Scriptorium Daily
After I wrote this blog on egalitarianism vs. complementarianism from a non-theological perspective, I was actually surprised it engendered so little feedback. I thought for sure that this is an issue that would cause volleys of people firing at me from all quarters! Well, I finally received a good response from David Nilsen, who wrote this blog on “Evangelical Outpost.” What I mean by “good” is not that I agree with all his points, nor do I think he makes an airtight case, but at least it was an honest effort to engage me on this topic, for which I appreciate. I do not mean to endlessly drag on this debate (especially since Scriptorium Daily and Evangelical Outpost are both Biola- and Torrey-related, so it’s a bit like siblings squabbling in public — so this will be my final and only response to Part 1 of this debate), but I do want to respond to his points to clarify any misunderstandings.
Firstly, Nilsen asks:
Last week on The Scriptorium Dr. Allen Yeh made a non-theological case for egalitarianism. The theologian in me immediately wants to respond by asking, “Why bother? If there is a theological case to be made, who cares what culture has to say?” Indeed, I am concerned that Dr. Yeh chooses to lead with the non-theological case (his theological case will follow shortly). Perhaps he is allowing his cultural cart to be put before the theological horse.
My response:
Leading with the non-theological argument does not necessarily mean a judgment of priority. Jonathan Edwards, in his book Concerning the End for Which God Created the World, wrote the first half of his tome as a philosophical/logical defense of his argument, and the second half as a theological/Scriptural defense. The first half was based completely on human reason. It would be incomplete without the second half, surely, but he starts with the human side. The same goes with the Apostle Paul in Acts 17 as he preaches to the men of Athens on the Areopagus. He appeals to their pagan poets and culture before he gets theological on them. To only go theological is to exclude reason, culture and all those other “human” things that God has also gifted us with — and that is a form of Gnosticism. While Scripture should have preeminence, the other things are not without weight. Now, one might argue that Edwards and Paul only included philosophy and reason because they were speaking to non-Christians. That may be partly true, but I think that since everything on earth is given by God, we must figure other factors into the debate.
One of the differences between evangelical theology and liberation theology is that the former makes its starting point Scripture while the latter makes its starting point the situation. Unfortunately, evangelicals have often reacted against perceived liberalism by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In order to not travel down the “slippery slope to liberalism,” evangelicals will sometimes completely discard the situation or context as being relevant in any way because that reeks too much of liberation theology. However, this is a fallacy, as the point is to make Scripture preeminent, not to make Scripture the only factor to take into account. It is a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura to think that it does not include any consideration of our cultural context or situation.
Let us also not forget that Calvin, the one who was deeply committed to Sola Scriptura, actually was very much influenced by and steeped in Renaissance humanism. Jonathan Edwards, America’s greatest theologian, was very much influenced by Locke’s philosophy. Culture and the Gospel are analogically like a vessel carrying water, respectively. Though they are not the same, the former shapes the latter. Water, though it never changes in its essence, changes shape depending on the vessel it’s carried in (depending on whether it is a bowl, a mug, a swimming pool, etc). In other words, all theology is occasional, i.e. it arises from occasions. Why did Moses write the seemingly humorous passage of Deut. 25:11-12? Because it happened! In fact, it probably happened more than once, to the point where Moses decided, “Look guys, this has been going on long enough, I have to include it in the Law to stop this nonsense.” Why did the Apostle Paul write all his epistles? Because of situations that were going on in the churches (e.g. the immorality going on in the Corinthian church), and these things prompted his letters. The epistles didn’t just drop into his lap from heaven like the Koran to Muhammad or the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. Fully God and fully man does not just apply to Jesus, the living Word, but also to the Bible, the written Word. It’s immanent situation and transcendent theology working hand-in-hand. In fact, it is often heresy that breeds good theology in the church, i.e. it is situations of controversy, and occasions of disagreement, that give rise to theology (see my blog on that)
I often say that the difference between theologians and missiologists is that the latter know the difference between contextualization and syncretism. There is no such thing as “pure” theology, “uncontaminated” by culture. Culture pervades us. To use language is to engage in culture, and thus the Logos himself, Jesus Christ, was cultural, as is the Bible, as is theology. It is twentieth-century dichotomistic thinking that derives from the culture wars and the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy (see my blog on that) that creates this theology vs. culture mentality. It is fundamentalists reacting to evolutionists. It is J. Gresham Machen reacting to Harry Emerson Fosdick. It is Westminster reacting to Princeton. Because Nilsen seems to belong to one stream of 21st-century evangelicalism (conservative) and I belong to the other stream (radical evangelical), I’m afraid to some extent we are actually at cross-purposes in trying to see eye-to-eye on this issue just because of our presuppositions.
Secondly, Nilsen makes this claim:
This is a bad analogy. It would indeed be ridiculous to say that all women (or men) should do only one type of activity, if that were the complementarian position. But complementarians argue that there is one type of activity that women are not called to do. The question would then be whether it is ridiculous to exclude women from this particular activity.
