Paul Yanosy, Responding to Ligon Duncan on Egalitarianism

Background to this post:
On their blog Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler advance the position that an egalitarian (as opposed to complementarian) view of women in leadership in the church is not merely an area where orthodox believers of good will can reasonably disagree, but rather the egalitarian view “is effectively an undermining of -- a breach in -- the authority of Scripture.”  A discussion on CGO over Mark Dever’s post appears here.  Ligon Duncan then lent his support to Mark Dever’s position, based on four main arguments.  Al Mohler soon followed, affirming the observations and conclusions.  CJ Mahaney’s post has now moved on to “application.”   
------------

Recognizing I am far out of my league in terms of theological education or pastoral experience, I want to try and untangle and then understand the arguments these men have  advanced. I hold each of these men in high regard; yet I am uneasy with their heart-felt conviction on this issue -- not the conviction that the complimentarian view is correct, but that anything else amounts to a rejection of the authority of Scripture. 

 I am uneasy because, as we remain in conversation with the world our God desires to redeem, we live in the middle -- called to bear the Good News, but also needing it ourselves. Therefore sometimes our sincere convictions are spot on and backed by the broad testimony of Scripture (Jesus is the Messiah), and other times they are a product of our historical locatedness, blind spots or sin (solar system theory as in conflict with Scripture; slavery / racial superiority as part of God’s ordering).  It is only through conversation, testing and the continual refinement of God’s Word on us by his Spirit that we discern which is which. To cut off this conversation --especially between those who share many of the same convictions regarding the authority of Scripture -- is a step not to be taken lightly. 

For such an important step, it is unsettling to me is that it is so motivated by observations about culture and trends among younger theologians  -- observations that may be true of those the authors know but that may not be accurate of the wider culture.  These are (as Mohler describes), that (1) “younger, seriously-minded-pastors” are comfortable staking “counter-cultural” positions and that (2) “they have heard and read all the (aging) arguments on behalf of egalitarianism, and they grow frustrated with what they (correctly) see as a pattern of exegetical and theological corner-cutting.  They are convinced that complementarianism is the winning argument.”  Without delving into numerous weaknesses here, it requires a tremendous leap to go from observing a subset of the younger generation has adopted one’s position with conviction to claiming there is no longer need for dialogue.

I need to say at the outset that I am still in flux on where I come down on the underlying issue, and I believe there are persuasive arguments on both sides.  However the arguments advanced by Mohler, Dever and Duncan fall far short of establishing their conclusion that conversation must end and the very authority of Scripture is at stake.  Aside from the above observation, Ligon Duncan’s argument -- the topic of this post -- makes four points, each of which I will try to address briefly. 

First, Duncan argues that “[t]he denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of scripture” based on the “gymnastics” necessary to permit women to teach or exercise authority in the church in view of Paul’s explicit statement in 1 Timothy to the contrary.  Essentially, the passage is so obvious that only “gymnastics” can get around its forceful application, and if we can use gymnastics to get around this straightforward teaching, we can use gymnastics to get around other much less clear teachings of scripture too, leaving it without authority. 

 The chief flaw in this argument is that it assumes the conclusion (Paul is obviously saying ‘x’) and then questions the motives and integrity of the critics (whose interpretive efforts are merely “gymnastics”). The critique may have been fair of a prior generation, using questionable hermeneutics to get around the passage (e.g., “Paul was just wrong, and we now know better”).  But many contemporary orthodox scholars have brought to bear the same interpretive skills used to understand other texts to the handful of passages in Paul, and have come to different conclusions. 

 This is entirely fair -- yes, sometimes we want to dodge the teaching of a hard passage, but sometimes our “obvious” understanding of a passage is taken out of context and just not what the author was getting to at all.  Indeed, the question of whether this passage really is so obvious is invited by Scripture itself (e.g., how do we reconcile this with Paul’s plain statement that Phoebe was a “diakonos” in Romans 16?)  There are ways to work through this tension -- on both the complementarian and egalitarian side -- while keeping faith with the text.  The chief question is what the passage means -- what did Paul intend to communicate here -- and to understand that takes work.

Duncan then notes in passing that there are not many who disagree with this position (complementarianism) and also believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.  In short, this statement simply is not true.  J.I. Packer, John Stott, Gordon Fee, many of the faculty of Gordon-Conwell, and many others have staked out various positions which -- especially on the issue of women in leadership in church -- at least create space for (if not endorsing) an egalitarian view.  (The response is, “these do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture” -- but then you are left with a very small group and the argument becomes much smaller and less persuasive). 

