Mark Thompson has written an excellent and short statement which calls for her invitation to preach to be recalled.  Here’s a snippet:

“We note with profound sadness that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, has been invited to preach in a Brisbane church in early July. This invitation shows an appalling lack of judgment and contempt for those who have suffered at the hands of the revisionists in The Episcopal Church.”

and

“Katherine Jefferts Schori bears a great deal of responsibility for the current turmoil, division and anguish in the Anglican Communion. It is entirely inappropriate that she should be welcomed into any diocese in the Anglican Church of Australia.”

Read the whole statement here at the ACL website.

In Henri Blocher’s Evil and the Cross (p99, 1994), a paragraph is given to the topic of the decretive and preceptive will of God (which I’ve blogged about before).  It’s worth quoting in full, especially if you’re sitting the exam and want the context of the quote for our question!

“Theologians distinguish between the decretive and preceptive will of God, or the will of eurestia (ie. what God is pleased to have his creatures do).  When we read ‘God wills’ or ‘God wishes’, it is not always with the same meaning.  The wicked sons of Eli did not repent ‘for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death’ (1 Sa. 2.25), and yet we read that God takes ‘no pleasure in the death of the wicked’ (Ezk. 33:11).  In the first case, God willed in the sense that he has written the deed in his book (Ps. 139.16), that he has included it in the programme of everything that happens, in his universal plan or decree.  In the second case, we are dealing with his desire that all should be saved, and it also involves his call, commandment or precept that they should turn and be converted.  We should note carefully that, even at the heart of the decree, if evil is willed in a certain manner, it is not willed as something good.  God wills what is good directly, simply, for himself; he wills evil only in a different manner, while hating it at the same time. It is, to be sure, sovereign, but it is also a permissive will that is being referred to.  Divine causality with respect to good is efficient (i.e. God acts efficaciously, every grace and good gift comes down from the Father of lights, Jas. 1:17).  With respect to evil, it is deficient (i.e. God is content not to act, as if he failed to assist; he did not bring forth the will to do good, nor the deed).  Whereas God himself works good by making it work, evil is always the deed of one or of several created beings, exclusively.“

I might add, that I do very much appreciate D.B. Hart’s theology – especially since he’s a theologian of the classical variety.  But I did find his ridiculous misrepresentation of the Reformed tradition quite frustrating!  Blocher sets out the key nuance very well. If Hart had recognised this, I’m sure his Doors of the Sea would have been much more convincing!  After all, what he’s proposing in primary and secondary levels of causality (p83ff) already exists within the Reformed tradition.

Coming down to Melbourne for this conference caused a small level of anxiety before I left Sydney. Coming from Moore Theological College, and as a Sydney Anglican candidate, I was aware that it was likely for me to be in the minority. Moreover, I was nervous about the polemical nature of this issue, and the fact that I could be found guilty by association! What I found was that the more thoughtful speakers and guests of the conference withheld the polemic and vitriol, and extended a Christian grace for those who differed in opinion. Yet, it was true that Moore college, the Sydney diocese, and complementarians copped a lot from some who couldn’t resist the temptation – this was a little unfortunate in my opinion. Whilst there was nothing to excuse the rhetoric, there was often good reason to explain it. What I mean, is that I heard many, many stories of those who had been rudely offended, belittled, ridiculed and in some cases, sinned against due to their opinion on this very issue of gender in church. So, I was aware of the polemic and vitriol which can extend to both sides of this debate. What I’ve learnt is that it is important to extend grace to those who differ in opinion. It’s of the utmost importance to cling to the truth, yet it is also of the utmost importance to love our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Listening to the audience was an interesting thing also. There were many people from various denominational backgrounds: Anglican, Uniting, Pentecostal, Presbyterian. A few things repeated really took my interest: There seemed to be a slight disparity between the topics of the speakers, and the questions from the audience – often the topics were heavy theologically, but the questions were quite light on. Complementarians were often lumped together into one single monolithic position (even though some of the speakers correctly noted that there was a range of views within the complementarian camp). The Spirit-empowered giftedness of believers was often considered the supreme guide when deciding on how to regulate church order – Scripture was not often noted as the norm which norms other norms. This is the sort of thing I heard during a panel discussion:

Person A: If we prevent the power that God has given us, then that is disobedience.  when we see people’s ability to minister restricted by the church, then that’s a travesty.  One level of restriction: explicit and implicit.  The question is whether it’s innate in us, or whether someone tells us.

