John Richardson, the Ugley Vicar, reports these words of Archbishop Peter Jensen, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, who is a leading conservative in the worldwide Anglican Communion – the subject is women bishops:
You know that I am opposed to this innovation on scriptural grounds, believing as I do in the equality of men and women in Christ, but our complementarity in church and home.
Let’s look at the last part of this sentence. We have “equality … in Christ, but … complementarity in church and home” Hold on, does this mean that there is a contrast between “in Christ” and “in church”? When we are “in church”, or for that matter at home, are we no longer “in Christ”? Are churches in Australia so non-Christian that they are not even to be considered “in Christ”?
I’m sure that the Archbishop does not really want to teach this. But without this his argument falls apart. If men and women are equal in Christ, logically that equality must apply to everything they do in Christ, which should certainly include everything that happens in church, and in a Christian home. But if they are denied equality in church, then logically either the church is not in Christ or they are being denied the equality in Christ which is being preached.
The Archbishop continues:
I believe that the way that God has ordered our relationships is demonstrably for the best.
But the way he seems to think that God has ordered our relationships cannot be the real way if it is self-contradictory as I have argued.
Think of it from the single or divorced woman’s point of view. She has no complement either in the home or in the church. Does that make her half of nothing? Think of all those single women who were blessed by different denominations and sent out to mission fields to preach the gospel and bring people to Christ? Did they only do a half-baked job because they had no male complement? Thankfully the Christian woman always has Christ. Through his power and with his blessing, in their daily lives, outside the churches we can preach the gospel and teach = inform people of what Christianity means.
Peter,
I think you’re being a little unfair to the Bishop and his complementarian views. You say, ‘Hold on, does this mean that there is a contrast between “in Christ” and “in church”?’ and (I think) he would respond ‘no’.
The simple reason being the one that complementarians constantly affirm. That in value and worth to God at the points of both creation and salvation (in Christ) there is no difference between male and female. In terms of role (church and home) there are differences.
So while you may have very good arguments for an egalitarian view, I respectfully submit that this wasn’t one of them finding a logical’ outcome from a false premise created by how you (not the bishop) define the ‘in Christ’ ‘in Church’ contrast.
And your arguments are flawed Peter. He is simply stating that ‘in Christ’ (read ‘spiritually’) we are equal , but our roles, as defined in scripture, are not exactly the same, which of course they are not.
Despite your continual denial of the fact the Bible does indeed teach different roles for men and women in some areas.
I know you wont agree, but fortunately it wont change the fact of what the Bible teaches.
When are complementarians going to admit that if one sex is created for authority and the other for submission then it is not equality. If women are specifically created with a nature that suits them for followership, then they are not created for leadership, they are not equal to men. If woman created equal to man, then Chirst’s command is clear,
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 7:12.
Anonymous, thanks for the comment. I have always been struck by the hypocrisy, and perhaps underlying racism, of those who think it is OK to send women to minister and plant churches among the “heathen” while insisting that they keep silent and submissive at home.
Phil, if the Archbishop had contrasted “value and worth to God” with “role”, he might have had an argument. But he didn’t, he contrasted “in Christ” with “in church”. I did not create this contrast, he did by writing a sentence in which these two phrases occur in syntactically identical places in clearly contrasted clauses. Maybe this is not what he really meant to say. But maybe then it was something like a Freudian slip, exposing his real thinking along the lines of “God can have his own rules for ‘in Christ'”, but in church I am in charge and my rules apply”.
Glenn, “in Christ” is not a synonym for “spiritually”.
Suzanne, I completely agree. And despite the others’ agreement the Archbishop seems to agree that different roles implies unequal status, at least in the church.
Peter, you clearly define equality with Christ as meaning equal in all things on earth as well. Is there a logical necessity in doing so? The Trinity is surely all equally God, and all equally holding the characteristics of deity, but no-one would claim the Father, Son and Spirit all have identical roles to play. Is this a valid analogy to understand the complementarian view that equal status does not necessarily equal equal roles at all times?
This talk of one gender being made for authority and one for submission is clearly nonsense. Is that the mainline complementarian position?
