Andrew Bartlett

Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts
London: InterVarsity Press, 2019.
Available at IVP and Koorong

By Laura Thierry

There are few topics likely to garner as much angst within staff teams, seminaries, and student groups as the “women in ministry” debate. For more than two decades this complex and important discussion has caused a significant deal, not only of careful textual reading, but also of pain and division. In the midst of the slew of books that have been written on this topic, Andrew Bartlett’s book, Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts brings several beneficial elements to the table.

Firstly, Bartlett writes, not firstly as a theologian (although he does have a degree in theology and is remarkably well read), but as a lawyer. Bringing his judicial skills to bear upon the key exegetical questions at play, he attempts to come to the debate without bias—as a neutral player. The result is a well-reasoned, thoroughly researched, carefully stated work. Bartlett’s dispassionate tone, careful logic, and judicial fairness clears up some of the debris that inevitably surrounds this topic.

Secondly, Bartlett’s work is saturated with a deep love for and passionate commitment to the Word of God. As he states, “The Bible is our anchor. If we set ourselves adrift from it, we are severing our connection with God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.” (xxii).

Thirdly, his overall goal in writing is to promote unity within the church. This book is written from a firm conviction on the importance of unity for the life and witness of the church (xxi). As he writes in his dedication, he is truly honouring of those on all sides of the debate, and treats their work with the dignity and respect worthy of image-bearers

Without in any way seeking to diminish the excellence of this unique piece of scholarship, it is perhaps worth noting two small elements of the work that strike one as less satisfying than they might have been. Firstly, the claim to evaluating and adjudicating between a debate without bias, while admirable, also seems questionable, especially given the topic under investigation. There is perhaps no other discussion so personal, delicate, and infused with often unintentional bias as gender relations. Surely, especially in our current thought climate, attempting to see anything utterly without some measure of bias is like trying to speak with absolutely no accent—that is, a thorough impossibility. This, I think, comes about most clearly with reference to his use of church history. Which leads to my second point, namely, that the claim that all of Christian history up until very recently, has been patriarchal, and that “male superiority and female inferiority were understood to be grounded in nature as created by God, or else in nature after the fall” (10) is simply not the whole story. Bartlett may be said to write without bias with respect to the complementarian and egalitarian positions, but I am not convinced that he can easily be cleared of a perhaps more insidious form of bias, namely historical bias, or “chronological snobbery” as C. S. Lewis would call it.

Early in the book, Bartlett (quite justly) wishes to remove from complementarians the “trump card” of claiming for themselves the historical position. He does this by making a case for Christianity’s understanding of women as essentially misogynistic until remarkably recently, thus showing that both the complementarian and egalitarian positions (in their appeal to the absolute equality of worth for both men and women) are innovative. In a sense, this evens the playing field. In another it provides a very rocky foundation for moving forward, for it (I think unintentionally) perpetuates the myth that the Church’s gender debate is a binary polarity, with only two possible “right” answers, and that the majority of Christendom (up until the feminist movement of the 20^th century and the employment of the historical-critical method of exegesis) got it wrong. It is a sad a sobering thing that he can call up such a ferocious list of quotes that would seem to suggest that misogyny has been the default of the church throughout the centuries, and yet, the reality is that this claim is simply not the case. From Gregory of Nyssa’s honouring of his sister Macrina as “the teacher”, to the extraordinary teaching ministries exercised by women such as Hildegard of Bingen or Catherine of Siena (not, of course, even to mention the extremely high esteem with which the church has viewed Mary the mother of Jesus) tell a very different story. Thus, while I am deeply grateful for Bartlett’s work in so carefully summarizing and adjudicating between the two current and deeply influential positions, I am hesitant about the value of doing so in such a way that (again, I think unintentionally) strikes from the conversation the lives and perspectives of countless women and men throughout the ages who have sought to interpret and live under the authority of Scripture with respect to gender issues, and have done so in ways that are not misogynistic, and yet nor do they fit the standard complementarian nor egalitarian model. While it is important to recognize the recent historical nature of how the debate currently functions, doing so should lead us not only to look at the biblical texts, but also to lean into the insights of how the church throughout the ages sought to understand and live faithfully into the witness of Scripture in these matters. A claim to an unbiased assessment that sets only two perspectives against each other, leaving the reader with the understanding that all perspectives that came before these two were misogynistic, does not bode well for producing the “fresh light” that Bartlett’s work desires.

