“PRISCILLA AND AQUILA” VOLUME 20, NUMBER 4 INSTRUCTED APOLLOS MORE” AUTUMN 2006 PERFECTLY IN THE WAY OF THE LORD” (ACTS 18)”

Celebrating 20 Years! 5 The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church N.T. Wright

11 Chapter 16 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Dispensable Tagalong or Valuable Envelope? Mark Reasoner Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter 1987) 17 Head Over Heels: A Theology of Leadership in Christian Marriage Elaine A. Heath

21 A Meta-Study of the Debate Over the Meaning of “Head” (Kephale) in Paul’s Writings Alan Johnson

Vol. 1, No. 2 (Spring 1987) 31 Christian Women and Leadership Roberta Hestenes

37 God’s Reign is the Reign of Right Relationships Charles Knowles

42 The New Evangelical Subordinationism: Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 1990) Reading Inequality into the Trinity Phillip Cary

46 Post-1970s Evangelical Responses to the Emancipation of Women Kevin Giles

Vol. 14, No. 2 (Spring 2000) 53 Egalitarian Pioneers: Betty Friedan or Catherine Booth? Mimi Haddad

61 Book Review: Gilbert Bilezikian’s Beyond Sex Roles, 3rd ed. Glen Scorgie Vol. 15, No. 4 (Fall 2001) 63 Poem: Living Water Chelsea DeArmond

Cover image: Paquius Proculus and his wife, wall painting from Pompeii, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, Italy. Photo: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, N.Y.

Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer 2005)

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Editors’ Ink � We are very pleased to publish Priscilla Papers as its reputation and influence have grown around this expanded edition of Pris- the world. Subscriptions to Priscilla Papers and CBE’s magazine, cilla Papers in celebration of the Mutuality, are included with CBE membership. Back issues and journal’s twentieth anniversary. non-member subscriptions are also available for purchase (see During the last twenty years, its p. 62 for membership and subscription forms). biblical scholarship on equality in CBE publications Kevin Giles and Chelsea DeArmond, the church, home, and world has Guest Editors reached hundreds of college and Christians for Biblical Equality is an evangelical nonprofit or- seminary libraries and the homes of thousands of lay people, ganization committed to articulating and promoting the bibli- pastors, and ministry leaders around the world. cal basis for gift-based rather than gender-based ministry in the The history of Priscilla Papers church, home, and world. Along with membership services, an online bookstore (www.equalitydepot.com), chapter meetings, Priscilla Papers is actually older than its publisher, Christians for and international conferences, CBE publications play a key role in Biblical Equality. The journal began as part of the vision of Cath- spreading the message of biblical equality and justice. erine Kroeger, the first president of CBE. In order to address the CBE publications uphold a high view of Scripture and offer critical need for more accurate and faithful interpretations of the both popular and scholarly resources from different cultures and Bible regarding gender, she and her husband, Richard, began a evangelical denominations. In the last three years, Priscilla Papers study center in their home. In the winter of 1987, they published journal and Mutuality magazine have received nine Evangelical the first issue of Priscilla Papers, edited by their daughter, Eliza- Press Association awards in the categories of biblical exposition, beth. Christians for Biblical Equality began in late 1987 and was critical review, first-person narrative, and poetry. Subscriptions to incorporated on January 2, 1988. CBE’s free electronic journal, E-Quality, have surpassed our print Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, who had been an editor for a large publications and continue to grow. The CBE Scroll (blog.cbeinter- publishing house and a leader in her church in New York, began national.org), CBE’s first web log, was launched in 2005 and has editing Priscilla Papers in 1989. Her father and grandfather were sparked insightful discussions of current events related to evan- known for their biblical scholarship. Under her leadership and gelicals and gender. skill, the journal grew in breadth of content and in circulation. Carol Thiessen became editor in 2000. Carol had been on the editorial staff of Christianity Today for many years. Her term was Priscilla Papers Editors, 1989–present cut short when she became ill with a deadly cancer and passed to the presence of the Lord in 2003. CBE staff member Victoria Peterson-Hilleque served as act- ing editor until William Spencer became editor in 2004. His wife, Aída, is the editorial consultant. Both Bill and Aída are authors, pastors, and professors. The gifted editorial and design team they have assembled will launch Priscilla Papers into its third decade. Gretchen Gaebelein Hull Carol Thiessen† William David Spencer Each of these editors has made distinctive contributions to 1989–2000 2000–2003 2004–present

Board of Reference: Miriam Adeney, Carl E. Armerding, Myron S. Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Linda L. Belleville, Anthony Campolo, Lois McKinney Douglas, Gordon D. Fee, Richard Foster, W. Ward Gasque, J. Lee Grady, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Vernon Grounds, David Joel Hamilton, Roberta Hestenes, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Donald Joy, Robbie Joy, Craig S. Keener, John R. President / Publisher • Mimi Haddad Kohlenberger III, David Mains, Kari Torjesen Malcolm, Brenda Salter McNeil, Editor • William David Spencer Alvera Mickelsen, Roger Nicole, Virgil Olson, LaDonna Osborn, T. L. Osborn, Guest Editors • Kevin Giles and Chelsea DeArmond John E. Phelan, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Ruth A. Tucker, Graphic Designer • Deb Beatty Mel Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Timothy Weber, Jeanette S. G. Yep • Jenilee Morrison Editorial Assistant Board of Directors: Gwen Dewey, Mary Duncan, Martine Extermann, Janet President Emerita • Catherine Clark Kroeger George, Sarah Harrison, Tom McCarthy, Virginia Patterson, Nancy Graf Peters, Editors Emerita • Gretchen Gaebelein Hull & Carol Thiessen† Sara Robertson, Arbutus Sider, Rhonda Walton, Dennis Watson

Priscilla Papers (issn 0898–753X) is published quarterly by Christians for Biblical Equality, © 2006. 122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218 • Minneapolis, MN 55404–2451 • phone: 612–872–6898 • fax: 612-872-6891 e-mail: [email protected] • web: www.cbeinternational.org.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 •  The development of these publications over the last two decades made one hundred and fifty years ago. History is repeating itself. has involved much hard work and prayer by CBE’s staff and con- They have their proof texts but they have missed what the Bible puts sultants. Their dedication, plus the support of CBE members and first (cf. Gen. 1:27–28) and what the ministries of Jesus and Paul friends, the work of faithful volunteers, and the contributions of endorse—the complementary coequality of men and women. gifted authors and artists, have all helped spread the important mes- Interpretations of the Bible that support the preeminence of sage of biblical equality and justice through CBE’s publications. the interpreter and permanently subordinate those in some way different than the interpreter should raise our suspicions. Our The context of our twentieth anniversary issue overall grasp of the Christian faith, which is grounded in a God Evangelicals are currently divided over the question of women’s who loves us and is willing to become a servant for our salvation, status in the church and home. Competing interpretations of the should tell us there is something wrong with such self-justifying Bible are at the heart of this issue. Both views believe that their interpretations, no matter how many texts are quoted to support position is firmly grounded on the clear teaching of Scripture. them. The God revealed in Jesus Christ wants us to be servants Some evangelicals believe that the Bible gives “headship” to and not overlords, to seek the advancement of others and not our- men. They claim that in creation God appointed man to lead in selves, to work for justice and not oppression. the church and home, and that all the apostolic exhortations to The contents of our twentieth anniversary issue women to be subordinate and keep silent in church are predicated on this transcultural social order given at creation. Nineteenth-century evangelical abolitionists successfully reached Other evangelicals believe that complementary equality is the out to Christians who wrestled with conflicting interpretations of biblical ideal. God has made us men and women, yet we have the Bible’s teaching on slavery. For the last twenty years, Priscilla equal dignity and the same potential for leadership. The apostolic Papers has been reaching out to Christians who wrestle with con- exhortations to women and slaves to be subordinate simply reflect flicting interpretations of the Bible’s teaching on women’s place in the cultural norms of that day, and were never intended to estab- the church and home. lish permanent hierarchies based on gender, ethnicity, or class. By offering biblical, theological, and historical support for Both views turn to the Bible to prove their cases. Both inter- the equality of men and women, this twentieth anniversary edi- pretations have the support of biblical scholars of the highest cali- tion exemplifies the kind of evangelical scholarship published ber. Both are convinced they are right. How do we judge in such in Priscilla Papers. We pray the scholarship presented here will battles over biblical interpretation? inspire much thought and respectful dialogue. It is unhelpful to accuse fellow evangelicals of denying the au- N. T. Wright, Mark Reasoner, and Alan Johnson offer help- thority of the Bible, or of rejecting biblical inerrancy. Both views ful analyses of New Testament passages that have been used to affirm the authority of Scripture. What divides us is the interpre- support women’s subordination to men. They propose accurate tation of Scripture. We may agree we have inerrant Scriptures (an and faithful interpretations of these texts that do not contradict idea that needs some unpacking), but not that we have inerrant examples of women leaders endorsed by Jesus and Paul. interpretations. Fallen human beings always hear imperfectly Elaine Heath and Roberta Hestenes offer theological support what God is saying and all too often get it wrong. and practical applications for mutuality in marriage and women’s The great Reformed theologians Robert Dabney, John Henry leadership. Charles Knowles proposes a theology of right relation- Thornwell, and Charles Hodge are classic examples of evangelicals ships based on the Great Commandment, and Phillip Cary calls with the very highest view of Scripture who got their interpretation evangelicals to rejoin the Great Tradition of the Nicene under- of the Bible wrong. They used verses in the Bible to support the in- standing of Trinitarian relations. stitution of slavery, and were able to biblically defend their position Kevin Giles explores evangelical responses to women’s eman- against Christians who supported the emancipation of slaves. cipation since the 1970s and Mimi Haddad shows that the roots How could these renowned theologians make such a terrible for the egalitarian interpretation of Scripture run deep in our mistake? Self-interest blinded them from grasping the biblical evangelical heritage. truth that all men and women are created in the image of God, We are pleased to conclude this special issue with a review of a and thus of equal dignity and worth. They failed to see that any new edition of a classic egalitarian text, Gilbert Bilezikian’s Beyond devaluing of another human being is an offense against God. Sex Roles. Chelsea DeArmond’s poem about Jesus and the woman Tragically, they began with the premise that God had appointed at the well in John 4 challenges us all to follow the Samaritan wom- white men to rule in perpetuity over black men and all women, an’s example and trust Jesus to satisfy our thirst for truth. and they proceeded to find texts to support what they already be- There is a sense in which every issue of Priscilla Papers over the lieved. As a result, the Bible was used to support behavior that was last twenty years is evidence that evangelicals do not need to com- cruel, unjust, and self-serving. promise their commitment to biblical authority in order to support It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that evangelicals today the equality of men and women in the church and home. Our hope who devote so much time and energy to arguing for the permanent and prayer is that God will continue to use Priscilla Papers to free subordination of women by digging deeper into two or three texts Christians to minister out of their giftedness in their churches and are making exactly the same mistake that evangelical theologians homes, and to answer God’s call wherever it may lead.

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church N. T. Wright

We are delighted to include this paper by Bishop Tom Wright in the twentieth anniversary issue of Priscilla Papers. Bishop Wright is the fourth-most senior bishop in the Church of England, an internationally renowned New Testament scholar, and a convinced evangelical. This paper is adapted from N. T. Wright’s general session at the International Symposium on Men, Women, and the Church, sponsored by Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), Women and the Church (WATCH), and Men, Women and God (MWG) at St. John’s College in Durham, England, September 4, 2004. As an Englishman and a research-based scholar, he offers some fresh insights into our understanding of key biblical passages much disputed today in evangelical circles, especially in America.

Preliminary remarks two genders is a vital part of what it means to be created in God’s image. I now regard that as mistaken. After all, not only the animal First, some preliminary remarks about this sort of debate. I have kingdom, as noted in Genesis itself, but also the plant kingdom, as read through some of CBE’s literature with great interest, but also noted by the reference to seed, are gendered creations. with a sense that the way particular questions are posed and ad- The fact that gender is not specific to human beings doesn’t dressed reflects some particular American subcultures. I know a mean it’s unimportant—indeed it’s all the more important, since little about those subcultures—for instance, the battles over new working out what that means to be male and female is something Bible translations, some using inclusive language and others not. most of creation is called to do and be. It’s just that we can’t use In my own church, the main resistance against equality in minis- the argument that being male-plus-female is somehow what being try comes, not so much from within the Evangelical right (though God’s image bearers actually means. Unless we are to collapse into there is of course a significant element there), but from within a kind of gnosticism, we have to recognize, respect, and respond the traditional Anglo-Catholic movement for whom Scripture has to this call of God to live in the world he has made and as the never been the central point of the argument, and indeed is often people he has made us. ignored altogether. Second, I do worry a bit about the word equality. I recog- Key New Testament texts on women’s service nize what is intended, but this word can carry so much freight in the church in our various cultures. Not only is the word equality a red rag to all kinds of bulls who perhaps don’t need to be aggravated in Galatians 3:28 that way (though some may), it is always in danger of implying Galatians 3 is not about ministry, nor is it the only word Paul says (wrongly of course, but one cannot police what people will hear in about being male and female. Instead of arranging texts in a hi- technical terms) not only equality, but also sameness. Likewise, to erarchy, for instance by quoting this verse and then saying that it use the word complementary and its cognates to denote a position trumps every other verse in a kind of fight to be the senior bull which says that not only are men and women different, but also in the herd (what a very masculine way of approaching exegesis, that those differences mean that women cannot minister within by the way!), we need to do justice to what Paul is actually saying the church, is unfortunate. I think the word “complementary” is here. His overall point in this passage is that God has one family, too good and important a word to let that side of the issue have not two, and that this family consists of all those who believe in it all to itself. Jesus, that this is the family God promised to Abraham, and that We must all recognize that the question of women in ministry nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is takes place within the wider cultural context of overlapping and now revealed through the faithfulness of the Messiah. interlocking issues. The many varieties of feminism on the one First, a note about translation and exegesis. Many Bible ver- hand and the ongoing modern/postmodern culture wars on the sions actually mistranslate this verse to read “neither Jew nor other provide two of many signposts. Part of the problem, par- Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female.” That is ticularly in the United States, is that cultures become so polarized precisely what Paul does not say; and as it’s what we expect he’s that if you tick one box many assume you must tick a dozen other going to say, we should note quite carefully what he has said in- boxes down the same side of the page—without realizing that the stead, since he presumably means to make a point by doing so, a page itself is highly arbitrary and culture-bound. We have to claim point which is missed when the translation is flattened out as in the freedom, in Christ and in our various cultures, to name issues one by one with wisdom and clarity, without assuming that a deci- sion on one point commits us to a decision on others. I just wanted N. T. WRIGHT (D.D., Oxford University) is Bishop of Durham, to flag the contexts within which this discussion is taking place, and England. He taught New Testament studies for twenty warn against any kind of absolutism in any particular position. years at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. He is the author of more than thirty books, including The Last I also want to set my remarks within a particular framework Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the of biblical theology regarding Genesis 1. Many people, myself in- Authority of Scripture (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). cluded, have claimed that the creation of man and woman in their

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 •  that version. What he says is that there is neither Jew nor Greek, uncompromising insistence on equality in Christ does not at all neither slave nor free, no male and female. I think the reason he mean that we need pay no attention to distinctions between dif- says “no male and female” rather than “neither male nor female” ferent cultural backgrounds when it comes to living together in is that he is actually quoting Genesis 1:27. the church. Romans 14 and 15 are the best example of this, but it So does Paul mean that in Christ the created order itself is un- is also evident throughout Galatians itself, as Paul regularly refers done? Is he saying, as some have suggested, that we go back to a to “we” meaning Jewish Christians and “you” or “they” meaning kind of chaos in which no orders of creation apply any longer? Or Gentile Christians. They have come to an identical destination, is he saying that we go on, like the gnostics, from the first rather but they have come by very different routes and retain very differ- shabby creation in which silly things like gender-differentiation ent cultural memories and imaginations. The differences between apply, to a new world in which we can all live as hermaphrodites? them are not obliterated, and pastoral practice needs to take note of No. Paul is a theologian of new cre- this; they are merely irrelevant when ation, and it is always about the re- f an apostle is defined as a witness to the it comes to belonging to Abraham’s newal and reaffirmation of the exist- Iresurrection, there were women who deserved family. And this same principle ap- ing creation, never its denial, as not that title before any of the men. Mary Magdalene plies to Paul’s treatment of men and only Galatians 6:16, but also of course and the others are the apostles to the apostles. We women within the Christian family. Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15 make The difference is irrelevant for mem- should not be surprised that Paul calls a woman so very clear. Indeed, Genesis 1–3 bership status, but it still matters in remains enormously important for named Junia an apostle in Romans 16:7. pastoral practice. We do not become Paul throughout his writings. hermaphrodites or for that matter What then is he saying? Remember that he is controverting in genderless, sexless beings when we are baptized. Paul would have particular those who wanted to enforce Jewish regulations, and been the first to reject the gnostic suggestion that the original cre- indeed Jewish ethnicity, upon Gentile converts. Remember the ation was a secondary attempt at making a world and that we have synagogue prayer in which the man who prays thanks God that to discover ways of transcending that which, according to Genesis he has not made him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. I think Paul is 1, God called “very good.” deliberately marking out the family of Abraham reformed in the This is the point at which we must issue a warning against the Messiah as a people who cannot pray that prayer, since within this current fashion in some quarters, in America at least, for docu- family these distinctions are now irrelevant. ments like the so-called Gospel of Mary, read both in a gnostic The presenting issue in Galatians is male circumcision. We and a feminist light. That kind of option appears to present a short sometimes think of circumcision as a painful obstacle for con- cut right in to a pro-women agenda, but it not only purchases that verts, as indeed in some ways it was; but for those who embraced at a huge cost, historically and theologically, but also presents a circumcision, it was a matter of pride and privilege. It not only very two-edged blessing, granted the propensity in some branches distinguished Jews from Gentiles; it also distinguished them in of ancient gnosticism to flatten out the male/female distinction, a way that automatically privileged males. By contrast, imagine not by affirming both as equally important, but by effectively turn- the thrill of equality brought about by baptism, the identical rite ing women into men. Remember the last saying in the so-called for Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. And that’s Gospel of Thomas: “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave not all. Though this is somewhat more speculative, the story of us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide Abraham’s family did of course privilege the male line of descent: her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit Isaac, Jacob, and so on. What we find in Paul, both in Galatians 4 resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male and in Romans 9, is careful attention—rather like Matthew 1, in will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” fact, though from a different angle—to the women in the story. The ways Paul explores the differences between men and wom- If those in Christ are the true family of Abraham, which is the en come elsewhere than in Galatians, of course. I want to look first point of the whole story, then the manner of this identity and at 1 Corinthians and then, finally, at 1 Timothy; but, before we do unity takes a quantum leap beyond the way in which first- either, I want to mention several themes in the gospels and Acts. century Judaism construed them, bringing male and female The Gospels and Acts together as surely and as equally as Jew and Gentile. What Paul seems to do in this passage, then, is rule out any attempt to per- Among the many things that need to be said about the gospels is petuate male privilege in Abraham’s family by an appeal to Gen- that we gain nothing by ignoring the fact that Jesus chose twelve esis 1, as though someone were to say, “But of course the male line male apostles. There were no doubt all kinds of reasons for this is what matters, and of course male circumcision is what counts, within both the symbolic world in which he was operating and because God made male and female.” No, says Paul, none of the practical and cultural world within which they would have that counts when it comes to membership in the renewed people to live and work. But every time this point is made—and in my of Abraham. experience it is made quite frequently—we have to comment on But we must also reflect on what Paul has not done as well as how interesting it is that there comes a time in the story when the what he has done. Regarding the Jew/Gentile distinction, Paul’s disciples all forsake Jesus and run away; and at that point, long

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 before the rehabilitation of Peter and the others, it is the women another story.) By contrast, it’s fascinating that when we turn to who come first to the tomb, who are the first to see the risen Je- Acts and read of the persecution that arose against the church not sus, and are the first to be entrusted with the news that he has least at the time of Stephen, we find that women are being targeted been raised from the dead. This is of incalculable significance. If equally alongside the men. Saul of Tarsus was going to Damascus an apostle is defined as a witness to the resurrection, there were to catch women and men alike and haul them off into prison. Bai- women who deserved that title before any of the men. Mary Mag- ley points out on the basis of his cultural parallels that this only dalene and the others are the apostles to the apostles. We should makes sense if the women, too, are seen as leaders and influential not be surprised that Paul calls a woman named Junia an apostle figures within the community. in Romans 16:7. But, having mentioned Paul’s abortive attempts to catch Chris- Nor is this promotion of women a totally new thing with the tians in Damascus, it’s now high time to return to his mature thought resurrection. I think in particular of the remarkable story of Mary and look at the key passages which have often caused difficulty. and Martha in Luke 10. Most of us grew up with the line that Mar- 1 Corinthians1 tha was the active type and Mary the passive or contemplative type, and that Jesus is simply affirming the importance of both I want to begin with one of the two passages which has caused so and even the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is un- much difficulty: the verses at the end of 1 Corinthians 14 in which doubtedly part of the importance of the story, but far more obvi- Paul insists that women must keep silent in church.2 ous to any first-century reader, and to many readers in Turkey, I have always been attracted, ever since I heard it, to the ex- the Middle East, and many other parts of the world to this day, planation offered once more by Ken Bailey.3 In the Middle East, would be the fact that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the he says, it was taken for granted that men and women would sit male part of the house rather than being kept in the back rooms apart in church, as still happens today in some circles. Equally with the other women. This was probably what really bothered important, the service would be held (in Lebanon, say, or Syria, Martha; no doubt she was cross at being left to do all the work, but or Egypt) in formal or classical Arabic, which the men would all the real problem behind that was that Mary had cut clean across know but which many of the women would not, since the wom- one of the most basic social conventions. And Jesus declares that en would only speak a local dialect. As a result, the women, not she is right to do so. She is “sitting at his feet”; a phrase that doesn’t understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily As is clear from the use of the phrase elsewhere in the New rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, “Will Testament (for instance, Paul with Gamaliel in Acts 22:3), to sit at the women please be quiet!” whereupon the talking would die the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking down, but only for a few minutes. Then, at some point, the minis- up the teacher’s wisdom and learning; and in that very practical ter would again have to ask the women to be quiet, and he would world you wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your often add that if they wanted to know what was being said, they own mind and heart, but in order to be a teacher, a rabbi, yourself. should ask their husbands to explain it to them when they got Like much in the gospels, this story is left cryptic as far as we at home. I know there are other explanations sometimes offered for least are concerned, but I doubt if any first-century reader would this passage, some of them quite plausible; this is the one that has have missed the point. Examples like Mary’s, no doubt, are at least struck me for many years as having the strongest claim to provide part of the reason why we find so many women in positions of a context for understanding what Paul is saying. After all, his cen- leadership, initiative, and responsibility in the early church. I used tral concern in 1 Corinthians 14 is for order and decency in the to think Romans 16 was the most boring chapter in the letter, and church’s worship. now, as I study and reflect on the names it includes, I am struck by What the passage cannot possibly mean is that women had no how powerfully they illustrate how the teachings of both Jesus and part in leading public worship, speaking out loud of course as they Paul were being worked out in practice. did so. This is the positive point that is proved at once by the other I wish to offer an insight about Acts—something among many relevant Corinthian passage, 1 Corinthians 11:2–11, since there others that I gleaned from Ken Bailey on the basis of his long ex- Paul gives instructions for how women are to be dressed while perience of working in the Middle East. It’s interesting that at the engaging in such activities, instructions which obviously wouldn’t crucifixion the women were able to come and go and see what be necessary if they had been silent in church all the time. But that was happening without fear from the authorities. They were not is the one thing we can be sure of. In this passage, almost every- regarded as a threat, and did not expect to be so regarded. Bailey thing else seems to me remarkably difficult to nail down. points out that this pattern is repeated to this day in the Middle In Paul’s day (as, in many ways, in ours), gender was marked by East; at the height of the troubles in Lebanon, when men on all hair and clothing styles. We can tell from statues, vase paintings, sides in the factional fighting were either hiding or going about and other artwork of the period how this worked out in practice. with great caution, the women were free to come and go, to do There was social pressure to maintain appropriate distinctions. But the shopping, to take children out, and so on. (I think this tells us didn’t Paul himself teach that there was “no male and female, be- something as well about the age of the Beloved Disciple, but that’s cause you are all one in the Messiah” (Gal. 3:28)? Perhaps, indeed,

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 •  that was one of the “traditions” that he had taught the Corinthian ing meetings where women “let their hair down” in this fashion, church, who needed to know that Jew and Greek, slave and free, it could have the same effect on their reputation as it would in male and female were all equally welcome and equally valued in the modern West if someone looked into a church and found the the renewed people of God. Perhaps that had actually created the women all wearing bikinis. situation he is addressing here; perhaps some of the Corinthian The trouble is, of course, that Paul doesn’t say exactly this, and women had been taking him literally, so that when they prayed or we run the risk of “explaining” him in terms that might (perhaps) prophesied aloud in church meetings (which Paul assumes they make sense to us while ignoring what he himself says. It’s tempting will do regularly; this tells us, as we’ve seen, something about how to do that, precisely because in today’s western world we don’t like to understand 14:34–35) they had decided to remove their normal the implications of the differentiation he maintains in verse 3: the headcovering, perhaps also unbraiding their hair, to show that in Messiah is the “head” of every man, a husband is the “head” of every the Messiah they were free from the normal social conventions by woman, and the “head” of the Messiah is God. This seems to place which men and women were distinguished. man in a position of exactly that assumed superiority against which That’s a lot of “perhapses.” We can only guess at the dynam- women have rebelled, often using Galatians 3:28 as their battle cry. ics of the situation—which is of course what historians always do But what does Paul mean by “head”? He uses it here sometimes to some degree. It’s just that here we are feeling our way in the in a metaphorical sense, as in verse 3, and sometimes literally, as dark more than usual. But, perhaps to the Corinthians’ surprise, when he’s talking about what to do with actual human heads (vv. Paul doesn’t congratulate the women on this new expression of 4–7 and 10). The word he uses can mean different things; and a freedom. Instead, he insists on maintaining gender differentiation good case can be made that in verse 3 he is referring not to “head- during worship. ship” in the sense of sovereignty, but to “headship” in the sense of Another dimension to the problem may well be that in the “source,” like the “source” or “head” of a river. In fact, in some of Corinth of his day the only women who appeared in public with- the key passages where he explains what he’s saying (vv. 8, 9, and out some kind of headcovering were prostitutes. This isn’t sug- 12a) he is referring explicitly to the creation story in Genesis 2, gested directly here, but it may have been in the back of his mind. where woman was made from the side of man.4 If the watching world discovered that the Christians were hav- The underlying point then seems to be that in worship it is important for both men and women to honor God by being what they are and not blurring the lines by pretending to be something Recommended Resources else. One of the unspoken clues to this passage may be Paul’s as- sumption that in worship the creation is being restored, or per- The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New haps that in worship we are anticipating its eventual restoration Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (15:27–28). God made humans male and female, and gave them While showing how both evangelicals and liber- “authority” over the world.5 And if humans are to reclaim this au- als misread Scripture, a leading Bible scholar and thority over the world, this will come about as they worship the Anglican bishop shows how to restore the Bible’s true God, as they pray and prophesy in his name, and are renewed authority today for guiding the church through its many controversies. in his image, in being what they were made to be, in celebrating the genders God has given them. “[P]robing, provocative, insightful…This is a book If this is Paul’s meaning, the critical move he makes is to argue of uncommon wisdom for all who read and love the Bible.” — Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Di- that a man dishonors his head by covering it in worship and that vinity School of Samford University and Executive a woman dishonors hers by not covering it. He argues this mainly Editor of Christianity Today from the basis that creation itself tends to give men shorter hair HarperSanFrancisco • 160 pages • List $19.95 • CBE member $14.96 and women longer (vv. 5–6, 13–15); the fact that some cultures, and some people, offer apparent exceptions would probably not The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church have worried him. His main point is that in worship men should follow the dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, available on CD, MP3, VHS, and DVD and women the codes which proclaim them to be female. This penetrating analysis of key New Testament Why then does he say that a woman “must have authority on passages on women in ministry shows how Scrip- her head because of the angels” (v. 10)? This is one of the most ture supports women’s service in the church. puzzling verses in a puzzling passage, but there is help of sorts List (for CD) $12.00 • CBE member $6.00 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In these writings we find the assumption that when God’s people meet for worship, the angels are there too CBE members receive 15% off all regularly priced resources and 50% off all CBE-produced recordings at Equality Depot Bookstore. (as many liturgies, and theologians, still affirm). This means that See page 62 for more information on CBE membership. the angels, being holy, must not be offended by any appearance of unholiness among the congregation. Paul may share the assump- Order online at www.equalitydepot.com or call 612-872-6898 tion that the angels are worshipping along with the humans, or he may be making a different point.

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 When humans are renewed in the Messiah and raised from first. Eve has her punishment, and it’s pain in childbearing (Gen. the dead, they will be set in authority over the angels (6:3). In 3:16). You don’t have to embrace every aspect of the women’s lib- worship, the church anticipates how things are going to be in that eration movement to find that interpretation hard to swallow. Not new day. When a woman prays or prophesies (perhaps in the lan- only does it stick in our throats as a way of treating half the human guage of angels, as in 13:1), she needs to be truly what she is, since race, but it also conflicts with what we’ve seen in the New Testa- it is to male and female alike, in their mutual interdependence as ment passages we’ve already glanced at. God’s image-bearing creatures, that The key to understanding the pres- the world, including the angels, is to be e must think and pray carefully about ent passage, then, is to recognize that subject. God’s creation needs humans Wwhere our own cultures, prejudices, and it is commanding that women, too, to be fully, gloriously, and truly human, angers are taking us, and make sure we conform, should be allowed to study and learn, which means fully and truly male and not to any of the different stereotypes the world and should not be restrained from do- female. This, and of course much else ing so (v. 11). They are to be “in full offers, but to the healing, liberating, humanizing besides, is to be glimpsed in worship. submission”; this is often taken to The Corinthians, then, may have message of the gospel of Jesus. mean “to the men,” or “to their hus- drawn the wrong conclusion from the bands,” but it is equally likely that it “tradition” that Paul had taught them. It seems that his main aim refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the was that the marks of difference between the sexes should not be gospel—which of course would be the same attitude required of set aside in worship—at least perhaps. We face different issues, but male learners. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as “I do making sure that our worship is ordered appropriately, to honor not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man”—the God’s creation and anticipate its fulfillment in the new creation, is translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It still a priority—there is no “perhaps” about that. can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): When we apply this to the question of women’s ministry, it “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new seems to me that we should certainly stress equality in the role of authority over men in the same way that previously men held au- women but should be very careful about implying sameness. We thority over women.” Why might Paul need to say this? need both men and women to be themselves in their ministries, There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to rather than for one to try to become a clone of the other. Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the primary religion—the 1 Timothy 26 biggest temple, the most famous shrine—was a female-only cult. When people claim that the Bible enshrines patriarchal ideas and The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called attitudes, this passage, particularly verse 12, is often held up as her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; the prime example. Women mustn’t be teachers, the verse seems and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all to say; they mustn’t hold any authority over men; they must keep women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place. silent. That, at least, is how many translations put it. Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new This is the main passage that people quote when they want to religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say suggest that the New Testament forbids the ordination of women. that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organizing male I was once reading these verses in a church service and a woman and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, such near the front exploded in anger, to the consternation of the rest of that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take the congregation (even though some agreed with her). The whole a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong passage seems to be saying that women are second-class citizens impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that at every level. They aren’t even allowed to dress prettily. They are women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually the daughters of Eve, and she was the original troublemaker. The become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading best thing for them to do is to get on and have children, and to and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is behave themselves and keep quiet. denying. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must When you look at comic strips, “B” grade movies, and “Z” have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not grade novels and poems, you pick up a standard view of how “ev- in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as eryone imagines” men and women behave. Men are macho, loud- in the Artemis cult, but rather so that men and women alike can mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God way. Women are simpering, empty-headed creatures, with noth- is giving them. ing to think about except clothes and jewelry. There are “Chris- What’s the point of the other bits of the passage, then? The first tian” versions of this, too: the men must make the decisions, run verse (8) is clear: the men must give themselves to devout prayer, the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; wom- and must not follow the normal stereotypes of “male” behavior: en must stay at home and bring up the children. If you start look- no anger or arguing. Then verses 9 and 10 follow, making the same ing for biblical support for caricatures like these, well, what about point about the women. They must be set free from their stereo- Genesis 3? Adam would never have sinned if Eve hadn’t given in type, that of fussing all the time about hairdos, jewelry, and fancy