And what on earth was Paul banging on about when he was talking about headship? I’ve never heard a good answer without invoking some sort of complementarian viewpoint (Yes I’ve heard the kephal = source thing, but I’ve never understood Paul’s point if that was its meaning). Even a scholar like Craig Blomberg seems to admit as much.
No, Alastair, not “equal in all things on earth” but “equal in all things in the kingdom of God”. I accept that there is some differentiation in roles between genders, as in the Trinity, but not that this includes one-sided submission of one to the other or human-imposed barriers (inflexible rules – I have no objection to proper discernment by experienced leaders) to people exercising ministries to which they believe God has called them.
There was an excellent discussion about “headship” recently on Better Bibles Blog. This was one of a number of linked posts. The conclusion, as I remember it, was that the Greek word kephale, translated “head”, never means “one in authority over another”, but is probably to be understood more in terms of the one who provides nourishment.
Thanks Peter, I’ll check out/revisit the Bible Bibles discussion.
Alistair,
Here is Grudem’s understanding of the marriage relationship.
The first reason I think “some to others” is a better understanding of Ephesians 5:21 is the meaning of the Greek word hypotassō (“be subject to, submit to”). Although some have claimed that the word can mean “be thoughtful and considerate; act in love” (toward another), there is no hard evidence to show that any first-century Greek speaker would have understood it that way, for the term always implies a relationship of submission to an authority.
In actual fact, of course, Grudem is completely wrong. There are instances of using this same verb hypotasso in a reciprocal relationship in Greek literature, just as the only time authority is used for marriage in the Bible it is in reciprocity in 1 Cor. 7.
1 Clement 38.1:
“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”
and 2 Macc 13.23,
”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”
However, Grudem never lets facts get in the way of his total commitment to the unilateral submision of the wife and suggests that there be a nuance of this relationship in all interaction between men and women.
However, complementarianism is usually more popularly defined by the CBMW as “men lead” and “women submit”.
Grudem continues,
… Nevertheless, a wife’s attitude of submission to her husband’s authority will be reflected in numerous words and actions each day which reflect deference to his leadership and an acknowledgment of his final responsibility-after discussion has occurred, where possible-to make decisions affecting the whole family.
So, in any disagreement the husband has the say and there is nothing more to be done about it. Each wife is completely dependent on her own husband’s interpretation of the phrase “in all things” For some women, this is a fair balance in life, and for other women it is abject slavery. But, God be praised, the Lord is blessed in this, the gospel of submission is spread abroad, and those women who are submitted totally are having a taste of paradise – so says Grudem.
There is now some awareness that a few odd women here and there have been abused. My sense is that some women are abused and the others are on edge, so the conversation goes like this – “Hello, my name is Sue, and I am not a doormat, in case you were wondering.”
Why on earth can’t we be left to treat each other like human beings?
one must be careful to use the trinity construct as analogy for anything. the trinity has as many interpretations as to nature, role, and purpose as anything else in our dogma. when you imagine these three sitting together to discuss roles at the end of a long day, do you imagine three men? two men and a woman (sofia, the holy spirit)? three hermaphrodites? does god the father call the meeting to order? does the holy spirit brew and serve the coffee? and wash the dishes?
imagine that transgender surgery allows any man to become any woman, and vice versa (it’s coming, folks. in fact, methodist clergy are already crossing over.) why would anyone want to be a christian woman in the archbishop’s world? will his congregation become all-male, in a hierarchical struggle for top dog? and who will make the coffee and do the dishes?
it is immoral (wrong behavior), unethical (bad outcome), and just plain sinful (hindered relationships) to use scripture authoritatively (or any other way) to subordinate anyone–whether according to gender, fiscal worth, skin color, mental aptitude, sexual preference, or coffee making abilites.
one of the readings this last weekend was about a god-driven utopia (isaiah 2), and i’m sure that suzanne and the arch bishop have different ideas about their roles in the beating of swords into plowshares. especially about who brews the coffee and who does the ‘men’s work,’ and who does the dishes after the parade is over.
peace–
scott
Scott, can I suggest this post by Doug as somewhat more nuanced thoughts about gender within the Trinity. Meanwhile I can’t imagine Archbishop Jensen accepting a woman who has had transgender surgery as a man. But I agree with you that Scripture should not be used to subordinate anyone.
my comment isn’t nuanced??
