to redefine words or rewrite clear biblical principles. I am a "helper"-a peer and a partner who chooses to function in this God-ordained way of offering support and assistance to my God-ordained leader. Others would have to judge my productivity, but I can attest to my joy and fulfillment in the process.

Sumner has indeed introduced herself and her theology, and that is what this book is all about! What I see as missing from Sumner's passionate personal pilgrimage is perspective. God's Word, and not "her rendition," should be most important and must be the substance. A theology (or "a word from God") of womanhood should be a tapestry arising out of the threads of Scripture and not out of the life of Sarah Sumner or any other woman. However, the problem arises as in Sumner's own words she "introduces a theology of women woven into the narrative of my story. It expresses my rendition of a complex issue that is weighing heavily upon the church" (32).

The Issue-a Bur Under Her Saddle

Sumner suggests two choices for women-"to flee or to fight." She would, I assume, put complementarian women in the fleeing force and egalitarians in the fighting females. She, of course, takes the high road with a third alternative-"to go forward"-an excellent motto for the Sumnertarianism she presents; but for some her charge forward is lacking in focus. Sumner uses Esther as an example, praising her for "violating the norms of her culture" as her chief claim to fame and victory. Sumner even subtly hints that Esther is foreshadowing Christ (25-6). Absent in Sumner's discussion is the fact embraced by many complementarian commentators and theologians throughout the generations of biblical interpretation-i.e., that "obedience" is the key for Esther. God worked through Esther and her cousin Mordecai. Esther went forward with the task God gave her because she was obedient even when what she was asked to do seemed illogical and foolish.

Sumner summarizes by asking "Do I have courage to violate cultural protocol? Do I have the will to disregard the voices of dissent?" (26). Missing from her litany of questions is this one: Do I have the courage to be obedient to the biblical boundaries even when they seem to be against the world and against my own best interests? Esther humbled herself before the king. Unlike Vashti before her, Esther demonstrated to all her respect for Ahasuerus, her husband and monarch.

Sumner has omitted an important option for evangelical women who don't want "to flee" or "to fight" or even "to go forward" without purpose or restraint. Some evangelical women want another choice: to submit or, put another way, to follow the Lord by obeying his mandates. Later Sumner describes her own focus as being "on Christ and truth and grace," but sadly absent from that focus is obedience. Only the humbling of yourself in obedience saves you from the feminist paradigm Sumner accurately describes as "women and equality and power" (28).

Flee, flight, flow-no! Follow him-that is a worthy passion! Yes, look to Jesus and be impressed with his "healing on the Sabbath" and eating "with sinners"-he did go against culture. But most impressive is the obedience of Jesus, even to the cross. Sumner's point is well taken-look at the example of Jesus; but her focus and conclusion seem skewed. The focus must not be on Jesus' "violation of cultural protocol" but upon His obedience to the Father, which he did even to laying down His own life (Phil. 2:6-8). God does not "protect me with his Word," as per Sumner (19); rather I believe that my obedience

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 44

to his Word puts me under his protection.

The conclusion for today would be to note that holding biblical boundaries is indeed going against culture. Political correctness and the spirit of this age are united in suggesting that women and men should do what they want and what they are gifted to do and what they feel called to do. They are enlightened with education and empowered with experience to reach any goal they feel is worthy. Sumner fails to insure that the rigor of disciplined exegesis, which is a reminder of old boundaries, reigns over the relevance of distinctive experiences, which may yield new opportunities.

From her personal introduction Sumner moves to emotional venting and hypothetical ranting on what women can and cannot do. She strays considerably from biblical boundaries (which complementarians would generally note in church order as only two functional prohibitions, each of which is consistent with the rest of Scripture); she lays no theological foundation through clear biblical exegesis, and her efforts to explain the text do not even appear until a third of the way through the manuscript.

From "Men Bashing" to "Church Bashing"

Many accusatory statements are interwoven in the manuscript. "It's painful for the church to consider our sins against women. It's hard to come to terms with what we've done and what we're doing" (30). In a sense, Sumner is more into "church bashing" than "men bashing." Again her focus goes far afield from concern for sins against Christ, i.e., disobedience.