Person B: We cannot know whether a call of a person is valid or invalid. We should never prevent someone’s perceived calling.

Person C: You need to explain why women were so effective on the mission field. How can you disobey God and be so successful?

Here are some short reflections on each of the major sessions I attended:

• Graham Cole #1: Graham really showed a deep Bible knowledge and love, and gave brilliantly succinct and on-topic answers to some tricky questions. Also, I thought it excellent that no caricatures were made of any ‘Sydney’ or ‘Complementarian’ groups. There was a real Christian theological integrity shown. My only question was as to whether it seemed to frame the debate in potentially unhelpful ways: ie., when restricted and unrestricted women’s ministry is linked to broken world and new creation, respectively – are we not unhelpfully polarising the debate? Even if (and Graham Cole did not) we don’t point to finger to who this might be, doesn’t it implicitly as the keynote address of the CBE conference, mean that the CBE people are the new creation people, and non-CBE people are broken-worlders? The aforementioned false dichotomy is simple, but possibly unhelpful…
• Graham Cole #2: This was the paper which I found most interesting during the whole conference. Positively, Graham very carefully highlighted some of the dangers in using the Trinity as a model for human relationships. Where it got very interesting was his engagement with Karl Rahner. Karl Barth got a mention, but not much engagement. For my money, I think that he ought to have engaged with Barth’s ‘Way of the Son into the Far Country’ for the completeness of his paper. Because I’m not so sure that Cole’s paper adequately dealt with how Robert Doyle (Moore) would put forward the issue (God is as he is toward us etc.). In other words, real engagement between Cole’s theology and Robert Doyle’s theology might have produced some fascinating discussion!
• Kevin Giles #1. Kevin Giles is a brilliant scholar – in fact, he was the senior student at Moore college many moons ago. But what I felt let this session down was the amount of heated polemic which seemed to carry the argument. Whilst Kevin was making some genuinely fair points (and some quite profound ones I might add), the rhetoric really made it less convincing. Whilst some people might very well make far too much of 1 Timothy 2, I simply don’t think that complementarians read the whole Bible through the lens of 1 Timothy 2. We must say something about what 1 Timothy 2 teaches us about Genesis 1-2, but by doing that we aren’t necessarily making 1 Timothy 2 the hermeneutic key for reading all of Scripture. Thus, I think that Kevin made a lot of excellent points (particularly on the exegesis of Gen. 1-2 themselves), but in my opinion, the overall framework of the argument was flawed.
• Tim Foster #1: This deserves a better summary. It is quite a solid paper, albeit with quite a few spelling and grammatical errors. But it engages with current scholarship and proposes a new way of reading 1 Timothy 2:8-15. A lot of Tim’s argument seems to rest on the cultural context of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Priscilla and Aquilla. He makes the claim that ‘all’ of the women at Ephesus were led astray by the ascetic teaching, and that is what the 1 Tim 2 prohibition is on about. I’m certainly no expert here, and would need to spend some more time on the historical and cultural context in order to evaluate it properly. But, my general query is about how much of Tim’s argument rests on this cultural reconstruction – Tim’s reading makes it seem so simple. It could be quite profound, but on the other hand, simplicity raises some warning flags for me too. Anyway, the jury’s out – I’ll let the exegetes fight that one out!
• Cheryl Catford #1: Probably the most unconvincing of the sessions I attended. It felt like she was trying to bite off more than she could chew in the allotted time. What I felt was the biggest problem for Cheryl’s argument was that she pitted offices against Giftedness, and the organic against the institutional. I suppose this strategy would have been OK, except that her work on disproving offices was a bit light on. Eg., I found it simply astonishing that 1 Timothy 3 got such a small look-in – perhaps no wonder, since gender is explicitly linked to office there! So, after office was dismissed, Gal. 3:28 (and other texts) were produced to promote Giftedness, and the case is closed. Q.E.D? Not in my opinion. I think that there is much more Biblical evidence for office than Catford would like to admit. And office is linked to gender. Godliness and Giftedness but not Gender is incorrect. In my opinion, the criteria are Godliness and Giftedness and Gender.