I always find it interesting when a leader in a denomination that exists because of the Reformation uses the word “innovation” in a pejorative sense.
Maybe the word has a different meaning in American English.
John, I don’t think “innovation” has a different meaning in American English. Well, I can’t be sure of the meaning in Australia. But here in England I have heard it used in the same way referring to women priests and bishops, although perhaps only by Anglo-Catholics who in their defence are not at all happy about the Reformation.
Tut, tut, no, no.
The reformation went back exactly to the way things were in the bible and faithful protestants today are authentically living reformation and biblical faith.
*rolls eyes* Really!
I’m guessing Peter Jensen has in mind a similar distinction as that which Calvin appeared to have:
When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions 620620 “Les qualites externes;” “External qualities.” are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind — on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum — which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. (Calvin, 1 Corinthians 11:3)
Yet most Sydney people I’ve spoken to would reject Calvin’s following comments on v10:
It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex.(Calvin, 1 Corinthians 11:3)
Sam, thanks for this. I am certainly glad that they reject the latte comments. On the former, if Calvin means that these distinctions are necessary in order to ” not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions”, “outward propriety and decorum”, then fair enough. But that means that in a society where civil order etc do not require submission of women, it can be dispensed with, and indeed should be where maintaining these distinctions goes against the current civil order – as in Australia and much of the world today. But then it looks as if Calvin contradicts himself as much as the Archbishop.
The fact is that ‘equal’ can mean a lot of things. I am clearly not equal with a professional athlete in athletic ability, but I am equal in terms of moral rights and (I would hope) legal rights. I am not equal with my employer in terms of rank or authority, but it’s an independent question whether I’m equal in ability. I may turn out to be a better or worse teacher, and I may turn out to be a better or worse philosopher. Jensen simply shifts between different kinds of equality in his statement. There’s nothing linguistically inappropriate about that given the view he’s putting forward. Context shifts within sentences are quite common, e.g. “Bill is tall, but he’s not tall for a basketball player”. What you’re complaining about sounds to me like someone who complains that such a statement is a contradiction.
I’m sure that’s how the animals at Animal Farm justified “Some are more equal than others”.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Some are more equal than others
I am clearly not equal with a professional athlete in athletic ability, but I am equal in terms of moral rights and (I would hope) legal rights.
I also do not have the ability to be a professional athelete, but that has nothing to do with me being female.
According to complimentarianism, a woman’s inability to preach and teach to mixed company is exclusively based on her gender.
In complimentarianism, a woman like Suzanne who has outstanding language and translation gifts is unfit to teach scripture to the 99.9999% of the male population who do not have her gifts.
Pam, before you criticize a position it’s important to get it right. The view is that God has set up an order within which people who are gifted are to exercise those gifts. There are different views among complementarians about the extent to which women can have gifts such as teaching, but I don’t know of any major figure who denies the gift to women, and I don’t know of any major figure who denies the use of it to the much larger than .0001% of the male population who is underage. You can criticize all you like, but please don’t get the view wrong in order to criticize it, because that doesn’t earn you any points. It just causes people to tune out and use the excuse that your misrepresentations must mean there’s no argument to respond to. I, for one, am not inclined to respond to any arguments that include all manner of misrepresentations of the opposing view.
So, Jeremy, let’s correct Pam’s comment to end “the 99.9999% of the adult male population who do not have her gifts.” Does her point now stand? Do you deny that Suzanne has gifts of teaching which might help (yes, that word!) adult males to learn more about biblical languages etc, but which complementarians do not allow her to use to help them? Perhaps she should be called a “learning facilitator” rather than a “teacher”, and then the comps might let her just be a “help”!
Pam, before you criticize a position it’s important to get it right.
Does my having lived for 18 years under male headship count in terms of my knowing what kind of an experience it is to be a woman in that environment?
The answer I’m expecting – because it would have been given to me by the church in which I grew up – is that my experience does not count at all and that you are correct because that is God’s word.
