When I wrote “A Semi-Pragmatic Less Theological Open Letter to Egalitarians” I figured that I would get a couple responses…maybe three to four. I was a bit surprised when many more people were willing to answer my question. I was (and continue to be) grateful for the interaction with those who have a different view of biblical roles than I do.
Now that the “open letter” is officially closed (since it ended on Dec. 31, 2008), I thought I would give a few thoughts to the responses.
Overall, I’m not sure the letter was that helpful. I think it did bring some clarity to how egalitarians think and it did bring more interaction with egalitarian in my “inbox,” so I am grateful for the friendships I am building, but overall, it seemed to me to be yet another debate in cyberspace that went on and on until everyone got bored with it…and probably moved on to another debate.
Personally, I think the practical questions are important because they show the true groundwork theology that people believe. I find it hard to believe that you can reconcile an egalitarian lifestyle if you are trying to submit to all of Scripture. Many (almost 78 people) disagree with me on this, but my conscience still rests with my reading of the English Bible (with my Greek Bible Works program) to see what the original author intended by what he said.
In writing the “Open Letter,” I also had some surprises. First, I learned why Wayne Grudem and others never write a second open letter. It is because you will never be able to adequately respond to all of the questions, comments, judgments, and genuine interactions that come from the first one. Secondly, I think I hit a nerve with some readers. Many assumptions were made about me, my marriage, my family, and my parenting because of what I wrote and how I asked the questions. I must say that I grew in the sanctification process through the blog post…and I am thankful to the Lord for that. Thirdly, it was interesting to me that many commenters desired more to argue with how and why I asked the question rather than answer the questions. Many did not even answer the questions, but simple argued about answering the questions.
Now that the “open letter” is officially closed (since it ended on Dec. 31, 2008), I thought I would give a few thoughts to the responses.
Overall, I’m not sure the letter was that helpful. I think it did bring some clarity to how egalitarians think and it did bring more interaction with egalitarian in my “inbox,” so I am grateful for the friendships I am building, but overall, it seemed to me to be yet another debate in cyberspace that went on and on until everyone got bored with it…and probably moved on to another debate.
Personally, I think the practical questions are important because they show the true groundwork theology that people believe. I find it hard to believe that you can reconcile an egalitarian lifestyle if you are trying to submit to all of Scripture. Many (almost 78 people) disagree with me on this, but my conscience still rests with my reading of the English Bible (with my Greek Bible Works program) to see what the original author intended by what he said.
In writing the “Open Letter,” I also had some surprises. First, I learned why Wayne Grudem and others never write a second open letter. It is because you will never be able to adequately respond to all of the questions, comments, judgments, and genuine interactions that come from the first one. Secondly, I think I hit a nerve with some readers. Many assumptions were made about me, my marriage, my family, and my parenting because of what I wrote and how I asked the questions. I must say that I grew in the sanctification process through the blog post…and I am thankful to the Lord for that. Thirdly, it was interesting to me that many commenters desired more to argue with how and why I asked the question rather than answer the questions. Many did not even answer the questions, but simple argued about answering the questions.
To the egalitarians who commented, I would like to say “thank you.” I am grateful for the many e-mails I’ve received and beginning communication to clarify both of our positions. Let’s continue the conversation in e-mails and phone calls and in more personal ways that comments cannot provide. May God’s truth ring true and this debate and let the heat of the debate refine all of us.
4 comments:
I think egalitarians read their Bibles with the intent of what the original authors were saying as well. I just see that you and I, for example, would disagree on that intended message.
Mike,
I appreciate your willingness to interact. I know I owe you an email, but I am still thinking. :-)
With reference to this exchange, I was not able to see the relevancy of your questions, although interesting, to scripture. It is not apparent to me how a Greek software programe could make a contribution to the questions you asked.
I had intended to contiune my response to Grudem's open letter at some time, but, in truth, knowing that there is such a major variance of views between egals and comps, I am not sure how to bridge it.
A case in point is that the ESVSB states that the lexical meaning of authentein is "clearly established" while on a blog recently Dr. Kostenberger said that the lexical evidence is "inconclusive."
As long as inaccurate information is made available, dialogue is difficult. The two groups, complementarians and egalitarians are working from a different understanding of the text.
I see 1 Tim. 2:12 as saying that a woman must not dominate/lord it over a man. And I see 1 Peter 5:3 as saying that an overseer must not dominate/lord it over the flock.
This is why I had originally blogged about a common text, or a common understanding of the text. However, populist materials and software programmmes are filling the place of scholarly contributions. Dr. Kostenberger's honesty in technical matters is not reflected in the ESVSB.
Mike, it seems from your comments that your expectations were different from the reality. In that, I share your experience. Coming from the egalitarian camp, I too am frustrated with the cyber-debates, but more because they seem to disappear rather than coming to any resolution. I guess my expectation of your post was that you would, at some point, bring some consensus response from your perspective. If nothing else, I would have enjoyed seeing your own responses to the questions (which, from my perspective, were fairly useless). If not responses, then your reasons for choosing those particular questions. I do appreciate the time that you have given to discussing these issues with those of us who disagree with you on this issue.
I thought about your post with the questions when after the USAir plane had to ditch in the Hudson one of the survivors said, "It was women and children first." The fact that you would offend people, in your post, by asking if they didn't believe in women and children first, seemed rather instructive of their desire to deny what is "hard-wired" in God's creation. I do believe all will be changed in Heaven; but for now male headship and responsibility is God's calling.
Post a Comment