Debated whether or not to write this. But I’m getting nowhere trying to understand the other side without someone to help me through their thinking. It’s a long comment! Sorry for that! But I’m fighting hard to understand those who I currently disagree with, so this is a genuine question. How does Shenvi’s response force the conclusion that, “In effect, he is worried, ‘Don’t let them do to my race, class, and gender what they did to my manhood!’”? Let me lay out my understanding of things so it’s clear why this line confuses me and also so you can correct me.
I take Shenvi to mean this: (1) Scripture does not permit homosexuality or transgenderism (as all sides agree). (2) The current egalitarian argument (CEA) of du Mez, Barr, yourself, etc. that is being used against AmEvComp can be employed in defense of homosexuality and transgenderism. (3) Therefore, we should reject CEA. (To be clear, point #3 doesn’t necessitate that the conclusion of CEA [that AmEvComp is unscriptural] is wrong. It only necessitates that the argument used to support this conclusion is wrong.)
Like Shenvi, the use of CEA also concerns me, *not* because I’m worried about my own interests, but because of the students I pastor. (I use “pastor” loosely, because none of the students are believers nor do their parents even attend church. I’m more an evangelist.) For them, being part of the LGBTQ+ community is integral to their identity. This is one of the biggest obstacles between them and Christ. It is very personally painful to watch them make so many self-destructive choices. This is why I do not want to see an illegitimate argument advanced that strengthens what is harmful to these students.
Yes, like Shenvi I’m admitting the current culture war plays into my concern of CEA. But before I’m charged with using the current culture war as my *reason* for rejecting egalitarianism, note that I’m *not* *necessarily* rejecting egalitarianism itself. I’m rejecting *this* argument for egalitarianism because of other givens (points #1 and #2 above) which I have a heightened awareness of because of the current culture wars. So while I am unpersuaded of egalitarianism at the moment, that does not mean I’ve shut the door on the position altogether, only on this argument for it. If egalitarianism is correct, I’m looking for another argument to convince me, since I don’t reach this conclusion in my own reading of Scripture and since I find CEA faulty.
Finally then, back to my question: How does Shenvi’s response force the conclusion that, “In effect, he is worried, ‘Don’t let them do to my race, class, and gender what they did to my manhood!’”? Let me continue to lay all my cards on the table. While you think Shenvi’s post only serves to reinforce your conclusion, from my vantage point, your post only serves to reinforce *his* conclusion, that Boulverism is being used against him. He’s made an argument in good faith and the response was to question his motives. (And if it is said that explained his motives himself, that’s exactly why I included my thought process above, to demonstrate that one can be concerned about the use of CEA without it being for self-serving reasons. I don’t take Shenvi to have self-serving motives, I take him to be someone who is concerned not to advance arguments that could be used to undercut what we all believe to be the teaching of Scripture, that homosexuality, etc. are not permitted.)
Since I’ve written so much already, one final caveat: I agree and share concerns that there are strands (I don’t have the knowledge to say how many or few) in my camp who have seriously abused complementarianism. I have listened to the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill and find Driscoll’s approach to many things abhorrent. Wherever that exists, I want it stamped out. Yet it does not *necessarily* follow (it could! It could not!) that complementarianism is wrong or that CEA is an argument we should use.
Again, genuine question! I’ve only laid out my thinking so that you can address it. Please, show me where I’m wrong!
I'm convinced of the Egal. case by books and authors focusing primarily on Scripture. Of the authors cited in the article, I've only read Barr. ISTM her book is intended as a complement to the ones focused on Scripture translation and interpretation. I found it interesting and helpful in understanding some of the evolution of views. But IMO, if one is not persuaded by the arguments like those by, e.g., Bartlett, Westfall, Keener, Belleville, Payne, etc., Barr's book is probably not going to make the difference.
The fact is that the Bible teaches what we now call "complementarianism." No amount of obfuscation with history or sociology or glib talk of "sunglasses" can change that.
Saw a fairly relaxed debate on unbelievable last night between a British egalitarian and an American complimentarian, though it made me realize how much extra random stuff american complementarianism has compared to other forms.