If you can think of something more inventive to say, you’ll catch my attention. 🙂
There are different views among complementarians about the extent to which women can have gifts such as teaching, but I don’t know of any major figure who denies the gift to women, and I don’t know of any major figure who denies the use of it to the much larger than .0001% of the male population who is underage.
This is exactly the situation of ‘some people are more equal than others’.
So there are people who count (grown men) and people who don’t count (boys, girls and women) and that women are free to use their individual God-given gifts with the people who don’t count.
Do you deny that Suzanne has gifts of teaching which might help (yes, that word!) adult males to learn more about biblical languages etc, but which complementarians do not allow her to use to help them?
Suzanne has gifts of understanding of these matters, and she is able to communicate those matters to people. I’ve never seen her teach, so I have no idea what her gifting is there. I don’t deny that some complementarians would deny her the role of teaching this stuff to adult men, but I do deny that all complementarians would do so, and I would point out that mainstream complementarianism has a least a strong strain of support for women teaching this stuff in seminaries. I don’t think Grudem would have a problem with her teaching a Greek class in a church setting, as long as she doesn’t come across as teaching the text authoritatively. I don’t think he’d have any problem with her teaching in a seminary.
Grudem might not have a problem with women teaching in seminaries, but Paige Patterson, if I remember correctly, does, having forced the only woman teacher out of the seminary he runs.
If a hypothetical woman (well, not that hypothetical, my pastor’s wife fits this description) is like Suzanne in that she “has gifts of understanding of these matters, and she is able to communicate those matters to people”, and in addition she does have the gift of teaching, on what grounds do you, Jeremy, deny her the opportunity to use her God-given gifts to teach men?
The whole issue of authority is made complex by the way authority functions in the Godhead. Complementarians maintain that the Father and Son are equal but have different roles. They can also point to texts which imply that the Father has authority over the Son. Leaving aside the question of whether these texts teach all that complementarians claim, an interesting dynamic applies here. The Father does not reserve authority to Himself but gives it to the Son. The problem with the complementarian position re men/women is that authority is reserved by men for themselves rather than given to women. This seems to me to be a feature of Christian ministry in general. The ideal of ministry and mission is to give authority, to pass authority on, rather than to reserve it from oneself (just one proof text 2 Tim 2:2). Thus even a hierarchical approach should encourage the handing on of authority.
Tim, that is an interesting point, thank you. But I wonder if you are reading too much into Matthew 28:19. (Are there other verses you are relying on?) I’m not convinced that “All authority … has been given to me” implies that there was a time when Jesus did not have authority, and then a time when God the Father gave him authority. I think the words can be understood also as meaning that Jesus has always, from eternity, had all authority, equal with that of the Father. The orthodox understanding of the Creeds is that the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, which implies that his very existence is in some sense dependent on the Father. I don’t think we can separate his attaining authority from his coming into existence, outside time. Thus it is part of the eternal very nature of the Son to have all authority, alongside the Father.
Peter, I’m not denying that there are people who hold Patterson’s view. I am denying that it’s the standard complementarian view. Grudem is a pretty influential complementarian to be viewed as a complete outsider. If he holds that view, then it has to be seen as a mainstream position within complementarianism.
As I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with someone like Suzanne using her gifts to help men to understand things she’s come to understand. The issue, as far as I’ve been able to determine, is authoritative teaching, and I wouldn’t take academic teaching or blogging as authoritative in the sense that I think is going on in I Tim 2. Some complementarians even wouldn’t include leading a Bible study under the oversight of an elder, and at least a small minority would even include preaching under the authority of an elder as ok.
My point isn’t that there aren’t views that fit your criticism. It’s that complementarianism comes in a lot of varieties, and some complementarians have a lot more room for the use of such gifts than others. It’s not fair to them to paint with the kind of broad brush that you’re using.