And yet, these two caveats aside, the reality remains that, as a fair reading of the current classic complementarian and egalitarian positions, logically, lucidly and fair-mindedly read, this work is a superb read. The desire for unity and deep love for God’s word upon which it is built shine through clearly, edifying the reader and encouraging faithfulness and fairness in how we continue to treat one another in these discussions.

Laura Thierry a PhD candidate at Ridley College, researching medieval hagiography, Christology, and theology of the body.

Amanda W. Benckhuysen 

The Gospel According to Eve: A History of Women’s Interpretation
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019.
Available at IVP and Koorong

By Laura Thierry

Amanda W. Benchkhuysen’s, The Gospel According to Eve: A History of Women’s Interpretation is a timely and significant work. The book traces the way women interpreters from the fifteenth-century to the present day have read and applied the narrative of Genesis 1-3, centring on how the character of Eve has been understood.

Benckhuysen begins by setting the scene, tracing the “traditional” reading of Eve within patristic and medieval thought. While certainly not true of all theologians, the general trend as Benckhuysen traces it, has been towards viewing Eve in almost an exclusively negative light, and as the primary one responsible for the entrance of sin into the world. Now, as the women interpreters of following generations consistently (and seemingly intrinsically) knew, to depict Eve in this way was to necessarily denigrate women per se, and to do this had implications upon ever so many spheres of life. Against this backdrop Benckhuysen narrates a deeply fascinating counter-narrative—of women deeply wrestling with the text of Scripture, and seeking to tell a truer story, beginning with the very ground so often used against them, namely, Genesis 1-3.

The following chapters go on to tell the story of how a veritable army of intelligent and faithful women throughout multiple centuries engaged deeply with the story of Eve: in their defence of the worth of women (ch. 2), their efforts to promote the education of women (ch. 3), to give support, value, and dignity to women’s contribution to family life (ch. 4), to empower women to preach and teach (ch. 5), to shape the character of children (ch. 6), to advocate for social reform (ch. 7), and to influence gender ideology (ch. 8).

This book makes several deeply beneficial contributions. Firstly, it does tremendous work in rebalancing how we perceive history. By drawing on lost voices throughout such a broad timeframe, it breaks the myth of a single story in which women were supposedly always viewed negatively in Christian theology, until the true message of the Bible’s view on women was rediscovered within the last few generations. Benckhuysen’s thorough research demonstrates that such a take simply has no ground. Secondly, this book opens the way to stand on the shoulders of the women who have gone before, rather than always starting from square one. As Benckhuysen writes, “because these women’s representations of Eve have been lost and ignored, female biblical interpreters have found themselves reinventing the wheel from generation to generation.” (p. 5).  Thirdly, Benckhuysen’s work breathes a fresh and lifegiving perspective on what can often be a very fraught issue. The tendency in evangelical circles sadly still too often is to pick a side (or a fight) regarding where one stands on issues regarding gender and the church. Benckhuysen’s special gift is the capacity to open up the topic by bringing voices to the table who sound neither like egalitarians nor complementarians, but who have wise perspectives to share and shake up all of us. Benckhuysen brings fresh material to bear on gender questions for our time in a way that goes well beyond our time. This work gives a new generation of Christians the opportunity to choose to think long and hard with the women who have gone before, rather than merely choosing a tribe. Overall, The Gospel according to Eve is a deeply stimulating and informative read—highly recommended for anyone wanting to think well with the communion of saints about biblical perspectives on gender questions.

Laura Thierry a PhD student at Ridley College, researching medieval hagiography, Christology, and theology of the body.

Over at 9 Marks, Jonathan Leeman has an article on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood—Or Christlikeness? arguing that “It has become a common trope to argue that the Bible calls us to Christlikeness, not biblical manhood and womanhood. This is a category error. It undermines Christlikeness by turning it into something abstract, gnostic, idealized, even inhuman. It’s also antinomian.”

Hey, I like Jonathan, he’s a leading SBC ecclesiologist, just released a book One Assembly: Rethinking Multisite and Multiservice Church Models that I need to check out, but on this topic, but on this subject I think he’s turning a few partial right into an overall big wrong.

Where Leeman is right is that Christlikeness, or as I prefer to call it, the imitation of Christ, does express itself in our particular situations, whether as a female clerk in Kenya, or a male gardener in New Zealand. That itself is not a problem as discipleship always has a context and a particularity.