I see where both sides are coming from when it is a soft complimentarian vs an egalitarian. It reminds me of calvinists arguing that romans 9 teaches calvinism whereas the rest of the bible uses the language of choice in a way that seems incompatible with calvinism (whereas molinism attempts to accommodate both). Similarly 1 tim 2 seems the equivalent of romans 9. So many other places seem to have women in every position of leadership would be the arminian equivalent (most notably romans 16). So sure, some might do what the catholics tend to do and say women can't be priests but they can be prime ministers, or what the pentecostals often do and say complimentarianism in marriage and egalitarianism in the church and workplace.
Where I am lost (and even more lost after reading American comp literature) is this whole idea that there is a biblical manhood or a biblical womanhood.
First they cite the curse - but if I were to read the rest of the curse like many of them do I would never let someone having birth have painkillers, never use weedkiller to get rid of thorns in the garden, never accept a tea break at work. The curse is a bad thing (I mean good in one sense of God's justice in withdrawing from people that want to be independent)
Next, if I were going for an example of biblical man hood I can't exactly look at the old testament - sure its a male focused collection of stories, but it is a story of person after person just messing up horribly and then the redemptive example and mission of Jesus comes along.
But if I look at Jesus - who really is our example - the problem is that surely women are meant to imitate Jesus too. It seems that many usa complimentarians are saying there is an effeminate part of Jesus (the lamb of God - aka when he is nice, caring and turning the other cheek) and a masculine side of the lion of judah (arguing with pharisees, clearing the temple). You certainly don't get from the scriptures that men are meant to immitate one set of Jesus' qualities and women immitate another. We all have a duty to immitate Christ. Saying that men are rescuers, leaders and fighters and this is the part that men (and not women) should immitate is completely reading your own culture into the text. To me, it strikes me as even heretical as changing the trinity so that the eternal relationship between the Father and Son looks the way you think Biblical gender roles should be
Great response to a response to a response... grew up in AmEvComp and can definitely say that even as a child I remember hearing certain things from the Pulpit and thinking "Wait, that's really not from Bible... that sounds a lot like the Andy Griffith Show or Father knows Best?" I'm not 100% settled on where I fall on the Comp/Egal spectrum now, but I appreciate your writing as well as the authors you've mentioned.
Also, now I have a new movie to check out with my kids... thanks!
How could an academician possibly think he could get away with attacking a person's motives (Neil just wants to protect 'Whiteness, Hetero, Mid-Classness), without engaging with the substance of his response? Prof. Bird, please address this Theoretical Chemist, POC's respectful responses in a more substantive and respectful / less condescending and dismissive manner. Please.
There is a need for spectacles that correct for astigmatism that sees 1 Tim 2.11-15 clearly, but goes blurry when looking at Jesus teaching on unrighteous wealth, such as Luke 16:13.
I’m curious about the defense he offers that proves your point. I agree that the evidence points to this and it is something I have been wrestling with. When I was a child in the early 80’s it was presented to me as a given that slavery was wrong and a very good thing that abolitionism had happened. The same with the civil war and the victory of the north. Women’s right to vote was ok, but she was supposed to vote as her husband did. It was ok for women to work, if they didn’t have children to care for etc. (I was raised in the heart of American fundamental evangelicalism) My struggle is this. All this things, slavery, women being educated and working outside the home were questionable at some time in the past. They were downright contentions. But now they are accepted as fact. We point to verses that were used to justify slavery and say that those who used those verses were seriously misguided about context etc. The same arguments are being used now for women as pastors and also for homosexual marriage validity. There is a fear that the whole thing is slipping away and what will we be left with? Have you written articles regarding this that I could read?
In regard to slavery, the passages that condone (but limit) it are mostly OT. In the NT, it is accepted as a reality, but in Eph. 5, after giving many details about how the slave is to properly obey the master, Paul turns around and tells the master to treat the slaves "the same way," effectively rendering slavery meaningless. In Philemon, he stops just short of insisting that the recipient of the letter to manumit the escaped slave Onesimus. So there is a rough trajectory toward getting rid of slavery, at least for those purporting to be the people of God.
