Lately, I've been in an e-mail correspondence with Suzanne McCarthy, an egalitarian linguist who desires much of the Open Letter to Egalitarians by Wayne Grudem to be open for discussion again. I'm not exactly sure how many years an "Open Letter" is to be "open" but McCarthy feels that it has still not sufficiently been dealt with. I am a complementarian and would probably agree with Dr. Grudem on 99% of what he says, however, I do think if questions are asked, they should be answered. So here is the link to McCarthy's post. Though I disagree with McCarthy on much about the gender debate, I respect her willingness to humbly correspond with me.
In looking at her post, McCarthy may have answered some questions that Grudem posed and may have evidence that opposes some to Grudem's arguments about specific examples of Greek words used by ancient sources, but I don't think these answers ultimately define what the Scriptures teach about leadership, submission, and biblical roles. The roles are set out at the beginning of time and shown in the beginning of Genesis...before the fall. Ancient writings that sometimes translate a word differently from that of the normal Biblical translation can never change the fact that if we let Scripture interpret Scripture, there is one main teaching about biblical roles. Husbands are called to lovingly and graciously lead and wives are to intelligently and humbly submit. This kind of authority is not abusive, abrasive, or demeaning. It is a call for a husband to have a servant-heart which cares more about his wife than he does about myself.
I do want to remind everyone that in looking at the issues of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism, we do not do theology in a box. Try as we may, we have life experiences that we bring with us when we read the Scriptures. The goal for all of us is the let the Scriptures define our beliefs and not let our life experiences define what Scriptures are saying. I feel that the complementarian position best does this. McCarthy would disagree with me. Now, should I treat McCarthy as a less than human person type of wacko...of course not. She appears to be a sister in Christ and is a fellow "image bearer." Let's let humility win the day and allow the gender debate to continue...humbly.
I'm sure there will be some comments on this post, so let me encourage at the outset that I desire no one to bash Grudem or McCarthy, but you are welcome to give your opinion and thoughts humbly.
13 comments:
Mike,
Thank you for this very fair treatment of my post. A couple of points.
I don't think these answers ultimately define what the Scriptures teach about leadership, submission, and biblical roles.
I did not make any attempt at confronting those questions. I tried to keep my post short. You rightly bring up Genesis, and I can only say that that would be a conversation for another day.
Now, should I treat McCarthy as a less than human person wacko...of course not.
A mysterious sentence, I am sure.
Thanks, Mike, for this. I have already started working on the other three of Grudem's six points.
One thing which I do think would be helpful is to link also to the text of the open letter as it appeared on your blog, since it is shorter and without Belleville's responses, so it is much easier to read at a first glance. I think it makes Dr. Grudem's arguments easier to follow. Then one can go back and read Belleville's or my post.
Thank you, Mike, for engaging with this.
Mike, thank you for opening discussion on these issues. Your willingness for discussion is much appreciated.
I do take some interest in this statement of yours.
“The roles are set out at the beginning of time and shown in the beginning of Genesis...before the fall.”
Grudem’s well read statement, “Husbands are called to lovingly and graciously lead and wives are to intelligently and humbly submit”, in my observance has yet to be found or implied in Genesis or even in the OT.
Are you willing to discuss where you see an hierarchical authoritative role for men over women in Genesis before the fall?
On the topic of the creation account, there is a respectful treatment of the issues at Unrelated Ramblings.
Believer333,
Thanks for commenting...yes, I'm willing to discuss what my thoughts are about Genesis. I would agree with much of what Bruce Ware says that Suzanne McCarthy's link above refutes. I think the "naming" idea is a pretty solid argument to show authority...I read Martin Shield's refute of this and I did not feel he really answered the question. I also looked at the "unrelated ramblings" link and I thought it contained statements that many (and I hope all) complementarians would not agree with...such as "women are more deceived." This statement is not biblical, for we are all equally sinners and all equally deceived.
I'm sure this comment brings up more questions in your mind, so feel free to comment and I'll try to answer as I am able. If you would rather discuss this via e-mail, please feel free to e-mail me.
God bless,
mike
Mike, sorry to take so long to find this again....
Can you show me where in Genesis God said that naming gave Adam authority or that naming gives anyone authority. My recollection is that God doled out authority the way He wanted it to be BEFORE naming or anything else was done, in fact before humanity was created.
For that matter, I cannot find anywhere in Genesis where God gives the man authority over the woman. The man may take it, but it was never granted as far as I can see.
Do you see anything Mike?
Well, Don, since no one is responding I guess that is our answer. :)
Believer333,
I agree that the authority was already there prior to the naming. God gave Adam authority over all the living things...but I don't think it is wise to just skip the idea of naming being a sign of authority...do you think this should just be overlooked?
Don,
It is obvious that we read Genesis very differently. I see Adam's authority when God comes to him first after the Fall, I see Adam's authority in humanity being called "man," and I see Adam's authority when he gets the blame the curse in Romans 5:12-17 as the one who sinned. With authority comes responsibility and Adam gets blamed for sin coming into the world, not Eve. This seem significant.
God bless,
mike
Mike, yes authority was there when God gave it which was before either were created. And God gave the same authority to both the man and the woman, to rule, guide, manage, (protection implied) the earth and its creatures. No directive was given to either to rule the other.
“I see Adam's authority in humanity being called "man,”
We should be careful about reading things into English and then reading that back into Scripture. The original word adham (before the man took it as his own name) had absolutely nothing to do with maleness. The man and the woman shared the same name which simply meant the race of humanity.
I agree that the authority was already there prior to the naming. God gave Adam authority over all the living things...but I don't think it is wise to just skip the idea of naming being a sign of authority...do you think this should just be overlooked?
Mike,
Hagar names God. It seems that she recognized certain characteristics in God.
Both man and woman were given dominion in Gen 1:26-29. Clearly dominion was given to the male and female together. I don't see where it is given to Adam and not Eve?
I see Adam's authority when God comes to him first after the Fall,
How is this authority? An oblique reference.
I see Adam's authority in humanity being called "man,"
This is a problem since the Bible was written in Hebrew. The word adam means human. Although the first human was a male, the word adam can be used for women to indicate that they are humans.
"And thirty and two thousand persons (adam) in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." Numbers 31:35
ALL the "persons" in this verse where young women, no exceptions. Women are fully adam.
and I see Adam's authority when he gets the blame the curse in Romans 5:12-17 as the one who sinned. With authority comes responsibility and Adam gets blamed for sin coming into the world, not Eve.
As individuals, each man and woman has their own responsibility for sin in their life. There is no exception. It is wrong to teach otherwise.
I hope this helps.
“and I see Adam's authority when he gets the blame the curse in Romans 5:12-17 as the one who sinned. With authority comes responsibility and Adam gets blamed for sin coming into the world, not Eve.”
Both the man and the woman suffered death for their sin of eating of the fruit they were forbidden to eat. The woman ate from being deceived. The man however, did not do his job but just sat and listened to the voice of his wife instead of warning her. Further, the man was not deceived but ate deliberately knowing fully that he was rebelling against God’s instructions. It is the man’s rebellion that was the cause of sin and death entering into the world.
Ro. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
All sin separates us from God, but God treats some sins are more serious than others. In particular, the Bible says that the woman was deceived, while the man was not; he knew what he was doing was wrong. The results of the serpent's actions and the man's actions both have similar structure, they both use "Because" they both use the word "curse", etc. What God says to the woman is different and we are supposed to notice these differences. Not all the things said to the woman are bad things, but some translations might make it seem so. But check an interlinear.
Post a Comment