My response:
It is not a bad analogy. The analogy is fine. The problem is that Nilsen disagrees with my application of the analogy. This is because he holds one of several category views of complementarianism. On the chart in my initial blog, I outlined five different positions that Biola professors hold, with the vast majority adhering to Category 3, which I called either an extremely soft complementarian position, or a bipartisan vote. If that’s the case, what Nilsen is objecting to is my criticism of more definitive complementarians. Perhaps this is my fault, that I didn’t specify which category I was criticizing, but clearly my analogy doesn’t apply to bipartisans.
Thirdly, Nilsen says:
Second, suppose a church has to make a choice between two preachers, one who is not so gifted but will faithfully bring good exposition of the Scriptures each week, and one who is a very gifted speaker but does not agree fully with the theology of the church. Which should they choose? Depending on how significant the theological differences are, it seems clear that the church ought to choose right theology over good speaking ability. Likewise, theology should always be a higher priority than the perceived gifts of an individual (it is the Holy Spirit, after all, who gives the Word of God power, not man). Yeh seems implicitly to agree with this when he notes that ability cannot be the “sole criteria” here, but he doesn’t allow his admission to actually inform his argument, since he takes the case of Anne’s superior ability in and of itself as an argument for egalitarianism.
My response:
Nilsen is implicitly implying that egalitarianism is wrong theology, in order to prove his point that egalitarianism is wrong. That’s a fallacy of trying to define something by itself. And I did not say that Anne’s superior ability in preaching is my sole criteria of why she should be allowed to preach, but it should be a consideration.
Fourthly, Nilsen argues:
The only thing that this comment proves is that many evangelicals don’t follow their theology consistently. It doesn’t constitute support for egalitarianism. Moreover, it confuses the office of church elder with that of seminary (or college) professor, which is not even a New Testament category. I am a complementarian, yet I have no scruples about female professors because I do not believe that the Bible prohibits women from teaching in such a capacity. According to complementarianism, the Bible’s restriction of female service in the church is actually an extremely limited one, and thus any honest debate must be equally limited.
My response:
I don’t see how you can be OK with female seminary professors but exclude women from preaching in the church (from all arguments I have heard from complementarians, pastors/preachers are subcategories of elders, so if the latter is something that women must be excluded from, so must the former—see Mark Dever’s writings for some of the arguments to support this view, such as A Display of God’s Glory: Basics of Church Structure). First of all, as I said in my blog, Biola has both female seminary professors (in Talbot School of Theology) and often has female preachers in chapel, so it’s not like only one but not the other is allowed. Secondly, I see seminary professors as analogous to generals in the army. Generals (professors) train their captains (pastors) who train their troops (laity). So why is it OK for the professors (who are teaching theology) to be female, but not for pastors? Theology, which is taught by seminary professors (who are sometimes female), reaches the minds and hearts of male pastors, and trickles down to laypeople via sermons. These are not categories that are mutually exclusive. Can you say that generals and soldiers in the army can be female, but captains can’t? It doesn’t make sense.
Fifthly, Nilsen says:
Dr. Yeh is actually making two points here. First, he is arguing that many women function as pastors (if only of women’s or children’s groups), but aren’t called “pastors” by name. This is true, and I agree with Dr. Yeh that they should be recognized by name for the work that they do. I have no problem referring to a woman as a “Women’s Pastor” or “Children’s Pastor.” The issue is whether she serves in the specific role of exercising authority over men. Remember that the New Testament only mentions two offices, Elder and Deacon. Any other unofficial offices that we create to meet needs in the church (youth group, women’s group, etc) should not be closed to women unless it serves the same function as Elder (it is not at all clear to me that women should be excluded from serving as Deacons).
Second, Dr. Yeh argues that women need women to minister to them. As I have already pointed out, complementarians would agree, and would not deny that women can be teachers/pastors over other women (or children).
My response:
Again, Nilsen is articulating a bipartisan, or at best, a “soft” complementarianism. Many complementarians would argue that pastor is a subcategory of elder, so that women cannot therefore be either. To stronger complementarians than Nilsen (again, refer to Mark Dever’s writings), you just cannot call a woman a pastor because that would make her an elder. So they would call her a “minister,” which I think is just semantic dancing. So, since Nilsen is a soft complementarian, and I would call myself a soft egalitarian, I don’t actually think we disagree very much on this point at all. He advocates using the terms “Women’s Pastor” or “Children’s Pastor” which I think are perfectly valid terms.
Finally, Nilsen points out:
This is probably Dr. Yeh’s weakest argument. While it may be true that some complementarians are guilty of this sort of proof-texting, it is certainly not true of many of the better defenders of complementarianism such as Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and Biola’s own Robert Saucy, all of whom deal directly with the passages that Dr. Yeh mentions. In the near future, I hope to respond to Dr. Yeh’s second post (which is forthcoming), defending Egalitarianism from a theological perspective.
My response:
It probably is not fair to call this “weak” until Nilsen hears my whole theological exposition. But this is partially my fault, as I probably should not have just shown a “preview” of my Biblical support without revealing the rest, as it is by definition incomplete. As for Saucy and other Talbot professors, the Biola “Gender Climate Study” that I mentioned in my last blog showed that Talbot is more conservative than the rest of Biola, and thus is not accurately representative of what the University in general thinks, as seen by the poll of faculty. My theological defense will be featured on November 8, so stay tuned!