A continual harangue against the "church" is uncomely and demeaning to the Bride of Christ. Sumner continues the church focus on "relationships" with encouragement to women to focus on "their ministry calling" and a reminder to them of their choice "to walk an unconventional path." She dwells upon chastising Christians who feel uncomfortable "when a woman in the church begins to attain an excessive rolefulness ... to squirm when a woman accepts a visible position of public leadership" (30). An emotional outburst like this is puzzling to women who work within mainstream evangelicalism and find women using their giftedness and exercising their leadership and influence in countless ways, while still embracing a commitment to work within biblical guidelines.

For example, consider a few Southern Baptist women who are complementarian students or graduates of Southeastern Seminary: Heather King is the director of Women's Programs at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has served on the Baptist Faith & Message Study Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention; Susie Hawkins also served on that pivotal committee, and she directs the SBC Annuity Board ministry for widows; Ashley Smith is a pastor's wife and women's speaker for Embracing Womanhood; Joy White is Director of the Women's Programs at SEBTS; Cathy and Karen and Maureen and Kelly and scores of others⁶ are posted in international assignments as singles or with their husbands. These women all exercise individual giftedness, use leadership appropriately, are equipped to do biblical exposition, and have extended influence; they do teach and they do share the gospel. They are leaders; most have had personal ministry to a man at some point, but without apology they are involved in woman-to-woman ministries and are committed to biblical boundaries. The theological positions they hold are not the result of classroom propaganda or parental indoctrination or popular political correctness but arise out of their own personal wrestling with the Word of God. Their program of study equipped them with the tools to do biblical exegesis and with a menu from the marketplace of ideas, as well as with a clear understanding of the role of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit as complementary forces to keep them on the path of obedience.

Too Careless to be Taken Seriously

Sumner frequently makes broad sweeping statements that cannot be substantiated. For example, "Both complementarians and egalitarians are conservative Protestants" (39). That there are complementarians and egalitarians among conservative Protestants and Southern Baptists can be substantiated. However, there are also some prominent Roman Catholics who espouse these respective positions and have written significant monographs to support their positions.⁷

Sumner moves from careless statements to easily misunderstood prognostications: "... We have been assured that the Spirit Himself will be faithful to prevent us from such error. Unfortunately, that assumption is mistaken" (39). While interpreters may certainly err, Sumner's words seem to call into question the integrity of the "Spirit of truth" (John 14:16-17). The Holy Spirit not only inspired the writing of Scripture, but He guides the interpreter down the path of understanding Scripture (John 16:13; 14:26).

In Sumner's allusions to the Church Fathers for support of her presupposition that church tradition consistently presents women as "by nature lower than men" (40), Sumner's limited research leaves the reader without the tools to assess what was actually taught and believed during the Patristic period. This reviewer has only done limited research in Patristic literature;⁸ however, Charles Ryrie has worked extensively in this literature and presents observations worthy of consideration. Ryrie noted that the Fathers commented on the church's responsibility to care for its widows more frequently than

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 45

anything else, that references to deaconesses do not appear, that the work of Christian women in keeping their homes and training of their children were most highly praised.⁹

What to some appears to be amazing inferiority of women may merely be the expression of differences between the assignments given to women and to men. Chrysostom clearly recognized the subordination of the woman-but for her good and not her hurt.¹⁰ Even feminists caution that to expect modern feministic views from men like Tertullian is anachronistic, and to label him a "misogynist" is intolerant in the context of the concerns of his day,¹¹ especially without an exhaustive study of his writings. Despite derogatory statements about women and the restriction of their sphere of activity, the Church Fathers also wrote letters in praise of women.¹² They were united in acknowledging the home as the primary place for women, and I believe they held the home and the women who presided over those homes in high esteem because of the role they played in nurturing the next generation.

Sumner ought to beware of pitting complementarianism against the Church Fathers as a group. A much broader examination of their writings within their respective ancient settings is needed to consider what their interaction might be with modern-day complementarians. Even if you take these men Sumner quoted as being representative of the Church Fathers and quoted fairly, you still don't have all that the Church Fathers have said about women. And finally, all they all say pales in importance when placed alongside Scripture. Sumner's statement "... the church fathers were prejudicial against women, and we know it ..." (45, emphasis mine) is reckless, especially based on so few examples. Looking carefully at her sources in context indicates biased selection. Some excellent exegetical work from the Church Fathers is now available (e.g. Oden's Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture). Even the mixing of eastern and western evidence can produce a false historical reconstruction unless carefully set forth.