Update: Tanya reminded me over lunch today about how we learnt about what our ‘weak-spots’ are.  I thought that I would add to this summary, that one of the great things from attending a conference like this, was that my presuppositions and assumed knowledge comes under scrutiny.  I think I’ve greatly benefited from realising the nuances and important little distinctions assumed in my position, which need to be fleshed out and explained.  Without them, some of the complementarian arguments can be misunderstood (ie., the discussion pertaining to Eternal Relationship Subordination and taxis).

Let me close with a few warm remarks. Chris and Di Appleby (of St. Thomas’, Burwood) were very kind and warm hosts during my time in Melbourne. Chris runs a great and keen evangelical church in Burwood, that I’d heartily recommend visiting! Kevin and Lynley Giles were very warm in fellowship during our time down there, and I was made to feel like a brother in our conversations. Bob and Shirley Andrews, who kindly encouraged me to attend the conference, were both great encouragements during my time there. I was reminded of the great wisdom which can be learnt from those older brothers and sisters in the Lord. All in all, it was an excellent conference. Well run and well attended. I’m thankful to the Lord for the opportunity to learn and be sharpened. Whilst I’m still a Complementarian, I’ve got a whole lot of time for my Egalitarian brothers and sisters in Christ.

It should be noted that these are my notes of the discussion, and are not quoted verbatim. Please don’t quote the following text as such.

A quote is read: “Paul is simply stating that when it comes to women leading the church it is because they are more gullible…” (ME: the quote was much longer, I could only record this much)
Question: How do Jesus and Paul speak to the historical interpretation of gullibility of women?
Answer: (GC) Perhaps the quote would lend itself to the opposite conclusion – men shouldn’t lead churches because they cause the porn problems etc, and then shift the responsibility to Eve! (CC) Men are struggling with identity as much as women. The Eve deception idea comes out of a Patriarchal ideal. (KG) I think the quote is Mark Driscoll. It’s really wonderful that he says it so direct and straightforward – because I argue with people who disguise it under the terms of ‘different roles’. ‘Complementarians’ obfuscate the issues with terms like ‘function’ and ‘role’. 1 Tim 2 is contextual, to take it otherwise leads to the deception of Eve theory. (Funmi) That’s what I experience everyday in Nigeria.

Question: How do you believe the early church set itself apart from the cultural evaluation of women?
Answer: (GC) Ie., Luke 24 – the good news of the resurrection entrusted to women! (Funmi) Example of Mary at the feet of Jesus – that she sat there. Women were in the kitchen, and the males stayed with the guest. Jesus affirmed her. (KG) Paul’s practise demonstrates it – he was in a very patriarchal society. Jesus stated the ideals and Paul dealt with the concrete realities. Paul says that the Spirit is a non-discriminatory employer. There were women apostles. Women prophesied. Prophecy is speaking in the power of the Spirit. Women are deacons (includes meaning of ‘servants of the word’). Paul has male and female co-workers. All early churches were house churches where women taught. In that cultural world, it’s amazing that there are only 3 Pauline excluding statements.

Question: We often view women’s spiritual status through Eve’s failure, but men’s through Christ’s redemption on the cross. What do you see happening in those first chapters of Genesis?
Answer: (CC) Man and woman are standing there when the temptation came. Gen. 1-3 is about the rupture of the relationships. The metanarrative is all about relationship (with God and with all humanity). The hallmark of sin is the pitting of one against the other. Fault-finding. Women do this to men, and vice-versa. But Christ came to repair humanity. The “women’s deception” view is an abuse of power. (GC) I might have a slightly different take on this to some. When I consider the biblical narrative – Paul sees an analogy with what happened in Ephesus and what happened in the garden. When you read Gen. 2 words spoken to the man, they are different to what Eve knew of. Obviously Eve wasn’t the primary recipient of the command. Adam is there but silent (his failure in responsibility – because the Word of revelation came to him). It’s a difference in knowledge in Gen 2. Eve was deceivable but it’s an epistemological problem (range of knowledge available to her).