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 •  clothes—but they must be set free, not in order that they can be Conclusion dowdy, unobtrusive little mice, but so that they can make a cre- I have shown where I think the evidence points. I believe we have ative contribution to the wider society. The phrase “good works” seriously misread the New Testament passages addressed in this in verse 10 sounds quite bland to us, but it’s one of the regular essay. These misreadings are undoubtedly due to a combination ways people used to refer to the social obligation to spend time of assumptions, traditions, and all kinds of post-biblical and sub- and money on less fortunate people, to be benefactors of the town biblical attitudes that have crept in to Christianity. We need to through helping public works, the arts, and so on. change our understanding of what the Bible says about how men Why then does Paul finish off with the explanation about Adam and women are to relate to one another within the church. and Eve? Remember that his basic point is to insist that women, I do wonder sometimes if those who present radical chal- too, must be allowed to learn and study as Christians, and not lenges to Christianity have been all the more eager to sieze upon be kept in unlettered, uneducated boredom and drudgery. Under misreadings of what the Bible says about women as an excuse these circumstances, the story of Adam and Eve makes the point for claiming that Christianity in general is a wicked thing and well: look what happened when Eve was deceived. Women need we ought to abandon it. Unfortunately, plenty of Christians have to learn just as much as men do. Adam, after all, sinned quite de- given outsiders plenty of chances to draw those sorts of conclu- liberately; he knew what he was doing, and that it was wrong, and sions. But perhaps in our generation we have an opportunity to went ahead anyway. The Old Testament is very stern about that take a large step back in the right direction. I hope and pray that kind of action. the work of Christians for Biblical Equality may be used by God And what about the bit about childbirth? Paul doesn’t see it in exactly that way. as a punishment. Rather, he offers assurance that, though child- birth is indeed difficult, painful, dangerous, and often the most Notes testing moment in a woman’s life, this is not a curse which must 1. This explanation is based on my commentary, Paul for Everyone: be taken as a sign of God’s displeasure. God’s salvation is prom- 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003). ised to all, women and men, who follow Jesus in faith, love, holi- I haven’t encountered anything to change my mind in the few years since ness, and prudence. And that salvation is promised to those who I wrote it, though for an important contribution to our understanding of contribute to God’s creation through childbearing, just as it is to the social context, see Bruce Winter’s Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids, everyone else. Becoming a mother is hard enough, God knows, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003). without pretending it’s somehow an evil thing. Let’s read this text 2. I am not sure I agree with those who say this verse is a later and as I believe it was intended, as a way of building up God’s church, non-Pauline interpolation. One of the finest textual critics of our day, women and men alike. What’s more, just as Paul was concerned to Gordon Fee, has argued very strongly that it is, purely on the grounds apply this in one particular situation, so we must think and pray of the way the manuscript tradition unfolds. I urge you to examine his carefully about where our own cultures, prejudices, and angers are arguments and make up your own minds. See Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Com- taking us, and make sure we conform, not to any of the different mentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987). stereotypes the world offers, but to the healing, liberating, human- 3. See his article on this topic, “Women in the New Testament: A izing message of the gospel of Jesus. Middle Eastern Cultural View” ANVIL, an Anglican Evangelical Jour- How then would I translate the passage to bring all this out? nal for Theology and Mission 11 (1994): 7. This article is also available for As follows: download at CBE’s website: http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_ files/free_articles/kebaileynt.pdf. 8So this is what I want: the men should pray in every place, 4. I suspect, in fact, that this is quite a different use of the idea of lifting up holy hands, with no anger or disputing. 9In the same “headship” from that in Ephesians 5, where it relates of course to husband and wife, and where a different point is being made. way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appro- 5. As Ben-Sirach 17:3 puts it, summarizing Genesis 1:26–28 and echo- priate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in ing Psalm 8:4–8 (Ben-Sirach was written around 200 b.c.). for elaborate hairstyles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes; 6. I leave the question of who wrote 1 Timothy open. It differs from 10instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, the rest of Paul’s writings more than any of the other letters, including they should adorn themselves with good works. 11They must the other Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians. But that reason is not enough to discount his authorship. Many of us write in different styles according to be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. occasion and audience, and though that doesn’t remove all the questions, 12I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dic- it ought to contextualize them. What matters, and matters vitally in so tate to them; they should be left undisturbed. 13Adam was cre- many debates, is of course what the passage says. ated first, you see, and then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, Once again I am drawing here on what I have said in my commentary but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. 15She will, on this passage, Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters (London: SPCK; however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003). This time I acknowledge the help of another old friend, Christopher Bryan of the University of the South continues in faith, love, and holiness with prudence. at Sewanee, whose sensitive work on the classical context is as always very stimulating. See for example, his Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

10 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Chapter 16 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Dispensable Tagalong or Valuable Envelope? Mark Reasoner

The sixteenth chapter of Romans was treated as a detachable unit ers’ feet. Fourth, there are greetings from those with Paul. Finally, at least as early as the second century, showing that some consid- there is a blessing that attempts to summarize the letter. I will ex- ered it to be a tagalong compared with the rest of Paul’s letter to amine each of these parts of the chapter and then conclude with a the Romans.1 The oldest surviving manuscript of Romans, Ches- reflection on the significance of Romans 16 for the church. ter Beatty Papyrus II, also known as Π46, dating from the early third century, places the benediction of 16:25–27 between 15:33 1. The commendation and introduction of Phoebe and chapter 16. This leads some textual critics to conclude that Π46 (16:1–2) had an antecedent that ended at chapter 15, since the final benedic- Hard evidence for the feminization of Paul’s ministry strategy tion was shifted to the end of that chapter. T. W. Manson went so far comes first from his commendation of Phoebe. She is “our sister, as to suggest that Paul’s original letter ended at chapter 15, and that who is minister of the church which is in Cenchreae” (16:1). Paul’s what we call chapter 16 was added to a copy of the Roman letter and word for her church position is diakonon, a word that can be either sent to Ephesus.2 When textual critics compare Π46 with other early masculine or feminine in lexical gender, designating the church po- manuscripts of Romans, there is clear evidence that in the second sition described in 1 Timothy 3:8–13. The history of translations of century, if not before, a fourteen-chapter version of the letter once this word in Romans 16:1 provides a picture in microcosm of how circulated, composed of 1:1–14:23 plus 16:25–27. In this version, the churches have tried to negotiate their way through the question of final two chapters, which were tied to the circumstances in Paul’s women in the diaconate. In verse 2 Paul uses a rare Greek word, life and the specific addressees of the letter, as well as the destination prostatis, which means ‘patroness.’ In the last part of this verse Paul phrases (“in Rome”) in 1:7, 15, were omitted in order to make the let- asks the Roman audience of the letter to help Phoebe with what she ter more relevant for the church at large.3 needs in Rome, “for she has been a patroness of many, even of me.” It should now begin to be apparent why we can say that Ro- A great deal is at stake in what terms we use for women who mans 16 has been treated as a tagalong in relation to the rest of the minister in church. Figure 1, “Translations diakonon and prosta- chapters Paul composed in his letter to the Romans. Though the tis in Romans 16:1–2,” provides a survey of how these words have majority of Romans scholars now consider Romans 16 to be an been translated. This table shows a general trend toward recogniz- integral part of the letter that Paul wrote,4 it has not attracted the ing Phoebe as a church leader, after centuries of relegating her to attention paid to the earlier chapters of the letter. As N. T. Wright a ‘servant’ and ‘helper’ role. writes in another essay in this volume, “I used to think Romans 16 It is inaccurate to imply that Paul’s word for ‘patroness,’ the was the most boring chapter in the letter…” (see p. 7). feminine word prostatis, is a word Paul created to match the femi- Still, this chapter is highly significant, since it connects what nine patrona of the Latin language, since this Greek word does some people read as the abstract, doctrinal sections of Romans occur in Sophocles’ play, Oedipus Coloneus and it is attested in that seem to orbit in the stratosphere down to life as we experi- pagan Greek authors after Paul as well.5 Aside from a few uses in ence it here with our feet on the ground. As we examine the five 1 Clement, the word does not gain currency in early Christian lit- parts of Romans 16, we will see that this chapter functions as an erature and thus is not found in Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon.6 envelope for the letter. Just as envelopes in our world of postal Suffice it to say that this is a rare word for ‘patroness’ in the Greek mail contain indications of how the letter will reach its adressees, language, and Paul makes sure to use it for Phoebe here. the recipients’ names and address, and sometimes extra greetings Aside from translations, commentators have also wondered or content, so chapter 16 of Romans is indispensable to a complete about Phoebe. Sanday and Headlam take the “a woman can min- understanding of the letter. This chapter helps us see that the letter ister to women” strategy in their exegesis: is intended for women and men, slaves and free, Jews and ethnē (nations), indeed all who are following Jesus in the politically re- There must have been a want felt for women to perform for pressive shadow of the empire. It is about how God seeks people women the functions which the deacons performed for men. from all around the world who will live in obedience to God’s will, Illustrations of this need in baptism, in visiting the women’s by the power that Jesus activates in their lives. part of a house, in introducing women to the deacon or bishop, The five sections of chapter 16 begin with a commendation and may be found in the Apostolical Constitutions.7 introduction of Phoebe, the woman who probably carried the let- ter and perhaps read it to some of the house churches in Rome. MARK REASONER (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is associ- Second, there are greetings to Paul’s acquaintances within the Ro- ate professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel man house churches. Third, there is a warning to stay away from University in St. Paul, Minn. He is the author of Romans in people who stir up division among the believers, followed by a Full Circle: A History of Interpretation (WJK 2005). benediction that envisions God crushing Satan under the hear-

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 11 In the volume that replaced this commentary for the International Erastus (16:23), may have helped to pay for the materials involved in Critical Commentary series, Cranfield proves to be more open to producing the letter he was sending. Paul may also be designating Phoebe’s status as holder of a definite office: Phoebe as the person who will carry the letter and make sure it is read in the Roman house churches, as he designates Tychicus at the It is very much more natural…to understand it as referring to end of Ephesians and Colossians (Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–9). a definite office. We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is The commendation of Phoebe also indicates a ministry strat- being described as ‘a (or possible ‘the’) deacon’ of the church in egy of Paul that emerges in the greetings that follow. This strategy question and that this occurrence of diakonos is to be classified is that women of the Roman house churches are named and en- with its occurrences in Phil I.I and I Tim 3.8ff.8 dorsed as leaders. This letter, written before the gospels, is well Dunn notes that given the date of this letter, “Phoebe is the first ahead of the gospel authors who used “in memory of her” simul- recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity.” That the mention taneously to commemorate and render anonymous the woman of her name and office made an impression on early readers is who anointed Jesus (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9). Paul’s commendation evident in a sixth-century inscription from the Mount of Olives of Phoebe functions as a signal to the Roman house churches that for a woman named Sophie who is identified as a deaconess called he supports the women leaders there. “the second Phoebe.”9 Why would Paul spend a significant part—forty words—at the 2. Greetings to Paul’s acquaintances within the Roman very beginning of his final greetings, mentioning Phoebe, someone house churches (16:3–16) who is not even from his church at Corinth? Her placement here Most readers of the names in this list simply count the number and the words about her make it probable that Paul has chosen her of women, men, Jews, Gentiles, slaves, and names untainted by to carry his letter to Rome. It would be easy to find people going servile connotations. Peter Lampe takes the investigation of these from Corinth to Rome, so although the text will not provide certain names further by noting what Paul says about the various peo- answers, we must ask why Paul takes care to describe and commend ple mentioned. Figure , “Who first heard Paul’s letter? Believ- Phoebe at the beginning of his final greetings. Paul may choose ers named in Paul’s letter to the Roman house churches,” distills Phoebe simply because she is a prominent woman. She, along with information available from Romans 16:3–15 and Lampe’s careful examination of the names listed there through the lens of Latin Figure 1. Translations diakonon and prostatis in Romans 16:1–2. inscriptions in Rome.10 Version Year Translation of 16:1b, 2b Luther Bible 1534 “dienste…sie hat auch vielen beystand Women in the Roman house churches gethan” Seven women and five men are complimented for the ministry King James 1611 “a servant…a succourer of many” they have performed or are performing. If the descriptions are Version limited to people presently performing ministry, Rufus’ mother Revised 1946 “who serves the church…she herself has and the men Andronicus and Urbanus would have to be deleted Standard been a good friend to many people” from this tally, making the proportion six women to three men. Today’s English 1966 “who serves the church…she herself has Lampe points out as well that the verb ‘labor’ (kopiaō), a verb used Version been a good friend to many people” for performing missionary work and applied to Paul in Galatians New English 1970 “a fellow-Christian who holds office…a 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:10, is used four times of women and nev- good friend to many” er for a man here in Romans 16.11 New American 1971 “a servant [mg-’deaconess’]…a helper of In Paul’s full acknowledgement of the prominent places that Standard many” women occupied in these house churches, we may see that Paul New 1973 “a servant [mg-’deaconess’]…a great help is here operating within a church network that does not have the International to many people” leisure to debate whether or not people from a given gender, class, La Santa Biblia 1977 “diaconisa…ella ha ayudado a muchos” or rank are suited to be church leaders. He is rather affirming all who are in the church and seeking to empower them to function New Vulgate 1979 “ministra…ipsa astitit multis” as leaders. New King 1979 “a servant…she has been a helper of James many” Slaves, freedmen/women in the Roman house churches New Revised 1989 “a deacon [mg-’minister’]…a benefactor Since the “leveling of names” occurred later in the imperial period Standard of many” than in the mid-first-century when Paul wrote this letter, we are The Message 1993 “a key representative…She’s helped many able still to make some class distinctions on the basis of names a person” with a considerable degree of probability for the letter written to Gute Nachricht 1997 “Diakonin…Sie selbst hat vielen geholfen” the Romans.12 Bibel The term ‘servile’ designates either a slave or a freedman/wom- English 2001 “a servant…a patron of many” an. I have designated the name Julia as freedwoman, because Lampe Standard observes how this name is usually found attached to freedwomen.

12 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Certain names, such as Hermes and Ampliatus, are characteristic The origin of the people named in Paul’s greetings of slaves in the first century, but they could be retained when the Lampe uses explicit evidence (e.g., “Epaenetos, my beloved, who slaves were freed,14 so I must simply designate them as ‘servile.’ In is the firstfruits of Asia in Christ” in 16:5) as well as evidence from the class-conscious world of the Principate, a slave or a freedman/ inscriptions to determine which names designate people who cer- woman was tainted by servility. We therefore see that a predomi- tainly came from the east, who are marked by boldfaced “east” in nant number of the proper names listed are names that were com- the table. The other names marked by “east” probably came from mon among slaves or former slaves. The only names that are prob- the east, according to Lampe. But what do we mean by “east”? ably not slave names are Prisca, Aquila, Urbanus, and Rufus. Lampe We mean anywhere in the Greek lands (e.g. Macedonia, Achaia, notes that the first three of these four “free” people are designated as Boetia), Asia Minor (e.g., Aquila was born in Pontus, a detail from “coworker” by Paul. He asks whether this class identity as free had Acts 18:2 that Lampe considers reliable),16 Syria, or Judea. Lampe something to do with their ministry as Paul’s coworkers.15 exegetes Paul’s description of Andronicus and Junia as indicative Figure 2. Who first heard Paul’s letter? Believers named in Paul’s letter to the Roman house churches.

Name (verses) Gender Class Origin Description Prisca (3–5a) Woman free “my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who have risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but all the churches of the nations send thanks” Aquila (3–5a) Man free east “my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who have risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but all the churches of the nations send thanks” (5a) “those of Prisca and Aquila’s church” Epaenetos (5b) Man servile east “firstfruits of Asia, my beloved” Maria (6) Woman servile “who has labored much for you” Andronicus (7) Man servile east “my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who were before me in Christ, who are outstanding among the apostles” Junia (7) Woman servile east “my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who were before me in Christ, who are outstanding among the apostles” Ampliatus (8) Man servile “my beloved in the Lord” Urbanus (9) Man free “our coworker in Christ” Stachys (9) Man servile east “my beloved” Apelles (10a) Man servile east “approved in Christ” (10b) servile “those of the household of Aristobulus” Herodion (11a) Man servile “my relative” (11b) servile “those of the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord” Tryphaena (12a) Woman servile “who labored in the Lord” Tryphosa (12a) servile “who labored in the Lord” Persis (12b) Woman servile east “the beloved, who has labored much in the Lord.” Rufus (13a) Man free “chosen in the Lord” Rufus’ mother (13b) Woman “his mother and mine” Asyncritus (14) Man servile east Phlegon (14) Man servile east Hermes (14) Man servile Patrobas (14) Man servile east Hermas (14) servile east (14b) “the brothers with them” Philologus (15a) Man servile east Julia (15a) Woman freed- woman Nereus (15b) Man servile Nereus’ sister (15b) Woman Olympas (15c) Man servile east (15c) “all the saints with them”

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 13 of their origin probably in Judea, since they were in Christ before as a woman’s name. Among English translations, from Tyndale Paul and seem to be “closer to the original Palestinian apostles.”17 to near the end of the nineteenth century, the name was usually The Jewish ethnicity of some of the people in Paul’s audience is translated as though it were the woman’s name, Junia. In terms explicitly marked by his use of the term suggenēs, a word that I’ve of English translations, the first translation to render the name translated ‘relative’ in Figure 2. It has the sense of ‘kin’ or ‘ethnic masculine was Rodolphus Dickinson’s translation of the New Tes- relation.’ Paul uses the term in Romans 9:3 to make clear that he tament (first published in 1833), followed by the Emphasized Bible grieves over the situation of his ethnic kin. In the greetings list of (Rotherham) (1872, 1878, 1898), the English Revised Version (1881), chapter 16, the term is used for Andronicus and Junia, the apostles and the American edition of the Rheims translation (1899; the mentioned in verse 7, and for Herodion in verse 10. It is also used 1582 original used “Julia”).20 Complete tables of how Iounian has in verse 21 when Paul sends greetings been translated in English versions are from his ministry team. Jason and ut in Paul’s greetings here in Romans 16, we available in Epp’s work. In a nutshell, Sōsipatros seem to be identified as Bsee that there was another pair of apostles Epp shows how there is no record of Jews here. In an excellent article that who were active in Roman church life before any man being named Junias, even reflects on what ethnicity meant for though that used to be the suggested the more famous pair of martyrs, Peter and the historical Paul, Charles Cosgrove form of the masculine name.21 And Paul, arrived. These apostles are Andronicus concludes that “on the basis of Rom as for a contraction of Iunianus, Epp 9:1–4, it seems fair to say that Paul and Junia, a man and a woman, whom Paul follows a scholar named Thorley in loved Jews as his own people.”18 The describes as “outstanding among the apostles.” asserting that the contraction of Iu- references to his relatives in chapter 16 nianus would be Iunas, rather than seem to confirm Cosgrove’s point, for they solidify the impression the Iunias found here.22 The variant Julia shows that a scribe was Paul seems determined to make in this letter, that he loves his reading this as a woman’s name and changed it to a more recog- people and values his Jewish identity (Rom. 3:1–2; 9:1–3; 11:1, 28; nizable woman’s name, perhaps also influenced by the “Julia” of 16:7, 11, 21). Romans 16:15.23 A last ditch effort to keep women out of leader- ship roles has been attempted by those who state that “outstanding The first Apostles in Rome among the apostles” means that a woman named Junia was recog- Paul begins his letter to the believers in the capital city with the nized as special by the apostles, but was not considered an apostle self-designation “called apostle” (Rom. 1:1). Tradition tells us that herself. Epp shows the research supporting this assertion is actually Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome, a circumstance that inconclusive, and cites the native Greek speaker John Chrysostom’s was explicitly used to elevate Rome’s status among other Christian clear testimony that the text is indicating that Junia, a woman, is centers of the Mediterranean world. But in Paul’s greetings here regarded as an apostle.24 in Romans 16, we see that there was another pair of apostles who The scope of addressees listed here shows us that Paul is em- were active in Roman church life before the more famous pair of bracing a Christianity in which women labor as leaders and in martyrs, Peter and Paul, arrived. These apostles are Andronicus which slaves and people of differing ethnic origins are accorded and Junia, a man and a woman, whom Paul describes as “out- full place. It is appropriate now to complete Wright’s quotation, standing among the apostles.” since I only offered the first part of it at the beginning of this essay: The rediscovery of Junia the woman apostle in Romans 16:7 “I used to think Romans 16 was the most boring chapter in the let- represents a significant step in early Christian prosopography. The ter, and now, as I study and reflect on the names it includes, I am name that occurs in most of the manuscripts is Iounian, a name struck by how powerfully they illustrate how the teachings of both that when found with no accent could be either a man or a wom- Jesus and Paul were being worked out in practice.” an. The most complete treatment on the questions surrounding this name has been done by the New Testament scholar of textual 3. Warning (16:17–20) criticism, Eldon Jay Epp.19 In the discussion that follows, I sum- The warning in 16:17–20 appears to some as an abrupt change marize Epp’s work as found in the original article he published on from the preceding greetings, but with the majority of commenta- Junia in 2002. tors, it is probably right to view this as integral to the letter and not If this name is accented as Iounían it could be the accusative a later insertion. The parallels drawn between this warning and case of either the feminine name Iounía (Junia) or the proposed those in Philippians 3:2–21 and Galatians 6:11–15 make it appear masculine name Iounías (Junias). In addition, if the name in Ro- likely that Paul could easily enter a warning mode when conclud- mans 16:7 is accented as Iouniãn it would be from the proposed ing his letters.25 Cranfield even argues that these verses are not so masculine name Iouniãs. Some have also suggested that the Iou- abrupt, since the greetings are completely concluded in 16:16 and nian here in Romans 16:7 is a contraction of the masculine Iouni- greetings from Paul’s logistics/secretarial team begin at 16:21.26 anós (Iunianus). Who were these people that Paul warned the Romans to avoid? The name was understood as a woman apostle by all the pa- Cranfield refuses to make a final decision, but notes that the refer- tristic authors. The early translations, such as the Old Latin, ence to “belly” used to be taken to refer to Jesus-followers who Vulgate, Syriac and Coptic translations all translate the name were committed to Jewish food laws, but seems to side more with

14 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 the idea that it might be the Gentile “strong” of Romans 14:1—15:6 ful to Israel even while the ethnē seem to outnumber Israel in fol- who despised the “weak” for their Jewish-influenced diet.27 A diet- lowing her messiah. related warning is also found in the conclusion of Hebrews, and thus Most readers of Romans today are returning to what Origen is probably authentic to the end of the letter here (Heb. 13:9–10). saw early on: that Paul in this letter steers between Jews and the The benediction at 13:20 certainly captures the scriptural ethnē when composing a letter whose themes orbit around Isra- theme of God’s representative treading on the serpent (Gen. 3:15; el.30 To return to the simile of the envelope, this benediction is Ps. 91:13; Acts 28:3–6; Rev. 20:2–3, 10). It also repeats the strategy worth reading precisely because it is evidence of how easy it is Paul shows at the end of 1 Thessalonians, where he uses language for Christians to think the letter is only about them. Yet we can employed in Roman propaganda and subverts it by asking for the see that this benediction is by no means a summary, for it misses blessing of the God of peace, rather than the Roman peace which Paul’s emphasis on Israel’s place in the ultimate plan of God (cf. was so celebrated in Augustan theology (1 Thess. 5:3, 23). It is evi- Rom. 3:1–2; 9:1–5; 11:2, 25–32; 15:9–12). Romans is all about con- dent that Paul is conscious of the real struggles that his addressees sidering the place of the “other” in God’s plan, whether that is the faced while living under the power of Rome, an empire that asked ungodly (Rom. 5:6), Israel (Rom. 9–11), the “weak in faith” (Rom. all to pledge allegiance to its grandiose self-perception and vision 14:1–15:6), and the women and slaves or former slaves we have met for the world. in Romans 16:1–15. Because Romans is about the other, because Paul’s gospel must go out to all people, including the Jews (Rom. 4. Greetings from those with Paul (16:21–23) 1:16; 11:13–14), we must conclude that Romans 16:25–27 is a func- After the “God of peace” benediction, the people with Paul, ap- tional benediction but not a summary of the letter. parently in Corinth, send their greetings. The mention of “rela- Conclusion: What can we learn from Romans 16? tives” here in verse 21 allows Paul the opportunity to show the Jews in Rome that he is with some Jews when composing the let- Reading occasional letters—letters arising out of and addressing ter. Tertius, the scribe who writes the letter, also sends greetings. specific situations at specific moments in history—as Scripture The composition of this letter was no doubt a challenging task, challenges us when we include chapter 16 as an integral part of and may account for this greeting, the clearest record of a Pauline Paul’s letter to the Romans. This challenge can be summarized in secretary in the New Testament. the following question: What is the significance of this final chap- ter of greetings for those of us who are not the original recipients 5. The final benediction in Romans (16:25–27) of the letter? Since the chapter was completely missing in some Because this doxology floats in the manuscript tradition, some- manuscripts, we can see that one response to this question has times coming at the end of chapter 14, sometimes at the end of been, This chapter has no value for any readers beyond those who chapter 15, and sometimes appearing twice at the end of differ- first received the letter. ent chapters, there is considerable debate regarding whether these A very different, and I believe more suitable response is pro- three verses were written by Paul or added by a later scribe. Since vided by Karl Barth, who writes the following humorous and in- our focus here is on Romans 16 as we encounter it in our Bibles, I sightful summary of the significance of the list of people in this will treat it as part of the chapter and ask how well it summarizes chapter—a summary that contributes to our understanding of the the letter. Whether scholars consider this as Paul’s own benedic- whole chapter’s value: tion or one by a later scribe, most regard this benediction as a The possibility that Tryphaena and Tryphosa and the other fitting summary of the letter. For example, I. Howard Marshall ‘laymen’—not to speak of the ‘theologians’ included in this long is very positive about the content of this benediction, as is plain list!—would not have been able to understand the Epistle, does from his title “Romans 16:25–27—An Apt Conclusion.”28 not seem to have been considered. In other words, there was I consider this to be a benediction but not a complete sum- once—and this would hold good even if the ‘Ephesian’ theory mary of the message of Romans. Note that there is nothing about were right—a body of men and women to whom the Epistle to Israel in this benediction, nothing of “to the Jew first and then the Romans could be sent in the confident expectation that it to the Greek.” Indeed Marshall, who takes a positive view of the provided an answer to their questions; that somehow or other benediction, betrays the problem when he describes what hap- it would be understood and valued. For this body of men and pens in it: “The Gentile readers are assured that there is almost a women it seems that theology—this theology!—was THE liv- divine ‘bias toward the Gentiles,’ despite the fact that the gospel ing theme.…In fact, these men and women are more surpris- comes ‘to the Jews [sic] first’ and despite the intensity of Paul’s ing than are the other historical problems raised by the Epistle concern for his own people.”29 to the Romans. We are, however, not surprised that they were In other words, this benediction leads one to think that Ro- able to—salute one another with a holy kiss.31 mans is all about how the gospel brings the Gentiles to faith. That worked for almost two millennia, but after the world allowed the Like an envelope in which we seal a postal letter to a loved one, execution of six million Jews in the twentieth century, it is more Romans 16 lets us know that real people, including women leaders, difficult to avoid the recurrent theme in Romans that God is faith- those with slave backgrounds, and those both with and without

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 15 Jewish connections, were meant to hear and benefit from this let- Inscriptionum Graecarum 6835 and Papyri Graecae Magicae Oslo 1.338. ter. It gives us the powerful example of Paul describing the woman 6. 1 Clement 36:1; 61:3; 64:1. Junia as an apostle and also shows us that Paul regarded her and 7. William Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary the other women leaders mentioned as people who were truly la- 31, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 417. boring and doing good work in building up the house churches 8. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the of Rome. The commendation for Phoebe, the greetings list, the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary 31 (Edinburgh: warnings of people causing division, the benediction that criticiz- T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2:781. es the pax Romana, the greetings from the secretary and ministry 9. J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Bible Commentary 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 887. The inscription may be found in G. H. R. Horsley, ed., team that sponsored the letter, and the benediction that leaves out New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 4:239–41. Israel all help us see that this letter is to be read to people with feet 10. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 164–83. on the ground and not limited to academics or clergy. 11. Ibid., 165–66. 12. Ibid., 170. The “leveling of names” was due to upwardly mobile freedmen/women who gained wealth and sought noble names and the low fertility rates and economic stagnation of the nobility. Lampe cites Recommended Resource J. Bamgart, “Die römischen Sklavennamen” (Ph.D. dissertation, Breslau, 1936), 82–83, and B. Doer, Die römische Namengebung (Stuttgart: 1937; Junia: The First Woman Apostle reprint ed. Hildesheim/New York: 1974), 201 on this phenomenon that occurred later in the imperial period, after Romans was composed. By Eldon Jay Epp 13. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 175. The name “Junia” appears in Romans 16:7, and Paul 14. Ibid., 173–74. identifies her (along with Andronicus) as “prominent 15. Ibid., 183. among the apostles.” Epp investigates the mysteri- 16. Ibid., 167. ous disappearance of Junia from the traditions of the 17. Ibid., 168. church and restores Junia to her rightful place. 18. Charles H. Cosgrove, “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?” Catholic Bibli- cal Quarterly 68,2 (April 2006): 289. Fortress • 138 pages • List $16.00 • CBE member $13.60 19. Eldon Jay Epp, “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Fac- CBE members receive 15% off all regularly priced resources and tors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16,7,” in New Testament 50% off all CBE-produced recordings at Equality Depot Bookstore. Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, ed. A. Denaux, Bib- See page 62 for more information on CBE membership. liotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 161 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 227–91. Republished in book form as Eldon Jay Order online at www.equalitydepot.com or call 612-872-6898 Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). 20. Epp, “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Factors,” 242– 46; 281–82. 21. Ibid., 251–55. Notes 22. Ibid., 258–63. Epp makes use of the following two articles: Rich- ard S. Cervin, “A Note regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16.7,” 1. Harry Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 464–70 and John Thorley, “Junia, a Studies and Documents 42 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 128– Woman Apostle,” Novum Testamentum 38 (1996): 18–29. 29, 141. 23. Epp, “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Factors,” 265. 2. Ibid., 33–35; T. W. Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans—and 24. Ibid., 284–90, responding to Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wal- Others,” in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. ed. (Peabody, lace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” New Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 13. Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76–91. See also John Chrysostom, Homilies 3. Gamble, Textual History, 16–17, 29–33, 141. on the Epistle to the Romans 31.2 (PG 60:669–70). 4. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Claren- 25. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 901. don, 1996), 324–28; Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten 26. Cranfield, Romans, 797. beiden Jahrhunderten, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), 124–35 [an 27. Ibid., 799–802. English translation is available in Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: 28. I. Howard Marshall, “Romans 16:25–27—An Apt Conclusion,” in Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 153–64]; W.-H. Ollrog, “Die Abfassungsver- Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright hältnisse von Röm 16,” in Kirche, Festschrift for Günther Bornkamm, ed. D. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 170–184. Lührmann and G. Strecker (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1980), 221–24. 29. Marshall, “An Apt Conclusion,” 181. 5. Cf. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the 30. Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5, First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Fathers of the Church 103 (Washington, D.C.: 2003), 164. On the word as a Latinism, see Blass Debrunner Funk §5 (3). Catholic University of America Press, 2001), Preface ¶8 (Scheck 57); 3.1.3 Sophocles, Oedipus Coloneus 458; Lucian, Bis Accusatus 29, and Charide- (on Rom. 3:5–8; Scheck 178–79). mus 10; Appian Bella Civilia 1.1; Porphyry, de Antro Nympharum 12. It is 31. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. E. C. Hoskyns (Ox- used of people considered to be patronesses of a god or goddess in Corpus ford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 536 (his emphasis).

Search Priscilla Papers by TITLE, AUTHOR, or SUBJECT online at www.cbeinternational.org.

16 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Head Over Heels: A Theology of Leadership in Christian Marriage Elaine A. Heath

A personal note of thanks to CBE oneself to one’s beloved with joyous abandon. It is to somersault, again and again, circling with trust, respect, honor, and apprecia- I have been a member of Christians for Biblical Equality for nearly tion, with mirth. Somersaults are playful, childlike, undignified. two decades, and I am honored to write this article to help cel- One cannot do a somersault while worrying about being in charge ebrate the twentieth anniversary of Priscilla Papers. I am an ex- or telling others what to do. Nor can one imagine somersaults in ample of a woman whose life has been profoundly shaped by the the context of fear, intimidation, or diminishment. Somersaults ministries of CBE, from the time I first perceived my call to min- are acts of freedom. istry, up until now. With a bit of imagination these images of “head over heels The first step that led me to CBE was reading Aída Besançon love” can be seen in the circular shape of wedding rings, and the Spencer’s book, Beyond the Curse.1 It was my introduction to an meanings associated with them. The wedding vows in the Unit- egalitarian hermeneutic of Scripture, my first taste of scholarship ed Methodist tradition, for example, include a section called the that was liberating for women and men while upholding evangeli- Blessing of the Rings. During this part of the ceremony the bride cal commitments to Scripture. At the time I read this book I knew and groom each say, while placing the ring on the other’s finger, God had called me to ordained ministry and academic ministry, “With all that I have and all that I am, I honor you, in the name of but with only a high school diploma and membership in a church the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”2 In other words, that forbade women from serving on the church board, the ob- the circle of the ring represents the gift of oneself, and the ring is stacles seemed insurmountable. Yet the call came to me again and given in the name of the God whose Three-in-One-ness has been again. I finally said yes to God. imaged since antiquity as perichoresis, a circle dance of mutual Not long afterward, I wrote to Dr. Spencer to ask her about my love and self-giving.3 That is, the exchange of rings signifies an dilemma, mailing my letter to the publisher. After several weeks, ongoing circle-dance of love between a man and woman, equal, to my great joy a letter arrived, hand written and filled with lov- one, yet distinct from one another.4 The rings are a continuous ing encouragement. Among other gems of wisdom, Dr. Spencer commitment to love in the image of the Trinity. The real “head” of encouraged me to join CBE, for I would find many resources there this kind of “head over heels” marriage is God. to assist in my journey into ministry. She was right. There are objections, of course, to this free-wheeling interpre- With the books, articles, tapes, and conferences offered by tation of marital love. These objections have to do with a particu- CBE, I increasingly gained the understanding I needed, as well lar interpretation of a few texts in the epistles.5 While these objec- as the beginning of a supportive network, so that I could answer tions are important and must be considered, more fundamental the call to ministry. I went on to complete three degrees, culmi- and pervasive biblical themes must guide our reading. These are nating in a Ph.D. in systematic theology. Today I am an ordained the triune nature of the God in whose image we love; the revela- minister in the United Methodist Church, and I am a professor at tion of God’s nature in the actual practice of Jesus, and the reality Perkins School of Theology. CBE has been an integral part of my of the indwelling Holy Spirit in every believer. These three issues journey every step of the way. inform how we interpret the epistolary texts. The following article expresses my theology of leadership in What we see in Jesus is servanthood, a core commitment to Christian marriage. I write as a Christian theologian, an ordained serve the best interests of others, even to the point of death. “I clergywoman, a wife, and a mother. I write from my social loca- have not come to be served but to serve,” Jesus says to his disciples tion as an Anglo, middle-aged, middle-class, American woman. (Matt. 20:28). Jesus impresses upon his followers then and now, I write as someone who has endured much in order to answer the necessity of taking up a cross daily, of dying to oneself daily in God’s call, no small amount of it coming from those who would order to find life (Matt. 16:24–25). The overwhelming testimony of silence and subjugate women in the name of God. (I would gladly the Gospels is that Jesus embodies and teaches a relational ethos do it again, for God’s sake.) I write with gratitude for the faithful- of martyrdom, of dying for love’s sake so that others might have ness of God who calls us and equips us to bring love into this life.6 This is what Jesus has in mind not just for those who follow, hurting world. More than anything, I write because I love the One but especially for those who lead in the kingdom of God. who is Love.