The male/female issue comes up even more often. Many of us see a large number of passages -- mostly in the NT, but also in the OT -- that affirm fully equal status of women and men in both home and ministry. We see only a few that appear to run counter to that, and to us, none are unambiguous.
But the case for LGBT is different. In both OT and NT, there are passages that clearly condemn such practices, and none that affirm. The only way around that would be to pretend that the only instruction that has any force in either OT or NT is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you," and ignore every other commandment and instruction.
While it would be easy to dismiss these egalitarian accusations that complementarians are the cultural captives as an audacious counter attack right at the point of their own weakness, it is, perhaps, also an admission that using the Bible to express, rather than transform, cultural norms is all they know. What if egalitarians are so captive to their culture and they assume, like most people, that others are just like them, that they cannot imagine that others are not also having their sociology drive their Bible interpretation? In other words, what if they are projecting their own cultural captivity?
Historians of South African Apartheid, the Jim Crow South, and US immigration and citizenship laws will note that of the two of you, people who use the term “whiteness” should be taken more seriously as a matter of fact, history, and law than people who don’t take the term seriously.
Hmm. This wasn't the most thoughtful response. I gave three historical examples that actually use "whiteness" in law and history. No one "fell" for anything. The term was actually part of the law and practice. It was a designation of racial identity. In the US, it was actually litigated before the Supreme Court. It was real and had real world physical and legal implications.
And rather than post counter examples, weigh any evidence, or flaws in my argument, you mount an unserious and jejune response by merely, and foolishly, calling it "ridiculous" and "absurd."
Yours was not a wise or careful response. I can imagine all sorts of reasons why you are unable or unwilling to mount a thoughtful rejoinder. I will merely note how witless it was.
Debated whether or not to write this. But I’m getting nowhere trying to understand the other side without someone to help me through their thinking. It’s a long comment! Sorry for that! But I’m fighting hard to understand those who I currently disagree with, so this is a genuine question. How does Shenvi’s response force the conclusion that, “In effect, he is worried, ‘Don’t let them do to my race, class, and gender what they did to my manhood!’”? Let me lay out my understanding of things so it’s clear why this line confuses me and also so you can correct me.
I take Shenvi to mean this: (1) Scripture does not permit homosexuality or transgenderism (as all sides agree). (2) The current egalitarian argument (CEA) of du Mez, Barr, yourself, etc. that is being used against AmEvComp can be employed in defense of homosexuality and transgenderism. (3) Therefore, we should reject CEA. (To be clear, point #3 doesn’t necessitate that the conclusion of CEA [that AmEvComp is unscriptural] is wrong. It only necessitates that the argument used to support this conclusion is wrong.)
Like Shenvi, the use of CEA also concerns me, *not* because I’m worried about my own interests, but because of the students I pastor. (I use “pastor” loosely, because none of the students are believers nor do their parents even attend church. I’m more an evangelist.) For them, being part of the LGBTQ+ community is integral to their identity. This is one of the biggest obstacles between them and Christ. It is very personally painful to watch them make so many self-destructive choices. This is why I do not want to see an illegitimate argument advanced that strengthens what is harmful to these students.
Yes, like Shenvi I’m admitting the current culture war plays into my concern of CEA. But before I’m charged with using the current culture war as my *reason* for rejecting egalitarianism, note that I’m *not* *necessarily* rejecting egalitarianism itself. I’m rejecting *this* argument for egalitarianism because of other givens (points #1 and #2 above) which I have a heightened awareness of because of the current culture wars. So while I am unpersuaded of egalitarianism at the moment, that does not mean I’ve shut the door on the position altogether, only on this argument for it. If egalitarianism is correct, I’m looking for another argument to convince me, since I don’t reach this conclusion in my own reading of Scripture and since I find CEA faulty.