Sumner says, "It is unwise to enshrine Tertullian as a leading authority on the proper role of women in the church" (45). Who has done this? Sumner accuses Wienrich of this conclusion merely because he cites Tertullian as a "representative voice." Sumner rejects the option of Weinrich's accepting the strengths of a man like Tertullian and rejecting his weaknesses. Perhaps her issue is more with Wienrich's biblical conclusions than with Tertullian's words.

Enhancing Scripture

"One model" for the family is attacked because the tent isn't large enough to accommodate modern ideology. Sumner misses completely the clear principle of identity as male and female in Christ. Of course, both women and men imitate Christ, but Philippians 2 defines submission in relationship to Christ, while 1 Peter 3 specifically addresses submission on the part of wives. On the other hand, one would not question that a husband "submits" to the divine assignment that is his when he assumes his responsibilities to his wife and is admonished to be willing even to lay down his life for her (Eph 5:25). The family is God's first institution and is the metaphor God chose to reveal himself through very clear vignettes on relationships within marriage. The New Testament is clear in describing the nuance of meaning found in submission on the part of a wife (1 Pet 3:1-7).

Priscilla is cited as a case of a woman serving in a teaching position in the church. She was indeed a prominent woman in the early church, but the text under consideration refers to "the church that is in their house" (Rom 16:5). The text does not say Aquilla and Priscilla "planted a church," as Sumner states, nor does it suggest Priscilla taught the Bible "even to her pastors and leaders," as Sumner says Priscilla "presumably" did (52). Why not stay with what the text clearly says about Priscilla: "a fellow worker," who, with her husband, risked her life for Paul; hosted congregations of believers in their home; explained the way more accurately to Apollos- again with her husband.

No one would deny that there are exceptional women, and men, whom God chooses to use in "an atypical way" (52). Interestingly, "atypical" methodology does not arbitrarily mean methods "antithetical" to biblical doctrines or principles. An "exceptional" woman does not have to be an "anomaly." Irregularity does not demand contradiction. Contrary to Sumner's conclusion, biblical paradigms are not subject to change or modification to accommodate "exceptional" women. Such women are found throughout the biblical record, in every era of church history, and certainly in a myriad of kingdom roles in this generation.

Sumner suggests these steps for finding the "new" paradigm she advocates (57):

1. account for biblical data as well or better than the last one [presumably Sumner means the last interpretation of a text embraced by a reader]

2. magnify unresolved problems

3. provide additional solutions

Strangely missing from her paradigm is simply discovering what Scripture says and then doing it! There are still many women, and among them some theologians, who are going to hold the biblical paradigm and not be looking for something better.

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 46

Sumner writes that Priscilla "corrected an outstanding Bible teacher" (64). The biblical text says that Priscilla and her husband Aquilla "explained to him [Apollos] the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26). (Note: In the phrase ακριβέστερον αυτοω εξεθεντο, the lexicon's choice of "explain, set forth" in 18:26 as a meaning for the aorist middle indicative verb¹³ certainly makes more sense in context than Sumner's "correct".)

Sumner seems to have an obsession with classifying ideas contrary to her own as "sin." For example, in her lengthy discussion of prejudices, she seems to equate the process of recognizing differences between men and women as prejudice (23, 74-79). Her homily on prejudices could well be illustrated in her treatment of complementarianism as opposed to egalitarianism, with which she has much more affinity. She laces her discussion with undocumented private conversations and personal emotions.

Sumner offered an interesting account of her "For Men Only" ministry. She began, "I'll teach you things your wife doesn't know" and assured the men they would not be nagged or elbowed or scowled at (implying these reactions would come from their poorly tutored wives). She further notes that the men didn't want her to leave the room during small group discussions, "I think it's because they needed ... someone to fill the position of the ‘expert' in the room" (95-96).