Second, Duncan argues the clarity of Scripture is undermined by egalitarian arguments, because “if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible.”  This slippery slope argument again dismisses out of hand the interpretations of orthodox Bible scholars who -- applying the same interpretive techniques complementarians use themselves to understand other passages -- happen to disagree with Duncan on this issue.  Further, it elevates clarity above intended meaning.  As noted, a passage can appear clear on its face, and that interpretation can be clearly wrong because we are reading it through our ignorance, biases, assumptions and cultural locatedness.  Indeed, in the same passage Paul writes, “She will be saved by childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Ti 2:15). The clear meaning appears that women, to be saved, must have children. My hunch is that Duncan would say that here – in the very next verse -- we must let Scripture interpret Scripture (the same “gymnastics” he has just condemned in others for evading the clear meaning).

One further example. James 2:24: “a person is justified by works and not faith alone.” The plain meaning of this passage seems troublesome to a position of justification by grace alone through faith alone, not by works. To “evade” such a reading, are “gymnastics” (interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture) permissible? Of course. But then, how can Duncan condemn as undermining the authority of Scripture egalitarians for using the same hermeneutical methods he engages in himself (perhaps unaware) (e.g., egalitarians reading 1 Timothy 2:12-14 in light of Galatians 3:28, etc.). Does this mean if you can get women saved by something other than having children, you can get anything from the Bible?

Third, Duncan posits the egalitarian position is rooted in the Enlightenment, not the Bible, and is also a position that parallels those advocated by paganism.  This deconstructs the “true motives” of those who disagree with Duncan (motives other than understanding what Paul is actually saying here).  It is plausible, but it is also a dangerous weapon that, once unsheathed, can equally be turned on the user (e.g., complementarianism is rooted in a foreign strand of patriarchial and prejudiced thought mapped onto the Bible that undermines the actual meaning of the text and, as such, has done great harm).  This also invites guilt by association (do you know who else supports egalitarianism?  pagans!)  -- which could again be turned as well (do you know who else supports complementarianism?  Men who beat their wives!)  This is an entirely unfair critique of either position.  Indeed, Christians share a concern for the environment with pagans, a concern for justice with Muslims and a desire for joy with hedonists.  It is not surprising that some overlap of positions may exist.

Finally, Duncan asserts that egalitarianism denies the biblical distinctions of maleness and femaleness, and when this is denied Christian discipleship is seriously damaged.  This is, simply put, not what this conversation has been about. Gender distinctions in the Bible do not stand or fall on what Paul meant in 1 Timothy regarding women in leadership in the church, any more than they are obliterated by what Paul wrote in Galatians (neither “male nor female”).  Such a description of the egalitarian position on the issue of women in leadership in the church is an unfair mischaracterization.  1 Timothy -- under any understanding -- must still be read in view of the full counsel of Scripture.

At bottom, while Duncan may (or may not) be correct on complementarianism, I do not believe his arguments advance the position that the authority of Scripture is at stake here with much success.  I believe the conversation can -- and must -- continue. This is especially so in view of our command to charity and to humility in Christ. 

© 2006, Paul Yanosy.

Comments

[J-ho]

Paul,
Thanks for your post. It seemed humble and generous. I'm in full support of your questions about how an egalitarian stance undermines the authority of scripture. I just don't get their position. Now you got me all worked up and I'll have to read their posts over and over again.
J

[Jeff Price]

Forgive my ignorance here, but could you point out specifically which "orthodox Bible scholars" you are referring to and perhaps which bodies of work they revealed these positions?

"This slippery slope argument again dismisses out of hand the interpretations of orthodox Bible scholars..."

As a complementarian I struggle to understand the scriptural basis for the egalitarian position and would appreciate any illumination these "orthodox Bible scholars" could provide. An interesting topic indeed!

[Paul]

Jeff,
No worries on your ignorance, and I hope you will forgive mine too. I am certainly not an expert on the underlying dispute (and do not want to hold myself out to be). As I said, I am in flux on the underlying issue and I think there are compelling arguments on both sides. Widely respected orthodox Biblical scholars who have publicly differed from the complementarian reading of 1 Timothy include John Stott (commentary on 1 Timothy (IVP)), Roger Nicole (RTS-Orlando), F.F. Bruce, Cornelius Plantiga, Gordon Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary)), Catherine Clark Kroeger (Gordon-Conwell), John Stackhouse, Timothy George, John Armstrong, as well as N.T. Wright. Others may have recommended reading (on both sides of the underlying issue). On the complementarian side, I know D.A. Carson, John Piper and Wayne Grudem have written persuasively. On the egalitarian side, a few books I have had recommended to me as scholarly and orthodox are: Linda Belleville, "Women Leaders and the Church: 3 Crucial Questions", Craig S. Keener "Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul" and Pierce et al., eds. "Discoverying Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy". I hope this is helpful. It is definitely an interesting topic, one I think that can be handled in a way that makes us all proud.
Best,
Paul

[Davy]

I recognize this is a late post to an older column, but having just recently read it; I still wanted to comment.

"My hunch is that Duncan would say that here – in the very next verse -- we must let Scripture interpret Scripture (the same “gymnastics” he has just condemned in others for evading the clear meaning)."