Finally then, back to my question: How does Shenvi’s response force the conclusion that, “In effect, he is worried, ‘Don’t let them do to my race, class, and gender what they did to my manhood!’”? Let me continue to lay all my cards on the table. While you think Shenvi’s post only serves to reinforce your conclusion, from my vantage point, your post only serves to reinforce *his* conclusion, that Boulverism is being used against him. He’s made an argument in good faith and the response was to question his motives. (And if it is said that explained his motives himself, that’s exactly why I included my thought process above, to demonstrate that one can be concerned about the use of CEA without it being for self-serving reasons. I don’t take Shenvi to have self-serving motives, I take him to be someone who is concerned not to advance arguments that could be used to undercut what we all believe to be the teaching of Scripture, that homosexuality, etc. are not permitted.)
Since I’ve written so much already, one final caveat: I agree and share concerns that there are strands (I don’t have the knowledge to say how many or few) in my camp who have seriously abused complementarianism. I have listened to the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill and find Driscoll’s approach to many things abhorrent. Wherever that exists, I want it stamped out. Yet it does not *necessarily* follow (it could! It could not!) that complementarianism is wrong or that CEA is an argument we should use.
Again, genuine question! I’ve only laid out my thinking so that you can address it. Please, show me where I’m wrong!
No response yet. Perhaps a case of "tl;dr."
I'm convinced of the Egal. case by books and authors focusing primarily on Scripture. Of the authors cited in the article, I've only read Barr. ISTM her book is intended as a complement to the ones focused on Scripture translation and interpretation. I found it interesting and helpful in understanding some of the evolution of views. But IMO, if one is not persuaded by the arguments like those by, e.g., Bartlett, Westfall, Keener, Belleville, Payne, etc., Barr's book is probably not going to make the difference.
Yep. Most AmEvComps I speak to aren't even aware that sunglasses exist!
They know about Aviators though...
The fact is that the Bible teaches what we now call "complementarianism." No amount of obfuscation with history or sociology or glib talk of "sunglasses" can change that.
Saw a fairly relaxed debate on unbelievable last night between a British egalitarian and an American complimentarian, though it made me realize how much extra random stuff american complementarianism has compared to other forms.
I see where both sides are coming from when it is a soft complimentarian vs an egalitarian. It reminds me of calvinists arguing that romans 9 teaches calvinism whereas the rest of the bible uses the language of choice in a way that seems incompatible with calvinism (whereas molinism attempts to accommodate both). Similarly 1 tim 2 seems the equivalent of romans 9. So many other places seem to have women in every position of leadership would be the arminian equivalent (most notably romans 16). So sure, some might do what the catholics tend to do and say women can't be priests but they can be prime ministers, or what the pentecostals often do and say complimentarianism in marriage and egalitarianism in the church and workplace.
Where I am lost (and even more lost after reading American comp literature) is this whole idea that there is a biblical manhood or a biblical womanhood.
First they cite the curse - but if I were to read the rest of the curse like many of them do I would never let someone having birth have painkillers, never use weedkiller to get rid of thorns in the garden, never accept a tea break at work. The curse is a bad thing (I mean good in one sense of God's justice in withdrawing from people that want to be independent)
Next, if I were going for an example of biblical man hood I can't exactly look at the old testament - sure its a male focused collection of stories, but it is a story of person after person just messing up horribly and then the redemptive example and mission of Jesus comes along.
But if I look at Jesus - who really is our example - the problem is that surely women are meant to imitate Jesus too. It seems that many usa complimentarians are saying there is an effeminate part of Jesus (the lamb of God - aka when he is nice, caring and turning the other cheek) and a masculine side of the lion of judah (arguing with pharisees, clearing the temple). You certainly don't get from the scriptures that men are meant to immitate one set of Jesus' qualities and women immitate another. We all have a duty to immitate Christ. Saying that men are rescuers, leaders and fighters and this is the part that men (and not women) should immitate is completely reading your own culture into the text. To me, it strikes me as even heretical as changing the trinity so that the eternal relationship between the Father and Son looks the way you think Biblical gender roles should be
Great response to a response to a response... grew up in AmEvComp and can definitely say that even as a child I remember hearing certain things from the Pulpit and thinking "Wait, that's really not from Bible... that sounds a lot like the Andy Griffith Show or Father knows Best?" I'm not 100% settled on where I fall on the Comp/Egal spectrum now, but I appreciate your writing as well as the authors you've mentioned.
Also, now I have a new movie to check out with my kids... thanks!