Question: We often hear Christians complain about the feminisation of the church; that when Jesus is portrayed with feminine qualities, this drives men away. Discuss.
Answer: (KG) There is a 60/40 split of women/men in congregations. A couple of years ago, Southern Cross wondered why Sydney had the same split when it has the male complementarian position. Answer in Southern Cross – we need more manly men! One answer is we need more good looking men (joke!). Another answer is that the best parishes are when there’s a healthy male/female proportion of leadership. We should be aiming for healthy churches with good representation in leadership. BUT, I have serious reservations about the female ordination issue. We swapped problems and put women on their own, and wonder why women aren’t coping very well. Solution needs both – healthy male and female leadership. (GC) It is ironic that male Christian leaders don’t realise they are the bride of Christ! (Mimi) A Church History argument counters this – Amy Macpherson (ME: sp?) drew auditoriums full of men. History disproves this kind of statement.

Question: When a church is looking for leaders, would you say that gender is one of the first questions that is asked? The last thing from my experience is a consideration of Godliness.
Answer: (CC) I think that gender is not often even broached. Large churches don’t even think of approaching women. Women are more likely to get part-time jobs in rural positions. From a board perspective, we always understood that we didn’t have enough women who were qualified. 20 years down the track there is an organisation called ‘Women for boards’ – they have 8000 names on the list, and rarely do they get asked for names. (Funmi) Same problem in Nigeria. Except Pentecostal churches – women are even bishops. They find that the men are very easy to get along with.

Question: Egalitarians seems to presume that any difference in function must be inequality. Comment?
Answer: (Funmi) It’s like saying different and deficient. When you say that equality is not the same thing as function, then you rob equality of it’s very essence. It eviscerates the word of equality, which is actually access and outcomes. That’s what we are always told in Nigeria. (KG) The great problem is that our friends have a new language. Differing roles is normal (eg., mowing the lawns). It’s normal we’re told. Then you unpack it. Check a dictionary. Roles can change. Using this word which obfuscates things, roles are allocated by chromosomes and birth. But really, there’s only one issue – who rules and who obeys. Women by birth are given the role of being subservient. Men are given the role of headship. Women can never assume the role of headship. In a dictionary, roles can change. In this other use, roles can never change. It’s not a role, it’s a relationship in this definition. No answer is every given (by complementarians) when pushed. When you say that roles can never change, then you make it binding. (CC) Clearly when you get out of the western context we see difference in function clearly. I saw on TV a shot in Afghanistan where there was a scene of men whipping a women for refusing to marry. When you talk about obeying and submitting, that’s the rub. (KG) Egalitarians are accused of using third world examples to muddy the issue. But, subordination has massive consequences at home, workplaces etc – not to mention the third world. Is it really enriching people’s lives? Having function becoming inherent in women has a consequence of inferiority. (Funmi) Same in Nigeria. What about when men want to choose a woman’s role?

Question: Most complementarians have a consistent theology, based around gender roles in the garden.  Discuss.
Answer: (GC) Complementarians are more variegated than the question may suggest. Is Gen. 1-3 talking about relatedness, or order, or being? Complementarians aren’t all on the same page with the given question. Hence the debate about Sarah Palin – would it be appropriate for a Christian to vote for her? (KG) Yes (in agreement with GC), there are huge diversities. The back of Grudem’s book shows this. The other thing is that there has just been so much 3^rd rate quality material written about it. At a scholarly level, the complementarians have a consistent case – creation ideal carefully enunciated. Egalitarians have been slower off the mark. CBE enunciates a position which is getting even more refined (Fee, Giles, Payne). It’s an irrefutable theological position. It’s a way of reading the bible from beginning to end. Not just reading one verse over the whole position. (Funmi) In Africa, we tend not to get bogged down in the text. The verse “the letter killeth, but the Spirit gives live” helped me. I heard the Lord tell me to come away from the pulpit and consider the issue. I prayed and asked the Lord to tell me and show me. And he showed me the Egalitarian position. I don’t think it’s so much as to whether we can arrive at a strong position, but just ask the Lord to show me.