How is it the same "gymnastics" when the next verse (I Tim. 2:13) only strengthens the previous verse? Complentarianism seems not to be culturally conditioned if it was a pre-fall design.

Scripture does interpret scripture. It seems that Paul is speaking much more specifically and definitively in Timothy (and in reference to the rest of Scripture mentioning Adam and Eve) instead of a casual reference to Phoebe as a deaconess in a narrative.

Just a few questions and thoughts...

[Glenn]

Davy,
I can't speak for Paul and I hope he will reply as well.

I did see an earlier draft of Paul's article, and I dimly recall that there was a mention of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 as passage. I suspect when that reference, along with many other phrases and sentences, received the delete key, it escaped notice to change the phrase, "the very next verse."

Does that make sense? I think it was probably an editing mistake.

His point, I believe, is that Duncan probably does not take 1 Tim 2:15 at face value. He and Dever remark that "I do not permit a woman to teach" has no analogue in the debate over baptism. Paul Yanosy is saying, I think, "Here is another stark statement, right after the verses about women not teaching, but you don't take THIS one literally. Why one and not the other?"

Perhaps you'll agree that we have to be careful about freighting too much upon prima facie readings. Personally, I give prima facie readings great due in interpreting Scripture, but the prima facie reading itself is not Scripture. Giving it great due is not the same as accepting it as the final word in each instance of reading Scripture.

Davy, may I ask you two direct questions?
1. How do you interpret "she will be saved by childbearing..."?

2. How do you interpet James 2:24, "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone"?

I will pay close attention to your method of handling these texts, looking to see if the method you employ can be used in making sense of the 1 Tim 2:11-14 passage.

[Paul]

Davy,
Those are good questions. Glenn is right -- the "very next verse" reference was a loose end from a previous edit that should have been caught. My mistake. It is in 1 Timothy 2:15 that Paul writes "But women will be saved through childbearing -- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (NIV) The point I was trying to make was that Duncan also interprets Scripture in view of Scripture, using as an example a verse that follows closely on those that are the crux of the discussion. If the clear meaning is his touchstone, then he must apply this consistently to the following verses as well -- where the clear meaning appears that women must have children to be saved. The moment he says "that cannot be what Paul means here because we know from Paul and the broader witness of Scripture that salvation is by grace through faith, thus Paul must be saying something else here" he is engaging in the same "gymnastics" he condemns in others. Those who hold a more egalitarian interpretation (Stott, Fee, et al.) are Biblical scholars of the first rate as well, and they look at 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in view of Paul (e.g., Galatians 3:28) and the practice of the early church (e.g., Acts 18:26 shows Priscilla (listed before her husband Aquilla) teaching Apollos -- and they were close associates of Paul), and ask the question of whether we are really understanding what Paul is getting at here in 1 Timothy -- because our "clear meaning" interpretation seems to run against the current of Scripture. They might even point to the casualness with which Paul references Phoebe as evidence that we might not be understanding what Paul was really getting at in 1 Timothy -- it would seem if here was an exception to his general rule, he might explain why... unless there was no such general rule, and he is getting at something else in 1 Timothy. It is always fair to ask the question of what Paul meant and what his audience would have heard. I am not saying Duncan needs to agree with the egalitarian interpetation - but to say they interpret in bad faith and thereby undermine the authority of Scripture -- that the question itself is impermissible--is just not credible.

As to your other point -- that complementarianism is not culturally conditioned if it is pre-fall design -- this also turns on interpretation. First, was it pre-fall design? Does Genesis pre-fall teach complementarianism, or have we just read it through that lense (through the lense of our arguably erroneous understanding of 1 Timothy) for so long that we do not even notice it is a lense (think the view of grace before Luther, or the push of the anabaptist movement for "believer baptism", or whether Genesis 1 teaches literal six day creation)? (e.g., the same word for "helper" in the creation passage is used of God as our "helper" throughout the OT -- implying it is not an inferior position.) It's a fair question. The answer may be "no lense, this is what it says" -- but the question is not out of bounds, and to answer the question takes work. Second, even if it was pre-fall design (which is an open question between the camps) does the Gospel (e.g., Galatians 3:28 neither "male nor female" in Christ) trump this? Third, what do we even mean by "complementarian" and "egalitarian"? If one holds the day over the other with respect to 1 Timothy, what follows?

I know I am raising more questions than giving answers -- in short, I don't know which is a more correct interpretation of the underlying texts (this is certainly not so for all texts, but I think it is here). I would point you to some of the books and authors mentioned earlier in this chain who are more engaged on this if you want to dig deeper. But I believe Duncan et al.'s position -- that any variance from a complementarian position breaches the authority of Scripture -- is untenable. This strikes me as an issue much closer to disagreements over baptism than the authors care to allow.

Is that helpful?
Thanks,
Paul