Scripture and Gender: A Response to Tom Schreiner (Part 1)

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Prof. Thomas R. Schreiner is a preeminent biblical scholar in whom there is no malice or malevolence. He is by conviction, complementarian, and yet holds his view with humility rather than hubris. His manifold volumes ooze with exegetical insights, pastoral applications, and a concern to nurture disciples upon the word of God.

He recently wrote a piece for CT on Gender Questions Should Send Us To Scripture where he argued that complementarians and egalitarians are both influenced by culture and therefore Scripture should be the final arbiter in the beliefs that we hold to be God-given and true.

Schreiner is certainly open to the prospect that complementarianism has been unduly influenced by cultures with a patriarchal bent and American vision of life. But he urges egalitarians to remember that that door swings both ways and the sexual revolution rather than Scripture might shape their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality. No one is immune to cultural influence and no one is neutral in approaching Scripture. Thus, Schreiner opines:

[S]ince there are cultural arguments, forces and pressures on every side, we must always return to the scriptures to decipher their meaning—and I believe that meaning can be retrieved. At the end of the day, it should come down to whoever offers the most plausible and persuasive reading of the biblical texts in question. The complementarian view isn’t nullified by saying Trump and Republicanism and the egalitarian reading isn’t contradicted by crying out feminism and liberalism. Yet I worry that in some circles, cultural arguments receive precedence over scriptural ones—as if they alone have the final say on the truth or falsity of a particular biblical interpretation.

I concur insofar that everyone is influenced for better or worse by their cultures and sub-cultures. Whether you lean complementarian or egalitarian there are pressures pushing us in various directions. Also, I agree that our best exchanges happen when we discuss which paradigm better accounts for the depictions of Christian men and women in the early church, their roles, ministries, titles, and work in light of the apostolic commands and prohibitions. I’d rather discuss Rom 16:1-7 and 1 Tim 2:12 over warm beverages than trade tirades over twitter with taunts of “miscreant misogynist” or “flatulent femo-nazi.” Bible study in person is better than bitter impersonal polemics.

At the same time, I think we have to do more than say, “Let’s reasoning over Scripture rather than listen to culture.” I think we have to wrestle with an interactive connection between the “catholic consensus” over Scripture and the “development of doctrine” from Scripture.

By “catholicity,” I mean an ecclesial culture that meets with consensus in the ancient and global churches. For me, this catholicity rules out the fanatical absurdities of religious progressive and conservative varieties. Against progressives, no, Paul cannot be cut out of the canon, his epistles are generative for the rule of faith, so open your mouth and swallow some Thessalonians, it will cure you of your canonical deficiency syndrome. Against conservatives, no, women can be police officers and can have a job outside the home, if you don’t like it, well, maybe you’d be happier as a Muslim. The catholic consensus is a bouncer that won’t let idiosyncratic views inside the door.

Given that Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, some Protestants do not ordain women to the priesthood or episcopacy, you could reasonably argue that egalitarianism fails the “catholicity” test as well. But before my complementarian friends yell, “Aha,” I’d also point out that the non-Protestant denominations, even while they restrict holy orders to men, have absolutely no problem with women speaking and teaching in church. In fact, I’ve heard firsthand accounts from women saying that they have had more opportunities to teach in Catholic and Orthodox churches than in evangelical ones!

However, this is where I would point out that catholicity and tradition are imperfect, even susceptible to corruption. I’m not a fan of Mary as co-redemptrix or Papal infallibility, so catholicity needs to be balanced with two things.

First, ad fontes apostolorum, which means a return to apostolic sources. If we retrieve the original apostolic practice where women had a prominent place in the ministry of Jesus and the churches, then we observe that this precedent was eclipsed by the growing patriarchal culture that took hold in the church. That is not to say that the equality of the women in the earliest churches was the same as fourth-wave feminism or would be approved by Emily’s List. But women did have a part in the leadership and didactic life of the earliest churches. If our churches today are to be semper reformandum (always reforming), then they must constantly conform themselves to the ethos and example to the apostolic churches as the normative expression of their faith. I think Schreiner and I are in agreement that Scripture stands over culture and tradition at this point.

Second, improving our religion by prosecuting the trajectories of Holy Scripture. Vincent of Lérins said that orthodoxy is that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all,” implying antiquity and consensus. However, Lérins also understood the possibility of the “improvement of our religion.” Here one might consider the crystallization of Trinitarian dogma and the eventual prohibition of slavery to be the logical working out of scriptural pressures and moral imperatives. In other words, catholicity is not cryogenics and includes the capacity for catharsis (reform) and chrysalis (growth of doctrine).  In fact, the Catholic document Dei Verbum – basically a Catholic equivalent of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy – affirms the possibility of organic growth and development in doctrine. It states: “For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience.” Or, as the puritan pastor John Robinson said, God always has new light to shed upon his word.

So I agree with Schreiner that, yes, we turn to Scripture since it is the normative account of our faith. And here I believe the egalitarian reading makes better sense of the phenomenon of Scripture with OT female prophets like Huldah (2 Kings 22), the various women with their roles and titles in Pauline churches (Romans 16), and household leaders like Nympha (Col 4:15-16). So in terms of ad fontes and sola scriptura, I’m backing the egalitarian reading, even if I’m going to put my hands on my head for a few minutes as I meditate on 1 Tim 2.12.

But where I disagree with Schreiner is that we need to also prosecute the logic or trajectories of Scripture. It is no surprise that feminism emerged out of a Christianized context. Scholars like Larry Siedentop (Invention of the Individual) and Tom Holland (Dominion) have shown how a text like Gal 3:28 and its anthropological entailments underlie the libertarian and sexual revolutions of western civilization. Paul did not write or endorse the Equal Rights Act, it would be foreign to him, but because of Gen 1:27-28 and Gal 3:28, we have the Equal Rights Act. Even if egalitarianism is not fully found in Scripture, I submit it is generated by Scripture.

In the next post, I’ll respond to comments and queries that people bring up! Subscribe if you don’t want to miss out.