Question: In engaging in debate with Complementarians – is it best to pursue Jesus, or Paul, or the Trinity?
Answer: (CC) You need to recognise that at Pentecost the church is formed. Thus, all of the above. There’s been a strong emphasis on Paul, but we’ve lost touch with Jesus’ response to women. WWJD. (GC) I think it depends on the person I’m speaking to, as to where I start. Ultimately, it’s a question of theological exegesis. That would take some time to do. There are rival narratives at this point. I don’t deal with abstractions such as complementarian/egalitarian “lines” but deal with theology and exegesis. (Funmi) I think everything hinges on Jesus. He’s the one who made creation and holds creation. Any interpretation which differs from Jesus is wrong.

Question: Why are there so many complementarian women?
Answer: (KG) One of the absolute fundamentals of human existence is that the ruling class can get the dis-empowered to imbibe their ideology. Aristocracy: England, apartheid, the caste system. It’s taught like this: “In the sermon this morning, as we do once a month, we look at 1 Tim. 2. Now I want you to go home and look closely at this text, then I want to you listen to God. Now, it’s not my interpretation, but God’s the authority.” It’s internalised. How can you get people to break out and think for themselves. How can you get women to stand up? My evangelical friends won’t speak to me – they’ll think I’m trying to overthrow God’s order. You have to learn and stand up for yourselves. We overthrew apartheid, we need to overthrow this. I think that’s the answer. (GC) Hmmm, that may be part of the answer. I speak to women who don’t know Greek and Hebrew, and can’t engage. I’ve been at dinner parties when one group is dealing with texts, the other group is dealing sociologically. That will cut not ice when it comes to the way forward. What I think is really important to realise, is that we often replace the Pope with the great Bible teachers. Stott, Piper, Carson, Driscoll can be like this. Having said that though, there are other texts in Scripture, which are quite troubling for the evangelical: 1 Peter 3 tells me that Baptism saves me. James 2 tells me that we’re not justified by faith alone. 1 Tim. 2 tells me that women cannot teach. They constitute the same methodological challenge. (KG) Graham, we don’t disagree at all on this issue. Everyone’s genuine. People come to believe these things. The question was ‘how was it internalised’ so I was explaining the sociological issues.

Question: Graham, regarding first order and second order issues. How do we engage with this?
Answer: (GC) We are big on making statements. Jesus was big on asking questions. Paul asks questions. Like, how important is this to you, as a Christian? Is it a Gospel matter? Ie., is the Gospel “Jesus died for my sins, and made women equal in this particular way”. Isn’t that what the Galatians were doing? Adding to the Gospel? Let’s see if we can have the right hand of fellowship with respect to this issue. In saying that however, second order doesn’t mean insignificant. Some second order issues have first order implications. It might underline or undermine the Gospel.

Abstract

Evidence within the Pastoral Epistles suggests that the heresy afflicting the Ephesian church was embraced exclusively by women, and by all the women at Ephesus. This makes sense of several aspects of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, such as the relationship of verse 8 to the restof the passage, and why men and women are addressed separately in this section. When verses 13 and 14 are taken as a single point, namely that deception arises from a failure to listen to God’s word, they function to support Paul’s demand in verse 12 rather than support an [sic] general principle about the nature of women. The submission demanded in verse 11 is to the teaching of the church, while the authority on view in verse 12 carries the nuance of assertiveness or domination and is not concerned with gender-based hierarchy. Thus, the text does not provide a general injunction against women teaching or having authority, but addresses a particular situation whereby the Ephesian women embraced the heresy causing gender-based division. Paul’s solution is that the men stop quarrelling with the women, while the women are to be silent, stop asserting themselves and listen to the teaching of the church.

Conclusion

Despite the apparent simplicity of the command that a woman is not to teach, its meaning and force can only be understood within the entire passage, and the following two verses in particular. Any interpretation requires a certain amount of reconstruction and inference, and our interpretation is no exception. While it cannot be certain that the heresy has taken root along gender lines, we have provided a reconstruction that draws its inferences from within the text, and which takes account of the details of the passage.