Head over heels ELAINE A. HEATH (Ph.D., Duquesne University) is the Everyone who has been in love knows what it means to be “head director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of over heels.” This old saying originated in 14th century England, Theology, Southern Methodist University. She also serves as an elder in the East Ohio Conference of the United where it started out as “heels over head,” meaning a cartwheel or Methodist Church. somersault. To be head over heels is to love without reserve, to give

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 17 Becoming the good gift 17:20–21). Children growing up in a family in which both parents practice this kind of “broken bread and poured out wine” love, will The preparation of catechumens in the early church was a prepa- grow up seeing the Gospel embodied in their own parents. ration for martyrdom. (The word “witness” in Greek is marturia.) The sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with their mother, asking In the early years of the church, literal martyrdom was a real pos- (through her!) for special seats of power, authority, and privilege sibility for many Christians, thus language about the preparation in the coming Kingdom. “You don’t know what you are asking,” for potential martyrdom was no mere rhetorical device to em- replied Jesus. “Lord, shouldn’t the men sit on your right hand phasize commitment. The expectation of Christian discipleship and your left while the women sit over there?” we ask. “You don’t today, as a laying down of one’s life for the sake of the Gospel, know what you are asking” replies Jesus. For the more closely we is reflected in our baptismal vows and practices. To be baptized identify with Jesus the Head of the Church, the more we are called is to have left behind, to have died to the old life of sin, control, to martyrdom, to a life of broken bread and poured out wine in and self-interest, and to have embraced the new life of holiness, which we take up our cross so that others might live. These daily “Christ in us, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Our witness is in liv- “small martyrdoms” are the living out of our vocation as Chris- ing the baptized life. tians, as “little Christs” who “walk as Jesus In addition to baptism, the sacrament walked” (1 John 1:6). (or in some denominations, the ordi- he expression of our many gifts and The problem with James and John Ze- nance) of Holy Communion holds special graces, abilities and responsibilities, T bedee (and their mother) was that they meaning for our relationships as Chris- is to be done as a good gift to others, were asking the wrong question. They tians as well. To be a disciple is to live what as an outcome of what we have wanted to know how to have more power Henri Nouwen calls a eucharistic life, a life received in the good gift of Jesus. for themselves in God’s name, when the lived for others because of the gift of self- real question is how to give more power giving love one has received from Christ.7 to others in God’s name. That is the same (The word “eucharist” comes from Greek words meaning “to give problem in all attempts to use language about God to empower thanks,” and is related to the words for “gift” and “grace.”) and privilege husbands by subordinating and subjugating wives. The celebration of Holy Communion is a thankful celebration Marriage, of all relationships, is the one most keenly aligned of the “good gift” of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, as well as with a spirituality of martyrdom, of baptismal, eucharistic love. It his promise to come again. This celebration does not end with is the life of a self-giving covenant between a man and a woman sharing at the Lord’s table, however. It continues as we ourselves that gives birth to light in a dark, violent world. In marriage we become “good gifts” of God in our relationships with one another. are called daily to lay down our lives in a mutual dance of kenotic The expression of our many gifts and graces, abilities and respon- love. It is a circle dance, a head over heels surrender in the name sibilities, is to be done as a good gift to others, as an outcome of of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. what we have received in the good gift of Jesus. Oswald Cham- bers favoring the phrase “becoming broken bread and poured out Mutual hospitality wine”8 for characterizing the Christian life. This eucharistic, self- giving life of love is the foundation for all Christian relationships, The language of love is the language of surrender. It is about vul- and should be our most basic understanding of marital love. nerability, about yielding, about giving up. To love is to give up and leave behind the old life of control and self-interest. Anyone Mutual self-giving as our witness to the world who has truly loved, knows better than to think he or she can con- trol or dominate the beloved. The two are mutually exclusive. It is true that Jesus is coming again, and will come in great glory We cannot get away from the central fact of love, of Jesus’ re- and honor, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess fusal to engage in any kind of coercion and his unwillingness to that he is Lord (Phil. 2:10–11). His second coming will be as trium- discount or marginalize anyone, including women. We have pro- phant King, not suffering Servant. Yet his life on earth was one of jected onto the God who is Love, our worst darkness, insecurities, servanthood, and his clear teaching for his disciples in every age and fears, our own lust for power. In this blasphemous projection is that we are to be like him in that way, as servants washing one we delude ourselves into thinking that Christian marriage should another’s feet (John 13:14). The only kind of hierarchy Jesus teach- emulate this kind of fearful submission and control. We have done es is an inversion in which the first shall be last and the last shall this to the God who is essentially hospitable. be first (Matt. 20:27), the kind of hierarchy in which a little child Henri Nouwen describes God’s hospitable love in his classic, leads everyone else (Matt. 18:1–4). There are simply no exceptions Reaching Out.9 Hospitality is the sacred space we create for one an- to this in Jesus’ teaching. For Jesus, leadership is a matter of laying other (he calls all others “strangers” to honor the mystery of their down one’s life for others (John 10:15; 21:17–19). otherness) so that the other can become more alive, more whole, In light of this ethos, questions over who is the head and who is more true. Hospitality is about honoring the other. It is about em- the tail in a marriage are striking in their irrelevance. Christian hus- powering, protecting, and respecting the life of the other. Hospi- bands and wives are called to die daily for each other in the name of table love in marriage is always a circular dance of self-giving love, the Crucified One. This relationship of mutual self-giving will be the a mutual kenosis—a mutual self-emptying.10 Nouwen helps us to witness (marturia) to a watching world, that the gospel is true (John

18 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 understand that the first and best way to think of marriage, is as is the advance of the reign of God, and the world watches and a kind of mutual hospitality.11 His theology of hospitality is in no wonders at this kind of love, for it offers hope and healing to mil- small part due to his theology of the coequal Trinity.12 lions of people. Circling and dancing, husbands and wives give One shining example of a godly couple who love in this way is of themselves to one another, imaging the God who is head over that of Joseph and Mary of Nazareth. Joseph repeatedly surrenders heels in love with us all. his own dreams and plans, his own will, to help Mary answer her divine call. Joseph defies customs in his hometown, moves to new communities, takes on new jobs, protects and provides for Mary and Jesus, and loves them wholeheartedly. Joseph respects Mary’s Recommended Resource spirituality, her experience of God, her call, and her gifts. Joseph of- fers to his wife eucharistic love. For both Mary and Joseph, the will Beyond the Curse: of God and the call of God are the final authority. God is the head Women Called to Ministry of their marriage. As they each sincerely seek the face of God, they By Aída Besançon Spencer come to the same conclusions in decisions affecting their family. This classic egalitarian work remains a timely and While the amount of biblical material about the Holy Family vital contribution to a biblical understanding of is limited, it is sufficiently developed to serve as a paradigm for women’s role in the church. Aída Besançon Spen- love in Christian marriage. One wonders if Jesus’ extraordinary cer, an ordained minister (PCUSA) and New Tes- tament professor, offers insights into God’s man- respect for and inclusion of women in his ministry, had its roots dates for partnership between men and women in his family of origin as he observed the loving relationship be- based on Genesis, Jesus, and Paul. Priscilla Papers tween Joseph and Mary. editor William David Spencer contributes a fascinating afterword with practical applications for marriage, parenting, and church life.

Gifted to serve one another Hendrickson • 215 pages • List $11.95 • CBE member $10.16

Another reason for a baptismal, eucharistic, kenotic theology of CBE members receive 15% off all regularly priced resources and leadership in Christian marriage, is that spiritual gifts form the 50% off all CBE-produced recordings at Equality Depot Bookstore. basis for Christian service in Christian community, including the See page 62 for more information on CBE membership. smallest unit of community, which is the family. The Holy Spirit Order online at www.equalitydepot.com or call 612-872-6898 gives gifts to men and women alike, with no distinction based on gender (Acts 2:17–18; 1 Cor. 12:1–11). Gifts of leadership, ad- ministration, teaching, and prophecy are given to both men and Notes women. In the Old and New Testaments there are many exam- 1. Aída Besançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse (Peabody, Mass.: Hen- ples of women with gifts of leadership, administration, prophecy, drickson, 1989). teaching, and wisdom.13 We also see such gifting in women in the 2. “A Service of Christian Marriage,” United Methodist Hymnal church throughout history.14 (Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1989), 868. In a Christian marriage, leadership is a function of spiritual 3. For more on perichoresis see Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), gifting and natural abilities, as well as the needs of a given situ- 72, 98, 228, 270–78, 296, 298, 363. ation. There is a natural flexibility to this style of leadership, a 4. Despite temporary expressions of subordination in the economic partnership between a husband and wife who both honor Jesus as Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit are in essence co-equal, co-existent, and Head. In this approach to leadership the question is never about co-eternal. Subordinationism within the Trinity has been repeatedly de- “who is on top” but rather, how each can serve the other and the nounced as heresy. For more about the relationship of Trinitarian equal- rest of the community using his or her God-given gifts. The goal ity and gender relationships, see Gilbert Bilezikian, “Historical Bun- gee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” Journal of the Evangelical is mutual empowerment to the glory of God. Theological Society 40,1 (March 1997): 57–68. St. Paul’s language about the equal honor, dignity, and worth of 5. For a detailed treatment of these texts see John Temple Bristow, every part of the body is not gender specific (1 Cor. 12:25–26). The What Paul Really Said About Women (San Francisco: HarperSanFran- placement of his teaching on spiritual gifts immediately follows cisco, 1988); Richard Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not his teaching on Holy Communion. The use of all the gifts is to be a Woman (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1992); Aída Besançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989); Willard done in a spirit of agape love (1 Cor. 13). M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald, 1983); and Ben Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity Conclusion (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1990). 6. At this juncture it is vital to note that the abuse of this understand- Whatever we might say about headship in Christian marriage, the ing of Christian submission can lead to domestic violence. The eucharis- indisputable teaching and example of Jesus, and the broader con- tic ethos in marriage is meant to be mutual between a Christian husband text of the teaching of the epistles about the meaning of disciple- and Christian wife (Eph. 5:21). To demand that a Christian spouse submit ship, is one of self-giving love. This love is baptismal, eucharistic, to abuse in the name of eucharistic love is a perversion of eucharistic love. kenotic, surrendered, hospitable, holy. The overflow of such love See Catherine Clark Kroeger and James R. Beck, eds., Women, Abuse and

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 19 the Bible: How Scripture Can Be Used to Hurt or Heal (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996); Catherine Clark Kroeger and Nancy Nason-Clark, Charitable Gift Annuities No Place for Abuse: Biblical and Practical Resources to Counteract Domes- tic Violence (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2001); Carol J. Ad- CBE is partnering with the Chris- ams and Marie M. Fortune, eds., Violence Against Women and Children: tian Community Foundation A Christian Theological Sourcebook (New York: Continuum, 1995). (CCF)* to offer a giving opportuni- 7. To live a eucharistic life is to incarnate in our daily lives the love ty that balances security and flex- of Christ who gave himself for us. Henri J. M. Nouwen, Life of the Be- ibility—without compromising loved: Spiritual Living in a Secular World (New York: Crossroads, 1992), generosity. This opportunity is the 41–42. See also Nowen’s beautiful exposition of the eucharistic life in Charitable Gift Annuity. You can With Burning Hearts: A Meditation on the Eucharistic Life (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1994). For a fine introduction to an evangelical apprecia- make a gift of cash, securities, or tion for eucharistic spirituality, see Robert Webber, “How the Eucharist other assets in exchange for fixed Nourishes Spirituality,” Ancient Future Worship, http://www.churchmart. lifetime payments. At your death, com/webber/200405h.html. the remaining value benefits the mission of your recommended 8. Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest (New York: Dodd, charity. This giving opportunity ensures income for your future, Mead & Co. 1935), 33, 41, 46, 56, 136, 197, 274, 320. tax benefits both now and later, and support for your favorite 9. Henri J. M. Nouwen, Reaching Out (New York: Doubleday, 1985). nonprofit organization. 10. Kenosis is the self-emptying love of Christ, described most nota- bly in the “Kenotic Hymn” of Philippians 2:5–11. 11. Nouwen, Reaching Out, 79–100. Social ethicist Christine Pohl of- Benefits fers an evangelical perspective on the importance of reclaiming hospital- ity as the core ethos for Christian life in Making Room: Recovering Hospi- ◆ Security—Your fixed payments will not change, regardless of whether interest rates rise or fall. tality as a Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999). 12. See Nouwen’s deeply moving meditation on Rublev’s icon of the ◆ High rates of return—Your annuity payments may be con- Trinity in Behold the Beauty of the Lord: Praying with Icons (Notre Dame: siderably more than you are presently receiving. Ave Maria, 1987), 19–27. Tax benefits both now and later. ◆ 13. For example Deborah, Hulda, Phoebe, Priscilla, the four daugh- Flexibility—You choose immediate or deferred payments ◆ ters of Philip, and others. and frequency of payments—quarterly, semiannually, or an- 14. For a fine study see Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of nually. the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1987). ◆ Provide for yourself and one other: your spouse, a special needs child, or a parent. ◆ Support your favorite charities—Your recommended charity may receive both an immediate gift and the portion left at the maturity of the agreement. Your Next Step e- ◆ Notify CBE of your interest in setting up a gift annuity and we will connect you with the Christian Community Foundation (CCF), to walk you through the process. You can also contact CCF at www.thefoundations.org or (719) 447-4620 for a confi- dential gift annuity proposal. ◆ Check with your attorney, accountant, or financial advisor about how a charitable gift annuity might fit into your total financial and estate planning. CCF will work with them and you to achieve your charitable objectives. Every Priscilla Papers back issue through vol. 18 has been archived * The Christian Community Foun- on e-Priscilla Papers, a fully-indexed, dation has a vision to glorify Jesus interactive CD-ROM. Christ by inspiring and enabling personal commitment of time, tal- This research tool is full of valuable ent, and treasure to the expansion of information for any person inter- the Kingdom of God. Both CBE and ested in learning more about bibli- CCF are members in good standing cal equality, for just $99.99. with the Evangelical Council for Fi- nancial Accountability (ECFA), and To order a copy of e-Priscilla Papers, have agreed to abide by the ECFA visit our online bookstore, www. standards of responsible steward- equalitydepot.com, or call toll free, ship, financial integrity, and Chris- 1–877–285–2256. tian ethics.

20 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of “Head” (Kephalē) in Paul’s Writings Alan F. Johnson

Since the middle of the twentieth century there has been an ongo- On the other hand, and this is important, for Bedale kephalē ing, sometimes acrimonious debate over the meaning of “head” can also occasionally in certain contexts mean the ‘overlordship’ (Greek, kephalē) in Paul’s letters, especially 1 Corinthians 11:3 and of Christ (Eph. 1:22). In other contexts kephalē stresses the rela- Ephesians 5:23. The literature is extensive. The debate continues, tionship of one being to another in the sense of archē (‘first,’ ‘be- but few have taken the time to read all the significant discussions ginning’) and that priority (causal and not merely temporal) “un- or have access to the actual articles, much less the resources to cri- questionably carries with it the idea of authority” (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. tique such. This article is an attempt to review the most significant 5:23) (215). As a result, the female is socially ‘subordinate’ to the scholarly literature that has emerged in the debate and to sum- male as part of the order of creation while otherwise remaining marize each without critique. The focus is narrow and should not equal in spiritual status or capacities. be taken as a meta-study of the whole debate on male and female Bedale used the word ‘source’ only once in the article as the mean- relations in the church, home, and world. ing of kephalē and relates this specific sense to two passages only Since no evaluation can be completely free of prejudice or bias, I (Eph. 4:15; Col. 2:19). However, his practical equivalence of kephalē will state my current position. I hold a critical and qualified accep- with archē extends the idea of source as ‘origin’ or ‘first’ much further. tance of the evangelical egalitarian viewpoint. I offer the following Commentaries quickly began adopting some or all of Bedale’s views review as the fairest attempt that I can give of the history and cur- (e.g., Leon Morris [1958]2; C.K. Barrett [1968]3 F.F. Bruce [1971]4). rent state of the issue. In conclusion, I offer my own application of the results to 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. Only the most Morna D. Hooker (1963–64) significant contributions (in my estimation) from all sides can be A brief, but well known and enduring study by the honored Cam- included. I offer my apologies to any who were overlooked. bridge scholar Morna D. Hooker contributed two major points in the understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:3–10.5 First, she clarified the The history of the debate double sense of kephalē in the passage. Paul seems to use the word Stephen Bedale (1954) to simultaneously refer to both physical and metaphorical head. According to Hooker, We begin with an early seminal article by Stephen Bedale.1 Amaz- ingly brief for the firestorm it sparked (4 pages), the points Be- Every man who prays and prophesies with his head covered dale raised continue to be played out in the current debate. Be- dishonours his head, whereas every woman who prays or dale argued that since the normal Greek metaphorical meaning prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head. The of kephalē would not be understood as ‘ruler’ or ‘chief,’ Paul must reason for this differentiation is given in v. 6, and is based on have been influenced by the Greek version of the Old Testament social custom: in Paul’s eyes an uncovered head is as great a (lxx) where kephalē was used sometimes to translate the Hebrew disgrace for a woman as one that is shorn….In communities rosh (when it meant ‘ruler’ or ‘chief’). where it is no longer a disgrace for a woman to be ‘shorn,’ the However, rosh could have a second figurative meaning as well argument has lost its point….When he speaks of a head being in other contexts, ‘first’ or ‘beginning’ (translated by the Greek, covered or shorn, then it is obvious that he is referring to the archē, ‘first,’ ‘beginning,’ ‘principal’). The two words (archē and man’s or the woman’s own heads, but when he says that a head kephalē) became “approximate in meaning” in biblical Greek (i.e., is dishonoured, we must ask whether the word ‘head’ is to be Greek influenced by the lxx). Thus in Colossians 1:18, kephalē in taken literally or metaphorically….The answer is probably that the sense of ‘ruler’ or ‘chief’ would be an “irrelevant intrusion into he does both, but the primary point is that he brings shame the context which is wholly concerned with Christ as archē, the on Christ. It is here that we see the relevance of v. 3 to Paul’s ‘beginning’ and ‘first principle’ alike in Creation and Redemption argument: the man or woman who dishonours his or her own (cf. Rev. iii.14, hē archē tēs ktiseōs)” (213). Likewise in Colossians head in the literal sense brings dishonour also on his or her 2:19 and Ephesians 4:15 where the body is said to derive its growth metaphorical head.… (410–11) and development from the head, it is very difficult to make any sense of it at all so long as kephalē is understood as ‘overlord.’ But ALAN F. JOHNSON (Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) when Christ is understood to be archē in relation to the church, is emeritus professor of New Testament and Christian it is possible to see how Christians can grow up into him, as the ethics at Wheaton College and Graduate School. He is the archetypal image of the Second Adam is progressively realized in author of several commentaries, including 1 Corinthians (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), Revelation them. At the same time it is possible to think of the body as the (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and Romans (Everyman’s ‘fullness’ or ‘fulfillment’ of the kephalē (Eph. 1:23). Bible Commentary).

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 21 Hooker’s second major contribution is to clearly establishes that between male and female in which the one was dominant and the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) in verse 10 refers not to a the other submissive. Rather, he used it (1) to designate the sign of male authority over the woman, but rather to the woman’s proper relationship between the sexes in the context of the own authority to fully participate in worship that glorifies God.6 new order, and (2) to insist on the continuation of sexual dis- As a redeemed woman she now has the authority to proclaim. tinctions and the validity of marriage in the new creation in a polemic with Gnostic claims to the contrary. (47) Far from being a symbol of the woman’s subjection to man, therefore, her head-covering is what Paul calls it—authority: After carefully explaining what he means by Gnostic-like thought, in prayer and prophecy she, like the man, is under the author- Layman examines Ephesians 5:21–33 and 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. In ity of God. Although the differences in creation remain, and the first reference he points out that in most traditional interpre- are reflected in the differences of dress, it is nevertheless true tations of this passage, the kephalē metaphor is understood as a that in relation to God ‘there is neither male nor female; for physiological metaphor, i.e., the kephalē is ‘prior,’ that part which you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (416) ‘determines’ or ‘governs’ the body (e.g., “The man is the head of the woman”). Layman denies that Paul ever uses the head-body Unfortunately, while many commentators have followed this in- metaphor in such a physiological sense. On the other hand, Paul terpretation, only a few modern translations have captured this does use the body metaphor for the church in a physiological sense sense (e.g., “… as a sign of her authority,” cev; “… the woman as analogous to Christians relating to each other but without the ought to have authority over her own head,” tniv). idea of headship present (Rom. 12:4–8; 1 Cor. 12:12–31). Further- more, Paul spoke of the kephalē in isolation from any reference to Robin Scroggs (1972) a body (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22; Col. 2:10). Robin Scroggs defended Paul against the allegations that he was the chief chauvinist in the Bible.7 According to Scroggs, Paul The body metaphor addressed the matter of mutuality within the was in fact the “only consistent spokesman for the liberation and believing community; the head metaphor spoke of Christ as the equality of women in the New Testament” (283). Paul’s deepest source, beginning, savior, and conserver of the church. The two theological conviction about the relationship between men and metaphors do not change these meanings when they are brought women is found in Galatians 3:28. Any value judgments based on into proximity to each other, and to interpret them in correspon- the distinctions between persons in the society, including men dence to a physiological model is to create numerous absurdi- and women, are nullified by their baptism. ties. Ephesians 4:16 and Colossians 2:19 refer to the church as the In practical application of this fundamental Christian prin- ‘whole body,’ which if a physiological model is intended, would ciple (Gal. 3:28) to a specific problem at Corinth in their worship have two heads. Nor would the language about the body growing services, Paul appeals to the fact that Christ has his source in God, up into the head (Eph. 4:15) make any sense. (52) man his source in Christ, and the woman her source in the man Christ’s lordship and his headship are two different but related (1 Cor. 11:3). Scroggs follows Bedale in adopting ‘source’ for the ideas for Paul. As Lord he is the governing rule of all creation. meaning of kephalē, but rejects Bedale’s sense of ‘overlordship’ as His headship speaks of him as the beginning, origin, and ground its meaning in verse 3. of all being and of the new, redeemed creation. Only Christ’s Here no subordination of woman to man is intended; what is headship not his lordship is held up as a model for the Christian expressed is the order of the creative events.…Again we have a husband. Christ’s headship toward the church is expressed in his clear distinction between the sexes, but in this strophe no jus- love, self-sacrifice, and provision for the church. Submission to tification is given for the rule [about head coverings] nor any this loving headship is voluntary and becomes transformed into a value judgment made on the basis of the rule. (301) relationship of mutual reciprocity. Finally, it should be noted that Paul never refers to the wife as the body of the husband (only the However obscure the passage as a whole may seem (1 Cor. 11:2– husband’s own body). 16), Paul strongly affirms the authority of the woman (v. 10). The In the other main passage (1 Cor. 11:3), kephalē is not female apostle actually offers a radically new vision of women’s equality subordination, but Paul’s way of stressing that man is the source of and freedom from which the church quickly departed and rein- the woman (Eve being taken out of Adam, Gen. 2:18–25). Follow- terpreted the texts to teach the older vision of the subordination ing Hurley (1973—see below), Layman considers the major prob- of women (even in the deutero-Pauline letters). lem addressed in 11:2–16 to be not the issue of some type of cloth coverings but the problem of hair on the head (either long/short Fred D. Layman (1980) or loose/bound up on the top of the head). The most likely reason Coming from a Weslyan perspective, Fred D. Layman8 wrote an for their reversing the normal way the hair was worn was related informed article on the question of male headship. Layman states to a pagan cult that abolished the distinctions between men and his thesis this way: women as culturally indicated by hairstyles. This practice in the Christian gatherings for worship would bring dishonor not only Paul did not use the idea of male headship in a governmental on the persons involved but also upon the public moral percep- nor ontological way as establishing a hierarchical relationship tion of the gospel of Christ.

22 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 James B. Hurley (1981) which incorporated their earlier, more popular statements. The In James B. Hurley’s publication9 of his earlier doctoral disserta- Mickelsens point out that though the standard classical lexicon tion (Cambridge, 1973) we find a rejection of kephalē meaning for ancient Greek, Liddell-Scott-Jones (lsj), gives twenty-five dif- ‘source’ and a case presented for kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3 as ferent figurative meanings for kephalē, it never mentions ‘author- meaning ‘head over’ in the sense of authority (actually quoting ity,’ ‘superior rank,’ ‘leader,’ or ‘director’ as possible meanings of and following Bedale at this point!). The passage establishes “a hi- kephalē. This, the Mickelsens claim, is true for other lexicons of erarchy of headship authority…and that it is ordered” (167). In ancient Greek except the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker lexicon Ephesians 5:23, kephalē has the same sense of ‘head over’ (author- (bagd) that gives ‘superior rank’ as a possible sense citing two late ity) in connection with the husband’s relation to the wife. examples (2nd and 6th cent. a.d.) and two lxx references despite On the other hand, Hurley does recognize that this ‘head over’ the fact that this meaning for kephalē does not appear in the secu- sense does not fit kephalē passages such as Ephesians 4:15 and Colos- lar Greek of New Testament times. sians 2:19 where ‘source’ is “clearly” more appropriate and the con- Their examination of the lxx metaphorical uses of kephalē cept of authority is not introduced. Still further, in some texts the opened up a new debate on whether the term is “naturally” and idea of ‘authority,’ ‘source,’ and ‘union’ may coalesce (Col. 1:15–20). “frequently” used in the sense of ‘leader,’ ‘chief.’ The Hebrew term  In some respects Hurley may best represent the full thought of ro sh (‘head’) is used in the Old Testament 180 times for a ‘chief  Bedale more than any recent scholar on either side of the debate. something’ (e.g., man, city, nation). In 109 of these times, ro sh is This still leaves open the question of whether Bedale is completely translated by archon (‘leader,’ ‘chief’) rather than kephalē. Kephalē  correct or not. is used only eight times (less than four percent) when ro sh means ‘leader,’ ‘chief.’ The conclusion is that the use of kephalē to translate Gilbert Bilezikian (1985) rosh as ‘leader’ is “rare” and is not found in well-known passages, Gilbert Bilezikian wrote Beyond Sex Roles10 principally to refute thus limiting the knowledge of this sense. Hurley’s central thesis of male authority over women. In the sec- In the New Testament, kephalē is better translated ‘source of tions of the work that deal with kephalē, Bilezikian first cautions life,’ ‘top or crown,’ ‘exalted originator,’ ‘completer,’ and not by us not to equate the English word ‘head’ with the Greek kephalē, ‘authority over.’ These meanings, however, are derived not from especially in the English use of ‘head’ to signify ‘chief,’ ‘boss,’ ‘au- extrabiblical or lxx uses, but primarily from the context of Paul’s thority,’ ‘ruler.’ In the biblical texts themselves, the idea includes argument in passages containing the words. Thus in 1 Corinthians the meanings ‘derivation,’ ‘origin,’ ‘starting point,’ and ‘nurture,’ 11:3, kephalē means ‘source,’ ‘base,’ ‘derivation.’ In Ephesians 5:23, but not ‘chief,’ ‘boss,’ or ‘authority.’ kephalē means ‘the one who brings to completion,’ stressing on In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Bilezikian indicates what he feels is the the one hand, the unity of Christ and the church, husband and correct sense of kephalē in Greek. wife, and on the other, the mutually interdependent relation be- tween the two in each of the pairs. The concept might be better served by the expression foun- tainhead or life-source. Thus, in the perspective of creation it Wayne Grudem (1985) makes sense to say that Christ is the ‘fountainhead’ of man’s With Wayne Grudem,12 we have the beginning of what has come life, and that man is the fountainhead of woman’s life. Likewise to be called “the battle of the lexicons.” His first study challenges from the perspective of the incarnation, God is the fountain- the position of Bedale, the Mickelsens, Bilezikian, and even the head of Christ’s life. (137) well-respected lsj lexicon. The charge against Bedale, the Mick- No lexical evidence for this sense is given beyond the New Testa- elsens, and Bilezikian is that under close examination, Grudem ment usage. (Bilezikian does provide this in an appendix in the 2nd can find no non-biblical Greek examples (including the lxx) edition. See below.) He then concludes that the idea that kephalē where kephalē means ‘source.’ (In two cases he allows the possibil- means ‘ruler’ or ‘authority’ would change the whole meaning of the ity but argues that another sense fits better.) passage. The order of the couplets (Christ-man, man-woman, God- He then builds a case for the meaning of kephalē as ‘authority Christ) shows that a hierarchy of authority was not in Paul’s mind. over’ and concludes that this sense was a “well-established and In discussing Ephesians 5:23 (“the husband is the head of the recognizable meaning” in the New Testament period (59). Here he wife”), Bilezikian examines the other relevant texts containing faults lsj for not including this meaning in its range of meanings the kephalē wording (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:18, 19). Christ is for kephalē. On the other hand, bagd is the lexicon of preference kephalē not to the universe but only to the church that is his body because it correctly includes the lxx usage of kephalē as ‘authority in that he supplies the church with its fullness and nurture for over’ as well as several other references with the same sense. growth (kephalē means ‘source of life’). The head-body duality Grudem obtained a printout from the University of Califor- stresses not ‘authority over,’ but reciprocity. nia’s database of all known Greek literature (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae—tlg) from the eighth century b.c. onward. Some 12,000 Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen (1979, 1981, 1986) instances were narrowed to 2,000, of which Grudem found 323 The Mickelsens published three Christianity Today articles11 on additional word uses. From these he found 49 metaphorical uses the meaning of kephalē. I will concentrate on their last article, (including the lxx and the New Testament) of kephalē where he

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 23 painstakingly argues in each of these examples that kephalē means prominent, (2) representative, and less frequently, (3) eminent or ‘authority over’ as the best sense. He then shows how all the refer- most honored part of the body in the common perceptions of ences to kephalē in the New Testament can be explained best by honor and dishonor with respect to the head in the first century. the meaning ‘authority over’ and not ‘source.’ Furthermore, it is a Finally, Liefeld states plainly that in light of Grudem’s study “it is proper extension of this ‘authority over’ sense to include ‘leader- no longer possible to dismiss the idea of ‘rulership’ from the discus- ship,’ ‘guidance,’ and ‘direction.’ sion” of kephalē (139). Whether Paul uses this sense or whether it is To Grudem’s credit, he focused the discussion on the actual the main meaning throughout Paul is another matter. In 1 Corin- evidence of non-biblical Greek examples and attempted to explain thians 11:3, it makes more sense to Liefeld to see kephalē as meaning these references in the context of where they were found. He also ‘prominent’ or ‘honored’ member than as ‘source’ or ‘ruler.’ correctly acknowledged that the Mickelsens did in fact recognize that ‘authority over’ was a possible sense of kephalē in ancient Catherine C. Kroeger (1987) Greek, however rare it might be. Unfortunately, he like most oth- Catherine C. Kroeger15 begins her discussion of kephalē with the ers, did not define what he meant by the English word ‘source.’ following statement: “The concept of head as ‘source’ is well doc- umented in both classical and Christian antiquity and has been Gilbert Bilezikian (1986) long accepted by scholars” (267). For evidence of this she turns The first major response to Grudem’s challenge came from Gilbert first to older Latin-Greek dictionaries that list among definitions Bilezikian in a paper presented for a plenary session of the annual for kephalē the Latin origo (‘source’ or ‘origin’). Turning to church meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.13 He takes up and leaders of the fourth and fifth centuries a.d., Kroeger argues that examines Grudem’s fifteen non-biblical examples of ‘authority they refer to kephalē as the ‘source’ (where this is her translation of over’ in ancient Greek. In each case, Bilezekian deconstructs the their word archē, ‘beginning,’ ‘origin’). Ancient views of the func- argument Grudem advances for the sense of ‘authority over.’ tion of the head physiologically lead to the conclusion that they He concludes that “the survey…did not yield a single instance viewed the head as the source of sperm and hence of the source of in which head is used with the meaning of ‘ruler or person of su- the generation of life or of the whole bodily condition. perior authority or rank’” (233). Instead, in the New Testament Furthermore, she argues from other church leaders of the kephalē means “a person or thing from which something else is fourth and fifth centuries a.d. that they viewed God as the ‘source’ derived or obtained” (235). However, Bilezikian admits that this (archē) of Christ and quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3, “God is the head sense is rare and “only occasionally is used in this way” (235). But of Christ.” In all of these examples it should be noted that Kroeger Paul could have picked this meaning up and used it with a Chris- assumes that archē means the same thing as the English word tian sense in his letters. Furthermore, kephalē is never used in an- ‘source.’ There is no discussion of the possible difference between cient Greek in a male-female context. ‘beginning’ or ‘first,’ and ‘source’ or ‘origin.’ Bilezikian proposes that in 1 Corinthians 11:3, kephalē means Finally, it should be noted that though Kroeger believes that ‘source’ or ‘origin,’ and in Ephesians 5:23, it means ‘source’ of life (Sav- ‘source’ is a well-documented sense of kephalē, she does admit iorhood), source of servanthood (gave himself), source of nurture. that in the New Testament period, kephalē may rarely have had the sense of ‘boss’ or ‘chief’ as it does in English and Hebrew. Walter L. Liefeld (1986) Richard S. Cervin (1989) In his early study of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,14 Walter L. Liefeld re- jected as unlikely the popular and traditional understanding of The principal challenge to Grudem’s study of kephalē as ‘author- kephalē as ‘ruler’ and the implication that what Paul was doing ity over’ comes from Richard S. Cervin.16 Cervin first critiques in 11:3 was setting up a “chain of command.” He warned, how- Grudem’s method and states that fourteen ancient Greek lexi- ever, that we should beware of pressing “one meaning fits all” for cons do not give ‘authority over’ as a possible meaning of kephalē. kephalē and suggested that there was no single or even dominant Only one does and it indicates that ‘leader’ is a Byzantine period meaning for kephalē and its sense might even change in a single sense (5th cent. a.d.). He then somewhat agrees with Grudem that passage. (In this he anticipates Dawes—see below). kephalē meaning ‘source’ is certainly not common, but disagrees Liefeld, at least initially, sided in part with Grudem stating that that it never means ‘source,’ citing two positive cases. After setting aside the twelve Pauline references as evidence the meaning ‘source’ adduced by Bedale as a clue to some of Paul’s (since these are contested), Cervin then examines in detail all the passages, lacks clear evidence.…Those who would claim such a examples that Grudem gives for kephalē meaning ‘authority over.’ meaning in the New Testament have to rely only on the context, He finds only four unambiguous cases where kephalē could pos- not on any external evidence prior to the first century. (139) sibly mean ‘ruler’ or ‘leader’ (three from the lxx) and one case Further, Liefeld warns that there is no single metaphorical use where ‘source’ would be better (Shepherd of Hermas). Otherwise of kephalē above the others (contra Grudem, Bilezikian, Mick- in all the other examples Grudem cites of kephalē meaning ‘au- elsens). He wants to keep kephalē in the mainstream of Greek and thority over,’ Cervin finds that the meaning of kephalē is better lxx thought and see kephalē as that part of the body that was (1) understood as ‘preeminence.’ In other words, the bulk of Grudem’s examples turn out in Cervin’s view as non-examples.

