Scripture and Gender: Response to Schreiner (Part 2)
As a follow-up to last week’s post on Scripture and Gender responding to Tom Schreiner’s CT article, I thought I’d add some comments and answer some questions.
First, I still believe that egalitarianism is more biblical than complementarianism, even though both can be influenced by their surrounding cultures.
Added to that, both sides can be a bit “choosey” in what they want to emphasize in Scripture as both positions are engaging in contextualization in light of what is believable and practical in their own setting. For example, no complementarian would say that the head of the household should be able to force his daughter to marry a business associate or compel a son to join the military, even if people, including some Christians, did that in antiquity. Similarly, egalitarians have to admit that there are some prohibitions about women pertaining to head-coverings and speech, although we often struggle to understand precisely what the issue was and how it does or does not apply today. Nobody is practicing gender roles, relationships, and authority just as it was in the first century.
Second, the more I think about it the more I support a “trajectory” approach to biblical hermeneutics when it comes to gender. Trust me, this is something you need to know about because it helps you traverse ethical dilemmas presented by the first-century for those of us who live in the twenty-first century.