**************
Before I get into a review of Michelle Lee-Barnewall's book, Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate, I want to make a couple of additional comments connected to my last post.
Those who are moving from a complementarian to an egalitarian position on women's role in the church are doing so because they are taking a more "progressive" view of the Bible. While the exact specifics of what a "progressive" view of the Bible implies, in general it can be summed up by the often used explanatory sentence, "We take the Bible seriously, but not literally." A progressive view sees the Bible as a mix of history, myth, metaphor and poetry and values the results of the academic and critical study of the biblical texts. A progressive view of the Bible means that it was written by God-inspired humans, but that inspiration was limited by the author's (and original recipients') historical and cultural context. Thus revelation was gradual and/or progressive over the roughly 1200 years of writing and editing of the biblical texts. God revealed himself and his will in limited ways, a bit at a time, in order to accommodate his revelation to account for the limitations of human language and the scientific knowledge possessed by both the authors and their intended recipients.
A progressive view of the biblical texts considers them to be both divine and human in origin. That is in part why, when we read scripture today, we see things that are ambiguous to us which probably were quite clearly understood by the original recipients. It is why some directives in both Old and New Testaments were never meant to apply to all people for all times. The original target audience of each biblical text lived at a time and in a cultural that was radically different than that in which most 21st century readers live. We have scientific knowledge of the universe, from the macroscopic (re: our solar system, galaxy and universe) to the microscopic (re: biology and physiology of the living beings and the chemical make up of non-living objects), that the original recipients of the biblical texts could not even imagined in their wildest dreams. However, if we don't take these things into account, we can use the biblical texts to justify a whole host of attitudes and practices that would be considered offensive and even repugnant with patriarchy on the top of that list. And, sadly, many over the centuries since the biblical texts were written, have done just that!
It is my contention that the biblical texts to not teach egalitarianism, but rather they speak within the patriarchal culture of the Israelites, Jews and Christians. It is true that there is in Jesus' life an example of much greater respect for women, which afforded them opportunities for influential service beyond the confines of their homes, than was most commonly practiced in both the overarching Greco-Roman culture or in the specific culture of 1st century Judaism. While we can point to examples where some women had great influence and impact in their societies, but they were "the exception that proved the rule."
So, if the biblical texts do not extoll the virtues of 21st century egalitarianism, why do I think that Christians, in their homes and their churches, should be striving to be as egalitarian as possible? It is because I view, by faith, the biblical texts as both divine and human, and thus limited in its revelation of God and his will by time and cultural context. It is not a "how to" book for every issue we face in our individual lives, our family lives or our churches. It is chuck full of divine principles that have to be applied with much wisdom as we strive to live out our lives in each generation and culture. Certain principles (and thus commands) outrank others and thus must guide how we apply present and future insights. That's why in the last post, I pleaded for us to find a way to practice our convictions in women's role in the church that would show respect for the diversity of those convictions.
Love is the by far the greatest guiding principle for all we choose to do, regardless of our convictions on specific issues. Paul wrote that if "eating meat (sacrificed to idols) or drinking wine caused my fellow Christian to stumble, I will not eat meat or drink wine." Yet, Paul had taken time in his letters to show why it was OK for Christians to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols! Jesus said that people will know we are his disciples by our love for one another. When we are willing to work through the messiness of our diverse opinions with true consideration and respect for one another and even, as necessary, compromise our opinions (and maybe even what we think are our "rights") for the sake of continuing to be able to serve, work, pray, worship and fellowship as a family, then we are practicing the greatest commandments, as per Jesus - love for God, one another and our neighbour. A church that truly loves one another is not one that is always perfectly united in every detail of conviction, opinion and practice, but one that is accepting of one another in spite of that diversity. And that is a community of Christians that will bring glory to God and point people to Jesus.
To a church family that was rife with division on many levels about many things, Paul wrote these words, after explaining how vital every member of the body of Christ was (even the weakest): "But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31). He then penned his most famous, but often (even in the church) least practiced directive (1 Cor 13:1-8a). Love is the most excellent way; it is the gift that when practiced holds us together in all our weaknesses and strengths, all our various and divergent gifts, opinions, and even convictions. Love never fails!
No comments:
Post a Comment