24 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Finally, Cervin reviews the first study of Fitzmyer (1989—see As for the Mickelsens’ views, there is no lxx evidence for below) that largely agrees with Grudem, and finds his evidence ‘source’ as the meaning of kephalē. However, Grudem does admit also lacking. He grants, however, that ‘leader’ or ‘authority over’ that kephalē as ‘ruler’ or ‘leader’ is not common, but is neverthe- could possibly be meant in some texts, but there are no unam- less a valid sense. The Mickelsens’ meanings of kephalē for the biguous examples. Pauline texts have no support from actual uses in contemporary Cervin raised the bar in the discussions to press for an even Greek. Payne’s (1986)21 criticism of ‘authority over’ for the sense closer examination of the fuller contexts of the word’s usage. “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3) because it suggests a sub- ordinationist view of Christ that the church denied, is rejected by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (1989, 1993) Grudem. He says, “From the time of the eternal generation of the Entering into the discussion of the issue of the meaning of Son [a.d. 325],” the doctrine of the Trinity “has been taken to im- kephalē is the prominent (no pun intended) Roman Catholic ply a relationship between the Father and the Son that eternally scholar. An earlier piece17 basically argued against the kephalē existed and that will always exist—a relationship that includes a as ‘source’ held by Scroggs and Murphy-O’Connor.18 Instead, subordination in role, but not essence or being” (457). Fitzmyer argued from the lxx uses of kephalē, several Philo Grudem admits to some corrections from Bilezikian’s critique, texts, an example from Josephus’ Jewish War, and a fourth cen- but basically disagrees with his conclusions that kephalē means tury church leader that “a Hellenistic Jewish writer such as Paul ‘source.’ The same challenge is given to Kroeger and Fee.22 Based of Tarsus could well have intended that kephalē in 1 Cor 11.3 be on recent studies by Cottrell and Max Turner (1989)23 which understood as ‘head’ in the sense of authority or supremacy over confirmed that ‘source’ is not a recognized meaning of kephalē, someone else” (510). He also would like to change lsj to include Grudem concludes that even if ‘source’ or ‘prominent part’ is valid this sense. (he does not concede that this is clear), it must include also the In a more recent article (1993),19 Fitzmyer engages Grudem idea of ‘authority over’ for persons who are designated as ‘head.’ and Cervin and uses the tlg source to add many more examples Unfortunately, Grudem does not define either ‘source’ or what he than in his previous study. Fitzmyer concludes (1) that kephalē means by ‘metaphor.’ could indeed be used in the sense of ‘source’ (contra Grudem), (2) Andrew C. Perriman (1994) in at least a dozen examples, kephalē clearly has the sense of ‘ruler’ or ‘leader,’ and in some cases it is even so explained (agreeing with Andrew C. Perriman24 reexamines the lexical texts cited by both Grudem). This latter sense did not appear in Greek literature until Grudem and Fitzmyer for ‘authority’ and ‘leadership’ and in each the last pre-Christian centuries and at the beginning of the Chris- case finds that the texts do not refer to ‘ruler’ or ‘leader’ in using tian era. While conceding that four leading lexicons of ancient the metaphor kephalē. Rather, in each case the thought is ‘repre- Greek usage omit this meaning, Fitzmyer does cite two other Ger- sentative,’ ‘prominent,’ or ‘illustrious.’ While these examples illus- man lexicons of ancient Greek that do list ‘ruler’ or ‘leader’ as a trate a certain association of kephalē with the figure of a ruler or possible sense of kephalē. leader, we cannot assume that the same association lies behind the Pauline texts. Further, no text can be cited where kephalē denotes Wayne Grudem (1990) the authority or sovereignty of one man or of men over others. This article by Wayne Grudem20 is primarily a response to Cervin As to kephalē meaning ‘source’ or ‘beginning’ of something, (1989) but includes critiques also of the Mickelsens (1981; 1986), Perriman states that Bedale’s argument is flawed, and ‘source’ and Bilezikian (1985), Tucker (1986), Payne (1986), Liefeld (1986), ‘beginning’ are not the same or interchangeable. Kroeger (1987), and Fee (1987). According to Grudem, Cervin Metaphor is a form of speech that is particularly sensitive to has rightly shown the weakness of the argument for ‘source’ as a context, and while it is the case that when the reference is to common meaning for kephalē. He wrongly dismissed the Pauline a river, the idea of ‘source’ may emerge quite naturally as a texts as evidence for the meaning of kephalē. Furthermore, he secondary connotation, there is no reason to suppose that the wrongly dismisses the lxx evidence and the bagd lexicon that same connotation is relevant when the metaphor is applied to includes it. Cervin also wrongly rejects the Plutarch texts be- some quite different subject…what J. Barr calls ‘illegitimate to- cause they are affected by the Latin caput. He unwisely discounts tality transfer.’ (613) the Apostolic Fathers as evidence for the meaning of kephalē even though they postdate Paul. The texts cited by Cervin and others are either non-cases or ‘be- The references of kephalē in Ephesians 4:15 and Colossians 2:19 ginning’ (archē), not ‘source.’ are better understood not as ‘source,’ but as ‘nourishment’ and First Corinthians 11:3 must be understood in its context as a the idea of ‘leader’ or ‘authority’ is never absent since Christ, who unique use of kephalē as a metaphor. It has nothing to do with a is the person referred to, is the authority and leader. However, man’s authority over a woman. The main theme of the passage con- some secondary overtones of ‘preeminence’ could be possible for cerns the shame or dishonor that attaches to a woman if she prays kephalē, if we include also the meaning of ‘authority over’ as the or prophesies with her head uncovered; it is a question of whether reason why there is preeminence. the woman’s behavior brings glory or dishonor on the man.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 25 He concludes his study by noting (1) both current positions are that they are essential to each other according to God’s design, weak lexicographically, (2) ‘prominent’ fits the texts well, (3) we but that since neither exists without the other, neither has ex- cannot use other Pauline passages to define 1 Corinthians 11:3, and clusive priority over the other and therefore gender does not (4) the passage does not teach the ‘authority’ of a hierarchy. determine priority in their relationship ‘in the Lord.’ In 11:11, therefore, Paul undermines gender-based hierarchy in the Judith Gundry-Volf (1997) body of Christ.…At the same time the difference between man Judith Gundry-Volf25 offers a genuine breakthrough in the inter- and woman remains. (163) pretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 that Anthony Thiselton (2000— This tension must be maintained between the redeemed order see below) characterizes as “the most seminal study of all.”26 She where gender distinctions remain but are socially relativized, and believes that the lexical debate alone is insufficient to understand the way this is expressed in the cultural situation of patriarchy. Paul’s intent. Gundry-Volf wants to integrate Paul’s (1) creation, Unfortunately, Gundry-Volf’s work on this passage and Galatians (2) cultural-societal, and (3) eschatological or new creation con- 3:28 is buried in little-known scholarly publications. She warrants cerns into her exegesis. Gundry-Volf proposes that Paul’s goal in more widespread reading. the whole section of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 is to correct behavioral problems at Corinth that have diminished the credibility of the Gregory W. Dawes (1998) gospel in the wider society. Gregory W. Dawes’ work on Ephesians 5:21–33 is not well known In 11:2–16, Paul addresses the problem of shame/dishonor that in the larger discussion.27 The first seventy-six pages of this book both men and women are causing each other, as well as the adverse deal with the mostly neglected subject of metaphor. Dawes not consequences that this shameful behavior has for the mission of the only distinguishes metaphor from analogy and model, but also church because of the way they are covering or uncovering their heads clarifies ‘dead’ metaphor from ‘live’ metaphor. The meaning of a in worship (vv. 4–6). This is not a problem of women free spirits who ‘dead’ metaphor (one having a common range of meanings) can are insubordinate to male authority, or a problem of homosexuality, be studied lexically and its meaning possibilities listed. ‘Live’ met- or female sexual provocation, or even the problem of women obscur- aphors on the other hand cannot be studied lexically since they ing male glory to God by being uncovered. Rather some in the church are the creation of the author and get their meaning from some ignored the social boundaries between men and women signified by unexpected association with something else. the cultural rules of distinguishing male from female by how they I remember a seminary professor who regularly prayed that covered their heads. The women dishonored the men (their ‘heads’) the Holy Spirit would ‘electrify’ our lives. I had heard of ‘electrify’ and the males shamed in turn Christ (their ‘head’). before but never in connection with the Holy Spirit. This is a ‘live’ Therefore the question of what kephalē means in verse  is metaphor and will not be found in dictionaries under the word not to be sought by going elsewhere in Paul’s writings or by im- ‘electrify.’ Only the context of the term can determine its sense. mediately jumping to verses 7–9 and reading an authority-sub- Further, an author may vary the metaphorical meaning of an ex- ordination sense back into verse 3. Instead, the sense of kephalē pression from one context to another and even within the same should come from verses 4–5 which presuppose the meaning of context! This is a point that has not been sufficiently noticed in the kephalē in verse 3. “To shame one’s head is to do the opposite of debate over the meaning of ‘head.’ what is expected, namely, to honor the head. For the head signifies In a chapter on kephalē, as in “The husband is the head of the what is preeminent” (following Cervin) (159). Nevertheless, “the wife” (Eph. 5:23), Dawes concludes, presumably to Professor Gru- patriarchal connotations of 11:3 do not disappear when one opts dem’s delight, that for the translation of kephalē as ‘one who is preeminent’ rather than ‘ruler’ or ‘source.’ All these possible translations have patri- whatever other [metaphorical] senses the word kephalē may archal connotations” (159). Verses 7–9 then explicitly take up this have had, the context in which it is used in Ephesians 5:22–24 problem by drawing out the theme of ‘glory’ from the creation demands that the meaning ‘authority over’ be adopted. For in accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 read through a gender-based patriar- verses 22–24 the word is used…to reinforce the case for the chal interpretive lens. Paul argues from this that a woman’s head ‘subordination’ of wives. It can only fulfill this function if it should be properly covered to show respect or honor to a man in carries with it some sense of authority. (134) a patriarchal social-cultural situation. However, this is not the whole story. Paul abruptly turns and However, he criticizes both the patriarchal-traditionalists for find- shows that he can also argue from the creation order now (“man ing only this meaning in the word regardless of the context, and comes through a woman,” 11:11–12) that in the new creation (“in also the egalitarians for refusing to see ‘authority over’ as the sense the Lord”) woman is now prior to man and “all things are from in this context of Ephesians 5:21–33. God” including the woman, a view that denies the exclusive privi- However, egalitarians should not despair because Dawes fi- lege of man argued for in 11:7–9. nally concludes that

Paul is not claiming here that man needs woman as his subor- [A] close reading shows that what Ephesians asks is that both dinate and woman needs man as her ‘head,’ nor even simply wives and husbands live lives of mutual subordination and

26 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 self-sacrificing love, after the example of Christ.…While mar- Further theological questions are raised. Does “the head of Christ ried couples are joined in a particularly intimate, bodily union is God” (1 Cor. 11:3) teach (given the sense of kephalē as ‘authority (Eph 5:31), a union which demands that they care for and take over’) the “eternal subordination of the Son” (Grudem’s view but responsibility for one another, it is also because they are ‘mem- understood by Kroeger as heretical) in the Trinitarian Godhead? bers of…[the] body of Christ’ (cf. Eph 5:30), and therefore Or if kephalē means ‘source’ (Kroeger’s view), how do we avoid the ‘members of one another’ (Eph 4:25), that they are bound to Arian heresy of the Son being created by the Father? this new and distinctively Christian ethic. (233) The last criticism comes in the form of a detailed analysis of fourteen further examples she gives of kephalē meaning ‘source.’ Ultimately, the same tension exists here in Ephesians 5:21–33 be- Grudem claims all of these are false and do not prove her case. tween loving mutuality based on equality of genders and the pa- The article closes with brief attention to articles by Turn- triarchal submission order, between one-directional subordination er,30 Fitzmyer,31 Arnold,32 Dawes,33 Perriman,33 May and Joe,35 and the subversion of patriarchal order, as is found in 1 Corinthians Brown,36 Keener,37 and Groothuis,38 some agreeing and some dis- 11:2–16 where the apostle concludes by saying, “Nevertheless, in the agreeing with Grudem. He concludes that ‘authority over’ as the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of meaning of kephalē is “firmly established” (64). woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God” (vv. 11–12). Concluding observations and implications for understanding 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 Anthony C. Thiselton (2000) Where does the above summary of the debate leave us? How can In perhaps the premier and definitive interpretive commentary we move forward in our understanding of the key texts that af- on 1 Corinthians to date, Anthony C. Thiselton28 has reviewed the fect our Christian attitude and practice in the home and church? debate in depth, referring to more than eighty publications. Three Let me try to summarize what I have learned through this meta- viewpoints on the metaphorical sense of kephalē have emerged: study. In my judgment (not all will agree) the following points (1) ‘authority over’ (Fitzmyer 1989, 1993; Grudem 1985, 1990, should be taken into consideration in all future discussions of 2001); (2) ‘source,’ ‘origin,’ ‘temporal priority’ (Bedale 1954; Bruce kephalē and how 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 are inter- 1971; Murphy-O’Connor 1989, 1997; Fee 1987; Schrage 1995); and preted and applied. (3) ‘preeminent,’ ‘foremost,’ ‘representative’ (the part representing the whole) (Cervin 1989; Perriman 1994). After critically exam- The lexical battle ining each view in detail, Thiselton leans toward the third view and highlights Gundry-Volf’s exegesis of the passage in 1 Corin- 1. The actual evidence outside the Bible for kephalē meaning thians 11:3–16. He prefers to use three English words to express the ‘source’ and kephalē meaning ‘authority over’ in the New Tes- meaning of kephalē in 11:3: ‘preeminent’ (of Christ), ‘foremeost’ tament period is shrinking. Which option is ‘weaker’ remains (of man), and ‘preeminent’ (of God) while retaining the transla- debatable. tion of kephalē as ‘head,’ with the qualification that the English 2. Most all parties now agree that in certain contexts kephalē may word ‘head’ does not exactly coincide with Paul’s use of kephalē. mean either ‘authority over’ or ‘source.’ Whether both are al- He remarks that the evidence for kephalē meaning ‘authority ways present is debatable. over’ and ‘source’ is definitely shrinking. This makes it increasingly 3. A discernable trend may be noticed to accept the general back- difficult to argue for either ‘authority over’ or ‘source’ as exclusive ground of the metaphorical sense of kephalē as stemming from senses or to argue any longer that either is the common meaning of the anatomical relation of the head to the body as its most kephalē in the New Testament period, much less in Paul’s writings. ‘prominent,’ ‘respected,’ ‘preeminent,’ or ‘illustrious’ part. 4. There seems to be growing agreement that kephalē as a meta- Wayne Grudem (2001) phor can have a different sense in a different context and even different senses in the same context. Again Wayne Grudem29 responds to several authors who had written 5. If Paul is using kephalē as a ‘living’ metaphor (a rare or unique studies on kephalē since his earlier response (1990) and with whom use) in any place, the precise sense of kephalē may be ascer- he mostly disagrees. The bulk of the article focuses on a critique of an tained only by the context, not by lexical studies of ‘dead’ meta- entry on “head” by Catherine Kroeger in the Dictionary of Paul and phors (having a standard sense). His Letters (1993). In that article Kroeger argues that early evidence 6. Prejudice seems evident in those studies that fail to recognize from church leaders supported the meaning of kephalē as ‘source’ as possible multiple meanings of kephalē and instead continue to well as some new evidence from non-Christian sources. Aside from force all texts in Paul to conform to a single primary meaning, some petty inaccuracies, Grudem’s main criticisms are as follows. whether ‘source’ or ‘authority over.’ Kroeger has given the impression that Chrysostom (a.d. 347–407) 7. Several of the studies above may operate with the fallacy of believed that kephalē meant ‘source’ and not ‘authority over.’ Grudem reading modern ‘egalitarian’ models back into the biblical texts counters that in the full context of the statements this is false. Addi- or to see more recent ‘modified patriarchal’ positions as pres- tional statements from Chrysostom show he believed firmly in male ent in the Pauline uses of kephalē. authority over women and understood kephalē in this way.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 27 8. If there is any change in the lsj lexicon to include ‘authority Another approach would be to retain the sense of kephalē as over,’ there should be also a corresponding change in the bagd ‘authority over’ in this context, but to argue that in a changed cul- lexicon to include ‘source’ or ‘origin’ as another rare but pos- tural context such as ours the best application of Paul’s teaching sible sense of kephalē. is ‘mutual submission’ or ‘mutual yielding’ or ‘deference’ (Dawes; 9. The word kephalē should continue, as in most translations, to Johnson).40 As Kevin Giles, aware of the discussion outlined be rendered by ‘head’ yet with the recognition that the English above, and adopting the sense of kephalē as ‘authority over’ for word is not an exact equivalent of the Greek. this passage has recently argued:

Applying this study to two key Pauline texts The word [kephalē], however, is given new content. To be the “head” of one’s wife, Paul explains, involves not rule, but sac- Briefly but hopefully with profit I would like to suggest how this study rificial, self-giving, agape-love. Jesus exemplifies this kind of might be applied to 1 Corinthians 11:3 and then to Ephesians 5:23. leadership in his self-giving on the cross. It is the leadership “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman of the servant who is willing to serve even to the point of giv- is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3 tniv). Female ing one’s life for the other. Not one word is said in this pas- insubordination to male authority is not the primary problem sage about who makes the final decision on important mat- Paul addresses here. Rather, as the text goes on to tell us, it was ters. In Ephesians 5:21ff, Paul is seeking in his cultural setting dishonoring behavior of culturally inappropriate head/hairstyles to transform patriarchy—male authoritative leadership—not practiced by both men and women as they were alternating in endorse it. When first read it would have been the men in that leading prayer and preaching in the worship of the church (vv. church who felt threatened by the counter-cultural teaching 4–6; 11–16).39 Paul uses kephalē as ‘prominent’ or ‘honored’ of Paul enunciates. In its original historical context, this was a the male-female relation along with a Jewish, gendered reading liberating text. It should be read in this way today.41 of the creation accounts (Gen. 1 interpreted by Gen. 2) to root out this unacceptable practice (vv. 7–9). The use here of kephalē Still another approach would be to understand kephalē as in includes overtones of patriarchal cultural expectations regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3 as ‘prominent’ or ‘honorable’ of the husband male honor that Paul wants to preserve for the sake of the mission vis-à-vis the wife in terms of the patriarchal social structure of of the church. We must remember that the church met in homes the day. Paul then redefines this honored position not in terms of that were open to the public as they met. Any deviance from the Christ’s lordship over the church, but his kephalē that is manifest patriarchal norms of male respect or honor, evidenced outwardly in his love and servant-self-giving and other nurturing and pro- by the way the hair was worn on the head, would be seen as a moting aspects of his relationship to the church. This same model radical social aberration and would produce unnecessary serious is to be the example that a Christian husband follows as he relates opposition to the fledgling church at Corinth. to his wife and she in turn yields herself in respect to this kind of Such a reading of 11:3–10 addresses the honor/shame problem person. Again in our non-patriarchal culture (one not requiring and at the same time preserves the biblical distinction between male male honor), mutual yielding (v. 1) and mutual respect in my and female that Paul wants to preserve. He thus adapts the gospel judgment best fulfills this model of Christ. His example is beauti- to the surrounding culture without compromising its essential mes- fully portrayed in the footwashing account and commanded to all sage. It also prevents serious Christological problems with the ex- believers, including husbands and wives, in their relation to each pression “the kephalē of Christ is God” that result by interpreting other (John 13:1–17). kephalē either as ‘authority over’ (Grudem’s eternal subordination Notes of the Son) or as ‘source’ (suggesting the Arian heresy). That Paul can in another context, that of the actual nature and 1. Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of kephalē in the Pauline Epistles,” functioning of the church (“in the Lord”), argue for a completely Journal of Theological Studies n.s., 50 (1954): 211–15. non-gendered and egalitarian understanding of creation is wit- 2. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1958). nessed to in 11:11–16. Both readings of creation must be kept in 3. C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper tension and not reduced to an either/or approach. & Row, 1968). “The husband is the head [kephalē] of the wife as Christ is the 4. F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible Commentary head [kephalē] of the church” (Eph. 5:23 tniv) presents another (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971). interpretive challenge. Complementarians will argue that since 5. Morna D. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 kephalē means ‘authority over’ in reference to Christ in other Cor. XI.10,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963–64): 410–16. 6. Fee adds further evidence for this meaning by pointing out that passages (Eph. 1:22; Col. 2:10) his headship here is also to be un- exousia never has the passive sense, and that the idiom “to have author- derstood as ‘authority over.’ This is confirmed by the command ity over” never refers to an external authority different than the subject for wives to submit themselves to their husbands’ authority over of the sentence. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New them (v. 22). Yet, the cultural context of patriarchalism is ignored International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: or relativized in terms of how this injunction might be under- Eerdmans, 1987), 519. 7. Robin Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” Journal of stood in a non-patriarchal or egalitarian culture such as most of the American Academy of Religion 40,3 (1972): 283–303. the Western world today.

28 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 8. Fred D. Layman, “Male Headship in Paul’s Thought,” Wesleyan 30. Max Turner, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament,” in Theological Journal 15,1 (Spring 1980): 46–67. Available online at http:// Hearing the New Testament , ed. Joel Green (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd- wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/11-15/15-04.htm. mans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995), 165–172. 9. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand 31. Fitzmyer, “Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” 52–59. Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1981). 32. Clinton Arnold, “Jesus Christ: ‘Head’ of the Church (Colossians 10. Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, and Ephesians),” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, ed. Joel B. Green 1985). Page numbers refer to the 2nd ed. and Max Turner (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Pater- 11. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish noster, 1994) 346–366. Our Translations?” Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1979, 23–26; “The Head of 33. Dawes, The Body in Question. the Epistles,” Christianity Today, Feb. 20, 1981, 20–23; “What Does Kephalē 34. Andrew C. Perriman, “The Head of a Woman,” 602–622. Mean in the New Testament?” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Al- 35. Grace Ying May and Hyunhye Pokrifka Joe, “Setting the Record vera Mickelsen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986), 97–132. Straight,” Priscilla Papers 11,1 (Winter 1997): 1–10. 12. Wayne Grudem, “Does kephalē (Head) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Author- 36. Judy Brown, “I Now Pronounce You Adam and Eve,” Priscilla Pa- ity Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Jour- pers 13,4 (Fall 1999): 2–3. nal n.s., 6 (1985): 38–59. 37. Craig Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives (Peabody, Mass.: Hen- 13. Gilbert Bilezikian, “A Critical Examination of Wayne Grudem’s drickson, 1992), 34. Treatment of Kephalē in Ancient Greek Texts,” paper presented for a ple- 38. Rebecca Groothuis, Good News for Women (Grand Rapids, Mich.: nary session of the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society Baker, 1997), 151. in Atlanta, Ga., Oct. 20, 1986. The paper is included as an appendix in Be- 39. The question of whether Paul is dealing with hair itself (long or yond Sex Roles, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1985), 215–52. Page short; loose or pinned up) or some cloth hood is still debated. Veiling is numbers refer to the version published in this appendix. considerably less likely. A growing number of scholars are now arguing 14. Walter L. Liefeld, “Women, Submission & Ministry in 1 Corinthi- that ‘hair’ style itself is the marker of sexual identity (Hurley, Layman, ans,” in Mickelsen, Women, Authority & the Bible, 134–53. Padgett, Gundry-Volf, Blattenberger, Johnson, Payne). It was apparently 15. Catherine C. Kroeger, “The Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source’” the view also of John Chrysostom (4th cent., see The Homilies of Chryso- in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming stom on Corinthians, 152). Revell, 1987), 267–83. 40. Alan F. Johnson, “A Christian Understanding of Submission,” 16. Cervin, Richard S. “Does Kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Priscilla Papers 17,4 (Fall 2003): 11–20. Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” Trinity Journal n.s., 10 (1989): 41. Kevin Giles, unpublished lecture notes. See his related comments 85–112. in his essay in this volume, and his discussion of “An Egalitarian-Comple- 17. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Another Look at Kephalē in 1 Corinthians mentarian Reading of Scripture” in The Trinity & Subordinationism: The 11:3,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 503–11. Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: 18. Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2– InterVarsity Press, 2002), 203–08. 16,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 482–500; “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 81–94. 19. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” Interpretation 47,1 (Jan. 1993): 52–59. Recommended Resource 20. Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of Kephalē (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), 425–68. 21. Philip B. Payne, “Response,” in Mickelsen, Women, Authority and without Hierarchy the Bible, 121–124. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, 22. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 501–505. gen. eds., with Gordon D. Fee, consulting ed. 23. Peter Cotterel and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpreta- tion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1989), 144. Here is a fresh, positive defense of biblical 24. Andrew C. Perriman, “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of equality that is both scholarly and practical, irenic and yet spirited. The editors have as- Kephalē in 1 Cor. 11:3,” Journal of Theological Studies 45,2 (1994): 602–22. sembled a distinguished array of evangelical 25. Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians scholars firmly committed to the authority of 11:2–16: A Study in Paul’s Theological Method,” in Evangelium, Schrift- Scripture explore the whole range of issues auslegung, Kirche Feschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher, ed. Jostein Ådna, Scott surrounding the debate over women’s place Hafemann, and Otfried Hofius (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & in the church and home. They offer historical, Ruprecht, 1997), 151–71. biblical, theological, and practical support for 26. Anthony C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New the complementarity of men and women International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Ee- without requiring a hierarchy of roles. rdmans, 2000), 803. InterVarsity Press • 496 pages • List $25.00 • CBE member $21.25 27. Gregory W. Dawes, The Body in Question: Metaphor and Mean- ing in the Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21–33, Biblical Interpretation 30 CBE members receive 15% off all regularly priced resources and (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1998). 50% off all CBE-produced recordings at Equality Depot Bookstore. 28. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 812–23. See page 62 for more information on CBE membership. 29. Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of Kephalē (‘Head’): An Evalua- tion of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” Journal of the Evangelical Theo- Order online at www.equalitydepot.com or call 612-872-6898 logical Society 44,1 (March 2001): 25–66.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 29 Go to seminary. Conveniently.

Pastoral M.Div.* Theology M.A. Theological Studies Leadership M.A. Transformational Leadership* Youth & Family M.A. Children’s & Family Ministry* Community M.A. Community Ministry Leadership Apologetics M.A. Christian Thought* Counseling M.A. Marriage & Family Therapy Missions M.A. Global & Contextual Studies* Advanced D.Min.*

*distance learning programs

Used to be going to Bethel Seminary meant going through St. Paul. We won’t www.bethel.edu tell you we’ve made going to Bethel any easier, but we have made it more convenient. We now have numerous campus locations. And with our distance learning programs you don’t need to exit your existing ministry to enter seminary. At Bethel Seminary we prepare men and women for effective ministry. Doing well here goes far beyond getting it right on a test — it means getting it right in your life. At Bethel you not only study theology, but are also transformed by the renewing of your mind. Because in order to be real and effective it takes persons who want to risk being transformed, as well as a faculty that cares enough to take some risks. All working together under God’s spirit. There’s a big world out there looking for hope. It might be skeptical, might be cynical; but authenticity trumps both. If you want to be prepared to give a reason for your hope with gentleness and respect, and to be a humble leader in the ministry God has prepared for you, we should talk. 800-255-8706, ext. 6288.

St. Paul • San Diego • New York • Philadelphia • Washington D.C. • New England Take the Next Step. Change Your World.

30 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Christian Women and Leadership Roberta Hestenes

I believe that God calls both women and men into roles of leader- sometimes felt within the Christian community, where leadership ship with all the opportunities and challenges these roles entail. aspirations can be equated with prideful ambitions. As a result, Scripture and church history make abundantly clear that women leaders may appear reluctant and unsure of their abilities. Leader- can and do exercise significant influence and power in a variety of ship aspirations are often tolerated when taken up by men who contexts, including the church. Yet, most of the books and articles use the language of humility and service. But women who use the available on Christian leadership are written by and for men. In same approach are likely to be sharply criticized. The same be- this paper, I will address some leadership issues with a focus on havior that is labeled healthy ambition in men is often labeled as women as leaders.1 arrogant pride in women. 3. Nathan Hatch’s excellent book on The Democratization of Five symptoms of the current crisis in American Christianity identifies the diffusion of power and au- Christian leadership thority in American churches as another factor in the leadership It’s a tough time to be a leader in today’s Christian circles. Of crisis we face. The pew considers itself more powerful than the course, a few people are very eager to be “in charge,” but many pulpit. American congregations believe they know as much, if not avoid leadership roles and opportunities. They may be willing to more, about faith and life as the church leadership. The impulse help, but they don’t want to be responsible in the way leaders are toward democratization can imply that anybody’s views, experi- expected to be. Perhaps they believe they lack leadership gifts, or ences, or desires count just as much as the leader’s do. Education, that they lack “permission” to lead. But I fear that sometimes this giftedness, skill, and experience are not taken into consideration. reluctance emerges—especially for many evangelical women—out Church history, tradition, and theology mean little. At its extreme, of fear of what might happen if we took the risks of leadership. I this view feeds into the kind of subjectivist, consumerist Christi- would like to explore a few symptoms of the current leadership anity which is so characteristic of religion in America. If we don’t crisis within American Christianity and culture. like what we have over here, then we leave and go over there. 1. In Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, Bob The democratization of Christianity affects women leaders in Woodward (the famous Washington Post reporter) described how several ways. People in congregations where women are called to the atmosphere has become poisoned for political leadership in be leaders can simply move to more traditional congregations. the United States. This highly competitive, combative environ- When Protestant denominations engage in rigorous biblical and ment teaches people that leadership is dangerous. People who theological reflection and decide to support full equality and lead- tackle tough problems or take a stand on issues can be hurt and ership opportunities for women, their decisions do not necessar- even destroyed. Therefore we should either be self-protective and ily carry much power and influence in congregations. As women cautious, or ruthless and hard. Both of these reactions prohibit achieve levels of leadership that were previously denied them, healthy leadership. the power and authority of those positions are decreasing due to This poisoned atmosphere can even exist within the Christian democratized institutions and structures. Where majority views community where commitments to a cause or position can come have not shifted due to ignorance, neglect, or apathy, women con- with a willingness to attack others’ motives, characters, and ac- tinue to be marginalized as leaders. tions. In many Christian contexts, women leaders are attacked 4. People who were once passionately involved in causes, in- simply because they are women in positions traditionally held cluding biblical equality, sometimes disengage due to “cause fa- tigue.” Some are discouraged or burned out. Some recognize with only by men. Not all criticism, of course, is undeserved. Leaders contentment or sadness that they’ve done all they can. Some con- need to be held accountable. But many potential leaders—includ- ing women—would rather remain invisible than attract the kind clude that enough progress has been made that there is no further of criticism today’s leaders receive. The instinct of self-protection need for activism. Sometimes people come to the end of a certain and the accountability of leadership are contradictory impulses and they collide with each other. It’s difficult to lead when you’re ROBERTA HESTENES (D.Min., Fuller Theological Seminary) trying to protect yourself in an environment of suspicion, distrust, served as president of Eastern University from 1987–1996, and destructive criticism. where she helped found Eastern’s Center for Christian 2. In his book, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis wrote that a Women in Leadership and the Center for Organizational time of radical leveling was coming, in which any head of wheat Excellence in World Missions. Since 1980 she has served on the board of directors for both World Vision USA and that rose above the field of others was in danger of being chopped World Vision International, including seven years as off. Aspiring to excellence or greatness would be considered a sign Chair of the Board of World Vision International. She is an of arrogance and struck down. In Australia they call this “the tall ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA). poppy syndrome.” The pressure to submerge giftedness or skill is

* This paper is adapted from Roberta Hestenes’ general session at CBE’s 6th Biennial International Conference in San Diego, Calif., July 14–18, 1999.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 31 stage and they’re just plain tired. One reason we need to be in overall. The “glass ceiling” is very real in Christian contexts. These community or a small covenant group is for the care and energy are just a few of the many realities that still need to change in or- that comes from others. It’s easy to get tired on the journey. We der to reflect the will of God. need the synergy that comes from the fresh voice or the new per- Colossians 4:2 says to “be constant in prayer; keep alert with son. We need the sharing and prayer that a group can provide. thanksgiving.” Practicing thanksgiving for what God is doing is a 5. The last factor I’ll mention that can make leadership dif- good way to stay alert in leadership. If God has given you a pas- ficult, especially for women leaders but for men as well is—oddly sion for biblical equality, if God has given you a passion for recon- enough—success. Success brings its own challenges along with ciliation and justice, just the fact that this is in your heart is a sign the rewards of opportunity and influence. “To whom much is of hope, because the Holy Spirit has put it there. You don’t have to given, much is required.” The challenges of servant leadership, look for hope somewhere out there in the world. If God has put it of continual growth and learning, of using power appropriately, in your heart to care, you yourself are a sign of hope. of handling finances and difficult issues, of communication and Many Christian traditions believe that the local congregation is conflict management, are not easily met. The lure of addictive a provisional sign of the kingdom of God in the midst of the world. work patterns, the challenge of juggling the needs of family and I’m convinced that God cares about the partnership between men friends, and the struggle to stay physically and women, God cares about breaking and spiritually strong can take a huge toll. t’s tempting to shrink your passion down the walls that divide people from But as I look over more than forty years, Iinto the size of the box that others one another, and God cares about the dig- I can see the astonishing ways in which give you. Instead, we need to take nity and equality of all people. If you live God has been at work. I was taught that responsibility for fulfilling the vision God out this reality, you are a provisional sign women could not or should not do the of the kingdom. God is at work through has given us to the best of our ability. kinds of things that I have seen thousands you as one instrument among many to of women do as faithful followers of Jesus demonstrate the reality of God’s kingdom. Christ—work as evangelists, church planters, psychologists, mis- Leadership is possible because you are in tune with what God is sionaries, professors, provosts, and presidents. God has opened doing and wants to do in the world. And leadership is necessary doors for me and for many women all over the world. because the kingdom has come in Jesus but it has not yet fully When you visit different parts of the world, you see not only come. Every time you pray “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done the desperate situation of millions of women and girls in extreme on earth as it is in heaven,” you are engaging in a revolutionary poverty, but also the ways women have made significant progress act as part of a kingdom community. Just as God exists eternally as leaders. Women lead most of the house churches in China, in community, so our relationships with one another reflect the where Christianity is experiencing astonishing growth. The num- love and unity of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ber of ordained women ministers in my own denomination has Further, when we pray in unison with other Christians, “Thy will grown from less than one hundred to thousands. I remember a be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we open ourselves to do the trip to Australia in which the debates about women’s ordination will of God. We can rejoice because God hears and answers our spurred an enormous public controversy. I went back to lecture at prayers in and through Jesus Christ. Ridley Theological College in Melbourne a decade later and met dozens of ordained women who were serving congregations and Defining leadership leading other ministries. There is still a very long way to go, but A leader is someone who makes a difference through influencing some of the changes have come astonishingly fast. others. Very simple. Leaders can make positive or negative dif- You may find the challenge of leadership to be overwhelming ferences. Christian leaders seek to make a positive difference by right now. But I want to tell you that God has done incredible influencing others toward the purposes of God. There are three things in the lives of women and men for the health and well-be- basic postures of leadership: leading from below, leading from ing of the church. The journey will be ragged and long because of above, and leading from the side. the centuries of history to overcome. But look at all the ways in which, step by step, women are discovering what God wants to Leading from below do through them, and using their gifts and callings. And, praise Many people don’t consider themselves leaders unless they’re an God, many men have come alongside. I appreciate the men who ordained pastor, or a president, or in a top position. But a leader have encouraged women to take their rightful place as partners in is not necessarily the person at the top. A leader is a person who leadership and service. makes a difference by influencing others. So where are you? Are I want to underline one danger of success: the temptation is to there other people around you? Can you make a difference in say, “Oh good, doors are open for women; I’m so glad we don’t have anybody else’s life? Then you have leadership potential. Measur- to fight that battle anymore.” Wrong. Some doors have opened for ing ourselves according to hierarchies based on formal titles and some women; many doors remain closed for most women. Many positions can make us focus on deficit rather than possibility. But of the open doors have led to satisfaction with tokenism, in which when we focus on possibility, we start to discover opportunities to a few women are included but decisions continue to privilege men use our influence.