The argument of the passage is that the problem of false teaching will not be resolved by a slanging match across the congregation. Rather, if the men stop quarrelling with the women, and the women lose their arrogant demeanour, are silent and submit to the authority of the authorised teacher(s), they will learn and be corrected. Just as the men are to desist from quarrelling with the women, a woman is not to teach or usurp authority in the congregational gatherings. Eve is a salutory lesson since she, having been created after Adam, did not hear God’s command, and so was deceived and sinned. However, they will be saved from the consequences of their sinfulness by appropriate behaviour and humility.

There is nothing in these verses to suggest a transoccasional application of the command to women not to teach or to be silent. Nor is there any requirement that the women at Ephesus or anywhere else submit to men, rather they must submit to the teaching of the church. The universal principle is that failure to listen to the word of God renders a person more open to the deceits perpetuated by false teachers. All of us must always submit to the word of God, or else we are susceptible to false teachers and are in danger of falling away.

Introduction

1. Jesus and Paul complement each other – no conflict
2. Jesus was a man of his age. He was not a contemporary feminist
3. Some Jewish men had negative views on women, some did not.
4. Jesus subtly subverted the Jewish norms of his day rather than attacking them.
5. Jesus said not one specific word on how the church was to be organised.

Jesus as an agent for change

• Jesus subverted hierarchy among his disciples
• Jesus subverted family prioritisation
• Jesus subverted the Jewish purity laws
• Jesus subverted the Jewish androcentric understanding of marriage
• Jesus subverted prevailing social norms on male-female social interaction.
• Jesus subverted circumcision
• Jesus subverted the idea that women could not be factual witnesses.

Twelve male apostles. Do they imply male ‘headship’?

The evangelists

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

Conclusion

Introductory hermeneutical issues:

• Paul has no clear prescriptive statements about gifts and gender in ministry.
• Paul’a answers are as per the particular New Testament problems.
• We seem to want to (and to an extent have to) pick and choose between statements.
• Post-NT history strongly influences us.

Five main points:

1. Is there a stipulated form of ministry in the Bible?
2. How does Paul approach ministry in the New Testament?
3. What does Paul allow?
4. What are the implications?

Stipulated Form of Ministry?

Old Testament: Sinai, priestly code where men hold the positions of high priest, priest, and Levitical order.

New Testament: No clear restrictions. There is a discontinuition as to who are the people of God. Under the Old covenant it is an ethnic distinction, under the New covenant it a Spirit-filled distinction since Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the marker of the people of God. No clear structure of Government. There seems to be a synagogue structure (James 2:2, Hebrews 13:17), and a household structure (Pauline). No clear leadership roles and responsibilities. There is no such thing as “office” 1 Timothy 3:1 is the only place in the New Testament for somelike like an “office”. Adolf von Harnack sees the term elder as older demarcating an age distinction of leadership. John Knox went not with “office” but with function. Hans Küng went against office also. The New Testament emphasis is on attitude. Offices do not exist. F.F. Bruce’s commentary on 1 Thess. 5:12 emphasises that ordination is to affirm those who are leaders already – not to ‘fill’ gaps.

How Does Paul Approach Ministry?

Holy Spirit driven. Romans 12:3-8 – Diversity of functions, diversity of gifts. 1 Cor. 12:4-11 – Hans Küng went against office, but emphasised gifts. Ephesians 4:11-12 – People are in view, not offices. Leadership is gift-based. Leadership is plural.

Are these ministries restricted according to gender?

Paul doesn’t simply say all women can do everything. Nor does he say this about men. Gal. 3:27-29 is a celebrated text here. New realities are created: no more discimination between Jews and Gentiles, slaves are emancipated, and women are affected similarly in the church. 1 Cor. 11:4-5 – Men & women were prophesying. This passage has to do with “how” it was taking place. Prophecy includes all forms of verbal ministry (cf., Acts 2). 1 Cor. 14:26-40 – (CC gives four different options too quickly for me to take down accurately. It is passed through quickly). 1 Tim. 2 – Context is about proper conduct against false teaching. There is no such thing as a teaching office.

