Some Thoughts on "Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian" by Lee-Barnewall

I don't know how I stumbled on this book, but I'm sure glad that I did. In my church family, we are exploring, discussing and maybe even debating this very important issue of women's role in the church. As our theological roots are steeped in a very conservative take on the biblical texts, we are coming from a patriarchal position that has, over the decades, morphed into a more complementarian practice. But, for the most part, we still practice some gender distinctions in terms of the assigning of roles and responsibilities within our local fellowship and global denomination.

Certainly, the number of those distinctions has been reduced and their extent has been fading. At one time in our restoration background, women were never featured in roles of appointed leadership and their public responsibilities were limited to teaching children's classes and leading in and/or speaking at women's events. However, we have since created public roles for women and now accept women as functioning in previously forbidden roles. Women serve on church boards, even as its officers. Women speak in our public assemblies, with some limitations. They serve on leadership teams. And we have created paid ministry roles/titles. Yet, we are not egalitarian, as long as there are any restrictions on what roles and responsibilities women can hold and fulfill. We are really more complementarian than egalitarian, but we seem to moving in that direction—too slowly for some and maybe too quickly for others.

So, the question has been raised, as it should, about where, on the continuum, we as a local fellowship land on this issue. However, my fear is that in looking into the Bible for the answers, we are losing sight of the fact that the Bible is (to quote Pete Enns) an ancient book, that is often ambiguous in its direction and diverse in its practices. We are looking for definitive direction on what women can and/or cannot do within the pages of the Bible. One "side" is arming itself with passages to prove that God is a complementarian. The other side is preparing an aggressive defence of God as an egalitarian, by stockpiling their own key passages. Both groups are praying, discussing and studying and yet coming to conflicting conclusions.

How can this be? Both of groups have the very same problem, as they regard the Bible as God's answer book, a step-by-step manual for all issues of life and faith. The position that will win out, is the one that collects what are deemed to be the most and best proof texts. Yet, while we do this, we are missing some key principles that are much more significant because they are not ancient practices, but eternal truths, and thus they are not presented ambiguously. These are the truths that Lee-Barnewall's book strives to introduce to the discussion; truths that supersede complementarianism and egalitarianism (as well as many of the other issues that tend to divide Christians into competing factions).

In her "Introduction," she states, "I am proposing that we may find a better solution by going back to the biblical text to see, not which of the two current positions—complementarian or egalitarian—is correct, but rather whether there might be a different way to configure the issue itself." I agree entirely as Lee-Barnewall challenges her readers that, "Limiting ourselves to an either/or choice does not leave enough room for improving either side or exploring a different understanding" because such a binary approach does not recognize every person's "individual fallibility and the potential contribution from those of the opposing position." In order to prevent such polarization, she quotes Timothy George who calls us to consider the following three questions:

• What do I owe to the person who differs from me?
• What can I learn from those who differ from me?
• How can I cope with those who differ from me?

In order to let go of our polarizing thoughts, mode of study and presentation, we have to stop and really think about eternal truths that are greater than any one of us or any one group of us. Lee-Barnewall calls upon her readers to reflect on the nature of the body of Christ, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. She states, "The body of Christ is not the exclusive province of one race, class, or gender. However, the radically inclusive community is not one in which differences do not exist. Rather it is one that manifests unity in its members’ love for one another in the context of such diversity as they are called to build up one another." She calls her readers to consider God's overall purpose for the church where "these concerns are transcended and put into larger perspective as the members are called to love one another following the example of Christ, who purposely relinquished his rightful privileges for our sake."

The problem is that "as evangelical Christians, we often want to know what we can or cannot do, or what we should or should not do" and so we rest on "various biblical and theological arguments..." that results in a discussion that "is dominated by practical questions such as “Can women be elders?” “Can women teach men?” and “Do men make the final decision in marriage?” The focus on authority, leadership, equality, and rights tends to lead to yes or no answers that do not prompt deeper questioning. It is not that these do not matter, but rather that there is a way to reconsider them."