32 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 I remember when I had the script for my life figured out. I was need to take responsibility for fulfilling the vision God has giv- going to marry a Christian man; he was going to get a call to the en us to the best of our ability. “The one who is faithful in little, mission field; I was going to go with him, have the babies, support God will give responsibility over much.” Whatever the external him; and we were going to be the world’s greatest missionaries. constraints are, you need to learn as much as you can learn, give Then the mission board turned us down. My script was absolutely as much as you can give, and stretch as much as you can stretch destroyed. Eventually I realized that if God puts it in your heart to while learning how to trust God with the insecurity. I can now care about people coming to faith in Jesus Christ, if God puts it in testify that leadership from the top can actually feel more insecure your heart to care about community and partnership within the than leadership from the bottom. If you don’t know how to be a body of Christ, if God puts it in your heart to care about poverty leader from the bottom, you’re not going to know how to be a and injustice, you don’t have a choice. If God puts it in your heart, leader from the top. you have got to do something. It doesn’t matter what your posi- Many women and ethnic minorities in leadership have to learn tion is, or if it doesn’t fit your script, there is no excuse for failing how to handle themselves as tokens in a predominantly white to respond to the call of God, whatever the circumstances. male culture. It is still too often true that some organizations and Jesus’ parable of the talents in Matthew boards are open to a few women or non- 21 has been powerfully important for me. hat’s leadership: Taking what God white minorities but they would not toler- God, the landlord, gave the talents—ten, gave you and investing it in what ate an equal or greater number. It is awk- five, one. The person with ten invested it, T ward and even, at times, demeaning to be God cares about. God will hold us the person with five invested it, the person invited into a group mainly for diversity’s accountable for what we do with what with one took it out and buried it under a sake, not because anybody really valued rock. Which one is held accountable unto he has entrusted to us. your particular strengths or contributions. judgment? Not the two who used and mul- People in the position of tokens can feel tiplied what the master had given them; only the one who acted pressure to work extraordinarily hard at perfection, or, at the op- out of fear, who said, “I knew you were a harsh master so I went posite extreme, to refuse to actively contribute. Whatever the rea- out and hid your talent, and here it is, back again.” This parable ap- son you were invited into the conversation, God has a plan. God plies to women in the life of the Christian community. God gives is present and, in his grace, you are not required to be perfect. talents and so often women are taught to say, “I only have one. If Offer as much of your passions, gifts, and skills as you can in that I have only so little, then I should play it safe. I can put it under particular context and trust that God will multiply your influence. a rock. You can’t expect me to do anything when I’m so limited. If you cannot serve unless somebody clears the ground for you, Nobody should hold me accountable; I have only a small portion then leadership is going to be very difficult. Leadership involves compared to others; I’m not responsible to increase it; I’m not a clearing the ground for yourself, taking all the help you can get, leader.” Then, the master comes. He says: “It’s time to account for and being able to handle the weeds. what you’ve done with what you were given. Why didn’t you take Membership in a congregation gives you an opportunity what I gave you and invest it for the kingdom?” That’s leadership: to exercise influence and power, but very few members of con- taking what God gave you and investing it in what God cares gregations ever use it. In many cases this is probably because it about. God will hold us accountable for what we do with what he would call for moving from invisibility to visibility. When there has entrusted to us. are things you care about in your local congregation, start asking Those who lead from below have minimal formal authority questions during congregational meetings. Instead of inwardly and relatively little control over key decisions regarding life and complaining about who gets nominated for a position, nominate work. My first job in the church lasted more than eight years at someone else. You can propose a plan for action. You can actually low pay and no benefits in a 4,500 member church. Every year make a difference. I was told that there might not be enough money in the budget Leading from above to keep my position. This was an emotional roller-coaster every time because my family was financially dependent on me while my The literature that sharply distinguishes male and female leader- husband was in graduate school. I was also told that “one of these ship styles seems overly simplistic to me, in part because it never days we will find a pastor (male) with the right credentials to take quite fits my experience. Women differ from each another just over your job.” When they eventually did hire an associate pastor, as men do. Different contexts often require different approaches. I was asked to take him a package. His wife met me at the door Whenever someone suggests that woman leaders are always more and said, “Oh, you’re the person that he is replacing.” I stayed for relational, empathic, or non-authoritarian, I think of former Brit- several more years, but I endured constant anxiety about my job ish Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Servant leadership, which security. Although I ran programs involving thousands of people, I is the New Testament model and mandate, is not a call to weak or was never asked to make my own budget requests. In positions like passive leadership. The question of style relates to context, gifted- this, other people make decisions that affect your work and life. ness, skills, and experience. It has to do with using the gifts God Under circumstances like these, it’s tempting to shrink your has given, as 1 Peter 4:10–11 teaches, in ways that reflect the char- passion into the size of the box that others give you. Instead, we acter God desires. Gifts are not discovered looking in the mirror.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 33 Gifts are discovered on the firing line. There is no way to discover and then be deliberate about making it happen. So many people just if you have the gift and calling for leadership without getting in- show up. Being intentional is asking yourself, “What difference do volved in a context that requires the exercise of those gifts. I want to make and how do I want to make that difference”? Inten- In leadership from above, one of the temptations I found was tionality requires focusing, thinking, praying, strategizing, knowing to deny the power and influence I had, which means refusing to where you want to go, and having a plan to get there. take full responsibility for it. I also found it tempting to delay dif- 2. Leaders need to act with purposes that are broader than the ficult decisions involving colleagues, out of a desire to be liked or purely personal. Purposes that matter go beyond personal advan- respected. These temptations may be due to a desire to soften the tage, power, and status. A few years ago my younger son went with threat that a strong woman presents to many people. It may be my husband and me to a performance of Handel’s Messiah. My easier to minimize the power you do have, limited as it always is, son had a great time at the concert. In the car on the way home he in order to avoid intimidating others by actually using it. But peo- said, “I know what I want to do with my life.” We were so thrilled. ple can be hurt if a leader refuses to act in a timely and sensitive His dad and I thought, this is it! All the music lessons were paying way when action is needed. Leadership opportunities come with off. So we asked, “Stephen, what do you want to be when you grow real responsibility. Instead of denying the power that you have, up?” He said, “I want to be a conductor.” We looked at each other think seriously about how to use that power for the most good. with a surge of pride that music had captured his spirit. We said, “Why do you want to be a conductor?” He Leading from the side t’s not about power. It’s about using responded, “Because everybody has to do Learning to influence from the side is an the influence and the gifts that God what the conductor says.” He was interest- unusual kind of leadership, but I’m con- I ed in the power, not the music. That was has given us to make the maximum vinced that it is the main form of leader- purposeful, but not necessarily what we ship that most of us have the opportunity difference for good in somebody’s life. had hoped for. to exercise. Leading from the side means As Christians, we should use whatever listening to what’s being said and watching what’s being done, so power and influence we have out of a love for God and neighbor. that you are aware of what is happening and why. It also means “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially those of knowing when and how to speak so that your proposals and con- the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). It’s not about power. It’s about cerns are taken seriously. using the influence and the gifts that God has given us to make Potential leaders will stay marginalized if they do not learn the maximum difference for good in somebody’s life. This means how to influence decision-making in their context. Who really de- being purposeful for God, allowing God to shape what we want cides? When and how do they do it? This involves learning what and what we care about. Caring about the needs of the poor and other people care about, not just attending to your own concerns. oppressed in this broken world of ours is one of the grandest pur- Much of leadership is about networks, relationships, partnerships, poses you could ever have in life. and alliances. It’s not about position, it’s about people. It’s about A fifteen-year-old girl in Uganda was abducted from her vil- who you talk to, when you talk to them, and what you talk to lage by the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel army led by remnants them about. Do you waste the conversational opportunities on of former dictator Idi Amin’s forces. They captured young chil- cynicism and gossip or do you use the conversations to build rela- dren, put rifles in their hands, and ordered them to kill. This girl tionships, to encourage, to help? was taken from her family and forced into a life of brutality which Leadership is about people—influencing people, listening to devastated her body and soul. Then she was given to a forty-year- people, understanding what inspires them, forming networks, rela- old man as his fourth wife. She lived as a slave in his family. Fi- tionships, and alliances. Remember that cynical old saying, “It’s not nally, after long seasons of violence she ran away. The first time what you know, it’s who you know”? Guess what! The universe is she ran away they caught her, whipped her, and brought her back. personal and it is about who you know and how you relate to them. The second time she ended up in a World Vision center in Gulu, God made it that way. The challenge is to take what you know and where former child soldiers were given care and rehabilitation. who you know and put them together productively. So pay atten- Women surrounded this girl with love and helped her find heal- tion to people, where they are, what’s happening to them, both men ing. That girl’s restoration was a wonderful thing. Beauty shone and women. Consider the needs and concerns of the people around through her face because she had been loved into a new life and a you. This is a very important part of leadership from the side. new reality—that’s worth being a part of. God has a purpose for us in a world that desperately needs Four criteria for effective leadership to know his love. Being purposeful about sharing that love gives meaning and dignity to our lives as well as providing new possi- 1. Leaders need to be intentional rather than purely accidental. bilities for the lives of others. The brokenness in this world can be Sometimes people find themselves in positions of leadership un- overwhelming. I’ve visited villages in the interior of China where I expectedly, but leadership that lasts and makes a difference must be have been told no outsider has been for forty-five years. I watched intentional. Leaders must decide what difference they want to make as mothers thrust their smiling children into my arms and real-

34 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 ized that in three days of visiting different villages, I’d never seen We want to be sure that our vision and passions are godly, rath- a girl. Where were they? Aborted? Adopted? Abandoned? Does er than passions for vengeance or parochial advantage. We need God care? Oh, yes, God cares. Injustice will not be overcome by to be freed of passion which only trades in power. The church has accident. Injustice is overcome by purposeful leaders. done that over and over again in its history. But pray that, rather, 3. Leaders need to be persistent. We’re not going to win these God would give vision and strength that would be used in the battles in short sprints. That’s another reason we need a Christian spirit of Christ for good, to build up and not to tear down. community around us, another reason we need the spiritual dis- ciplines of prayer and worship, and another reason we need the Conclusion indwelling power of the Holy Spirit to keep transforming us and The ingredients of leadership involve doing your homework, mas- giving us hope and strength and courage, because persistence is tering the processes and content of your disciplines and contexts. required to overcome evil. “Do not be overcome by evil but over- Every system and every structure has a process, and if we don’t come evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). It means not giving up when master the content and the process, we can’t make the difference you don’t succeed the first time, or the tenth time, or the fiftieth we want to make. Discipline gives you focus and the ability to per- time. But continuing and continuing and continuing so that God sist. Define success for yourself or somebody else will define it can do what God will do when we are faithful and persistent. We for you, and it won’t be worthy or necessarily right. Always try are like bulldozers, which just say, “I don’t care what you put in to share the journey rather than going it alone. Leadership takes front of me, I’m coming anyway.” If it’s up, if it’s over, if it’s around, time, and it’s hard in this era of the double-shift when we’re jug- I’m coming anyway. I’ve got a community to help. I’ve got the gling and trying to balance. Leadership means taking risks. You power of God within and persistence, persistence, persistence. If can’t know in advance how things are going to come out, but you you want equality between men and women, if you want to over- have to be willing to try anyway. Leadership invites attacks by come the barriers of ethnicity and the injustices of poverty, if you prejudiced or thoughtless people. Leaders may get wounded. But want to win lost people—persistence, persistence, persistence. At leaders, by God’s grace, make a difference in the world. the end of my life, I want to be able to say with the Apostle Paul, “I Leaders get to see with their own eyes what God is doing. I have finished the race; I have kept the faith.” know a small boy with some very real handicaps who has this 4. Lastly, leaders need vision. According to Bill Hybels, senior sweet little face. It’s a face that a mother or a father or a grand- pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, a leader is a person mother or a grandfather should fall in love with. His caretaker with a vision, and a vision is a picture of the future that evokes told me how his parents saw his problems and didn’t want him. passion in people. What’s the picture of the future that evokes pas- When they tried to get rid of him, this woman decided to come sion in you? A future where women and men work together in alongside and love this child. As she was hugging him, she said, the church, rejoicing in their differences as well as in their sim- “I’ve given a lot to this child, but he has meant all the difference to ilarities? A future in which a lost world is being redeemed and me.” Leadership is costly but when it is done in the spirit of Jesus, made whole? A future where Christian universities explore truth is connected to people, and is about God’s love, you receive so and love with confidence? A future where ministries focus on the much. There’s a lot of joy in being a leader for Jesus Christ. May King and the kingdom and where leaders use their gifts for service God give us all encouragement, hope, and strength as we exercise rather than power? Persistence is not possible without passion. influence in the place where God has put us, with the people God Passion flows from a clear vision of a hopeful future. Where does wants us to reach. vision come from? At the beginning of the book of Nehemiah, that wonderful Old Testament story about leadership and restora- tion, Nehemiah asks for news about the survivors in Jerusalem and Judea. When he heard that the walls of the city of Jerusalem were broken down (meaning that the defenses against all enemies were gone), he sat and wept for days. Then he humbled himself before God and prayed. Only then did he begin to plan and act. Leave a Legacy I think that sometimes we need to weep in the face of human suffering. We need to pray and seek the mind of God. Then we Remember CBE in your Will need to grasp how great the love and power of God is to reshape human reality. We need to consider the good news of what a lov- ing God has done, how broken the world is, and the gap between For more information God’s love and human lostness. Let a healthy discontent take over our souls so that we decide, by God’s grace and power, that things visit www.cbeinternational.org do not have to be the way they are. God wills something more, and click “Support CBE.” something better, something good. Even something great. Be- cause God is still working, we will pray and we will plan; we will work and we will not quit because what we do matters.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 35 KEYNOTE ADDRESS SIDE by SIDE richard howell Gender from a Christian Perspective: Men and Women Dependent on GENERAL SESSIONS Each Other (1 Cor. 11:11) Man and Woman He Created Them Chae Ok Chun CBE Bangalore Symposium Together: Taking the Gospel to the World February 15–18, 2007 David AND Robyn Claydon Women in the Old Testament CBE is joining Pilgrim Partners, South Asia Havilah Dharamraj Institute of Advanced Christian Studies, and the Union of Evangelical Students of India for an Gender, Bible Language, and Culture International Symposium on Christianity and gender. Dieter Kemmler

CONFERENCE SPEAKERS Examining Changing Trends in the Attitudes of Men and Women Tehmina Arora is Secretary for the Mimi Haddad (Ph.D., University of Melba Maggay Christian Legal Association of India, Durham) is President of Christians an initiative of the Evangelical Fel- for Biblical Equality (CBE). Hermeneutics and Gender lowship of India. Finny Philip Christian Men and Women: Kuruvilla Chandy is the Richard Howell is the General Some Pauline Perspectives Pastor of Grace Bible Church in Secretary of the Evangelical Fellow- Brian Wintle Lucknow, India. ship of India and the Vice-Chairper- son of the International Council of the World Evangelical Alliance. WORKSHOP SESSIONS Chae Ok Chun (D.Miss., Fuller Dieter Kemmler (Ph.D., Cam- Theological Seminary) is Dean of Religious Liberty and Gender bridge) is a visiting scholar at Fuller the Graduate School of Theology Theological Seminary (USA) and the Tehmina Arora at Ewha Women’s University in South Asia Institute of Advanced Seoul, Korea. No Male Gods Christian Studies (India). Kuruvilla Chandy David Claydon (D.Min.) is Canon of Melba Maggay is a social scientist St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney, Women for God’s Missions at the Institute for Studies in Asian Australia, and of All Saints’ Cathe- Chae Ok Chun Church and Culture (isacc) in Que- dral in Cairo, Egypt. zon City, Philippines. Men and Women Ministering Together Robyn Claydon is the Lausanne David AND Robyn Claydon leela manasseh (M.Th., Oxford Movement’s Senior Associate for University) is Vice-Chairperson of Gender and Health Development Women in World Evangelization. Global Council of Women Leaders evangeline AND shantanu dutta of World Evangelical Alliance. “Heaven at Her Husband’s Feet” Havilah Dharamraj is completing Finny Philip (Ph.D., University of … and the Health Consequences her Ph.D. in Old Testament at the Durham) is the Academic Dean christine edwards University of Durham. for the Filadelfia Bible College in Trinity and Subordination Udaipur, India. kevin giles evangeline dutta works with the david selvaraj (M.Div.) is the Social History as a Window Christian Medical Association of Founder Director of Visthar, an India; gender in health and devel- into Paul and Women Institute for Development and Mimi Haddad opment programs is one of her Peace Studies. passions. Transforming Societal Views of Gender shantanu dutta has been a devel- jamila thomas is a psychiatrist. Melba Maggay opment practitioner for fifteen years Violence and Women and formerly served as a doctor with the Indian Air Force. leela manasseh Gender and Bringing Hope to Devadasi satish thomas is a senior finance christine edwards works with the (Temple Prostitute) Children Lutheran Aid to Medicine in Bang- professional david selvaraj ladesh (LAMB) Health and Develop- ment Project. Does Gender Define Roles and Functions? kevin giles (Th.D., Tubingen Brian Wintle (Ph.D., New Testa- jamila AND satish thomas University) is Vicar of St. Michael’s ment) is General Secretary of Asia Chuch (Anglican) in North Carlton, Theological Association India. Australia.

For information and registration, visit www.cbeinternational.org or call 612-872-6898.

36 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 God’s Reign is the Reign of Right Relationships Charles O. Knowles

The Bible teaches that God created man and woman subordinate to sion to be “right” both must be “right.”3 Jesus illustrated the im- God, spiritually and socially equal to each other, and entrusted to portance of this connection in his teaching of the Model Prayer, in care for creation. However, man and woman were not content with which he instructed the disciples to pray, “And forgive us our debts, this God-ordained order; they wanted power over God. In an act of as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12 tniv). Jesus ex- deliberate disobedience, they replaced God with self, a choice that plained why forgiveness has both earthly (right relationship with separated them from God and from each other.1 God’s redemptive others) and heavenly (right relationship with God) dimensions: plan is to restore human beings to a new relationship with God and “For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly with each other, referred to in this essay as right relationships.2 What Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their are right relationships? How should Christians living under God’s sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matt. 6:14–15 tniv). reign endeavor to treat others all day every day? Right relationships in biblical perspective Right relationships and the Great Commandment An overview of the Old Testament background for the Great Com- The Great Commandment is the classic New Testament expres- mandment reveals that the connection between the vertical and sion of right relationships: horizontal dimensions is a requirement in God’s plan of right re- lationships. In Genesis 12:1–3, God told Abraham “I will bless you” One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. and “you will be a blessing,” and a similar covenant was made Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked with Isaac (Gen. 26:1–4) and Jacob (Gen. 28:13–15).4 These bless- him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important? ings include both gift and demand. God’s gift is made explicit in “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Is- the phrase, “I will bless you,” and God’s demand is made explicit rael, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love [agapaō] the Lord in the phrase, “you will be a blessing.” The outcome of this cascade your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with of blessings is that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: you” (Gen. 12:3, 28:14; see also Acts 2:35). ‘Love [agapaō] your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no com- The Jewish people, however, seemingly misunderstood what God mandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28–31 tniv) required of them.5 They believed that God called them primarily In this response, Jesus connected a prayer about loving God from for the sake of blessing them.6 To correct this wrong thinking, God the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9), which devout Jewish people have spo- spoke through prophets repeatedly over the course of centuries to ken daily for centuries, to a commandment about loving neigh- tell them of their error and to urge them to repent. However, they bors from the Levitical social code (Lev. 19:18). Believers are called continued to disobey the exhortations of God’s prophets. to love both God, which is the vertical dimension, and neighbor, What did the prophets preach about true religion and right which is the horizontal dimension. relationships? What does the Lord require of the people of God? The Great Commandment summarizes and fulfills the entire They should “let justice [mishpat] roll on like a river, righteousness law as well as the teachings of the prophets (Matt. 5:17–20; Luke [tsedaqah] like a never-failing stream” (Amos 5:24); acknowledge 16:16–17; Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 5:13–14; James 2:8). The unifying prin- God with “mercy [chesed], not sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6); “maintain love ciple of right relationships is self-giving love (agapē). Paul sum- [chesed] and justice” (Hos. 12:6); “seek justice, encourage the op- marized the characteristics of self-giving love in a letter to the pressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, and plead the case of church in Corinth: the widow” (Isa. 1:16–17); and “act justly” and “love mercy [chesed],” and “walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8).7 The connection be- Love [agapē] is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not tween right belief and right behavior toward others is unmistakable boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self- in these texts. True religion consists of both. A belief system that seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. does not bring about right behavior is neither right nor biblical. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It al- Zechariah, who prophesied during the early post-exilic period ways protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. in the sixth century b.c., summarized the failure of the Jewish Love never fails. (1 Cor. 13:4–8a tniv) people to heed God’s prophets this way: One significant aspect of self-giving love is often overlooked. Em- bedded in self-giving love is the willingness to yield to another; CHARLES O. KNOWLES is an egalitarian Southern Baptist. it requires voluntary submission. Though a biblical love for God He retired from the University of Missouri in Columbia, and others also calls for a healthy love of self, this love “is not self- Mo., after thirty-four years of teaching and research. seeking” (v. 5); it “does not insist on its own way” (nrsv). Charles and his wife, Marie, are both deacons in their local church. He is the author of Let Her Be: Right Relationships In the Great Commandment, Jesus connected the vertical and and the Southern Baptist Conundrum Over Woman’s Role. horizontal dimensions of love in such a way that for either dimen-

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 37 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Administer true [emeth] of prayer for all nations” (Mark 11:17; cf. Isa. 56:7; 1 Kings 8:41–43) justice; show mercy [chesed] and compassion to one anoth- to satisfy spiritual hunger, but true worship of God, which requires er. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien [ger, unity and fellowship that originate from self-giving love and peace, ‘stranger’ or ‘foreigner’] or the poor. In your hearts do not think was hindered because human beings were separated hierarchically evil of each other.” on the basis of ethnicity, class, and gender. The partitioning of the But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned temple into separate courts created areas in which male and female their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts Gentiles were exploited and Jewish women and Gentiles were pri- as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words marily observers rather than full participants in worship. that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the ear- The fruit was absent from both the fig tree and the temple. lier prophets.…(Zech. 7:9–12) In righteous anger, Jesus withered the fig tree. Later that day he “began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He In general, God’s people did not listen to God’s prophets. They overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of turned their backs and walked away from God. They did not un- those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry mer- derstand that God called them to dispense justice grounded in lov- chandise through the temple courts” (Mark 11:15–16; cf. John ingkindness and to be a blessing to peoples of all nations. Instead, 2:13–16 tniv). These actions were a condemnation of the “domi- they continued to separate the two dimensions of gift and demand; nation order,” and they foreshadowed the temple’s destruction. they accepted the gift and essentially ignored the demand. While teaching in the temple the next day, Jesus presented the Jesus—paradigm of right relationships Great Commandment as the standard for right relationships in God’s “domination-free order.” When Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1–2 in his first sermon (Luke 4:18–19), At the crucifixion, God’s power split the temple veil (Matt. he established continuity between his ministry and that of the Old 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) and destroyed “the barrier, the di- Testament prophets. He called attention to the social, concrete, viding wall of hostility” (Eph. 2:14), thereby removing the barriers and here-and-now aspects of his mission. Notice especially the to right relationships between God and human beings and be- phrase “to release the oppressed.” During Jesus’ day many wives, tween human beings and human beings. The resurrection miracle, children, and slaves suffered under the domination of the hus- which completed God’s redemptive plan, made right relationships band/father/master. According to Walter Wink, “Jesus brought to a possibility for all and an imperative for those who know Jesus fruition the prophetic longing for the ‘kingdom of God’—an ex- as Savior and Lord. pression we might paraphrase as ‘God’s domination-free order.’”8 Jesus destroyed all of the barriers that segregated humankind Herod’s Temple was a major focus of Jesus’ teachings about hierarchically on the basis of ethnicity, class, and gender; therefore, transforming wrong religion into right religion. In terms of rela- he is the paradigm of right relationships, which are egalitarian. tionships among human beings, barriers divided priests and Jew- ish men, Jewish men and women, and Jewish women and Gentiles. Walking in love—the Christian distinctive Also, some people could not enter the temple at all.9 Inscriptions The importance of the connection between the two dimensions were posted at the entrances in the low wall between the Gentiles’ of the Great Commandment is evident in the life and teachings of Court and the sanctuary complex warning outsiders not to enter Paul, who was known as Saul before his encounter with Christ.11 under pain of death. For Saul the Pharisee, the two dimensions were separated, where- The Temple barriers that hindered direct access to God by all as for Paul the Christian, they were connected. The salient differ- were the same barriers that segregated humankind hierarchically ence between Saul and Paul is his personal relationship with Jesus on the basis of ethnicity, class, and gender. Among human beings, Christ, a relationship in which Jesus is his Savior and Lord.12 there was a “hierarchy of holiness,” with purity decreasing in the Even though Saul was familiar with the Shema and the Leviti- order high priest, priests, Jewish men, Jewish women, and Gentile cal social code, they were not meaningfully connected in his belief men and women.10 system. Therefore, he believed that it was possible for him to be The curious story in Mark’s gospel (11:12–14, 20–21) in which in a right relationship with God without being in a right relation- Jesus caused a fig tree to wither because it did not bear fruit can ship with others. Because of his wrong thinking about God, Saul be understood in the context of right relationships and the temple. treated Gentiles and especially Christians with a spirit that was During the last week of his ministry, Jesus confronted the unscrip- zealous, intolerant, and divisive. He saw himself as a guardian of tural activities taking place within the temple precincts. The fig God who believed that this end (i.e., protecting God) justified any tree incident occurred the morning after his triumphal entry into means, including execution (Acts 22:20; 26:10). Jerusalem, as Jesus and the disciples returned to the temple from When Saul “persecuted the followers of this Way…arresting Bethany. Upon approaching the tree, Jesus recognized its similari- both men and women” (Acts 22:4 tniv), he persecuted Jesus (cf. ty to the temple. Both the fig tree and the temple were magnificent Matt. 25:40; Luke 10:16). In the context of women’s lives, it must be and fashioned for bearing fruit. However, neither was currently emphasized that persecuting women is persecuting Jesus. Perse- yielding the “fruit” commensurate with its unique function. cution of others is non-Christian behavior; it cannot be a trait of The fig tree promised to be laden with fruit to satisfy physical those for whom Jesus is Savior and Lord. hunger, but none was present. The Temple promised to be a “house

38 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 As a result of his Damascus Road experience (Acts 9:1–19), Paul, kindness, gentleness, patience, forbearance, and forgiveness (Col. in addition to knowing about God from the Scriptures, knew God 3:12–13). The striking similarity of these behaviors to the fruit of personally through his relationship with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23) is not accidental. began to correct his wrong beliefs. His passion was redirected to- Walking in love is the indispensable ingredient of right rela- ward helping both Jews and Gentiles enter into a right relation- tionships and connects the vertical and horizontal dimensions of ship with God and with each other, and the divisive expressions the Great Commandment. When walking in love is excluded from of his spirit were being transformed into the fruit of the Spirit. As interpersonal interactions, the vertical and horizontal dimensions a Christian, Paul knew that loving others was loving Jesus and of the Great Commandment are separated, resulting in wrong re- working with the Spirit to build tolerance, peace, and unity in the lationships. Thus social ethical demands are associated with right body of Christ. relationships here and now. John commented on the connection between the vertical and horizontal aspects of the Great Commandment: Salvation as gift and demand—Jesus is Savior and Lord If we say, we love [agapaō] God yet hate [miseō] a fellow be- liever, we are liars. For if we do not love a brother or sister Salvation is the process that begins at conversion/regeneration whom we have seen, we cannot love God, whom we have not (Luke 19:9; Tit. 3:5), continues in sanctification (1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Pet. seen. (1 John 4:20 tniv) 1:9), and culminates with glorification (Rom. 10:9; 13:11; 1 Pet. 1:5). This entire salvific sequence can be described metaphorically as The Greek word used for hate means to detest, to persecute, or the maturing and ripening of a “fruit” that progressively manifests to love less. Therefore, according to Scripture, Christians cannot the Christlike qualities described in Colossians 3:12–13 and Gala- love God while detesting, persecuting, or loving others less. Else- tians 5:22–23. This is walking in love; it is loving God and loving where John stated: neighbor. It is God’s way of producing “fruit” in others. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made com- The gift of new life in Christ must not be separated from the plete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever demand, to live as Christ lived. Any disconnection at this fun- claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.…And now, dear damental level of belief creates a social-ethical void and opens lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have the door to subsequent “biblical” defenses of a multitude of evils, had from the beginning. I ask that we love [agapaō] one another. including “cheap grace,” human slavery, racial segregation, apart- And this is love [agapē]: that we walk in obedience to his com- heid, and execution of “witches.”13 mands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is The Bible teaches that justification and sanctification are God’s that you walk in love. (1 John 2:5–6; 2 John 1:5–6 tniv) initiatives and that a relationship with Jesus Christ is gained by grace through faith (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9). The Bible In Scripture walking in love, which is ethical purity or social holi- also teaches that justification (cf. Rom. 2:13; 8:33; Eph. 2:10) and ness and justice, are joined inextricably to personal holiness. Pe- sanctification include both gift, to which one responds by faith, ter characterized the Christian life as one of obedience, holiness, and demand, to which one responds by obedience (Matt. 3:8; 5:16; reverence, and love for one another (1 Pet. 1:14–25) and associated 7:15–21; Rom. 2:6; 1 Cor. 3:8; James 2:14–26).14 them as follows: Thus justification and sanctification are not merely spiritual Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so phenomena. God justifies and sanctifies human beings for a pur- that you have sincere love for each other [philadelphia, affec- pose—to “do good works” (Eph. 2:10) here and now. Moreover, tion for each other], love [agapaō] one another deeply, from “in Christ,” which for Paul includes one’s relationship with Jesus the heart. (1 Pet. 1:22 tniv) Christ and one’s relationships with others in the body of Christ,15 Jew and Gentile, slave and free, and male and female are equal Peter arranged the Christian qualities or virtues in the order of (Gal. 3:28). Embedded in both justification and sanctification is increasing importance, with self-giving love at the pinnacle: faith, God’s demand that Christians perceive and treat Jew and Gentile, goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, mu- slave and free, and male and female as spiritual and social equals. tual affection, and love (2 Pet. 1:3–8). Although there are not two different kinds of faith, faith “is Paul connected “love…for each other and for everyone else” openness of mind, heart, and life to God to receive what he has to (1 Thess. 3:12) with being found blameless and holy before God (1 give and to yield what he demands.”16 Election must not be sepa- Thess. 3:13). First Thessalonians 3:13 (nasb) begins “so that” (eis), rated from concrete obedience. In this new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; thereby preserving the causal relationship present in the Greek be- Gal. 6:15), Jesus is Savior and Lord (Acts 2:36), and there is never tween verses 12 and 13. In the Ephesians passage in which right re- a time when he is Savior and not Lord. lationships are applied to family life, Paul calls believers to end the The holistic view of Jesus as both Savior and Lord includes desires and practices of the old self (4:17–32) and to “walk in the way both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of right relationships of love” (agapē) (5:1–5), light (5:6–14), and wisdom (5:15–20). and both the present and future aspects of God’s kingdom. The Walking in love distinguishes the new self from the old self (cf. heavenly orientation or vertical dimension reminds human beings Col. 3:1–14). It consists of compassion, humility or submissiveness, of the particular reality that salvation is a gift, and the personal,

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 39 spiritual, and future aspects of right relationships are brought into Christians against other Christians and non-Christians. This notion focus. The earthly orientation or horizontal dimension reminds remains firmly embedded in the thinking of many believers where human beings of the particular reality that salvation is a demand, its social conscience often manifests in a militant “Christianity.” and the social, physical, and present aspects of right relationships In his book, When Religion Becomes Evil, Charles Kimball are brought into focus. concluded: Christians must preserve a proper balance between gift and Whatever religious people may say about their love of God or demand. It is outside biblical perspective to stress either the verti- the mandates of their religion, when their behavior toward cal dimension or the horizontal dimension of right relationships others is violent and destructive, when it causes suffering to the point that the other is distorted or eclipsed. Salvation is among their neighbors, you can be sure the religion has been both personal and social, both spiritual and physical, and both corrupted and reform is desperately needed.20 future and present. Conclusions Perversion of right relationships The kingdom of God, which includes God’s reign all day every day Without a holistic understanding and application of the doctrine of in the hearts and lives of those for whom Jesus is Savior and Lord, salvation, justification is often reduced to gift alone and salvation is is the reign of right relationships. In the Great Commandment, viewed primarily, if not exclusively, as a past transaction with a fu- Jesus taught that right relationships consist of the vertical dimen- ture hope. Thus salvation can be privatized and spiritualized to the sion, loving God, and the horizontal dimension, loving others. point of no longer having a concrete social ethical application. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ crucifixion symbolized About this biased belief, which first occurred early in Christian the destruction of the barriers to right relationships that hierar- history,17 Ernest T. Campbell observed: chically partitioned humankind on the basis of ethnicity, class, When the saviorhood of Jesus is stressed to the neglect of his and gender. The resurrection made right relationships a possibil- Lordship as the Christ and all that implies, the gospel is dis- ity for all people and an imperative for those for whom Jesus is torted, and Christian living becomes an indulgence in privi- Savior and Lord. Thus right relationships among human beings lege easily divorced from responsible ethical behavior. We are are egalitarian. Jesus also connected the two dimensions of the summoned to obey as Lord the one whom we gratefully re- Great Commandment, and he taught that its heavenly and earthly ceive as savior.…The earliest Christian creed of all is the terse aspects are not to be separated. affirmation, “Jesus Christ is Lord.”18 However, in the overly privatized and overly spiritualized be- lief system held by many Christians over the ages, salvation is When Christian faith is privatized and spiritualized, treatment of understood primarily as a past transaction with a future reward, others is considered merely logical and optional outgrowths rath- and the here-and-now aspect of this process can be divested of its er than integral and indispensable components of our ongoing concrete social-ethical demand to love others. personal relationship with God. Separating gift from demand can When this happens, Christ’s Saviorship is separated from quench what God wants to accomplish in and through a person. Christ’s Lordship, and holiness, which is presented in the New Some behaviors are evil and outside God’s plan of right rela- Testament as having both personal and social aspects, is separated tionships even if they fall within the broad compass of existing from walking in love or ethical purity. This theological disconnect church and/or civic law. For example, in this country, executing creates the social-ethical void that can become license for perse- “witches,” usually women, and owning human slaves were sanc- cuting others, such as the mistreatment of women, that is outside tioned by both church and state. According to Scripture, the be- God’s plan of right relationships. haviors of Christians are not circumscribed by the outer bound- As participants in God’s kingdom, Christians must model right aries of ecclesiastical edicts and/or secular statutes but by the relationships by their personal and social behaviors in the church, teachings and deeds of Jesus, the paradigm of right relationships, home, and world, and proclaim to the world the good news that it and the teachings of the apostles. is possible for all people to be in right relationship with God and David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981), minister of Westmin- with each other. ster Chapel in London for twenty-five years, noted:

Holiness and love must go together.…To be holy does not just Notes mean the mere avoidance of certain things, or even not think- 1. See Frank Stagg, Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical Perspec- ing certain things; it means the ultimate attitude of the heart of tive (Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 1994), 7–32. man towards that holy, loving God, and, secondly, our attitude 2. The title of this essay is a paraphrase of “the kingdom of God is towards our fellow men and women.19 the kingdom of right relationships,” which I first encountered in Gordon C. Hunter, When the Walls Come Tumblin’ Down (Waco: Word Books, The wrongful separation of holiness and walking in love or social 1970), 30, 34 and Bruce Larson, The Relational Revolution (Waco: Word holiness has been perpetuated for centuries, and it has opened the Books, 1976), 84. 3. See, for example, Gerhard Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the An- door to “biblical” justifications of numerous persecutions by some cient Church, trans. Sophia Taylor (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883), 58;

40 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 308–309; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 221. 4. Findley B. Edge, A Quest for Vitality in Religion: A Theological Ap- Recommended Resource proach to Religious Education (Nashville: Broadman, 1963), 84. 5. Deuteronomy 10:12–13 is an excellent passage of the expectations of God’s people. They are “to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his Let Her Be: Right Relationships and the Southern ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and Baptist Conundrum Over Woman’s Role with all your soul, and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees [the Ten Commandments] that I am giving you today for your own good.” by Charles O. Knowles In the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2–17), right relationships can be In Let Her Be, Charles Knowles examines divided into two sections. The first four commandments concern the rela- the theological, biblical, and sociological tionship between God and humankind, and the last six concern the relation- reasons for the Southern Baptist Con- ship between human beings and other human beings. See T. B. Maston, Bibli- vention’s positions on slavery and the cal Ethics: A Survey (Cleveland: The World Publishing Co., 1967), 18–19. subordination of women. He shows that 6. Findley B. Edge, The Greening of the Church (Waco: Word Books, the perpetual subordination of any per- 1971), 29–37. son due to ethnicity, gender, or class is 7. In addition to the obvious ethical orientation of mishpat, the inconsistent with right relationships with Hebrew words tsedaqah and chesed also have major ethical overtones. God and others modeled by Jesus and described in the Bible. When applied to human beings, tsedaqah includes right social, ethical, and religious conduct. Chesed, which occurs about 250 times in the Old Knowell Publishing • 320 pages Testament, is more difficult to translate into English. Included among its List $15.95 • CBE member $13.55 various renditions are ‘mercy,’ ‘compassion,’ ‘lovingkindness,’ and ‘stead- fast love.’ Chesed also is similar in some respects to charis and agapē, the Greek words for grace and self-giving love, respectively. Commenting specifically on Micah 6:8, T. B. Maston said, “In this verse is united the strictly religious (vertical) and the ethical (horizontal), which is Free with 2007 typical not only of prophetic religion but also of the basic teachings of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.” Maston, Biblical Ethics, 58. church membership! 8. Walter Wink, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium (New York: Galilee Doubleday, 1999), 64. CBE Church Memberships include subscriptions to Priscilla Papers and 9. John E. Phelan, Jr., “Women and the Aims of Jesus,” Priscilla Pa- Mutuality, as well as great discounts on CBE resources and conferences. pers 18,1 (Winter 2004): 7–11. 10. Josephus described the sequence of selective access to the Wom- And as an added bonus, if your church joins or renews this coming en’s Court, Israelites’ Court, and Priests’ Court as follows: “… on the east year, we will send you a free copy of Charles Knowles’ book, Let Her Be, available exclusively from CBE. Knowles’ thoughtful examination of quarter, towards the sun-rising, there was one large gate, through which the historical and present positions on slavery and the subordination such as were pure came in, together with their wives [Women’s Court], of women in the Southern Baptist Convention is a valuable way for but the temple further inward in that gate [Israelites’ Court] was not al- churches of all denominations to discuss biblical responses to gender lowed to the women, but still more inward was a third (court of the) and ethnic discrimination. temple [Priests’ Court], whereinto it was not lawful for any but the priests alone to enter. Josephus, Ant. 15.11.5. Visit www.equalitydepot.com today to include your church in this impor- 11. To distinguish pre-conversion Paul from post-conversion Paul, tant discussion! the former is referred to as Saul. Paul’s life-changing Damascus Road experience is treated here in the traditional sense of his conversion to Christianity. 12. The nature of Saul’s relationship to God and others is apparent in several passages (Acts 9:1–5; 22:3–5; 26:5; 26:9–11; Gal. 1:13–14; 1 Tim. 1:13). 13. Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase “cheap grace” to refer to the misapplication of justification in which the sin, but not the sinner, is justified. The “dissociation of election from concrete obedience” results in cheap grace. James W. Woelfel, Bonhoeffer’s Theology: Classical and Revolutionary (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 78–79, 168. 14. Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology (Nashville: Broadman, 1962), 80–121; Stagg, Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical Perspective, 149–161. See also Edge, The Greening of the Church, 29–37. 15. Evelyn Stagg and Frank Stagg, Woman in the World of Jesus (Phil- adelphia: Westminster, 1978), 163–64. CBE church members receive 20% off all regularly priced resources and 16. Stagg, New Testament Theology, 119–20. 50% off all CBE-produced recordings at Equality Depot Bookstore. 17. Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Ancient Church, 210. See page 62 for more information on CBE membership. 18. Ernest T. Campbell, Christian Manifesto (New York: Harper & Order online at www.equalitydepot.com or call 612-872-6898 Row, 1970), 15. 19. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 203, 207. 20. Charles Kimball, When Religion Becomes Evil (New York: Harp- erCollins, 2000), 39.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 41 The New Evangelical Subordinationism: Reading Inequality Into the Trinity Phillip Cary

I still wonder how it could have happened. During the twenty years as irrelevant to our Christian lives, as if it were merely some kind that Priscilla Papers has been publishing, opponents of biblical of mysterious puzzle about how three can be one. Of course, the equality have become so enamored with the idea of subordination doctrine of the Trinity is actually nothing less than the Christian that they want to make it part of God. I would not have believed teaching about God, and therefore ought to be of interest to any it until I encountered the work of Kevin Giles, an Australian An- Christians who want to have a relationship with God. What the glican priest who is the most articulate critic of this strange devel- evangelical catholics discovered is that the doctrine of the Trinity opment. In his new book, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangeli- looks irrelevant only to the extent that the church’s life and worship cals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006), Giles is not Trinitarian, i.e., not fully Christian. It is still rather common shows how a whole generation of conservative evangelicals has for evangelicals to pray “in the name of God,” for instance, with- embraced a new-fangled version of the ancient Trinitarian her- out mentioning Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. This makes it increas- esy of subordinationism. They do not hide their motives. They are ingly common for the younger generation of evangelicals—my determined to see in God what they wish to see in humanity: a students—to talk of a “personal relationship with God” without subordination of role or function that does not compromise (they mentioning Jesus Christ. A non-Trinitarian experience of person- insist) an essential equality of being. Therefore, they teach that al relationship with God, in other words, is abstract and generic just as woman is created equal to man but has a subordinate role and not quite Christian. To recover an interest in the doctrine of at home and in church, so the Son of God is coequal with the Fa- the Trinity is to recover an interest in Jesus Christ and therefore in ther in being or essence but has a subordinate role in the work of the heart of Christian faith. salvation and in all eternity. They even think—quite mistakenly, To see what is at issue between Kevin Giles and his opponents, as Giles shows—that this is what the Bible and Christian ortho- we must start there. What, after all, does the doctrine of the Trin- doxy have always taught. ity actually teach? If you are like me, you were never taught this So it is clear enough why we have this new version of ancient in the evangelical church in which you were raised. So we need to heresy, but it is still astonishing. It is especially startling to some- begin with the basics. one like me who has returned to the evangelical orbit after studies among conservative ecumenical theologians, the kind of Catholic, The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity Orthodox, and Protestant scholars who call themselves “evangeli- The doctrine of the Trinity grows out of the most fundamental cal catholics” (which in circles attuned to European theology has practice of Christian faith, the act of calling upon the name of the ring of paradox or maybe a mixed marriage, since evangelische Jesus Christ as Lord. When we pray in the name of the Lord Jesus, is just German for “Protestant”). In these circles, theologians have we acknowledge that to him belongs “the name which is above found time and again that the way to discern our underlying unity every name” (Phil. 2:9). Quite simply, we are worshiping him as in Christ is to rediscover the ancient orthodox (Nicene) doctrine God. The central aim of the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is to of the Trinity as the basis for all Christian life and thought. It is affirm that he is just as truly God as God the Father, even though dismaying to think that so many evangelicals are separating them- he is different from the Father—even though, in addition, there is selves from this common basis of Nicene orthodoxy, with its thor- only one God. Everything else follows from this astounding claim ough rejection of any teaching of subordination in the Trinity, in about the divinity of Christ built into the very heart of Christian order to ride their hobby horse about the subordination of women. faith and worship. However, it also affords egalitarian evangelicals an opportunity Nicene orthodoxy takes its name from the council of Nicaea that is worth pondering: when it comes to the nature of God, egali- held in a.d. 325, which established key elements of the creed that tarians are the traditionalists, in the sense of adhering to the Great is still recited every Sunday in many Christian churches around Tradition held in common by Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant the world: that Jesus Christ is “God from God, Light from Light, Christians going back to antiquity. Their disagreements with the true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition about such mat- the Father.” The Nicene council resolved to reject a virulent form ters as the ordination of women are minor—and will be recog- nized as such by Orthodox and Catholic theologians—compared to conservative evangelicals’ abandonment of the Great Tradition PHILLIP CARY (Ph.D., Yale University) is director of the on the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps a new kind of conversation philosophy program at Eastern University in St. Davids, becomes possible at this point. Penn. He is also a scholar-in-residence at the Templeton Honors College. He is the author of Augustine’s Invention That all depends, of course, on what kind of interest egalitar- of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist (Oxford ian evangelicals take in the doctrine of the Trinity. The problem is University Press, 2000). that many of us were raised in churches that treated this doctrine

42 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 of subordinationism which came to be called “Arianism” after its We don’t want our reverence for Christ to turn into idolatry, earliest advocate, an Egyptian priest named Arius. But in affirm- now do we? That was the ultimate challenge faced by the council ing that Christ is “of one being” (homo-ousion) with the Father, of Nicaea. Could it really be that we should give to Jesus Christ a Nicaea went further and actually ruled out every form of subor- worship equal to the Father? The majority at Nicaea answered a dination in Trinitarian doctrine. Seeing why that is so—and why resounding yes. In response to Arius’ argument that the Son must it is necessary—will bring us to the heart of Giles’ dispute with be a creation, the Nicene creed formulated a key distinction: he is evangelical subordinationists. “begotten not made.” One could equally well translate: “generated but not created.” This proved to be the concept that was hardest The Nicene teaching on Christ’s divinity for the opponents of Nicaea to grasp: that even though the Son One of the many lies told in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code is that in the council of Nicaea the divinity of Christ won by a narrow vote. Quite the contrary: without exception, everyone at Recommended Resources the council, including the heretics, believed that Christ was divine. The question was all about what kind of divinity this is—which is on the Trinity by Kevin Giles to say, the question was what the Christian view of God really is. NEW—Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals What everybody at the council agreed on was that Christ as God Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity is pre-existent: he was the divine Word that was with God in the beginning (John 1:1) long before Jesus was born. “Kevin Giles points out serious problems in the This tells us something important about the focus of the doc- teaching that the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father and argues effectively for the full eter- trine of the Trinity: it concerns the divine being of Jesus, not his nal equality within the Trinity. This book should be humanity. In his humanity he is not pre-existent but born of wom- read by all who wrestle with the complex but cru- an just like the rest of us, and subordinate to God just like every cial doctrine of the Trinity.” — Millard J. Erickson, other human being. Confusing what the Bible says about Christ’s Distinguished Professor of Theology, George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University human obedience with what must be said about his divine being is therefore the easiest route to subordinationism. So for instance Zondervan • 320 pages List $24.99 • CBE member $21.24 when Christ says “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), the Nicene tradition unanimously rejects subordinationist attempts The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of to see this as a statement about Christ’s divinity. It is only as a God and the Contemporary Gender Debate human being that Christ is less than the Father; as God, what he says about himself is “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Only “Kevin Giles powerfully shows how the doctrine of someone who is at once truly human and truly God can say both. the Trinity has been used to justify ideologies that diminish the worth of women. Some of his allega- But the doctrine of the Trinity, we must bear in mind, is focused tions may be open to question, but they never- on only one side of this two-sided Christology: it is about what it theless merit serious consideration.” — Donald G. means to say he is truly God. Bloesch, Professor of Theology Emeritus, Dubuque There is another route to subordinationism, however, which is Theological Seminary more direct and philosophical. The people who were out-voted at InterVarsity • 282 pages Nicaea were subordinationists because they thought that Christ’s List $19.00 • CBE member $16.15 divine being was by its very nature an intermediary between God the Father and created beings like us. (By contrast, the Nicene tra- Subordination, the Trinity, and the Gender Debate dition has always insisted with Scripture that “the one mediator between God and human beings” is “the human Jesus Christ” [1 Available on audio tape, CD, and MP3 Tim. 2:5]. Only in his humanity can he stand between God and Does the orthodox view of Trinitarian relations teach the eternal subordi- humanity—not because he is a lesser divinity than the Father nation of the Son of God? This workshop traces the historic understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity from the patristic age to our own times to and therefore closer to us, but because he is both fully God and help resolve this important question. It also investigates a closely related fully human.) By insisting that the Son is less than the Father, the question—whether or not women were created to be permanently subor- subordinationists thought they could make him a kind of cosmic dinated to men. By surveying the church’s traditional interpretation of texts intermediary between the Creator and the creation—not as fully relating to the status of women and inquiring into the proper use of the doctrine of the Trinity, Giles lays out his position in this current debate. divine as the Father who created all things, but closer to us mere creatures because he too is a product of the Father. Arius took this List $12.00 (CD price) • CBE member $6.00 kind of subordinationism a step further by frankly adding that the CBE members receive 15% off all regularly priced resources and Son too, since he originated from the Father, must be regarded as 50% off all CBE-produced recordings at Equality Depot Bookstore. a creation. Arius proposed that the Son was the highest and first See page 62 for more information on CBE membership. being God made, which means that he does not really deserve Order online at www.equalitydepot.com or call 612-872-6898 exactly the same level of worship as God the Father.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 43 was begotten or generated by the Father, he was not a creation of affirm the Nicene creed, and with it the equality of Father, Son, the Father and therefore not less than the Father. and Spirit in divine being or essence. But they also insist that To cement this point, the Nicene creed uses the famous term there is a distinctive kind of role differentiation in the Trinity, a homo-ousion, saying the Son is of the same being or essence (ou- subordination in role though not in being, so that the Father has sia) with the Father. Though the Greek word ousia is a piece of the role of giving commands and the Son has the role of obey- philosophical vocabulary with many shades of meaning, its use at ing them. The problem is that this is only conceivable if the Son’s Nicaea made one thing unmistakably clear: the divine being of Je- will is at least conceivably different from the Father’s. But Nicene sus Christ is no different at all from the divine being of the Father. orthodoxy says it is not. There is only one will in God. The Son’s (His humanity is different, of course—but we must keep in mind will cannot be different from the Father’s, because it is the Father’s. that the doctrine of the Trinity is not about Christ’s humanity.) As They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise God, Christ is no different and therefore no less than the Father. they would not be one God. Such are the logical consequences of Nicaea, which orthodox Trinitarians understand but evangeli- One God with one will cal subordinationists do not. If there were relations of command Not everybody knows that for about fifty years after the Council of and obedience between the Father and the Son, there would be no Nicaea, the church was in a kind of civil war over the doctrine of the Trinity at all but rather three Gods. Trinity. The subordinationists did not just go away; among other The new role subordinationism things, they asked tough questions. One of them was how Nicene Trinitarians could say there was only one God when they also said How did evangelical theology ever get to this point? Here Giles’ that Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Unlike the subordina- historically informative book is particularly helpful. In addition to tionists, for whom “one true God” in the highest sense means only extensive documentation of what Nicene theology actually teaches, the Father, Nicene Trinitarians have a serious problem here. with numerous quotations from Athanasius, the Cappadocian fa- The Nicene solution to this problem is what puts modern thers, Augustine, and Calvin, a little from Aquinas—and then whole evangelical subordinationism outside the pale of Trinitarian or- chapters devoted to two great figures of the twentieth century reviv- thodoxy. The ancient Nicene theologians argued that everything al of Trinitarian theology, Karl Barth and Karl Rahner—Giles also the Trinity does is done by the Father, Son, and Spirit working to- traces the very recent origins of evangelical subordinationism. gether with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work Far from being ancient orthodoxy, it is younger than most of inseparably, for their work is always the work of the one God. us are. In 1977, George W. Knight III responded to the growing There is no act of the Father in the world which is not an act of the evangelical ferment about the equality of women by affirming that Son and the Holy Spirit as well. This does not mean there is no dif- women were created equal, but adding that they must always be ference between the three. We could even use a modern term and subordinate to men. In his book, The New Testament Teaching on call it a difference in roles, though the ancient theologians called the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker, 1977), Knight it a difference in order. For there is an order in the work of the argued that women were not subordinate to men in being, na- three persons which reflects the order of their origination: every ture, or essence, but rather in role, function, and authority. So the work of the Trinity originates with the Father, is carried out by the new idea here is usefully dubbed “role subordination.” Rejecting Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit. For instance, the work of the out-and-out denial of human equality that was widespread salvation is initiated by the Father sending the Son, who becomes in Christian antiquity, the middle ages, and the Reformation (a incarnate, lives and dies and rises again for our redemption, so denial that was “traditional” not in the sense of belonging to the that the Holy Spirit also may be sent to sanctify and perfect the Great Tradition of Christian thought, but in that it was a cultural church, the body of Christ, for eternal life. assumption that people just took for granted) Knight affirmed the But here is the crucial point: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are biblical teaching that women and men were both created in the not just three persons who decide to cooperate, like Peter, Paul, image of God and therefore stood together as equals in their hu- and Mary agreeing to do something together. Their agreement is manity. But picking up the very modern notion of “role,” he went essential and necessary, part of their very being, or else they would on to argue that the Scriptures taught a permanent subordina- actually be three Gods just as Peter, Paul, and Mary are three hu- tion of role along with this essential equality of nature. And then mans. Hence the difference in roles in the Trinity cannot mean he took the fateful step of suggesting that we could see the same anything like a relationship of command and obedience, where thing in the Trinity: the Son of God is equal to the Father in nature one person’s will is subjected to another’s. Father, Son, and Holy but eternally subordinate in role. Spirit are always necessarily of one will, because there is only one The idea caught on like wildfire. Within a decade or two evan- God and therefore only one divine will. And where there is but one gelical theologians were talking as if every good Christian since the will there cannot be the authority of command and obedience, apostles had believed in role subordination in the Trinity. Perhaps for that requires one person’s will to be subordinate to a will other most influentially, Wayne Grudem made it a centerpiece of his Sys- than his or her own. tematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), which soon became a widely Now we can see why modern evangelical subordinationists used systematic theology text in evangelical seminaries in the Eng- cannot be consistently Nicene, despite their best intentions. They lish-speaking world. Both Knight and Grudem make quite clear what

44 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 contemporary reality lies behind this historical error: for them, af- on where evangelicals stand on this, the most important theologi- firming subordination in the Trinity is essential to holding the line cal issue of all; it documents the claims of both sides as well as against egalitarianism in the church, the home, and the world. the witness of Scripture and tradition; it hammers home the same The new evangelical subordinationism, in other words, belongs fundamental points repeatedly. Even the repetitiveness is of value, to an overarching strategy to keep women subordinate to men who insofar as it should impress younger evangelicals—or those who can no longer use the old weapons of thoughtless prejudice. After a have not yet made up their minds—with the weight of the tradi- frank admission that women and men are created equally in God’s tional witness against any kind of subordination in the Trinity. image, what recourse is there for keeping women under men? The Hearing so much from Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, and the rest solution is: distinguish their roles, make women’s role subordinate has got to help. (Those who don’t need so much convincing might to men’s, and make the subordination permanent. And then, for prefer Giles’ earlier book, which covers the same topic within the good measure, anchor this permanent subordination of women in space of Part I.) Most fundamentally, Giles’ work is an appeal to an eternal subordination of roles within God himself. evangelicals to rejoin the Great Tradition. The appeal is impor- Now that the idea has caught on so well, it looks too late to tant and worth the weight of documentation. For if evangelicals take it back. When Giles pointed out the problem in his earlier go off again in a fundamentalist separatism while clinging to an book, Trinity and Subordinationism (InterVarsity Press, 002), unorthodox doctrine of the Trinity, their separation from the rest his opponents responded with scathing criticisms coupled with of the body of Christ could prove irreparable, like the invention of emphatic affirmations that role subordinationism is historic or- a new sect in the characteristically American mode of Mormon- thodoxy. I still wonder how such sheer historical ignorance is pos- ism or Jehovah’s Witnesses. sible. I can only think of sociological explanations: there must be a One of the striking things about the original Nicene theolo- wing of evangelicalism with its own seminaries and academic life gians, in fact, is that by being faithful to the purpose of clarifying almost totally cut off from mainstream scholarship and the life of the divinity of Christ, they ended up undermining the ancient com- the larger church. If so, then the current struggle between subor- mitment to a metaphysical hierarchy of being. The ancient church dinationists and egalitarians in evangelical churches is creating a fathers were hierarchicalists to a man. They believed in hierarchi- new kind of fundamentalist/evangelical split, where “fundamen- cal subordination throughout the universe: women subordinate to talist” stands for a separatist strand of conservative Protestantism men, servants to masters, subjects to rulers, inanimate to animate, that thinks it can go it alone without cultural engagement or even animals to humans. But despite themselves, what they found at the theological literacy. utmost height of the chain of being was equality in the very essence of God. And the reason was Christ: the biblical witness did not al- Conclusion low them to make Jesus Christ less deserving of worship and adora- Giles’ new work, Jesus and the Father, has the strengths and weak- tion than God the Father. We too can expect countercultural results nesses of a book that meets an urgent need. It will catch you up if we give up the willful reading of our own social agendas into the doctrine of the Trinity and submit ourselves to biblical teaching.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 45 Post-1970s Evangelical Responses to the Emancipation of Women Kevin Giles

I was very pleasantly surprised and honored when Mimi Haddad Women’s emancipation raises new questions asked me to serve as guest co-editor of the twentieth anniversary for theology edition of Priscilla Papers. Though I have been writing on the This revolution was so profound that Christians were forced to emancipation of women in the life of the church and the home rethink their theology of the sexes. No longer could it be argued for thirty years.1 My unchanging goal has been to contribute to that women were the subordinated sex, inferior to men because the development of a coherent, holistically biblical theology of they lacked man’s intelligence and were more prone to sin and the sexes that grants to men and women the same dignity and error, as Christians and non-Christians alike had uniformly the same freedom to use God-given gifts of leadership. This bibli- presumed for countless centuries.3 The emancipation of women cal theology conceives of marriage as a partnership in self-giv- was a far bigger issue than the ordination of women, but in the ing agape love, yet never forgets that God has made us men and churches this became the central and symbolic issue. women to complement and enrich each other’s lives. Christians of liberal theological persuasion found change the In what follows I outline the alternative theologies that have easiest. They simply asserted that all comments in the Bible on emerged among evangelicals since the 1970s when women’s the subordination of women were a reflection of the patriarchal emancipation changed the world forever. In the late 1960s in the culture of the biblical writers, and should be summarily dismissed. Western world, one of the most momentous social and intellectual Equal rights for men and women were what God wanted for our revolutions in human history erupted: women’s liberation. It has age, they said. Thus ordination for women as well as men should be transformed nearly every aspect of modern life. This revolution allowed. Christians standing in the “holiness” and the Pentecostal had its roots in the nineteenth century,2 although it was only in traditions also negotiated this change without too much angst the second half of the twentieth century that all the ingredients for because they had always allowed women of the Spirit to assume this revolution emerged. leadership positions. Four things came together to throw open the door for change. It was much harder for theologically driven Roman Catholic, First of all came the education of women. Educational opportu- Eastern Orthodox, and evangelical Christians to adjust. In the face nities for women had been increasing from the 1850s, but it was of a growing demand that women be ordained as priests, the Pope only in the 1960s that women started completing high school and declared virtually ex cathedra that women are not subordinated to entering universities in large numbers. Their academic achieve- men,4 yet because the twelve apostles were men, only men can be ments demonstrated that they did not lack intelligence as men had ordained as priests.5 Eastern Orthodox theologians took another claimed for long ages. Second came the “Pill.” For the first time in approach. Beginning with their very high view of tradition, in which human history, women were able to determine if and when they Scripture and the teaching of the church fathers are organically would have children. Educated and freed from the uncertainty of conceived, they decreed that women could not be ordained because pregnancy, women entered the workforce in growing numbers. the tradition gave no precedence for such a radical change. Their employment was the third ingredient that made women’s Change was equally difficult for evangelicals with their high emancipation possible. From this followed the fourth ingredient. view of Scripture. It seemed plain to them that the apostles exhorted Women could now financially support themselves. With the dis- women to be subordinate, and yet they could no longer argue tinctive contribution they made as women in the workplace and that women were inferior to men, as they had been taught. They the decreasing importance of physical strength in the job mar- now found themselves in the midst of a culture in which women ket, women found they were employable. This gave them choices could match men in education, employment, and social settings. they had never before enjoyed. With women’s increasing political In response to this new dilemma, one of the most significant and clout and with many enlightened men wanting a better deal for innovative conservative evangelical and Reformed theologians of women, most Western democracies introduced welfare benefits the twentieth century proposed a solution. George Knight III, in for single mothers that meant that even women who did not have his highly influential book, New Testament Teaching on the Role a job could support themselves and their children. This potential to be financially independent meant women no longer depended on men to provide for them. They did not have to marry or stay in KEVIN GILES (Th.D., Australian College of Theology) is vicar of St. Michael’s Church (Anglican) in North Carlton, Australia. marriages where they were treated poorly or abused. For marriages He has also served as a minister and consulting theologian to work in this context, they had to operate on more equal terms for World Vision Australia. He is the author of many books than ever before. Men could not have it all their own way. The part- and articles, including The Trinity and Subordinationism: nership model of marriage had become the ideal. Many challenges The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate remained for women to face, but the structural bonds that had kept (InterVarsity Press, 2002) and Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006). them in subordination to men until this time were shattering.

46 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Relationship of Men and Women, published in 1977,6 argued that social order given in creation that applies only in the home and men and women are created equal, but they are differentiated by the the church. They refer to the differing “roles” that they believe are fact that God has assigned to each differing roles. Their differing constitutive for “Biblical manhood and womanhood,” and most roles are based on the order of creation, a hierarchical social order claim that the Son of God’s subordination in role and authority given by God before sin entered the world that applies only in the in the eternal Trinity justifies and explains women’s permanent home and the church. For this reason, male leadership and female subordination in role and authority. The force of this theological subordination is the God-given ideal. Thus the exhortations to construct with its novel ingredients and terms is illustrated women to be subordinate in the New Testament, unlike those to by the fact that even evangelicals opposed to the permanent slaves, are transcultural and unchangeable. subordination of women speak of the differing “roles” of men and To give added weight to this reformulated and reworded women, assume that there is a social order given in creation, accept theology of the sexes, Knight argued that this God-given, that the Son of God is subordinated in the eternal Trinity, and permanent subordination of women in role and authority in the refer to the view they oppose as the “complementarian” position. church and the home was supported and illustrated by the Trinity. For him, the Son is eternally subordinated in role and authority Problems with the post-1970s case for the permanent to the Father even though the Father and the Son are both fully subordination of women divine. He thus spoke of a “chain of subordination”7 between men George Knight’s theological construct that supports the perma- and women and between the Father and the Son.8 Despite the nent subordination of women is indefensible. As a theology that fact that all the key elements in his case that I have given in italics privileges those who devised it, this view should arouse “herme- are entirely novel, he considers the permanent subordination of neutical suspicion.” Whenever a view reinforces the advantages women to be the “traditional” and “historical” position. Only of its originators, self-interest is often a determining factor (i.e., one new development to his creative theological work has slavery and apartheid). occurred since he wrote: John Piper and Wayne Grudem, editors Here is a brief outline of some of the insurmountable problems of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to with the post-1970s conservative evangelical case for the perma- Evangelical Feminism, published in 1991, renamed the permanent nent subordination of women.10 subordination of women the “complementarian” position.9 1.This view is neither historical nor traditional as is claimed. This new theology subordinating women to men in the church Although its conclusion maintains the subordinationist sta- and the home has had a tremendous impact on evangelicals. It tus quo, this interpretation of the Bible’s teaching on gender is sounded acceptable to modern ears: “Men and women are equal, completely novel in conception and wording. Never in the history they simply have been given different roles: they complement each of the church has anyone suggested this is what the Bible teaches. other.” Who could object to this? And once the idea was accepted It directly contradicts the historical or traditional view that that the subordination of women is grounded in an unchanging considered men to be “superior” and women to be “inferior” and and unchangeable “creation order,” how could any Bible-believing more prone to sin and deception. Christian think otherwise? The alternatives were simple—you Further novelties include the interpretation of the Fall (Gen. 3) either accepted the Bible’s teaching or you did not! This view in terms of role reversal (i.e., the woman taking the lead when she also provided a comprehensive interpretative grid to understand should have deferred to her “head,” Adam), the understanding of every comment in the Bible on women. All the exhortations to gender differentiation solely on the basis of fixed differing roles, women to be subordinate are based on the order of creation and and the assumption that the chronological order in which the are thus permanently binding, whereas the ones to slaves are man and the women were created in Genesis chapter 2 entails a not; Jesus’ teaching and example cannot suggest emancipation permanently binding social order that gives preeminence to men. because he accepts that the creation order is the ideal; and the Theological novelty does not necessarily imply error. The apostolic affirmations of women in various ministries must contemporary egalitarian position is also novel, although it goes all allude to subordinate ministries, because women’s creation- back further to the women’s emancipation movement of the given subordination excludes them on principle from exercising nineteenth century. What novelty demands is very close scrutiny authority or teaching in the church. This view was so appealing and and evaluation. convincing that those who embraced it were convinced that it was 2. The Bible does not support the idea that a creation-given what the Bible taught. Anyone who had another view was simply social order subordinates women to men. In the historic argument rejecting biblical authority. Unambiguous scriptural proof for this there is no mention of a prescriptive social order given in position was found in 1 Timothy 2:11–14. This text settled everything creation. Women are “inferior” because they were created second for those in favor of the permanent subordination of women. (chronological order). The whole idea that there are “orders Virtually every evangelical who has written in support of the of creation,” prescriptive social norms given by God before the permanent subordination of women after Knight has adopted his Fall, was first suggested in the nineteenth century by socially novel theological construct to interpret the key texts in making their conservative Lutheran theologians such as Adolf von Harless (1806– case. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, nineteen 1879).11 In this construct, “orders of creation” covered the whole of the twenty-four authors ground women’s subordination in a creation and were binding on all people, believers or otherwise