Sumner actually summarizes well. "It would take a miracle for biblically incompetent men to feel excited about gathering with a group of biblically competent women. And yet most men are delighted to follow a woman leader as long as she honors them as men" (97). "Many Christian men remain ignorant of the Word while many Christian women remain unchallengeable by the Word" (103). What point is Sumner making? Is she to be the guru for evangelical men? Is she training a core group of women to go out to churches and fill the role of resident guru for men? To assume she'll find men in great numbers sitting at her feet to learn Scripture the rest of her life may be a stretch even for Sumner!

Sumner shows a lack of familiarity with the biblical text in her attack on John Piper's definition of manhood and its responsibilities. Piper never claims to quote Scripture in his definition, but obviously his description of manhood is distinctive because it is fashioned out of a careful study of Scripture (See Gen 2:15-17; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 5:8; 1 Pet 3:7) so that the substance of his definition comes out of the text (85). The enunciation of a biblical principle is found in Piper's words-"a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women" (85).

Sumner, on the other hand, offers her own definition of masculinity-that "bodily characteristic that makes men less vulnerable than women"-and femininity-that "bodily characteristic that makes women more vulnerable than men" (185). Again, she demonstrates her determination to allow her own experience to hold sway over Scripture. Sumner is an egalitarian (although seemingly wanting to be called something else). Even in her working definitions, she does not affirm manhood and womanhood as being distinct one from the other. Sumner's discussion on women as warriors is confusing at best. Spiritual warfare is one topic and combat on the battlefield is another. No one would dispute that all believers are involved in battles. There is no way I would take the time to read a volume like this one, much less give time for research and study of its novel theories and what I believe to be misinterpretations of my own position, if I did not believe there is an ongoing battle for the hearts of women. To elevate feelings and experience over obedience-even when to obey is to accept a "hard" as well as "good" word from God-is a devastating blow to biblical womanhood. Yes, women must "contend for the faith"; they must determine that God's way is first and right however it differs from cultural settings; they must accept biblical principles that are clearly and singularly presented in Scripture; and they must persevere when femininity is taunted even by one whose gender they share.

Contra to Sumner and to Waltke, whose article she sites, I believe the portrait of biblical womanhood set apart in acrostic form in Proverbs 31 describes a "woman of strength" (Heb. chayil certainly includes that range of meaning). But I am just as convinced that strength can be in "delicate" hands, harnessed by what Peter describes as a "gentle and quiet spirit," which makes the strength become stronger and more effective, if you please. Actually the words describing the spiritual armor in Ephesians comes from the Holy Spirit through the pen of Paul, not as a distinct command from the mouth of Jesus, as Sumner intimates (108).

Sumner should also use caution in holding up to ridicule a woman who chooses to reserve her sword (the Word of God) to be used with women (108-109). As in the case of Priscilla, any woman may have an occasion for sharing spiritual wisdom with a man, but to take her primary "battle" to the field of woman-to-woman mentoring is wise indeed according to Paul (Titus 2:3-5). Reading egalitarians like Sumner always raises the interesting question: What do they have against women? Since they seem to be genuinely nonplussed unless they can have an audience of men, they must believe that women are inferior. In the early pages of her book, Sumner confesses the sin of valuing men over women (74-75). Maybe she needs not just to confess the sin but also to forsake the sin.

Deborah does receive commendation-but not for "leading ten thousand men into a battle" (109). The text indicates that Barak was the commander on the battlefield. Deborah accompanied Barak at his request and doubtless offered him and his forces encouragement. Sumner can make

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 47

a much better case for Jael's commendation as "most blessed of all women" based on the action of this humble homemaker in her own tent. Jael did not participate in the battle on the field, but she did what she could in her own home (Judges 4:6-10). What basis does Sumner have to assert that "the Lord ... orchestrated the story so that women would accomplish His victory"? Again, the actual details in the text would serve her better: God did indeed honor the women as well as the men.

In a section on biblical metaphors, Sumner rightly defines metaphor, and she is uncomfortable with taking inclusive language to the point of calling God, "Mother", but she obviously chafes under the use of male pronouns (117-119). No complementarian I know would identify God as a "masculine" being; but quite obviously, God chose to use masculine language to reveal himself, and he selected a male earthly tabernacle for himself. God does not reveal himself comparatively as a woman (Sumner's assertion, 120), but he describes some of his actions to be like those of a woman (Luke 15:8-10). There is a difference!