Dear Brothers,
I studied your web site. We are a group of people working to spread the word of God. I am from Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I humbly request you to expand your outreach your program/pamphlets/tracks/sermons/studies/articles in Urdu and Punjabi languages so that Urdu and Punjabi speaking may listen your message particularly in Pakistan and generally in the world. Urdu and Punjabi are the languages spoken and understood by more than one sixth of the total population of the world. Urdu is spoken in Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Afghanistan and also in Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and others. I would ask you to pray and share it among the brethrens there. I would offer my services for being translator, recorder and distributor/. We charge small amount for the translation work. Our rates for translation are not fixed whatever you will pay to us that will be wonderful contribution in spreading the word of God. The money we get from the translation work is used for the work of God. I pray that God may bless you to take a good decision. May His perfect will be done! Grace and Peace be with you, all brethrens.
Your brother in Christ
Nadeem, Pakistan
Nadeem, I would be very happy for you or anyone else to translate this blog into Urdu and/or Punjabi and repost it or otherwise distribute it. Please just keep me informed of what you are doing. But unfortunately I am not able to offer any payment for this.
Greetings in Jesus name,
“Faith cometh by hearing and hearing from the Word of God”(Romans, 10:17)
It is really privileged for me to write to your ministry and I pray may Lord bless you abundantly. I am Miss Aliza from Pakistan . Five years before I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and I trust in Him as my rock and try to walk in Him, as the Word of God says don’t be lazy in struggle.
As I was visiting your site I found that you are doing the work of translation into native languages. I am able to translate the good stuff of you into my native language Punjabi and national language Urdu. There are two purposes to request you the first one are to know the Word of God more deeply and second one to be supportive my family and to run. our Ministry. We will also teach your stuff in our working areas with our people .
My suggestion for you is to create your material in my language of Urdu and Punjabi also. It will bring lots of blessings of the Word of God for the Pakistani and Indian Urdu and Punjabi speaking people. For that purpose I as a translator will bring your material into Urdu languages and into Punjabi language as well. Although it will take your low expenses as well, as fund for the Word of God to reach out to the deserving people. As a translator I will take the expenses that will be spending just for the Word. I will be looking for your kind words on this my humble request as soon as possible.
“There is nothing more precious than to read and listen the Word of God into your own language.”
I hope you will consider me regarding this request.
In Jesus name,
Aliza
Pakistan
Aliza, you are welcome to translate my blog into Urdu and Punjabi, and post the translation if it is accurate. Please try to do the translation well, and include a link to the English original. But I’m sorry, I cannot help you with the expenses of this or in any other way.
Dear Brother in Christ,
Greetings from Pakistan.
I am Clement from Pakistan. I have studied your web site, and I
found it the most wonderful site to get right to the True Word of God. I found that all your material is full of knowledge concerning development of religious faith. Living in Pakistan we Christians is to face many obstacles to get the access to the Word of God. Most of the people in Pakistan are not capable to understand the English language and they are hungry of the God’s words. It’s because our national language is Urdu.
My suggestion for you is to create your material in my language of Urdu and Punjabi also. It will bring lots of blessings of the Word of God for the Pakistani and Indian Urdu and Punjabi speaking people. For that purpose I as a translator will bring your material into Urdu languages and into Punjabi language as well. Although it will take your low expenses as well, as fund for the Word of God to reach out to the deserving people. As a translator I will take the expenses that will be spending just for the Word.
“There is nothing more precious than to red and listen the Word of God
into your own language.”
Sincerely,
Clement
Pakistan
Clement, I am happy for people to translate my blog into Urdu and Punjabi, as long as the translations are accurate. But I’m afraid I cannot provide any funding for this.
To whom it may concern,
I visited your Church site, it is really privilege for me to write you with the Will of God. I found that you have awesome and precious work of Lord Jesus Christ, May God bless your Church staff and all precious work. I belong the Christian family. I am able to do work of translation into Urdu and Punjabi, if you have any translation work so please consider for the translation work, i would love to give my service to you church as a translator. Your Church material and Word of God must be reached to unreached people who didn’t understand the English, those people can study and blessed through the Word of God. I hope that Lord Jesus will give the vision of Translation work and all funds. I will do pray to Jesus for this precious work. I will wait your reply.
In Jesus name,
rahila farrukh from Pakistan…….
Thank you, Rahila, and may God bless you. Unfortunately I am not able to fund any translation work at present, and I don’t think my church is able to either.