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 47 (i.e., marriage and the state). They were contrasted with “orders gender identity is not determined by what we do, our role, but of redemption” that applied only to Christians in the church and by who we are. Paradoxically, the most penetrating critique of the home. Modern hierarchicalists adopt this nineteenth-century role theory to differentiate the sexes is given by the conservative view about orders of creation, but they arbitrarily limit women’s evangelical hierarchicalist, Werner Neuer.14 Like me, he insists subordination to church and home. that the Bible differentiates the genders on the basis of personal However, we must also ask, what in Scripture suggests that in identity—being—not roles. He concludes that “in the cause creation God established an unchanging and unchangeable social of truth” this obfuscating appeal to role theory drawn from order in which men rule over women? If anything, the Bible humanistic sociology should be abandoned. I agree. suggests that in making men and women in his image, God gave 5. The denial of gender-based role differentiation does not them incredible potential. In the Bible and in world history, we have entail the denial of gender differentiation itself. One of the hardest many examples of human beings changing social order as history things to tolerate in this debate is the ever-repeated assertion that unfolds. There is no such thing as a God-given and unchanging egalitarians deny or undermine sexual differentiation. This is social order prescribed in creation.12 As far the Bible is concerned, simply not true. Equality does not negate differentiation. People the ideal always lies in the future, not the past. Thus Paul holds that may be clearly differentiated by their ethnicities, but this in no in Christ there is a “new creation,” which in some ways transcends way entails that one must be subordinated to the other. All Bible- the old or first creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). This has dawned in Christ believing Christians should believe that men and women alike are and it will be perfected and fully realized on the last day. made in the image of God and differentiated by God as male and 3. The exhortations to women and slaves are both practical advice female. What egalitarians deny is that the permanent subordination to those living in a culture that accepted slavery and the subordination of women is God’s ideal. This is the matter that divides evangelicals, of women as social norms. George Knight was the first to make a not sexual differentiation as such. theological distinction between the exhortations to women and One of the cleverest moves hierarchicalists made was to rename slaves that stand side by side in Scripture, and no contemporary their view of gender the “complementarian” position. Every scholarly study of these texts supports this distinction. There is evangelical should be a complementarian. The only alternatives no textual evidence that exhortations to women are based on are to be a hierarchical-complementarian or an egalitarian- a supposed unchanging order of creation, and are thus to be complementarian. We either see the ideal as man and woman distinguished from exhortations to slaves.13 We must never forget standing side by side or the man standing above the woman, in that nineteenth century conservative evangelicals in the southern each case complementing each other. The challenge and joy of United States quoted these very texts to oppose the emancipation marriage is found in this complementarity. The church needs of slaves, just like the texts standing alongside them are quoted by both women and men in leadership, because the two genders those who oppose the emancipation of women today. complement each other’s ministry. Vive la difference. 4. The Bible does not prescribe fixed, gender-based roles for 6. The attempt to explain and ground the permanent men and women. The words “role” and “function” are never used subordination of women in the eternal subordination of the Son to speak of sexual differentiation in theological texts and biblical in function and authority is outside historic Christian orthodoxy. commentaries before the 1970s. In the historical view, women were A hierarchical understanding of the Trinity is integral to the considered “inferior” to men in essence. The idea that men and evangelical hierarchical understanding of gender. In contrast, women have differing “roles” sounds acceptable to modern ears, historic orthodoxy totally and unambiguously rejects any but this term has a sting in the tail. In the dictionary, the word “role” hierarchical ordering in the Trinity in divinity, being, glory, work, refers to what people do: who cooks meals, earns income, etc. So and authority. Only in the incarnation is the Son by his own roles can change and differ from culture to culture; roles are not choice subordinated to the Father for our salvation. The following fixed and they are not person-defining. In the case for the permanent statements in the Athanasian Creed could not be more emphatic: subordination of women, the word “role” is given a meaning that is “Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy not supported in any dictionary. It is a gender-specific term relating Spirit.” not to what one does, but rather to who exercises power and authority and who does not. A man is defined as a man because he “The Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is has the role of “headship,” or in plain speech, authority. A woman is almighty.” (The three persons of the Trinity are indivisible in defined as a woman because she has the role of obeying. power and authority.) The expression “differing roles,” as hierarchicalists use it, does not indicate equality or the freedom to change: it indicates rather “None is before or after, none is greater or less than another.” the permanent subordination of women. If leadership is based (There is no hierarchical ordering within the Trinity). on gifting or training that can change over time, then equality is “The three persons are coeternal, and coequal.” not called into question. But if it is fixed as gender-specific and/or ethnicity-specific, then the inferiority of those who can never lead The divine persons are only differentiated in this creed by their is inevitably implied. individual identities and differing origination. To eternally set the The idea that men and women are differentiated primarily by Father over the Son in being or authority reflects the Arian heresy. roles is also unbiblical. God creates us as men and women. Our If anything, the historic doctrine of the Trinity, in which the three

48 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 differentiated divine persons indwell one another and coexist in In this new social setting, most Christians wanted to affirm the perfect unity, self-giving, and love, suggests that God’s ideal for equal value and dignity of men and women, and these authors were the differentiated genders is coequality. able to demonstrate that women leaders were known and affirmed 7. This position demeans women. The thesis that God has cre- throughout the Bible. They pointed out that the teaching and ated men to direct and women to obey is fundamental to the example of Jesus was in fact supportive of women’s emancipation, hierarchical view of gender. This unchanging and unchangeable and Paul’s theology of ministry, set out most fully in 1 Corinthians hierarchical social order, we are told, is God’s ideal prescribed by chapters 12 and 14, made the Spirit the sole source and authority the Bible. This implies that God has not given women the ability for all ministry in the life of the church. They also noted that Paul to lead in the church and home. Leadership is a male prerogative. spoke favorably of women prophets, women house church leaders, It is impossible to deny that this male-devised thesis gives prece- a woman apostle, and women leading in various contexts. dence to men and puts women down. What they could not convincingly explain by exegesis alone was why Paul exhorted wives to be submissive (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, Egalitarian evangelicals etc.), or why he said the husband is the head of his wife (Eph. Knight’s response to women’s emancipation came right at the 5:23), and “the man is the head of woman” (1 Cor. 11:3), and why beginning of the debate and caught evangelicals who thought he forbade women to teach or exercise authority (1 Tim. 2:11–12). women should be granted equal opportunity between a rock and a From the late 1970s onward, good exegetical work was done in hard place. At first it seemed that the only alternatives were granting minimizing the force of these texts, but most scholarly evangelicals that the Bible permanently subordinated women, or embracing were not convinced by much of what was written on these texts. women’s emancipation and rejecting the authority of Scripture. The subordination of women seemed to be assumed at points in When Professor Paul Jewett of Fuller Theological Seminary the apostolic epistles. articulated the case for equality as an evangelical theologian in By the mid-1980s, however, things began to change as 1975, he sent a shock wave through the evangelical world.15 Rather evangelical scholars of the highest caliber began putting their than beginning with exegesis to critique the interpretation of the minds to the “woman question.” By this time the discussion few proof texts used to subordinate women, Jewett accepted that on hermeneutics had taken center stage.18 The Greek word Paul did at times endorse the cultural norm of his day that women transliterated as “hermeneutics” simply means to interpret. Until are subordinated to men. He proposed that this cultural norm was the 1970s, this term was primarily referred to interpreting the “incompatible” with Genesis 1:27–28, the teaching and example of Bible according to grammatico-historical methodology, taking Jesus, and what he calls “the Magna Charta” for human liberation, up such issues as progressive revelation, differing genres, and Galatians :28: in Christ “there is neither male nor female.” obscure comments that seemed to be in tension with other things Jewett’s work caused a storm in the American evangelical world. said in Scripture. The focus was on the historical context. From Harold Lindsell in his book The Battle for the Bible16 accused the 1970s onward, the study of hermeneutics became focused him of teaching that “the Bible is in error,” setting Jesus and Paul on how to bridge the gap between a text given in one historical in opposition, and rejecting the authoritative directives of Paul and cultural context and readers in other historical and cultural addressed to the church.17 contexts. It also explored the effects of differing presuppositions There is much in Jewett’s book that demands careful reading. held by biblical authors and readers. This discussion showed He rightly recognized that not everything Paul says about women that interpreting the historical text is only the first step in the can be easily reconciled, but his case could have been articulated hermeneutic process. This first step ascertains how the original more carefully. The book should be considered a somewhat heavy- hearers and readers might have understood the words given in handed first attempt at addressing the questions that women’s the Bible. The next step is to determine how the words addressed emancipation raised for Bible-believing Christians. Rather than in a now past time and culture apply to Christians in very different encouraging evangelical theologians to consider the pressing cultural contexts today. hermeneutical questions raised by women’s emancipation, his Once the value of this two-step hermeneutical process was book forced them to concentrate on exegesis. Egalitarians hoped recognized, evangelicals realized it could be applied to the “woman to find an interpretation of each text quoted against women’s question” without challenging the authority of Scripture. For emancipation without calling into question biblical inerrancy, as example, it could be granted that Paul, with the authority he had Harold Lindsell had accused them of doing. as an apostle, did exhort women and slaves in his historical and Excellent exegetical work was done, often building on the cultural context to be subordinate, and that he once (or possibly contributions of informed women exegetes who had led and twice) exhorted women to be silent. Yet these instructions do inspired in the late nineteenth-century women’s emancipation not apply one for one in our Western egalitarian context today movement. From the mid-1970s onward, evangelical egalitarians because they are “culturally specific.” The case for this conclusion began drawing on this rich heritage and adding to it. They clearly rests on the premise that Paul’s exhortations to slaves and women saw that there was much in the Bible that affirmed the equality are of exactly the same nature: practical advice to Christians in a of the sexes. A steady flow of accessible books and articles began time and place where the subordination of women and slaves were emerging in favor of mutuality in marriage and the leadership of taken-for-granted realities. This conclusion is also supported by the both women and men in the church. fact that these exhortations stand in tension with the profoundly Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 49 theological affirmations on the equality of all human beings (Gen God-inspired Bible is inerrant and unchanging, but church histo- 1:27–28, the teaching and example of Jesus, Gal. 3:28, etc.). ry demonstrates that human interpretation of the Bible is not in- Evangelicals who embraced this approach made other more errant and not unchanging. Paradoxically, the homosexual debate conservative evangelicals very anxious, not only those who advocated illustrates this point. Within the last thirty years, even the most the permanent subordination of women. They were concerned that conservative evangelicals have modified the punitive and harsh by granting that there are contrasting comments on women within condemnation of homosexuals that the Bible can be quoted to sup- Scripture and that some teaching in Scripture does not apply today, port.19 Our cultural context, which has become more sympathetic the authority of Scripture would be overthrown and the door to ac- to homosexuals, has influenced most of us, but not to such a degree cepting homosexual unions would be opened. Neither accusation that evangelicals have abandoned the clear teaching in Scripture has any merit. Denying that the subordination of women is God’s that homosexual sex is displeasing to God. The Bible rules with one ideal for all time no more challenges biblical authority than denying voice on this moral issue, and we are bound to obey. With women, that slavery is God’s ideal for all time. Culturally specific instructions cultural influence has been more profound because the Bible has in the Bible do not apply in the very different contexts of today’s read- encouraged change rather than closing the door on it. ers in which, for example, head coverings are no longer the cultural In our current cultural context, most Christians, including norm, braided hair is not considered a sign of loose morals, and the most evangelicals, have come to see that the Bible offers a grand institution of slavery has been abolished. vision of man and woman standing side by side, made in the If today all evangelical Christians agree that the Bible’s teaching on image and likeness of God, sharing in the rule of creation (Gen. slavery no longer applies in any literal sense, why are evangelicals who 1:27–28), a vision our Lord himself endorses. The changes in our say the same on women’s subordination accused of denying biblical culture over the last several decades have enabled evangelicals to authority? Christians were convinced the Bible supported slavery ask important new questions. Is God’s ideal in fact the coequality throughout much of church history. Even as late as the nineteenth of men and women in dignity and rule? Are the texts used to sup- century, the fathers of today’s conservative evangelicalism port permanent subordination to men (addressed to women and understood apostolic instructions to people living in a culture that slaves) simply the reflection of a cultural context now past? Many accepted slavery as a fact of life to be culture-transcending teaching, evangelicals, and I am one of them, have answered “yes” to these a reflection of an order established by God for all times. They used questions with clear consciences. The Bible itself has led them to the Bible to “prove” their case, but they were totally mistaken. Rather believe that to fully affirm the equality of men and women is what than liberating the oppressed, their appeal to the Bible justified is most pleasing to God in our age. oppression. We must ask, Are evangelicals today who appeal to the Bible to justify the permanent subordination of women doing An egalitarian theology of gender exactly the same thing 150 years later? I for one think so. Once it is recognized that this debate is not about whether or not The homosexual issue is a red herring. In the gender debate some evangelicals accept the authority of the Bible, but rather we are discussing the dignity and freedom of women: whether about how evangelicals should interpret and apply the Bible or not women, simply because they are women and for no other (hermeneutics), then some progress in this painful and divisive reason, should be subordinated to men in the church and home. issue can be made. I think I have said enough to show why many The primary issue homosexuality raises is entirely different. Few evangelicals are not persuaded by the post-1970s case for the Christians today hold that people should be discriminated against permanent subordination of women. The time has come for a simply because they have a homosexual orientation: the debate is better interpretation of biblical teaching on women that speaks to about the morality of homosexual acts. With one voice, the Bi- the historical and cultural context in which we find ourselves: one ble rules that homosexual sex, like adultery, is displeasing to God. that does not demean women.20 Nothing suggests this teaching is culturally specific. Indeed, the To gain a truly biblical perspective on men and women (or any Bible grounds the differentiation of the genders, like their equality, other matter), the Bible must be read holistically and historically. in the created order before sin entered the world (Gen. 1:27–28). This means that a convincing contemporary evangelical theology It is God’s ideal. For this reason, egalitarian evangelicals find no of gender will not rely on a few proof texts or read the Bible as if difficulty at all with arguing for the emancipation of women and everything said in it in one historical context and culture applies arguing against homosexual sex. The idea that these two issues one for one in another historical and cultural context. Rather are inextricably linked can only be true if women are to be dis- it will begin with the recognition that a huge cultural shift has criminated against because of some moral failure inherent in all taken place. The world has changed. The growing endorsement women. In past times some theologians made such claims but I of the equality of men and women in Western culture has given find no one arguing for this today. theologians new questions to answer. What should Christians Here it needs to be stressed that egalitarian evangelicals are not believe and do when their culture increasingly assumes equal suggesting that culture should dictate what is accepted in Scrip- opportunities for women? To answer this question, evangelical ture and what is not—far from it. Scripture is normative and au- theologians have begun a fresh study of the Scriptures from thoritative for evangelical theology. What is being argued is that Genesis to Revelation to see what the Bible as a whole actually a change in culture can change how we interpret Scripture. The says about God’s ideal for men and women.

50 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 When studying the Bible to develop a theological position, the not as one of the twelve, but as one of the larger number of mission- starting point always influences the outcome. Hierarchicalists ary apostles who were raised up by the Holy Spirit and said to be start with 1 Timothy 2:11–12. A far better place to begin is where “first in the church” (1 Cor. 12:28, cf. Eph. 4:11–12). The examples of the Bible begins, Genesis chapter 1. Narrative criticism has shown women leaders may seem few, but their presence in this patriarchal that the order in which the Bible is given to us matters and should context are very significant. They show that wherever possible Paul be considered part of scriptural revelation. What God puts first, put his nondiscriminatory theology of ministry into practice. we should put first. As a prologue to the whole Bible, we are told When it is recognized that Paul’s theology of ministry is predi- God made men and women equal in dignity and status, and both cated on nondiscriminatory Spirit empowerment, we are then were given authority and dominion (Gen. 1:27–28). They are able to properly understand the three texts where he regulates made male and female, differentiated by divine act, yet equal in harmful behavior in the church involving women—1 Corinthians person/nature/being and dominion/authority. Genesis chapter 2 11:3–16, 14:33–34, and 1 Timothy 2:11–12. picturesquely elaborates on the differentiation of the genders. On In 1 Corinthians 11:3–16, Paul instructs that women must cover his own, Adam is help-less, incomplete. No animal can meet his their heads when they lead congregational prayer and prophecy,25 need for companionship. God’s solution is to make woman, an and that men must uncover their heads when they exercise these equal partner, for the solitary Adam. In this creative act, the two ministries. In these instructions, Paul upholds cultural norms that genders stand side by side, identified as man and woman, for the differentiate the sexes. In the context of this discussion on “head” first time at the climax of this narrative (Gen. 2:22–23). Without Eve, coverings, Paul speaks of Christ as the head of man, the man as Adam is not man as distinct from woman; without Adam, Eve is not the head of woman, and God as the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3). The woman as distinct from man. By definition, man is man in distinc- Greek word kephalē translated ‘head’ refers literally to the cranium tion from and in relation to woman, just as woman is woman in dis- and when used metaphorically, as it is in this example, it can mean tinction from and in relation to man. Genesis chapter 3 shows that ‘head over,’ ‘preeminent,’ ‘source,’ etc. Context is the most important the disobedience of the woman and the man to God’s command indicator of metaphorical meanings and in this context, ‘head over’ had dire consequences for both of them. It breached their idyllic re- or ‘authority over’ does not make sense. If Paul was arguing that lationship with God and with each other. The Bible explicitly makes men have authority over women, why would he simultaneously en- the man’s rule over the woman a consequence of the Fall (Gen. 3:16). dorse the leadership of women and men in the church so long as It is something new that is detrimental to both of them. they cover or uncover their heads? What we have in this passage is In the New Testament, the best place to begin is the gospels. a play upon the word “head” and whatever the word may mean in Jesus never mentions the subordination of women or conversely this context, it does not mean ‘head over.’26 the “headship” of men. On the contrary, though he lived in a thor- In 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, Paul asks wives to stop disrupting oughly patriarchal culture, Jesus speaks and acts in ways that deny the service by asking questions during church. His advice is, “If these ideas.21 It is true the twelve apostles were all men, but this there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands is no surprise in that cultural context.22 It seems the twelve had at home” (1 Cor. 11:35). to be men because as the founding fathers of the new Israel they Paul’s prohibition on women exercising “authority” and teach- were the counterparts of the twelve male patriarchs, and because ing in church in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 should be understood in the they were to be “witnesses” of the life, ministry, death, and resur- context of false teaching that had erupted in Ephesus and had rection of Jesus (cf. Acts 1:21–22), something women could not led both men and women astray.27 When Paul first founded the legitimately do in Jewish society at that time.23 church several years previously, women were allowed to teach, but Acts chapter 2 is programmatic for the new age that dawned he changed this policy in response to a specific challenge facing with the gift of the Holy Spirit to all believers. In the new Spirit- the church.28 The women’s teaching had deceived many, and they endowed community, Peter quotes the Old Testament prophet taught in a way that claimed absolute authority for themselves, Joel and proclaims that “sons and daughters” and “servants, both which was offensive. men and women” shall prophesy (Acts 2:17–18). When the Spirit is The word rendered ‘authority’ by most modern translations is present, both men and women will proclaim the word of the Lord the Greek word authentein, found only this once in the whole Bi- in power. In Luke’s writings, prophecy is a term that can cover all ble. In the first century it was a very hash word implying domina- Spirit-inspired speech.24 tion or usurping authority. This exceptional word clearly indicates The place to begin a study of Paul’s teaching on ministry is an exceptional situation. Paul not only tells the women to desist where he most fully articulates his theology of ministry in the con- from teaching, but also offers reasons for doing so that relate quite gregation—1 Corinthians 12–14, Romans 12:3–8, and Ephesians specifically to the erroneous teachings. Women should not to 4:11–12. Paul’s teaching on the ministry of the body of Christ pre- claim to be first because Adam was created first and they should supposes that the Spirit bestows the same gifts of ministry on not teach because it was Eve who was first deceived. These are “off men and women. As a general rule, his practice perfectly matches the cuff” arguments that were meant to counter the arrogance of his theology. He speaks positively of women prophesying, leading some women and their opportunities to give false teaching. Else- house churches, and ministering in other unspecified ways. He even where in more theological passages, Paul insists that “in Christ commends a woman apostle (Rom. 16:7). She is to be understood there is a new creation, the old has passed away” (2 Cor. 5:23),

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 51 and that Adam is responsible for sin (Rom. 5:12ff). In 1 Corinthi- tion. On the post-1870s powerful Christian push for women’s equality, see ans 11:3ff, Paul uses similar “off the cuff” arguments based on the Ruth A. Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women in creation narratives to establish a case for cultural practices about Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1987), 245–90. head coverings for men and women that virtually no one consid- 3. See further Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doc- ers binding today. trine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: In the discussion of women’s ministry, 1 Timothy :11–14 InterVarsity, 2002), 141–56. should come last because it is the last comment on this matter of 4. John Paul II, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women (Homebush, any importance in the Bible. It is rightly interpreted in the light of N.S.W.: St. Pauls, 1988). 5. John Paul II, On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men (Homebush, all that has preceded it. N.S.W.: St. Pauls, 1994). When it comes to marriage, what we find in Paul’s most ex- 6. George Knight III, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship tended comment is that he wants to transform patriarchy: the rule of Men and Women (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1977). of the man (see Eph. 5:21–33). He says in effect: You men may 7. Knight, New Testament, 33. think of yourself as the leader of your wife but I want to tell you 8. Knight, New Testament, 56. about the kind of leadership Christ exemplified and expects. It is 9. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991). 10. For what follows see in greater detail and documentation my book, the leadership of self-giving, the leadership of the servant. What Trinity and Subordinationism, 141–268. you men are to do is love (agapaō) your wives “just as Christ loved 11. See further, The Trinity and Subordinationism, 173–74. the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). This passage 12. First Tim 2:13 is frequently quoted in support of this view, but this does not even hint at the ideas that men should have the final say text speaks only of the chronological order in which the sexes are created in the home and that women are excluded from sharing respon- in Gen. 2. 13. I set out the evidence in The Trinity and Subordinationism, 251–58. sibility for family life. In its historical context, this is a liberating In the hostile reviews of my book by hierarchicalists this section is con- text and it should be understood this way today. veniently ignored. In conclusion, it should be noted that in this biblical theology 14. Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective, trans. Gor- of gender, there is no appeal to a supposed pre-Fall hierarchical don Wenham (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990), 29–30, quote 30. social order that permanently subordinates women. The emphasis 15. Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Ee- falls on the new creation that has introduced the new age of the rdmans, 1975). 16. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1976). Spirit. There is no appeal to the sociological term “role,” and no 17. Lindsell, Battle, 118–19. claim that the Son of God is eternally subordinated to the Father 18. Many of the finest studies on hermeneutics in this period have in authority like women are permanently subordinated to men, a been produced by evangelicals. I simply mention two books I think stand doctrine of the Trinity that reflects the Arian heresy. apart, Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Herme- neutics and Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, Conclusion 1980), and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998). Readers of this article must decide for themselves which 19. In the Old Testament, a man who “lies” with another man as he interpretation of the Bible makes most sense in light of the whole might with a woman is to be put to death (Lev. 20:13). This was long held to be a valid sentence on homosexuals but few today would conclude this. of Scripture, encourages self-denying agapē love, allows the Holy 20. Exegetical support for all that follows is given well in R. W. Pierce Spirit the freedom to empower all God’s people for ministry, and R. M. Groothuis, eds., Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementar- encourages leaders in the church to consider themselves as ity Without Hierarchy (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005). See also servants rather than as those who exercise authority over people my, The Trinity and Subordinationism, 141–214. (cf. Mark 10:42–43), and empowers mutually rewarding and loving 21. See the excellent article by David Scholer on “Women” in The Diction- marriages in today’s world? I for one am totally convinced that ary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 880–87. 22. I of course do not hold that Jesus was a modern-day women’s libber. the egalitarian interpretation alone meets all these criteria. Only He was a man of his age and culture as were all the gospel writers. In that this position makes the Bible a liberating Word as it is intended culture, men did have precedence and this is reflected in the gospels by to be. Only this position avoids proof-texting that betrays what the prominence of men in the narratives. What is so amazing is that Jesus Scripture itself is saying. Only this position gives to men and never endorsed these cultural values and sometimes challenged them. women the equal dignity and authority that is theirs by God’s gift 23. As Josephus explicitly states in Ant. 4:219. See likewise Rabbi Aki- ba, m.Yeb. 15:1. in creation. Only this position gives equal honor and dignity to 24. See my article, “Prophecy, Prophets, False Prophets” in The Dic- the Father and the Son in heaven and equal honor and dignity to tionary of the Later New Testament Writings and its Development (Down- men and women in the world. ers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 970–77. 25. As far as Paul is concerned, the ministry of prophecy ranks above Notes teaching and below apostleship (1 Cor. 12:28). 26. I follow Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians 1. My first book was Women and Their Ministry: A Case for Equal Min- (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 812–23. istries in the Life of the Church Today (Melbourne, Aus.: Dove, 1977). My 27. On 1 Timothy 2:11–15, see Linda Belleville, “Teaching and Usurp- latest contribution is Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent ing Authority,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, 205–23. the Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006). 28. First Timothy 2:11–12 presupposes women were teaching in church. 2. Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 book, Vindication of the Rights of Wom- This means that there was no apostolic prohibition in force before this epistle en, is usually thought to have launched the cause of women’s emancipa- was written. Paul does not remind them of his policy, he gives a new ruling.

52 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Egalitarian Pioneers: Betty Friedan or Catherine Booth? Mimi Haddad

One source of tension between egalitarians and complementarians such as 1 Timothy 2:11–14 to confirm women’s inferior nature and of is the frequent complementarian claim that egalitarians are the their proneness to sin and error. For these reasons it was concluded theological descendents of radical feminists such as Betty Friedan, women were not suited for leadership positions or public ministry. Mary Daly, and Daphne Hampson. This is inaccurate. Egalitar- Greek philosophy influenced the early church’s view of the ians in fact see mentors in people like Catherine Booth, Jessie nature and being of women. According to Plato (427–347 b.c.), Penn-Lewis, Frances Willard, A. J. Gordon, Katharine Bushnell, “[Woman’s] native disposition is inferior to man’s”5 and “a differ- William Baxter Godbey, Amanda Smith, Fredrik Franson, So- ent function should be appointed for each corresponding to this journer Truth, B. T. Roberts, and Pandita Ramabai. Our theologi- difference of nature.”6 Likewise, Aristotle (384–322 b.c.) held that cal moorings, as egalitarians, are directly linked to the first wave “the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the of feminists—people whose passion for one rules, and the other is ruled.”7 Scripture, evangelism, and justice shaped horoughly dedicated to evangelical The presumed ontological superior- the golden era of missions in the 1800s.1 Tideals, particularly evangelism, the early ity of men was foundational to the patri- These people not only advanced the bib- feminists questioned restricting the gospel archy that characterized Greco-Roman lical basis for the gospel service of wom- culture.8 As the following quotes show, service of Christian women whose callings en and people of color, but many of them these patriarchal cultural values were also labored for the abolition of slavery and abilities were firmly established on largely adopted by leading Christians and for voting rights for women. mission fields around the world. theologians and passed along through Because there seems to be a lack of fa- generations of church history. miliarity with the broad sweep of the history of Christian women, • “Both nature and the law place the woman in a subordinate this paper will consider two matters. First, I will explore 1800 years condition to the man” — Irenaeus (a.d. 130–202)9 of Christian teaching that reflected a patriarchal cultural evaluation • “[Women] are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that of women as inferior, subordinate, more prone to sin, and less ratio- (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: nal than men, in spite of examples of women who served as gifted you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not val- leaders. Second, I will outline how change first took place in the iant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, 1800s, rather than with the radical feminists of the latter 1900s, as is man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son often argued. The Christian feminists of the 1800s broke rank with of God had to die.” — Tertullian (160–220)10 generations of Christian leaders and theologians who had failed to • “Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the observe the consistent teaching of Scripture not only on gender, but order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than also on other social issues such as slavery. The first wave of feminists women over men.” — Augustine (354–430)11 therefore represents a radical break with patriarchal cultural val- • “The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account ues.2 For the first time in human history Christians began articulat- therefore he saith, let her not teach….for the sex is weak and ing a biblical basis for gift-based rather than gender-based ministry. fickle…” — Chrysostom (347–407)12 By doing so, they raised a voice of protest to a patriarchal evaluation • “The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the in- of women and people of color as inferior to white men and as unfit tellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman….But in for public ministry and leadership. a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in Thoroughly dedicated to evangelical ideals, particularly evan- woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the gelism, the early feminists questioned restricting the gospel ser- beginning and end of every creature.” — Aquinas (1225–1274)13 vice of Christian women whose callings and abilities were firmly • “[T]he very reason why [women] are forbidden to teach, is, established on mission fields around the world. In some detail that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, then, I will examine the contributions of the first wave of feminists and to teach implies the rank of power or authority…for gu- whose commitment to biblical authority, evangelism, and social naikokratia (the government of women) has always been re- justice came to characterize evangelicals as a whole.3 From the patristic period to the 1800s: The inferiority of women as a self-evident axiom MIMI HADDAD (Ph.D., University of Durham) is president of Christians for Biblical Equality. She is a founding From the patristic period throughout the 1700s, the church held member of the Evangelicals and Gender Study Group that women were ontologically inferior to men.4 Despite the many at the Evangelical Theological Society, and she served examples of women’s leadership throughout Scripture as well as as the Convener of the Gender Issue Group for the 2004 Lausanne III Conference for World Evangelization. in church history, for nearly 1800 years Christians interpreted texts

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 53 garded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing.” — John Cal- Deacons in the early church cared for the ill, provided a theo- vin (1509–1564)14 logical education to those preparing for baptism, and anointed the • “Nature, I say, does paint them forth [women] to be weak, sick with oil. Historians have recovered prayers read at the ordina- frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has de- tion of women deacons, and the following example may have been clared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit read at Apollonia’s ordination: of counsel and regiment.” — John Knox (1514–1572)15 O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Cre- • “Man’s superiority enables and entitles him to command.… ator of man and of woman, who didst replenish with the Spirit This superiority of the man is…taught in Scripture, founded Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who didst not in nature and proved by all experience.” — Charles Hodge disdain that thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; (1797–1878)16 who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, These comments may sound misogynistic to our modern ears, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,—do Thou but these men were simply reflecting the prevailing cultural now also look down upon this servant, who is to be ordained ideas and attitudes about women’s inferiority in their interpre- to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy Holy Spirit, and tations of Scripture. Their writings also include positive com- “cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,” that she may ments about women, and many of these men worked beside worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to Thy talented women leaders who demonstrated that they, like men, glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adora- were created in God’s image, redeemed by Christ, and gifted for tion be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.20 service as missionaries, martyrs, leaders, Bible scholars, and ad- Sister to Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, Macrina the ministrators. Examples of women’s moral, rational, and spiritual Younger (330–379) taught that humility and love were the goals leadership caused Christians to increasingly question sexist as- of philosophy. Macrina modeled material simplicity as a spiritual sumptions regarding their presumed inferiority and pioneered discipline and both Basil and Gregory joined her ascetic, monas- the way for later generations. A small sample of church history tic life. A person of means, Macrina distributed her wealth among reveals women who were able to transcend the strictures of their the poor and required members of her monastic community to culture. Here are a few examples. work for their food. In his biography of Macrina, her brother Prominent women leaders Gregory describes how she transformed their household into a monastic retreat where she lived “on a footing of equality with the The Early Church staff and maids.”21 Basil, famous for his defense of the Nicene Creed, and Grego- The earliest Western translation of the full Bible was the product ry, known for his theological development of the Holy Spirit, both of a male-female translation team—Paula (347–404) and Jerome. credit their older sister for their theological educations. Macrina’s Inheriting tremendous wealth, Paula came to faith after the death holy life attracted many followers, and as her fame spread she be- of her husband. She used her vast resources to build hospitals, to came known simply as “the Teacher.”22 care for the poor in Rome and Palestine, to build and establish Despite these women and numerous others whose spiritual monasteries and churches, and to purchase the ancient manu- leadership helped shape the early church, the presumed inferior- scripts that were translated into the Latin Bible. Paula mastered ity and subordination of women persisted. the Hebrew language, and her linguistic skills proved to be a price- less resource to Jerome, who hailed Paula’s intellect and ability to The Middle Ages speak Hebrew without a Latin accent. In gratitude for assistance of Paula and her daughter Eustochium, Jerome dedicated much of Throughout the Middle Ages, the leadership of women such as his work to her. He wrote: Theodora, Praxedis, Hildegard von Bingen, Catherine of Siena, and Teresa of Avila brought spiritual vitality and moral account- There are people, O Paula and Eustochium, who take offense at ability to the highest levels of the church. seeing your names at the beginning of my works. These people Together with her husband Justinian, Theodora (500–548) do not know that Huldah prophesized when men were mute; built the most modern city of her day—Constantinople. This city while Barak trembled, Deborah saved Israel; that Judith and advanced justice for women due to Theodora’s efforts. As a young Esther delivered from supreme peril the children of God.…Is girl, Theodora worked as a mime in the hippodrome and later be- it not to women that our Lord appeared after His Resurrec- came an actress and a prostitute. At the age of twenty, Theodora tion? Yes, and the men could then blush for not having sought came to faith in Christ and abandoned her old life. She moved to what women had found.17 a house near the palace and soon attracted the attention of Justin- Apollonia of Alexandria (martyred in 249) served as a deacon18 ian, heir to the throne. The couple married in 525. in the church in Alexandria. She was martyred under the Roman In 527, Justinian and Theodora were crowned emperor and emperor Decius when a mob seized known Christians, including empress of the Byzantine Empire. Working as a team, Justinian the elderly Apollonia. After pulling out her teeth, the mob tied her encouraged Theodora to use her wisdom and intellect to advance to a stake and burned her alive.19 the good of the people. She wisely refused to desert Constanti-

54 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 nople during a riot between the Monophysites and orthodox [God] is asking you to take just action against the multitudi- Christians, and her courage and counsel helped save Justinian’s nous crimes of those who graze and feed in the garden of holy rule. Together they rebuilt Constantinople with architectural feats Church.…Since he has given you authority and you have ac- including Hagia Sophia, believed to be the most impressive Byz- cepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is antine church ever built. yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more Theodora worked tirelessly on behalf of women. She proposed to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign.23 legislation that prohibited forced prostitution and she built homes Catherine boldly entered the Pope’s palace at Avignon where for prostitutes. Theodora insisted upon giving women a greater she reminded him of the church’s highest mission. Pope Urban voice in divorce, and she advanced laws that allowed women to turned to his cardinals afterward and said, “Behold my brethren, hold property. After her husband’s death, Theodora worked to how contemptible we are before God.… build unity between Orthodox Christians This poor woman puts us to shame.…It and the Monophysites. xamples of women’s moral, rational, is she who now encourages us.”24 One of the most admired women of and spiritual leadership caused E While God used many women like the Middle Ages, Hildegard of Bingen Christians to increasingly question sexist Catherine, Hildegard, and Theodora to (1098–1179) was celebrated for her learn- assumptions regarding the presumed guide the church through war, conflict, ing, intimacy with God, and unquench- inferiority of women and pioneered the corruption, and the plague, theologians able industry. Hildegard’s range of talent such as Aquinas continued to uphold the was daunting. A Benedictine nun who way for later generations. belief that women were inferior to men. served along the Rhine, Hildegard was an Abbess over a double monastery. As such, she exercised author- The Protestant Reformation ity over both male and female religious leaders, while popes, bishops, and kings sought her counsel. Hildegard was a trained Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and John Knox also as- physician, composed music and poetry, and was deeply involved sumed the moral and spiritual superiority of men. In his commen- in the politics of her day. Hildegard revived the spiritual health tary on Timothy, Calvin associated the subordination of women of a church that had become morally and spiritually indiffer- with their inferior nature. Yet, women were prominent leaders in the ent. Greatly troubled by the moral poverty of church leaders, Protestant Reformation. From Katharine Von Bora, wife of Martin Hildegard called the people to find salvation by looking to the Luther; to Anne Askew and Lady Jane Grey in England; to Jeanne Bible and to Christ rather than to the priests. Hildegard’s writ- D’Albret, defender of the Huguenots in France, Protestant women ings were collected in a book called the Scivias or “know the fearlessly and intelligently promoted the Protestant faith even when ways of the Lord.” The Scivias reveals a profound understanding threatened and/or tortured to death. Here is one example. of the prophets, the apostle Paul, and Revelation. Anne Askew (1521–1546) was a leader in the English Refor- Catherine of Siena (1347–1380) worked tirelessly among vic- mation and was the only woman tortured in the Tower of Lon- tims of the plague, opposed corruption and the abuse of power, don. Possessing a brilliant mind, a determined will, and a fear- and stood before bishops and popes demanding that they lead less faith in Christ, Anne defended her right to read, study, and righteous and humble lives. Leadership for Catherine was built argue her interpretation of Scripture. When arrested for preach- upon an intimate relationship with Christ, a relationship that be- ing the Protestant faith in London, Anne remained calm during gan when she was seven years of old. By the age of twelve, Cath- her interrogation and torture. Placed on the rack until her hips erine developed a life of spiritual discipline that included fast- were dislocated, Anne had to be carried in a chair to her execu- ing, prayer, and material simplicity. At sixteen, she sought a life tion by fire. Anne’s comments, recorded during her inquisition, of solitude and prayer. God called Catherine to public service at reflect her skill as a biblical scholar as well as the scholarly tenor the age of twenty-one. Though she questioned whether her gen- of the English Reformation. der might be an obstacle, she obediently left her life of solitude to serve plague victims in Siena. She cared for the sick and dying and The first wave of feminists call for change she also advocated for those who were imprisoned without cause. Beginning with the modern missionary movement, for the first When a young man had been unjustly condemned, Catherine led time in history, Christians began to affirm a biblical basis for the him to Christ and remained with him through the execution, stir- ontological and functional equality of women and people of color. ring the conscience of the town. Her wisdom and fame spread, Between 1808 and 1930, more than forty-six biblical treatises were and soon a group of disciples shadowed her ministry. printed in support of women’s gift-based ministry,25 signifying Though Catherine preferred a life of solitude and prayer, God the emergence of the first wave of feminists. These early feminists’ reminded her that the salvation of men and women demanded convictions about women’s ontological and functional equality her leadership in public life. God also reassured Catherine that he grew out of their commitment to evangelical priorities of biblical would give her the power to lead, whereupon she found herself authority, evangelism, and social justice.26 Thus, the early femi- confronting church leaders. Denouncing greed and spiritual pov- nists were the first to provide both a biblical and social voice to erty, Catherine presented the following letter to Pope Gregory XI: gender and ethnic equality. By doing so, they represent a radical