"Pop" Theology

Sumner proudly announces "boss verse" (128) as her own coined term -a bit humorous coming from one who wants no "bosses"-at least not in her home or her church! What Sumner considers unique or innovative may be interpreted by some as "pop" theology. In this innovation, Sumner attempts to mold the idea of locus classicus or sedes doctrinae ("chair doctrine") into a manipulating tool, especially in gender passages. She describes her "boss verse" as a "guiding hermeneutic," suggesting that such verse(s) should take priority over others. In hermeneutics, however, the object is not finding a verse(s) to control all passages as much as finding the correct interpretation of a particular passage in light of other related texts.

Continuing her innovative "boss verse" methodology, Sumner boldly asserts in chapter 13, "Whichever is the first line functions hermeneutically as the ‘boss verse'" (154). For starters, one line is not always a "verse"-in fact, rarely so. Second, word order in Greek or Hebrew is quite different from that of English. Third, early manuscripts were not divided into chapters or verses. Again her egalitarian agenda-in this case, promoting her own variety of "mutual submission"-has driven her efforts at exegesis. Often, she ignores verb tense and other grammatical factors.

As a complementarian, I would certainly take issue with 1 Tim 2:12 as the locus classicus for defining the role of women in the church. 1 Tim 2:9-15 must be considered in its entirety, and alongside parallel passages like Titus 2:3-5, and 1 Cor 11:3-15 and 14:34-35. By putting these focal passages together, you can get a consistent (without contradiction) picture of what Scripture teaches on this important subject.

Sumner's disorganized interaction with Wayne Grudem is marked by what could be interpreted as her own arrogance. She continues, "Grudem would also have to think ..."(151). She would be wise to let Grudem think and speak for himself. Her frantic attempts to suggest that complementarians are pitted one against another misses the point that the issue is not who believes what but what is believed and how what is believed lines up against the standard of Scripture.

What complementarians can Sumner cite who suggest that the household code paragraph in Ephesians 5 begins in verse 22? (157). Most complementarians are careful to include verse 21 because it contains the participial phrase that sets the tone for what is to follow. In fact, the verb to be understood in verse 22 (which verse has no verb and thus as a fragment would make no sense) is found in verse 21! Of course, it would be "unscholarly" to suggest that the paragraph begins with verse 22 since that would be grammatically and theologically incorrect. Sumner would do well to document carefully any such accusation of incompetence lobbed against complementarians or egalitarians.

What a monstrosity Sumner creates with a headless woman waiting for a bodiless man to create a visual union but with no strings attached and no outworking for the "metaphor." She reduces functions of each to movement of body parts as with marionettes. She continually mixes metaphors (167), which destroys the meaning and usefulness of both.

Sumner's weakness in exegesis and simplistic rendering of timeless principles destroys any legitimate timely interpretation. For example, Sumner suggests "Reading the Bible is no different from reading any other book" (124) and then turns around, thankfully, and adds that one must "rely on the Holy Spirit for help" (124).

Sumner's discussion on κεφαλή is limited, incomplete, and without linguistic documentation. She makes no attempt for careful interaction with Grudem's study of κεφαλή, which is available even for the English reader and with which serious egalitarian exegetes with any credibility must interact (150-151). Finally, her limited treatment of κεφαλή, combined with her continuing obsession with "boss," only serves to trivialize the Trinitarian relationship between thee Father, Son, and Spirit (145).

Sumner moves to the edge of the cliff when she says, "Christ was crucified because of vulnerability. In heaven it was impossible to kill him, but on earth Christ became vulnerable to death" (125). Christ was not killed or murdered because he was without protection on earth. He was, is, and forever will be God with all the powers thereof whether he is on earth or in heaven!

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 48

The atonement happened because Jesus laid down his life, not because he was vulnerable (John 10:17-18).

To judge Sumner's exegetical forays, any reader with language skills should begin by translating and reading the particular passage addressed. I have found that Sumner takes considerable liberty with the text: participles are translated as infinitives or imperatives; often words are, at best, defined with dynamic equivalents, and even projected lexical evidence is largely without documentation. Readers without language skills should simply read Sumner's volume alongside the text of Scripture and in consultation with sound biblical commentaries.

