Complementarianism and Eschatology: Engaging Gordon Fee’s “New Creation” Egalitarianism Everett Berry Associate Professor of Theology Criswell College Dallas, Texas Introduction practical terms. This indeed is a complex question, The New Testament teaches that the redemp- especially when it pertains to gender issues. tive work of Jesus Christ marks a pivotal transition Our interests about such topics as male head- in history because it finally addresses humanity’s ship, spousal roles, and Christian service are all deepest problems. Christ’s sacrifice atones for sin intertwined not merely because they pertain to how and propitiates God’s wrath against sinners. His God’s people should co-exist relationally but, at a resurrection defeats the curse of death. His victory deeper level, they reflect our views of what it means thwarts the schemes of the devil and accomplishes to be a part of the new creation in Christ. This is his Father’s mission so that the kingdom of heaven why complementarian and egalitarian polemics are might eventually become a full reality on the earth. often engaged in terms of how male and female Taken together then, these realities indicate that roles should be defined in light of the results of sal- Old Testament promise has moved to new cov- vation. Egalitarians, for example, contend that all enant fulfillment in inaugurated form. Now the present categories of identity such as economic sta- present age simply commences on a divinely-set tus, ethnic background, and gender have now been stopwatch ticking down the last days until the age “Christified” under the new covenant so that they to come arrives in its complete form, a day which no longer have any relevance for defining the func- is otherwise known as the Day of the Lord when tional roles of believing men or women.1 It is not the glorified Christ returns to save his people and that such categories no longer exist. Indeed they do judge his enemies. and believers cannot escape them entirely. Never- Yet as the church awaits the fulfillment of theless they are now passing away in lieu of a new these events, it would be an error to miss the impli- kingdom that is presently amassing a citizenry of cations that our eschatological hope has for the people who are all equal recipients of its inheri- present time. Though the anticipation of the future tance. Hence all of the current networks that define does address how all things will be made new, this function and status are now rendered ontologically hope also goes to the very heart of New Testament irrelevant for Christians.2 In contrast, complemen- ethics and the dynamics of church life in the pres- tarians argue that male headship is not a culturally ent. The way things will one day be informs us on arbitrary distinctive eradicated by the new cove- how we should conduct ourselves now. To think nant. It is not simply an expendable practice intrin- biblically then, one must learn to think and live sic to the present age. Rather it is embedded in the with an eschatological orientation. But this being ordinances of creation itself and must be modeled said, many questions still remain as to how this by God’s people so the world can behold the power kind of theological mindset should be expressed in of the age to come.3 JBMW | Fall 2008 59 Obviously the disagreement here is not minor. is primarily based upon two arguments.11 These It is theologically significant for many reasons include (1) his proposal that the NT relegates the including the fact that it affects how we live out our value of gender roles to the futility of the present faith both corporately as well as individually. That age; and (2) his related contention that the apostle is why this essay intends to explore this impasse Paul never recognized gender-based authorities in in more detail by addressing Gordon Fee’s assess- the church. ments of gender roles as they relate to the church’s existence and ministry in the present age.4 Our Clarifying Fee’s Hermeneutical Approach thesis is that Fee’s egalitarian reading of Scripture Fee rightly asserts at the outset that division falls prey to a form of “over-realized” eschatology. among evangelicals on gender issues exists because More specifically, he exhibits a theological fallacy of disagreements on how to interpret all the per- by arguing that certain functional structures within tinent biblical texts. Fee believes thinkers on both the home and the church are culturally arbitrary and/ sides of the debate have a commitment to bibli- or functionally legalistic because they will eventually cal authority.12 The underlying problem, however, cease to exist once the eschatological future arrives. is that there is no consensus for reconciling the Contra Fee, we contend that the preservation of cer- theological tension between the supernatural and tain gender distinctives helps to reflect the Christian human elements of Scripture. The Bible is a combi- hope of a new heavens and new earth because they act nation of transcendence and temporality, the merg- as a bridge showing both how the original creation is ing of divine messages with human words that are delivered from the curse of sin and how God’s kingdom set within the plane of human history. Likewise, transforms human relationships. To support this, we since it is ultimately inspired by one Author, it pos- will (1) summarize Fee’s attempts to use the con- sesses an inherent canonical unity. The key issue is cept of new creation against complementarianism;5 how these dynamics are to be balanced hermeneu- and (2) argue that his relativizing of male head- tically. Fee thinks it can only be done by embracing ship focuses upon the “not yet” aspects of eschatol- both human and divine authorship, and this is why ogy, and thereby misrepresents how biblical writers he adopts the concept of the analogia fidei. Yet he believed new covenant living should be expressed only does so reservedly. He warns that this concept prior to the inception of the final age. can often blind us to the meaning of a given bibli- cal passage because Gordon Fee & New Creation Egalitarianism At the outset we should acknowledge that Fee sometimes a highly improbable interpre- has established himself as a first-rate scholar and tation can be superimposed on a text in contributor to NT studies. He has produced helpful order to make it conform to other texts 6 for the sake of unity—which is often the books at the popular level, in-depth monographs result of a prior commitment to the shape on Pauline theology,7 insightful texts on issues in 8 of that unity as much as to the unity hermeneutics, and several technical commentaries itself. Unity is often understood to mean including volumes on the Pastoral Epistles, Philip- uniformity. That Scripture might reveal pians, and 1 Corinthians, for which he is most well a diverse witness on matters is summar- known.9 His career has been so prolific that several ily ruled out before one even looks at the 13 of his academic peers contributed to an anthology in texts. honor of his 65th birthday.10 And in surveying the scope of his work, he clearly has offered substantial Now indeed this claim is true as far as it goes, but it defenses of egalitarianism by providing thorough does not go far enough. We can all acknowledge that treatments of NT passages that explicitly pertain our zeal for doctrinal synthesis may inadvertently to women in ministry. However, an analysis of his lead us to shortchange certain biblical passages. But polemics reveals that his denial of male headship we are still responsible to ascertain some kind of 60 JBMW | Fall 2008 criteria that can help us avoid this danger. And all believers lived.20 Paul, for example, never endorsed the more so when it comes to dealing with how the the patriarchal structures of his day but wisely gave NT addresses such a critical issue as gender. instructions on how believers were to relate to a Fee is well aware of this and that is why he society that did. And now in God’s providence the argues complementarianism cannot be the solu- church can live out those principles without the tion. He deduces that theological commitment shackles of patriarchy. to male headship eliminates any potential for interpreting Scripture holistically. The reason for Tolerating Social Boundaries while Ignoring the this is because its core ideas are based upon spu- Significance of Patriarchy rious cultural implications scattered throughout Fee enlists the Apostle Paul to support his the NT as opposed to its more explicit thematic egalitarian reading of the NT. This is in no way sur- teachings.14 Complementarians allow contrasting prising since Pauline literature has always been a pieces of advice on gender roles to dictate how they primary source for this exegetical debate. Typically, understand much broader theological categories complementarians are quick to insist that his well instead of vice versa. The net result is that sporadic known remarks about the adornment of women in ad hoc imperatives regarding men and women are corporate worship (1 Cor 11:2–16), qualifications converted into legalistic axioms requiring univer- for pastors (1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9), instruction sal observance.15 Consequently, Fee concludes that on teaching authority in the church (1 Cor 14:34– the practical outworking of this approach openly 35; 1 Tim 2:12–15), and comments on relation- distorts the essence of NT teaching regarding the ships between husbands and wives (Eph 5:22–33; church as the community that supersedes all pres- Col 3:18–19) are all clear referents to theological ent-day social distinctions.