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 55 departure from previous generations of believers whose patriar- [I]t is exceedingly important that [women’s ministry and] work, chal assumptions about women’s nature and capacity for service as now carried on, should either be justified from Scripture, or went unchallenged. if that were impossible, that it be so modified as to bring it into harmony with the exact requirements of the Word of God.31 The Modern Era Gordon considered Pentecost to be the “Magna Charta of the According to historian Dana Robert, the modern mission move- Christians Church” and it demonstrated that women and all eth- ment began at the end of the nineteenth century, as Christians in nic groups share equally in Christ’s new covenant community.32 “Great Britain, Europe, and North America, newly awakened to Gordon’s dispensational view of history gave his egalitarian their missionary ‘obligations,’ founded an impressive array of mis- theology a sense of urgency. In the new dispensation, those who sion societies.”27 Motivated by a concern for the imminent return had once been viewed as inferior by natural birth attain a new of Christ, this movement would have far-reaching results. spiritual status through the power of the Holy Spirit. Women, By the final years of the twentieth century, more than half of all along with all ethnic and social classes, now have an “equal war- Christians were to be found outside the region that had been rant with man’s for telling out the Gospel of the grace of God.”33 the historical heartland of Christianity for nearly fifteen hun- For God’s gifting no longer rests on a “favored few, but upon the dred years. New centers of Christian strength and vitality were many, without regard to race, or age, or sex.”34 now to be found where missionary initiatives were focused in Gordon believed that Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:8–11 widely scattered places in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.28 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 should be understood in light of biblical examples of women’s leadership, preaching, and prophesying. He First-wave feminists dedicated themselves to goals that came to also questions why Paul would prohibit all women’s public min- characterize evangelicals as a whole, and that also led them to at- istry after describing the propriety in which their public service tain new levels of prominence as biblical exegetes in advancing should be conducted. evangelism and social justice. Students of the Bible who were ded- icated to a high view of Scripture, these feminists were called to All texts that prohibit a practice in one place, while allowing it the mission field, abolition and suffrage movements, and preach- in another, must be considered in the light of the entire New ing ministries. They resisted higher critical methods that under- Testament teaching—the teaching of prophecy, the teaching mined the authority of the Bible. They also opposed the “proof of practice, and the teaching of contemporary history—if we text” method and the plain reading of Scripture that gave sup- would find the true meaning.35 port to slavery and women’s exclusion from leadership and public According to Gordon, there is “no Scripture which prohibits speaking. Rather, they sought to harmonize those passages that women from praying or prophesying in the public assemblies of appeared in conflict with the whole of Scripture regarding the the Church.”36 equal value and dignity of every human being. First-wave femi- A whole-Bible approach must also be supplemented with a nists developed a whole-Bible hermeneutic that addressed gender consideration of the historical context. When this is ignored, read- and justice from a Gospel perspective. It is to their approach to the ers are more vulnerable to prejudiced interpretations and biased Bible that I now turn. translations.37 Gordon used the examples of Phoebe and Priscilla to show how the long-standing assumption of women’s inferiority Affirming the authority of Scripture impacted Bible translations. The Greek word, diakonos was trans- Fredrik Franson (1852–1908) founded the Evangelical Alliance lated as ‘minister’ when it was used of Apollos and Paul (1 Cor. Mission and was a prominent leader of the Free Church Move- 3:5), but as ‘servant’ when used of Phoebe (Rom. 16:1). This bias is ment. He engaged women as part of his evangelistic outreach, and also evident in the transposition of Priscilla and Aquila’s names in he published his support of women’s leadership in an article en- Acts 18:26, so that Aquila rather than Priscilla “instructed Apollos titled, “Prophesying Daughters: A Few Words Concerning Wom- in the way of the Lord more perfectly.” The most reliable manu- en’s Position in Regard to Evangelism.” Insisting that the whole scripts place Priscilla ahead of her husband in four of the six refer- of Scripture affirms women’s public ministry, Franson preferred a ences to this couple, including Acts 18:26.38 whole-Bible approach to reliance upon two passages (1 Tim. 2:12 Gordon also acknowledged the significance of the whole and 1 Cor. 14:34). He “labeled as heretics those who grounded a church in the interpretative process. “The final exegesis is not al- doctrine on one or two passages in the Bible, without reading the ways to be found in the lexicon and grammar” alone, but also in references in their context.”29 the Spirit working through the church as a “body of regenerate A. J. Gordon (1836–1895), after whom Gordon College is and sanctified believers.”39 The Bible is to be read first through the named, was a prominent advocate of missions, abolition, and wisdom and counsel of all believers, as they consider passages in women in ministry. Gordon also put forward a whole-Bible her- their historical context and in light of the whole of Scripture. meneutic when considering women’s service. Gordon’s support of To follow the voice of the Church apart from that of the written biblical equality for women resulted in an 1894 publication en- Word has never proved safe; but, on the other hand, it may be titled “The Ministry of Women.”30 It begins with an affirmation of that we need to be admonished not to ignore the teaching of the biblical authority. Gordon wrote:

56 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 deepest spiritual life of the Church in forming our conclusions tory such that women’s status was always viewed through Eve’s concerning the meaning of Scripture. It cannot be denied that in sin, rather than through their full redemption and inheritance every great spiritual awakening in the history of Protestantism in Christ. By challenging misinterpretation and error in Bible the impulse for Christian women to pray and witness for Christ translation, Bushnell established a theological foundation for in the public assembly has been found irrepressible.40 women’s ontological equality, a foundation that today’s egalitar- ians continue to build upon. Katharine Bushnell (1856–1946) worked as a medical doctor, Catherine Booth (1829–1890), cofounder of the Salvation scholar, missionary, and activist. She was a prominent leader in the Army along with her husband William, was a noted preacher first wave of feminists. Her book, God’s Word to Women: One Hun- and a tenacious inner-city missionary. Catherine and William dred Bible Studies on Woman’s Place in the committed their lives to Christian service Church and Home, written in 1919, remains hese early feminists’ convictions among the poverty-stricken neighbor- in print and is frequently cited by today’s Tabout women’s ontological and hoods of East London. When evangelist egalitarians. Like other first-wave feminists, functional equality grew out of their Phoebe Palmer was criticized for address- ing audiences of both women and men Bushnell’s commitment to the authority of commitment to evangelical priorities Scripture was pronounced. She asserted that in her lecture series, Catherine took it of biblical authority, evangelism, and “the Bible is all that it claims for itself. It is upon herself to write a defense of women’s (1) Inspired, 2 Tim. 3:16; (2) Infallible, Isa. social justice. preaching. Her pamphlet entitled “Female 40:8, and (3) Inviolable, John 10:35. Indeed, Ministry or, Woman’s Right to Preach the no other basis of procedure is available for us.”41 Bushnell insists Gospel,” is a concise and thorough survey of the biblical support that “no authority [is] final, but the Word of God.”42 for women’s public ministry. Bushnell studied Greek and Hebrew as well as biblical history Booth used a whole-Bible approach in interpreting 1 Timothy in order to understand the scriptural teaching on gender, authority, 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, stating that, marriage, and vocation. Like A. J. Gordon, she refuted the pervasive If commentators had dealt with the Bible on other subjects as they assumption of women’s ontological inferiority, an endeavor greatly have dealt with it on this, taking isolated passages, separated from strengthened by her reading of Scripture in the original languages, their explanatory connections, and insisting on the literal inter- by her observations of women’s leadership on the mission field, and pretation of the words of our version, what errors and contrac- by her efforts to redress the global abuse of women. tions would have been forced upon the acceptance of the Church, Bushnell grounds the ontological equality of men and women and what terrible results would have accrued to the world.51 first in the early chapters of Genesis where, according to Bush- nell, we learn that Adam and Eve were both created in the im- According to Booth, if women bring people to Christ, then they age of God,43 that Adam and Eve were both equally called to be are gifted by God and should be supported by their church or de- fruitful and to exercise dominion in Eden,44 that Eve was not the nomination. She also warned that those who hinder women from source of sin,45 and that God does not curse women because of ministry on the basis of their gender will be judged for keeping Eve.46 Rather, it was Satan, not God, who inspired the domination the Gospel from reaching those whom Christ died to save. Booth of men over women.47 God bestows leadership on those who do recognized a clear link between affirming the biblical basis for what is right in God’s sight, regardless of their gender, birth order, gift-based ministry and furthering the work of evangelism. nationality, or class.48 Frances Willard (1839–1898) was invited to preach by revival- In assessing the teachings of Paul, Bushnell determined that ists such as D. L. Moody. Raised in an abolitionist home,52 Willard the apostle affirmed the authority and leadership of women, pro- became president of the largest nineteenth-century women’s or- vided that their leadership was neither domineering nor abu- ganization, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). sive (1 Tim. :12); that those who teach must understand and The WCTU was comprised of women both north and south of the advance the truth concerning the Gospel (1 Tim. 2:11–12, Acts Mason Dixon Line who worked for abolition, suffrage, and tem- 18:26, Rom. 16:1–5, 7, 12–13, 15), and that when women pray and perance around the world. Willard was also president of Evanston prophesy in public they are not disruptive, either by their cloth- Ladies College (now Northwestern University). When she died, ing or through their chatter (1 Cor. 11:5, 1 Cor. 14:34). Ultimately, 30,000 people came to grieve her loss, and flags were lowered to Bushnell grounds her understanding of women’s status not in half-mast in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. the Fall, but in Christ’s completed work on Calvary. Bushnell In 1880, Willard wrote Woman in the Pulpit with four objec- insists that a correct interpretation of Scripture as it relates to tives: to expose faulty biblical interpretation used to limit women’s “women’s social, ecclesiastical and spiritual status”49 should be ministry; to examine, through the whole of Scripture, the passag- ascribed in the same manner as “man’s social, ecclesiastical and es that appear to prohibit the leadership of women; to consider spiritual status, [based] on the atonement of Jesus Christ. [We] the success of women’s public ministry; and to evaluate the oppos- cannot, for women, put the ‘new wine’ of the Gospel into the ing view. Woman in the Pulpit challenges a literal interpretation of old wine-skins of ‘condemnation.’”50 Bushnell condemns the Scripture inconsistently applied to women. Why should women prejudice and interpretative bias noted throughout church his- to be compelled to silence (because of 1 Timothy 2:11) and, at the

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 57 same time, allowed to wear braided hair and gold jewelry, as both functional equality indicated an ontological equivalence, this led to are prohibited in the same epistle? To interpret Scripture with such a feminist awakening of the 1800s, an awakening that was integrally variability confuses the “plain Bible-reading member of the laity.”53 embraced by those with a high view of Scripture. Willard’s activism was motivated by a careful reading of Scrip- Exegetes such as Bushnell and Gordon challenged long-held ture. She saw that all too often self-interest guided the interpre- negative culturally based evaluations of women. They were the tative process in using Scripture to support the subjugation of first to insist that Gospel values must triumph over cultural val- women and slaves. To avoid a preferential reading of the text, ues, especially in regard to women and slaves. Thus, the libera- Willard insisted that Scripture should interpret Scripture. For ex- tion of women was a deeply biblical movement, and it began not ample, 1 Timothy 2:11 should be under- with Betty Friedan or Mary Daly in the stood through Judges 4:4–5, Acts 18:26, irst-wave feminists trusted in the power 1960s, but with A. J. Gordon and Cath- 1 Corinthians 14:3, and Romans 16:3–4. Fof God to transform culture and to set erine Booth in the 1800s. Willard discovered more than thirty people free.…The continuation of their work The momentum gained by the first passages that favored “woman’s public has now become the responsibility of future wave of feminists was slowed by the work for Christ, and only two against emergence of secular feminists who, af- generations of egalitarians.… it, and these not really so when rightly ter the Second World War, severed their understood.”54 She clearly saw that to feminist ideals from a commitment to allow women to use their gifts alongside men from a biblical per- biblical authority. Many of these secular feminists placed their indi- spective challenged the presumed inferiority of women. vidualist values ahead of their commitment to Scripture. As a result, As the worldwide leader of the WCTU, Willard was uniquely by the late 1960s evangelicals had become cautious of secular femi- poised to observe the success of women leaders—women who nist rhetoric and its impact on the church, home, and world. headed departments of evangelism and preached to thousands, Though few evangelicals today deny the ontological equality of thereby influencing the spiritual direction of whole families and men and women, an ideal inherited from the first wave of femi- communities. Yet those churches and denominations that support nists, a new position emerged within the evangelical community women on mission fields are often the ones who prohibit their in the 1970s. This perspective, a so-called complementarian view, service at home, proving not only inconsistent, but also providing affirms women’s ontological equality but insists on subordinate a spectacle that is “both anomalous and pitiful.”55 “roles” for women in the church and the home.56 In preparation for missionary service, nineteenth-century The complementarian formulation of gender roles is clearly women pioneers began enrolling in Bible institutes in large num- a reaction to secular feminists. While insisting that women are bers. As a result, women became skilled exegetes, a discipline that equally created in God’s image, equally redeemed in Christ, and strengthened their missionary leadership and also provided them therefore of equal value with men, this view ascribes men to po- with the interpretive tools to assess the gender restrictions placed sitions of authority over women in the church and home (no on them by the very churches and denominations that spent thou- specific instruction is ever given regarding women’s authority sands of dollars supporting their ministries overseas. Their biblical relative to men’s in the secular sphere). While women’s ontologi- studies gave rise to a hermeneutic that asserted women’s ontologi- cal equality is no longer overtly challenged, women are routinely cal and functional equality as an overarching biblical principle. denied shared authority as image-bearers, as redeemed in Christ, On this basis, first-wave feminists offered a serious blow to any as gifted for service, and as called to exercise their spiritual gifts biblical support for ascriptivism—ascribing value, dignity, and to advance Christ’s kingdom. This position is illogical, for one worth to individuals based on their heritage, skin color, or gen- cannot be ontologically equal while also permanently and func- der—thus challenging the long-held sexist and racist assumptions tionally unequal. within the church. Their efforts also fueled activism in the areas of Moreover, egalitarians are often accused of capitulating to a voting rights and the abolition of slavery. secularist agenda regarding gender, authority, and Scripture by First-wave feminists trusted in the power of God to transform some who seem to be unaware of the history of evangelicalism culture and to set people free. Successful in opposing slavery, these or the centrality that first-wave feminists played in that history. early Christian feminists also helped articulate a biblical basis for They thus overlook the theological kinship of first-wave femi- shared leadership among men and women. The continuation of nists with today’s egalitarians. Such oversights not only weaken their work has now become the responsibility of future genera- Christian unity and the mission of the church, but also reflect tions of egalitarians who share the same evangelical commitment poorly on the scholarly tenor of evangelicals as a whole. Let us to biblical authority, evangelism, and social justice. hope that through careful scholarship and dialogue, evangelicals will embrace a more thorough historical understanding of to- Conclusion day’s egalitarians so that together we might also celebrate, rather Women’s intellectual, moral and spiritual leadership on the mission than argue about, our commitment to biblical authority, evange- fields around the globe provided obvious and ample challenge to lism, and social justice. the long-held patriarchal evaluations of women’s worth. As women’s

58 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Notes wood, N.J.: Barbour & Company Inc., 1985), 77ff; Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, eds., Daughters of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie 1. Wendy Zorba, “A Woman’s Place: Women Reaching Women is Key Books, 1987), 115. to the Future of Missions,” Christianity Today, 7 August 2000, 40–48. See 20. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 8.3.20, ed. James Donaldson also Dana Robert, ed., Gospel Bearers, Gender Barriers: Missionary Wom- (ANF 7:492). On Miriam see Exod. 15:20; Deborah, Judges 4, 5:7; Han- en in the Twentieth Century (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2002). nah, 1 Sam. 2:1–10; Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14. 2. The church continues to undergo renewal and reform, and the early 21. Gregory of Nyssa, “Life of Macrina,” in Earliest Christianity to 1453, feminists represent a significant reform movement. Reform movements ed. John W. Coakley and Andrea Sterk, vol. 1 of Readings in World Chris- often begin as intellectual endeavors with important moral consequences, tian History (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2004), 150. as noted in the Protestant Reformation and the abolitionist movement. 22. Justo L. González, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reforma- The church continues to undergo a gender reform, as scholars and activists tion, vol. 1The Story of Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1984), 183. raise a prophetic voice opposing shallow exegesis and a misuse of power. 23. “To Gregory XI” in The Letters of Catherine of Siena, trans. Suzanne 3. These categories parallel the defining evangelical characteristics of Noffke, vol. 203 of Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies (Tempe, “biblicism, activism, and conversionism,” as articulated by church his- Ariz.: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001), 2:193. torian, David W. Bebbington in his Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A 24. Quoted in Edith Deen, Great Women of the Christian Faith (West- History from 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979), 3. wood, N.J.: Barbour, 1959), 58. 4. Ontology is the study of being, nature, or existence, often assessed 25. Charles O. Knowles, Let Her Be: Right Relationships and the South- through relationships of comparison. It has historically been held that ern Baptist Conundrum Over Women’s Role (Columbia, Mo.: KnoWell men’s ontology is more godlike than women’s, because men are presumed Publishing, 2002), 85. to be more rational, morally pure, and physically strong; therefore, they 26. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 3. should be in authority. This view has also been applied to claim the onto- 27. Dana L. Robert, American Women in Mission: A Social History of Their logical superiority of ethnic groups and social classes. Thought and Practice (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2005), ix. 5. Plato, Laws 6.781a,b, trans. A. E. Taylor, in The Collected Dialogues 28. Ibid. of Plato: Including the Letters, Bollingen Series LXXI, ed. Edith Hamilton 29. Ibid. and Huntington Cairns (Princeton University Press, 1963), 1356. 30. A.J. Gordon, “The Ministry of Women,” The Missionary Review of 6. Plato, Republic 5.453b, trans. Paul Shorey, in Collected Dialogues of The World 17 (1894): 910–21. Available on-line at http://www.cbeinterna- Plato, 692. tional.org/new/free_articles/ministry_of_women.pdf. 7. Aristotle, Politica 1.5.B4v, trans. Benjamin Jowett, vol. 10 in The 31. Ibid, 910. Works of Aristotle Translated into English Under the Editorship of W. D. 32. Ibid, 910–11. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon, 1921). 33. Ibid, 911. 8. The patriarchy of the Greco-Roman culture does cede ground to 34. Ibid. the early church as Christian women participated in the agapē meals, 35. Ibid, 913. served as apostles and house church leaders, and worked as missionar- 36. Ibid. ies. By doing so they engaged with men in the world of theological ideas. 37. Ibid, 914. See Gordon Fee, Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: 38. Ibid. Eerdmans, 2000), 68–70. See also Philippe Ariés and Georges Duby, gen. 39. Ibid. eds., A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Cam- 40. Ibid. bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978), 90–91. 41. Katharine Bushnell, God’s Word to Women (Minneapolis, Minn.: 9. Irenaeus, Fragment 32, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff Christians for Biblical Equality, 2003), 1. [hereafter ANF] (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 1:573. 42. Ibid, 9. 10. Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 1.1.1 (ANF 4:14). 43. Ibid. 11. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.10, trans. Robert Er- 44. Ibid, 10. nest Wallis, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. Philip Schaff 45. Ibid, 39ff. [hereafter NPNF1] (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1886), 5:267. 46. Ibid, 39, 48. 12. Chrysostom, “Homily IX,” in Homilies on 1 Timothy (NPNF1 13:436). 47. Ibid, 75. 13. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae part I, question 93, article 4, trans. Fathers 48. Ibid, 68, 75. of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1947). 49. Ibid, 169. 14. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and 50. Ibid. Philemon, in Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: 51. Catherine Booth, “Female Ministry; or, Women’s Right to Preach Calvin Translation Society, 1856), 37. the Gospel,” in Terms of Empowerment: Salvation Army Women in Minis- 15. John Knox, “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous try (London, 1859; reprint, New York: The Salvation Army Supplies Print- Regiment of Women 1558,” in The Political Writings of John Knox, ed. Mar- ing and Publishing Department, 1975), 19–20. vin A. Breslow (Cranbury, N.Y.: Associated University Presses, 1985), 43. 52. Hassey, No Time for Silence, 101. 16. Charles Hodge, “The Bible Argument for Slavery,” in Cotton Is 53. Frances Willard, Woman in the Pulpit (Chicago: Woman’s Temper- King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, ed. E.N. Cartwright (New York: Basic ance Publication Society, 1978), 21. See also Mimi Haddad, “Woman in Afro-American Reprint Library, 1968), 863. the Pulpit,” Christian Ethics Today 7,2 (April 2001): 19ff. 17. Jerome, “Preface to Commentary on Zephaniah” (PL 5:1337ff), 54. Willard, Woman in the Pulpit, 34. quoted in Great Inspirers, by J. A. Zahm (New York: D. Appleton, 1917). 55. Ibid, 57–8. 18. Paul used the term “deacon” to identify leaders such as himself (2 56. Kevin Giles, “Three Interpretations of What the Bible Teaches About Cor. 11:23) and also Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6). Gender,” in Lausanne Occasional Paper No. 53: Empowering Women and 19. Eusebius, Churh History 6.41.7, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert Men to Sue Their Gifts Together in Advancing the Gospel, ed. Alvera Mick- (NPNF2 1:283). See also Foxe’s Christian Martyrs of the World (West- elsen (Minneapolis, Minn.: Christians for Biblical Equality, 2004), 90ff.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 59 An Egalitarian Classic Updated for Today’s Reader

BEYOND SEX ROLES WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT A WOMAN’S PLACE IN CHURCH AND FAMILY, 3RD ED. Gilbert Bilezikian 0801031532 • 272 pp. • $19.99p

Th is fi rst-rate biblical and theological study off ers an accessible examination of the key texts of Scripture pertinent to understanding female roles, affi rming full equality of the sexes in family and church. Th e third edition has been revised throughout. Gilbert Bilezikian avoids using scholarly jargon and complex argumentation in the main text of the book to encourage readers to interact with the biblical research. Th e aim is for nonspecialized readers to be able to follow his discussion step-by-step, evaluate arguments, consider alternative views, and arrive at independent conclusions. Th e study guide format of the book is designed for either individual investigation or group work. Pastors, church leaders, students, and those interested in issues relating to gender and church life will value this classic work on the egalitarian viewpoint. Praise for the second edition: “Because Bilezikian presents his thesis with an obvious and unqualifi ed submission to the Word of Scripture, his work is profoundly signifi cant.” j—Calvin Th eological Journal Available at your local bookstore, www.bakeracademic.com, or by calling 1-800-877-2665 Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www.bakeracademic.com

60 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Book Review: Beyond Sex Roles By Gilbert Bilezikian (Baker, 2006) Reviewed by Glen G. Scorgie

Perhaps the best way to appreciate the significance of Beyond Sex Most importantly, Beyond Sex Roles offers strong proof that Roles, now re-published in a third edition, is to recall the historical people who took the Bible very, very seriously could legitimately context of the mid-1980s in which it was first written. The modern affirm gender equality and mutuality. Two years later Bilezikian biblical equality movement was still in its infancy. Some Christian helped found Christians for Biblical Equality, and in 1989 he writers were already arguing for gender equality and mutuality in helped write the CBE manifesto “Men, Women, and Biblical the 1970s and early 1980s, but not all of them grounded their ar- Equality.” The rest is our living history. guments in a high view of Scripture. Helpful Through its three editions, the book’s exceptions included Patricia Gundry, Marga- main text and notes have remained relatively ret Howe, Mary Evans, and Aída Besançon unchanged. In the third edition (2006), three Spencer, but the list was not long and it did new sections have been added at the end, not include many men. replacing the polemical appendix from the Naturally there was “push back” from the second edition (1991). Frantic readers will defenders of traditional Christian patriarchy, appreciate the convenient new sixteen-page and that resistance included a book published summary of the book. A series of ten “re- in 1981 by James B. Hurley, now professor of view exercises” encourages readers to engage marriage and family therapy at Reformed Scripture directly as they sort things out for Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. themselves. These two appendices were pre- He had just earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge viously published in Priscilla Papers. The last University for his close reading of the biblical innovation is an updated bibliography pre- text on this topic. Man and Woman in Bibli- pared by Alan Johnson. cal Perspective, the fruit of his research, was Egalitarian scholarship has broadened selected as a Gold Medallion Book of the Year and deepened since this pioneering work by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Asso- was first published. Understandably, many ciation. Hurley argued that benevolent male of its arguments have since been more fully authority is God’s will for male-female relationships. developed elsewhere. The book also contains some interpreta- This is where Gilbert Bilezikian—gifted scholar and com- tions that have not survived the rigors of scholarly debate over municator, native of France, long-time Wheaton professor of the last twenty years. But what impresses me is how many fea- theology, and a founding leader of Willow Creek Community tures of Beyond Sex Roles anticipate (and undoubtedly helped Church—came in. He recognized Hurley as a worthy oppo- shape) the current egalitarian consensus. One is the insight that nent, and, if you’ll pardon an insider pun, decided to go “head” gender equality is the goal of a progressively revealed and in- to “head” with him. In Beyond Sex Roles (first edition, 1985), exorably restoring movement of God’s Spirit through Scripture Bilezikian reverently explored the same passages of Scripture as and history. Already back in the 1980s Bilezikian was drawing Hurley had, and offered a meticulously-supported “second opin- us into this hopeful and compelling vision. And the book was ion” on its true meaning and intent. never about just gender. It is infused with the conviction that Reading Bilezikian in one hand and Hurley in the other is like Christ was, and by his Spirit still is, dismantling all the vertical having a ring-side seat while two heavyweights duke it out. There structures of power and oppression in fallen human society, in are no cheap shots or sneers in Bilezikian’s rebuttal, but there’s order to make way for one new, liberating and inclusive com- plenty of Gallic passion, and more than a little bracing wit and munity of God. The author invites us to live ahead of the curve. candor. He describes an anonymous former colleague, for exam- For these and other reasons, this book has my vote for the CBE ple, as “a pompous and bombastic man” who managed to survive version of Cooperstown. because his duties were fulfilled by an unsung female assistant

“gifted with genius-level intelligence and a phenomenal capacity GLEN G. SCORGIE (Ph.D., University of St. Andrews) is pro- for hard work” (p. 9). Many can identify. Elsewhere he asserts that fessor of theology at Bethel Seminary San Diego. He also as- “by maintaining women in relations of dependency, men guar- sists with preaching and teaching at Chinese Bible Church antee the infantilization of their female companions” (p. 162). He of San Diego since 1997. He is the author of The Journey even dares to label the subjection of women as satanic in origin (p. Back to Eden: Restoring the Creator’s Design for Women and Men (Zondervan, 2005). 41). You get the idea. Bilezikian packs a punch.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 61 � Christians for Biblical Equality CBE Membership Application Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) is an organization of Christian Contact Information men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of believers of all racial and ethnic ______groups, and all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the first and last name teachings of scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28. ______Injustice is an abuse of power, taking from others what God has street address given them: their dignity, their freedom, their resources, and even their very lives. CBE also recognizes that prohibiting individuals from exer- ______cising their God-given gifts to further his kingdom constitutes injustice city in a form that impoverishes the body of Christ and its ministry in ______the world at large. CBE accepts the call to be part of God’s mission in state / province / country zip / postal code opposing injustice as required in Scriptures such as Micah 6:8. ______phone e-mail address Core Values ◆ We believe the Bible teaches the equality of women and men. We believe God has given each person gifts to be used for ______the good of Christ’s kingdom. We believe Christians are to develop and church denomination exercise their God-given gifts in home, church, and society. We believe Annual Membership Fee (all fees are in U.S. dollars) the Bible teaches that Christians are to oppose injustice. Mission Statement ◆ CBE equips believers by affirming the Please check one: biblical truth about equality and justice. Thus all believers, without regard to gender, ethnicity, and class, are free and encouraged to use United States Members 1 Year 3 Years their God-given gifts in families, ministries, and communities. Individual ☐ $45 ☐ $120 Core Purpose ◆ To communicate broadly the biblical truth that Household ☐ $65 ☐ $170 men and women are equally responsible to act justly and use their Low Income ☐ $25 ☐ N/A God-given gifts to further Christ’s kingdom. Subscriptions* ☐ $40 ☐ $115 Envisioned Future ◆ CBE envisions a future where all believers will be encouraged to use their gifts for God’s glory and missional International Members 1 Year 3 Years purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities. Individual ☐ $55 ☐ $145 Household ☐ $75 ☐ $190 Statement of Faith Low Income ☐ $34 ☐ N/A We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is reliable, and Subscriptions* ☐ $49 ☐ $140 is the final authority for faith and practice. *Does not include membership benefits. We believe in the unity and trinity of God, eternally existing as Additional Contribution $ ______three equal persons. We believe in the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. TOTAL $ ______We believe in the sinfulness of all persons. One result of sin is shattered relationships with God, others, and self. CBE is an exempt organization as described in IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) and as such donations may qualify as a charitable contributions where allowed by law. We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the Payment Method dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people. We believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, and in the ☐ Check/Money Order (payable to Christians for Biblical Equality) power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers. ☐ Visa ☐ MasterCard ☐ Discover ☐ American Express We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all ______persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image account number expiration date in the community of believers, in the home, and in society. ______We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use verification code (the four digits on the top right corner of American their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church, and society. Express cards or final three digits found on the back of other cards) We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful hetero- sexual marriage as God’s design. ______signature We believe that, as mandated by the Bible, men and women are � to oppose injustice. Please mail or fax this form to: CBE Membership Christians for Biblical Equality CBE membership is available to those who support CBE’s Statement 122 W Franklin Ave, Suite 218 ◆ Minneapolis, MN 55404–2451 of Faith. Members receive CBE’s quarterly publications, Mutuality phone: (612) 872–6898 ◆ fax: (612) 872–6891 magazine and Priscilla Papers journal. Members are eligible for dis- e-mail: [email protected] counts on items from Equality Depot Bookstore, including books, articles, tapes, and videos. Members are also offered discounts on all international CBE conferences.

62 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 Living Water Learning like a woman drawing from a well full of words finally drawn by the Word the difference between white-washed sepulchers and an empty tomb— my fathers taught me to worship on the mountain between fists full of stones and one finger in the sand— my lovers taught me to sin in the valley between the city that sends me out to the well and the One who wants to quench my thirst. but come and see the stranger who told me everything I need to know Learning to stop drawing from the old well and to drink deeply in spirit and in truth.

Jesus and the Samaritis, Emmanuel Tzirtzilakis (www.iconography.gr), St. Philothei Chapel, Athens, Greece.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006 • 63 Christians for Biblical Equality 2007 International Conference Denver, Colorado n August 10–12, 2007 “He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun” (Psalm 37:6)

General Session Speakers Workshop Sessions & Speakers

Roger Olson Interpreting Paul’s Instructions Genesis 1–3: Roger Olson is professor of theol- in 1 Timothy in Light of Ephesian Creation, Order, and Equality ogy at Truett Theological Seminary Inscriptions, Artifacts, and Traditions Richard S. Hess in Waco, Tex. He has also served Frank Ritchel Ames as president of the American Theological Society (Midwest Patriarchy Happens The Great Commission Division) and co-chair of the Del Birkey and the Ministry of Women Evangelical Theology Group of the in the Church American Academy of Religion. Keum Ju (Jewel) Hyun

Recovering our History: Antebellum God or Mammon? Tracing Jeanne Porter Evangelical Feminist Voices in the Origins of Patriarchy Condemnation of Slavery Carrie Miles Jeanne Porter has served as asso- Kent A. Eaton ciate professor of communication arts at North Park University. She has also taught in the African The Eternal Subordination of the Son Women Unedited: The American Leadership Partnership and the Permanent Subordination Power of the Authentic Voice Program (AALP) at McCormick of Women Sally Morgenthaler Theological Seminary in Chicago. Kevin Giles

Work, Church, Ministry, Children… Shame and Abuse: Understanding Where’s the Couple?: Pressures on and Healing a Deadly Legacy Christopher A. Hall Christian Marriages Today Steven R. Tracy Christopher A. Hall is dean of the Lynley Giles Templeton Honors College at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pa., where he teaches in the The Master Bedroom: Emotional Intimacy and biblical and theological studies Marital Equality in an Equality: Understanding program. He is also associate Unequal World Ourselves & Each Other editor of the Ancient Christian Fred & Heather Gingrich Cathy & Phil Van Loon Commentary on Scripture.

Ontology, Gender, and Answering Those Who Ask About the Lidija Novakovic Women’s Authority in the Church: Reason for our Hope Noticing the Particulars Cynthia Long Westfall Lidija Novakovic is associate pro- Mimi Haddad fessor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minn. She is also a member The Spirit of Deborah: When the Devotional Leader: of the Princeton Theological Prophetic Leader Is a Woman Reconciliation Meditation Seminary Dead Sea Project. Elaine A. Heath Deborah M. Gill

CBE members receive discounts on conference registration Join or renew your membership today at www.cbeinternational.org

Christians for Biblical Equality Non-Profit Org. 122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218 Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451 U.S. Postage PAID FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED Minneapolis, MN Permit No. 26907

64 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 20, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2006