A Tragic Loss

Has Sumner become uncomfortable with her womanhood? "Womanhood has become a liability" (79). Can any gift of God become a liability? "... I have tacitly thought of myself as a ‘special type' of woman, the kind that can keep up with men" (78). Even women may feel a bit bashed by Sumnertarianism. A woman still has the option of being the best woman she can be without comparing herself to other women or to men. "Socially ... women ... less dignified than men"-this concept is new to me since in my limited world women generally have been more associated with dignity in dress, speech, etc., than have men.

Sumner introduced her concept that women have a tendency to "hold back" (see 27, 73-74, 79, 104). Could this be her reference to a woman's demeanor-the gentle and quiet spirit discussed in 1 Pet 3:1-7-the submissiveness in attitude to which women are consistently called in Scripture? Certainly there are many restraints in the Christian life. Women and men also have their respectively unique restraints established by the creation order. To presume that success in any endeavor is allowed by God and therefore acceptable to God is dangerous indeed. The biblical paradigm is holding us to divine boundaries and back from our own willfulness.

Sumner dismisses the commonly accepted premise-not to mention biblical paradigm-that mothers are "the primary caregivers of the kids" as merely a conclusion based upon a "cultural bias" (105). Contra Sumner's ideas, maternity is at the center of a woman's nature, and it is not the same as fatherhood. The responsibility of fatherhood cannot replace the duties of motherhood. Rather each assignment complements the other. A father cannot provide for his family's basic needs and spend the same number of hours with the children a mother can spend if she chooses to focus her primary energies and foremost investment of time into nurturing the lives of her children.

Conclusion

When Sumner claims legalism as insensitivity to the "spirit of the law," she ignores the obvious. For me as a complementarian, to line up with Scripture concerning men and women in the church goes beyond the "letter of the law." The "spirit" of a passage, for example, calls me to be sensitive not only to the words of Scripture ("letter" of the law) but also to the application and outworking of those words and the principles they fashion (the "spirit" of the law). I do not teach men in the church based on 1 Timothy 2, but I choose not to teach pastoral ministry in the seminary because of the "spirit" of that same passage.

In any case, one can document that complementarians in their writings closely identify themselves with biblical exegesis coming from the Church Fathers onward, but that respect for biblical exegesis in the Patristic period in no way suggests that complementarians hold their positions because of the "traditions" of men who have gone before them-however noteworthy men like the honored Fathers of the Church might be. Rather they hold their positions because of the truth of Scripture.

I am not aware of any tenet commonly embraced by complementarians that elevates "tradition" to a place that is indistinguishable from Scripture. Nor am I aware of complementarians who would throw out Scripture just because "tradition" affirms it. Nothing trumps Scripture. The Bible alone ultimately determines faith and practice. "Tradition" is defined as "the entire process by which normative truths are passed on from one generation to another."¹⁴ Tradition can be oral or written, closed or flowing; but no religious community from the first century until today is void of tradition. Tradition is also found in Scripture. Obviously, it is quite careless and flippant to link a particular church "tradition," such as what some call Romanism, to all complementarians.

For some, what is objectionable in Scripture merely becomes "tradition" so that it can be discarded in the formulation of new ideas despite the efforts of many centuries of careful exegesis and disciplined application in the development and growth of the post-apostolic church, which has protected and held in trust those biblical principles. The rediscovery and reimplementation of apostolic teaching and biblical patterns is appropriate indeed, but to disregard textual evidence at will or to revise teaching and redefine biblical terms or to refashion the examples of women and men profiled in Scripture is not acceptable to anyone who is determined to let the New Testament documents speak for themselves. You cannot affirm two diametrically opposed positions as right, and you may go even further afield to say both are right, but neither position is mine! Certainly to say something becomes truth

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 49

because I claim it to be so is in vogue in this postmodern age. But being in vogue does not mean you are in sync with Scripture.

Sarah Sumner is a bright young woman. I believe she loves the Bible and wants to make her contribution to the kingdom. She wants to develop new ideas, and she wants to share her own testimony in hopes of helping someone. But good intentions have never been enough to get a job done. Beyond the framing of difficult questions and studying the Word of God and desiring to bring people together, Sarah Sumner has much more ground to cover.