What does this allow in practise?

Romans 16:1-16 – Junia, a woman apostle. Phoebe, a deacon and ‘prostasis’. Priscilla, a fellow-worker of Paul’s. Nympha, cf. Col 4:15.

Implications

Gift-based ministries are missional, whereas office-based ministries are institutional. Gift-based ministries are prophetic, office-based ministries are priestly. Gift-based ministries are organise, office-based ministries are structured. We need giftedness to be the criteria, not gender.

Genesis 1-3 is the most important text in the whole Bible for understanding men’s and women’s roles. Another way to go, is to start at 1 Tim. 2 and then read that back into everything. In some circles, 1 Timothy 2 is used as the hermeneutical key to understand the Bible. Thus, we need to read Genesis 1-3 in its historical context. Most evangelical commentators and the Roman Catholic church read Genesis this (egalitarian) way – we should also.

Four things to note about Genesis 1:26-28:

1. One species – male and female made in the image and likeness of God. Same dignity, value and worth.
2. Image implies dominion.
3. The cultural mandate is a joint statement here. Both male and female are to be fruitful and multiply.
4. Equality is the ideal.  Some subpoints:

• Egalitarians don’t deny difference.
• No-one is arguing for same-ness in biological structure. All complementarian books claim that Egalitarians deny difference within gender (Giles was in a meeting with complementarians once where he said let’s get undressed and I’ll prove you wrong!).
• Social equality is hard to put into practise.
• Scholarly commentators who hold to complementarian readings of Genesis 1-3 are like Climate skeptics! They are far against the tide of research.

Genesis 2:

Chapter two is harmonious with chapter 1. It’s not a correction to it. Adam is the archetypal person – incomplete without the woman.

Philip Payne, in his book (Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters) notes 7 incorrect interpretations of Genesis. Here are the 4 most common:

1. The animal naming is by the man, thus women are subordinate. But chapter one says that man and woman have dominion. Naming doesn’t define dominion.
2. Woman was created second, thus subordinate. But the order of creation of generic things doesn’t imply subordination (ie., man was created after the animals). Admittedly, what that means in Timothy is that there is disorder in the church.
3. The ‘helper’ term proves subordination. But when you help sometimes, it doesn’t mean subordination. KG gives lots of examples. Woman is his partner – not inferior, nor superior.
4. Women are more prone to error. This is taking a presupposition to the text. Ie., why not argue that the devil thought: ‘if I can trick the woman, the man will be a pushover’?

Genesis 3:

Adam blamed eve, Eve blamed the snake, and the snake didn’t have a leg to stand on!

Correct interpretation of this passage is that subordination is the consequence of sin. If this presupposition is true, then Christ’s dealing with the consequences of sin brings a reversal of subordination.

Concluding thoughts:

What about roles without subordination? Complementarians introduce the word “role” to obfuscate the subordination. They tell us that it is a reversal of ordered roles. It is not.

Texts that Perplex (The Hermeneutical Challenge). Our concern is a difference between rank or class (the Tiered Trinity). Outline of the Athanasian Creed (co-eternal and co-equal Persons). Different understandings of John 14:28 (Hilary vs. Creed of Sirmium, D.B. Knox, John Piper, etc). Cole respects complementarians who are consistent in their positions – even if he finally disagrees with them. Other key texts which will be discussed in this lecture are: 1 Cor. 3:21-23, 1 Cor. 11:3, 1 Cor. 15:20-28.

The Arian Solution. Historical overview of Arianism (4^th AD). Arius invoked the ‘Twitter’ of his day – used drinking songs to communicate his ideas! But on this view (the subordination of the Son of God) you lose a real Trinity.

The Eternal Subordination Solution. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem hold this position. Notes that Ware is bolder than Grudem in holding this position. Ware ranks the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd). Ware holds to three wills in God and that authority, honour, and majesty are ranked also. Grudem doesn’t go as far – he doesn’t see the subordination reaching into society generally. GC notes that these authors are not Arians, but they see a hierarchy within the Trinity.