This book has been written to challenge its readers to consider the issue of gender in the church from an overarching, eternal kingdom perspective. Thus, in her concluding remarks as she transitions into Part 1 (Gender in Evangelical History) and then Part 2 (Reframing Gender), she states, 

"While rights can be a legitimate issue, there is a kingdom value that supersedes rights and is more representative of kingdom ways. On the other side, the gospel redefines considerations of power and authority in terms of humility, sacrifice, and suffering, not simply as qualifiers but as essential components, even starting points...In various ways God is presenting a witness to the world through the life of the church, called to unity and holiness, and so issues of rights, authority, individual benefit, and duties must flow out of this larger understanding. As a result, we may gain new insights on old topics as we interact with essential kingdom themes that speak of our corporate identity in Christ in the new age and how the church is to glorify God as the body of Christ."

This book is not an easy read, not because it is written in scholarly terminology or is dependent on knowledge the average reader has yet to attain. Rather, it is not an easy read, because Lee-Barnewell challenges her readers to step back from entrenched positions on the "gender issue" in the church and to see it through the lens of eternal, overarching kingdom principles. Getting out of our binary, "right/wrong," and "true/false" thinking is not easy. That does not mean that we won't land somewhere on the continuum of women's role, but rather that we will land with greater humility and respect for one another. The result will be unity in the midst of our diversity. We won't split into factions or run off those with whom we disagree, but we'll shine as loving truth bearers in a dark world of argumentation, division and attack.

Only Love Creates Unity Amidst Diversity

Disclaimer: This series of posts on women's role is written primarily for my family, friends and associates who are members of the Vancouver Church of Christ and secondarily for those who are members of the ICOC denomination. It is motivated by the discussion, now ongoing in at least some ICOC churches, regarding what the Bible does and does not say about women's role in the church. All others are certainly welcome to read and comment, but please keep in mind the specific context that motivates my comments.

**************
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!

Women's Role: Can We Be Unified in Our Diversity?

Disclaimer: This post is written primarily for my family, friends and associates who are members of the Vancouver Church of Christ and secondarily for those who are members of the ICOC denomination. It is motivated by the discussion, now ongoing in at least some ICOC churches, regarding what the Bible does and does not say about women's role in the church. All others are certainly welcome to read and comment, but please keep in mind the specific context that motivates my comments.

*********************

At the beginning of this year, the minister of my local church family, introduced a discussion of women's role in the church. He has preached three sermons and is in the process of writing a series of six articles regarding where he has landed on this issue and why. (See the sermon series "Half the Church" and the blog posts attached: https://www.vancouverchurchofchrist.org/sermons).

Before digging into this, a couple of definitions would be helpful:

• Egalitarianism is derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level). In theological spheres, egalitarianism generally means equality in authority and responsibilities between genders.

• Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, church leadership and elsewhere.  

I've used this opportunity to study this issue out in much greater detail and depth than ever before. Certainly, as we in Canadian society strive to be ever more egalitarian and inclusive, this is a timely topic that requires discussion. Yet, this is not a new discussion; the role of women in the church has been debated since the very beginning of Christianity as is even obvious in the pages of the New Testament, as well as in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Sincere, knowledgeable, Bible believing, scholars, theologians, academics and other Jesus followers, have "landed" at various places on the continuum between strict complementarianism and ardent egalitarianism and, I think, always will. Such is the situation in which we find ourselves in the Vancouver Church of Christ. All the preaching, writing of blog posts and articles, reading of recommended references, discussions and even respectful debates will not get all of us to land on exactly the same place. This is an issue for which the biblical texts presents, at least somewhat, conflicting perspectives, depending on how one (a) views and uses these texts, and thus (b) interprets said texts. But the bottom line is that sincere, knowledgeable, Bible believing, Christ followers can (and will) legitimately come to differing conclusions and convictions about women's role.