Sumner starts with something that she feels ought to be, an injustice she attributes to the church that must be righted. The elevation of an experiential hermeneutic, the preponderance of the struggle for reconciling perceived giftedness with practical ministries in logical and culturally relevant ways, the determination to elevate calling over clear biblical directives-these are dangerous tools in the hand of anyone who attempts the sacred task of exposition. Sumner does have some facts, but to that she has added many opinions and a large degree of conjecture, mingled with deep emotional feelings on a subject that has obviously weighed heavily upon her heart and mind.

To interact in summary with Sumner's volume, let me offer these considerations:

• This book is not a serious exegetical theology intent on discovering and accurately discussing the history of ecclesiastical thought and practice. Rather it is a passionate, and sometimes rather arrogant, testimony of experience or desired experience desperately in search for some corroborating proof text from the Bible or shred of support from an early theologian of the church. Failing that, the author resorts to what is sometimes wild-eyed invention such as, for example, her creation of "boss theology."
• To say that one is neither complementarian nor egalitarian when, in fact, the entire monograph bashes complementarianism and enthrones egalitarianism is at best disingenuous. At worst, the author deceives herself. Because of the carelessness, poor scholarship, and self-centeredness of the volume, egalitarians may be hesitant to invoke the book, but Sumner's conclusions certainly provide no via media for the present impasse. To the contrary, complementarians will reject her methodooology and her conclusions and will find her exegesis problematic.
• The burden of proof remains on Sumner to show that complementarianism is a mixture of Bible and tradition. This case she has failed to make. Neither did she make a believable case for egalitarianism as being a mixture of feminism and the Bible. Her failure to make a credible intellectual case for the latter, however, certainly did not prevent her from modeling the position.
• Interaction with alternative positions is always best accomplished by accurately representing those positions. Sumner's consistent misrepresentation of complementarians renders the book unworthy of a chair at the table in this debate. One hardly knows what to think about her constant misrepresentations. If the misrepresentations are deliberate, then something more than scholarly mistake is involved. If the misrepresentations are simply uninformed, then IVP has killed 332 pages worth of perfectly good trees simply to parade out yet another bashing of complementarians.
• This volume replete with philosophical non sequiturs also abounds in false antitheses. The suggestion that the Scriptures nowhere suggest pursuit of "biblical manhood" or "biblical womanhood" but rather command that believers simply be like Christ is a case in point. She is right that we are to be like Christ, but the Bible also presents ideas for manhood, womanhood, childhood, servanthood, etc. In short, her exegesis is often Procrustean-lop it off or stretch it out, whichever is needed. No standard is necessary
• Sumner's assertion that there are no problem verses in the Bible might make someone wonder if she has read the Bible much. Gleason Archer and others who have written monographs on difficult texts will be surprised to find that their time was squandered and their efforts unnecessary. However, it is comforting to know that after 1900 years of disagreement about passages like the "spirits in prison," one can soon anticipate a Sumnertarian definitive explanation of these nonproblematic texts. While this has little to do with her thesis, it does demonstrate the loose and unsupported opinions that render the book ineffective.

A book review does not allow the point-by-point rebuttal needed for Sumner's novel interpretation. She dismisses clear lexical evidence and bypasses the host of hermeneutical principles that have been used by exegetes from the first century until now. One gets the impression that Sarah Sumner looks down upon a world of biblical scholarship spanning the centuries, as though she were the first to get it right.

The Bible is a wonderfully affirming book for women, containing magnificent testimony of the contributions of the distaff. Further, the Bible abounds with instruction for godly women in their relationships to God, to church, to husbands, to

JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 50

children, and to others. Sarah Sumner obviously believes that all this is important and is worth the effort at theologizing. Unfortunately, a reading of Men and Women in the Church provides one more example of parading a personal agenda as Sumner unfolds a deep desire to be recognized by her peers as a theologian who is informing the understanding of the biblical materials. Unfortunately, the book is not even a profitable example of agenda-based hermeneutics. The author must be commended for her interest and effort. But complementarians will find this book fanciful at best and with Adolf Schlatter will still want to stand "under the Word."

Tools:Top Print E-mail