The Economic Subordination Solution. Whilst Charles Hodge (Old Princeton) held to Eternal Subordination, his commentaries on 1 Corthinthians teach an economic subordination. His Eternal Subordination is determined on other grounds. Millard Erickson wrote Who’s Tampering with the Trinity: An assessment of the Subordination debate. He asks – how how do you go about deciding on the issue when Godly Christians come up with different solutions? He concludes – these texts are not ontological statements, but economic (Messianic son).

Addressing the Challenging Texts. In Augustine’s De Trinitae, he tried to work out this economic subordination. Eg., John 11:35 – how does the Word weep in light of his Incarnation as divine and human? 1 Cor. 11:3 – as per Ambrosiastor and Didymus the Blind and others, GC interprets Incarnate actions as economically obedient acts. 1 Cor 15:20-28 – Regnum Christi becomes Regnum Dei at the eschaton. Communicatio Idiomatum is the key. What does it mean in Acts 20, when Luke speaks of the church purchased by the blood of God? Calvin and Hodge see this as language of accommodation because they refuse to read ‘upwards’ into the ontological Trinity (ME: my words in this last sentence).

Time for a Moratorium. Graham Cole calls for a Moratorium on doctrines detailing the inner life of the Trinity. McGrath echoes this, as does Gerald Bray. Also, Mike Bird has an article in the Trinity Journal which specifically calls for this Moratorium! Graham Cole notes that the Complementarian position is highly variegated. Soft Complementarians (Blomberg, Stott) allow for women to preach, but not be the ultimate (though, under Christ) head of a church. Harder complementarians are similar to those of his Brethren background. Graham Cole notes that one motivation for the moratorium on descriptions on the inner life of the Trinity is that the NT speaks a great deal about the imitation of Christ as the motivation (1 Cor. 11:1, 1 Peter 2:21, 1 John 2:5-6). Philippians 2 is a great point at hand.

To hold to an Eternal Subordination position is speculative, with little Scriptural support. It embraces some sort of principle from outside, not inside. Rahner’s rule does this. Barth had something like it. It fails in light of the Scriptural testimony. Eg., in Luke-Acts, the temporal changes in Spirit-Christology would lead to a eternal change in the authority-submission relation of Father-Son essentially. In other words, does Rahner’s rule allow for the Pneumatalogical change in the Incarnate Christ?

Graham’s main fear is that strong complementarians may just keep going in this direction and lose the integrity of the Trinity in the next generation.

The Great God. Starting with the doctrine of God, and more particularly, with the Trinitarian fact that the triune God acts in togetherness (Opus Dei Ad Extra), Graham proceeded to link our redeemed human activity to this triune togetherness.

The Great Ideal. The image of God is male and female (Gen. 1), and relationality one of the the ways we image God. Gen. 1 shows the cultural mandate is in togetherness Graham made reference to Gen. 2, but I didn’t quite catch his point (I’ll ask him to clarify tomorrow). The Genesis picture contrasts with the ancient world’s view of men and women (Eg., Plato, Aristotle).

The Great Rupture. Things aren’t the way we’re supposed to be (Plantinga). Defection from God brings relational havoc (Gen. 3:16). This is our theological context – a groaning creation (Romans in the last days (Heb.1 ).

The Great Repair. God has a project, and Gal. 3:28 is a classic statement about it (note: in Q&A time Graham clarified this point by stating that it is primarily about salvation, not gender relationships). The repair has togetherness as a characteristic One another language used positively 30 times in the NT, used negatives 7 times (references given by GC). The story of the Bible is not just Ruin → Redemption → Regeneration, but also Restoration!

The Great Challenge. What is the scandal we proclaim? Let’s make sure it’s the right scandal. Are men and women better together in a restricted or unrestricted way? Are we reflecting a broken world or the new creation? How can we be salt and light, the city of a hill, to the world if we cannot be a showcase of better together? Does the world see the new creation, or a broken creation? There is a scandal at the heart of the Christian gospel that can bring us into cultural disrepute. My (GC) hope is only that it is the right one, not the wrong one.