Some would say that we just need to go with "the plain reading of the text." However, I agree with those who have noted that we as a denomination (ICOC) and as a local church (VCOC) have long ago left the shores of "following just the plain reading of the text." In regard to so many issues, we have noted that just a plain reading of the text isn't sufficient. Proper exegesis always involves taking historical, cultural and literary contexts into account. When it comes to women's role, even the strict complementarians must acknowledge that we actually don't put the plain reading of the text into practice, when it comes to either 1 Corinthians 14:33–39 or 1 Timothy 2:8–15. How certain are we that everything we say is culturally dependent in the Bible, actually is culturally dependent and thus is not obligatory? And if the two texts above are culturally dependent, then what else in the Bible is also culturally dependent? When Timothy and Titus are told that an elder/shepherd/overseer "must be the husband of one wife," is that culturally dependent, and if so, does that mean we are free to appoint someone as an elder who is "the wife of one husband?"

In my 30 plus years as a member of ICOC churches, in which I served 25 years in the full-time paid ministry in Canadian churches of Christ, we have come to a place that is neither strict complementarianism nor ardent egalitarianism. We actually practice a compromise of the two. True, we don't appoint women as evangelists, but we do appoint women as women's ministry leaders, who are financially supported by the church and work together with their male ministry partners to advance the gospel among both men and women. True, we don't appoint women as elders/shepherds/overseers – because the text clearly says that an elder must be the husband (Gk = aner) of one wife (Gk = gune) – but neither do we appoint men as elders without their wives as their shepherding partner, and many of our churches appoint "shepherding couples" and even single women as "shepherds." Women also lead in many ways in ICOC churches and ICOC parachurch organizations - children's ministry, teen ministry, HOPE worldwide, church boards, mission societies, etc. Maybe we've landed where we are presently, i.e., neither complementarian nor egalitarian, consciously or not, as a way to promote greater involvement, influence and impact of the women in our churches, while at the same time respecting the convictions of those who are complementarian.  In light of the passages where Paul says that he would not do anything that would cause his brother or sister to stumble, shouldn't that be the underlying principle that guides us as we strive as a church to "land" somewhere on the issue of women's role. Maybe, where we've already landed is where we should be, for the sake of unity, while continuing to discuss how to promote greater involvement, influence and impact of women in our churches. 

To be honest, I, personally, have "landed" on the egalitarian side of this issue. I will strive to explain why in some future blog posts. However, I recognize that not an insignificant number of other sincere, truth-seeking, Bible believing, disciples of Jesus, who have also studied, prayed and discussed women's role, have "landed" more on the complementarian side. While I don't believe any of us sees this as a salvation issue, my fear is that it can, very easily and quickly, become a fellowship issue – that is, if we as a local church (or denomination) land on either side, what about those sincere sisters and brothers who disagree and for whom it is truly a conscience and conviction issue?  

Is there a way to continue to promote the impact and influence of women in our church families without alienating those among us who, to their credit, have already accommodated themselves to an egalitarian leaning practice? And, it must be noted that they have done so to a degree way beyond what the comfort level that their complementarian convictions would normally allow. Is there a way to recognize the needs, the wishes, the hopes and the convictions of both egalitarians and complementarians without creating a conscience issue for either group, and thus a potential fellowship rift? Do we really believe that practicing strict egalitarianism would advance the gospel, while complementarians among us might be forced, because of conscience, to disengage or even leave our fellowship? I, for one, believe that a fellowship rift or exodus because of this issue would hinder the gospel. However, if we can find a way for us all to live, work, pray, serve and preach together, in spite of our diverse opinions and convictions on the issue of women's role, I think we might just might make the gospel more attractive to our contemporary society. We could show the world that the love of Christ is the force that binds us, even when we differ in our opinions or convictions. We can be to the world the much needed example that unity is not uniformity, but rather unity is achieved and maintained, in the midst of diversity, when faith expresses itself in love. 

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6).