How could an academician possibly think he could get away with attacking a person's motives (Neil just wants to protect 'Whiteness, Hetero, Mid-Classness), without engaging with the substance of his response? Prof. Bird, please address this Theoretical Chemist, POC's respectful responses in a more substantive and respectful / less condescending and dismissive manner. Please.
Good on ya, Mike.
There is a need for spectacles that correct for astigmatism that sees 1 Tim 2.11-15 clearly, but goes blurry when looking at Jesus teaching on unrighteous wealth, such as Luke 16:13.
https://www.kingwatch.co.nz/Christian_Political_Economy/unrighteous_wealth.htm
I’m curious about the defense he offers that proves your point. I agree that the evidence points to this and it is something I have been wrestling with. When I was a child in the early 80’s it was presented to me as a given that slavery was wrong and a very good thing that abolitionism had happened. The same with the civil war and the victory of the north. Women’s right to vote was ok, but she was supposed to vote as her husband did. It was ok for women to work, if they didn’t have children to care for etc. (I was raised in the heart of American fundamental evangelicalism) My struggle is this. All this things, slavery, women being educated and working outside the home were questionable at some time in the past. They were downright contentions. But now they are accepted as fact. We point to verses that were used to justify slavery and say that those who used those verses were seriously misguided about context etc. The same arguments are being used now for women as pastors and also for homosexual marriage validity. There is a fear that the whole thing is slipping away and what will we be left with? Have you written articles regarding this that I could read?
I would note a few things:
In regard to slavery, the passages that condone (but limit) it are mostly OT. In the NT, it is accepted as a reality, but in Eph. 5, after giving many details about how the slave is to properly obey the master, Paul turns around and tells the master to treat the slaves "the same way," effectively rendering slavery meaningless. In Philemon, he stops just short of insisting that the recipient of the letter to manumit the escaped slave Onesimus. So there is a rough trajectory toward getting rid of slavery, at least for those purporting to be the people of God.
The male/female issue comes up even more often. Many of us see a large number of passages -- mostly in the NT, but also in the OT -- that affirm fully equal status of women and men in both home and ministry. We see only a few that appear to run counter to that, and to us, none are unambiguous.
But the case for LGBT is different. In both OT and NT, there are passages that clearly condemn such practices, and none that affirm. The only way around that would be to pretend that the only instruction that has any force in either OT or NT is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you," and ignore every other commandment and instruction.
While it would be easy to dismiss these egalitarian accusations that complementarians are the cultural captives as an audacious counter attack right at the point of their own weakness, it is, perhaps, also an admission that using the Bible to express, rather than transform, cultural norms is all they know. What if egalitarians are so captive to their culture and they assume, like most people, that others are just like them, that they cannot imagine that others are not also having their sociology drive their Bible interpretation? In other words, what if they are projecting their own cultural captivity?
Anyone who seriously uses the term "whiteness" is not to be taken seriously.
Historians of South African Apartheid, the Jim Crow South, and US immigration and citizenship laws will note that of the two of you, people who use the term “whiteness” should be taken more seriously as a matter of fact, history, and law than people who don’t take the term seriously.
No, they shouldn't. It's a ridiculous category. Just because some people have fallen for it, doesn't make it serious.
Plus, you've shown that you don't understand any way. It's not the "condition of being white", although it suggests that.
You've perfectly demonstrated why it's absurd.
Hmm. This wasn't the most thoughtful response. I gave three historical examples that actually use "whiteness" in law and history. No one "fell" for anything. The term was actually part of the law and practice. It was a designation of racial identity. In the US, it was actually litigated before the Supreme Court. It was real and had real world physical and legal implications.
And rather than post counter examples, weigh any evidence, or flaws in my argument, you mount an unserious and jejune response by merely, and foolishly, calling it "ridiculous" and "absurd."
Yours was not a wise or careful response. I can imagine all sorts of reasons why you are unable or unwilling to mount a thoughtful rejoinder. I will merely note how witless it was.
Thanks! Interesting from a primarily observer's position. I wonder to what extent this impacts on the Australian scene? Perhaps that's another blog.