However, Leeman seems to be alarmed that if Christ-imitation in any way transcends gender differences or other particularities, then “Christlikeness becomes a generalized, non-specific, colorless, genderless, and frankly inhuman ideal. To use the language of the philosophers, it melts the many into the one, like a box of crayons melting into brown gray” or else it becomes “something androgynous, gnostic, anti-physical.” And herein is the problem.

I think Leeman’s concern is that if men and women can indeed imitate Christ in any sense of parity or sameness, then it potentially undermines the “rule structures he [God] has established in church and home” and that is what he’s worried about. It sounds like Christlikeness is good but only to the point that it does not interfere with a strict application of the NT household codes and a specific vision of maleness, marriage, and authority.

But note this, in the NT exhortations to follow Jesus or to imitate Jesus, they do not make gender or role distinctions, rather, the emphasis falls on what is expected of everyone!

“For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Very truly, I tell you, servants1 are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them” (John 13:15-17).

“I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me. For this reason I sent1 you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church” (1 Cor 4:16-17).

“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1).

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us1 and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph 5:1-2).

“Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us” (Phil 3:17 ).

“And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for in spite of persecution you received the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” (1 Thess 1:6-7).

“And we want each one of you to show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope to the very end, so that you may not become sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb 6:11-12).

Furthermore,  neither Jesus nor Paul, when they make their exhortations to imitation, show any worry or allergy about breaking rules, structures, or hierarchies. They are not worried about androgyny or anarchy. They do not issue caveats that the imitation of Christ comes in pink and blue. These are examples and commands for everyone, even if their expression might be different, nonetheless, they are generic and show that certain patterns of discipleship transcend differences of age, gender, ethnicity, and ableness.

This does erase not our various sub-identities of being, say, a black, female, daughter, wife, sister, aunt, mother, doctor, basketball coach, blogger; but there are holy habits, virtues, and character traits that Christ-believers share irrespective of their biological and social distinctions. There is something of Christ in all authentic Christ-followers that is recognizable, repeatable, enduring, imitative, and transcends differences, that’s surely one of the big points about being a Christian.

In other words, it is okay for men to have female role models! It means white suburban pastors can learn something about pastoring from black inner-city pastors. Soccer momes can have commonalities in discipleship with CEO’s called “Chuck.” The particularities of our selves are relative to the sameness of our shared mission, the similarities of the human experience, and the commonalities of our sanctification.

But if you want to talk about something artificial and alien to the Christian world, I would suggest it is “biblical manhood and womanhood,” which is best described in the words of Anthony Bradley:

I know it does not represent all complementarians, but it helps to remember that some of the celebrated leaders from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood brought you those classic hits like, “Women can’t be president or police officers” and “Consider hiring a housekeeper so you can have more time to work on your marriage.” So even if you swing on the complementarian side of the fence, anything badged by “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” needs some serious discernment.

In sum, yeah, of course there is a particularity in our discipleship, but there is a way of life in Christ that transcends culture and biology, and it is precisely union with Christ and the imitation of Christ that brings us together in our differences so we can learn from each other and support each other. I like to think that such a sentiment should be agreeable to complementarians and egalitarians.

Otherwise, read Jason Hood’s awesome book on The Imitation of God and Amy Byrd’s blow-your-mind volume Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

UPDATE!

Jonathan Leeman has made a response which I’m happy to post below:

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd once appeared on the talk show Q&A where he was asked by a member of the audience why he, as a Christian, doesn’t believe what Jesus says in the Bible about marriage being a divinely sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. His reply was curt and forceful version of a reductio absurdum argument: “Well mate, if I was gonna have that view, the Bible says that slavery is a natural condition. Because St. Paul said in the New Testament, ‘Slaves be obedient to your masters.’ Therefore, we should have all fought for the confederacy in the US civil war.” Rudd deployed the Pauline household codes with their recognition of the normalcy of slavery as a way of showing that biblical mandates are culturally contingent and therefore potentially replaceable with an ethical paradigm that is better informed by contemporary sciences and still upholds the basic love command of the New Testament.

The NT household codes prescribe the order of relations between masters, wives, children, and slaves (see Col 3:18–4: 1; Eph 5:22–6: 9; 1 Tim 2:9–15; Tit 2:2–10; 1 Pet 2:13–3:7; For the post-apostolic period see Did. 4.9-11; Barn. 19.5-7; 1 Clem. 1.3-2.1; 21.3-9).

It is widely acknowledged that the NT household codes were largely borrowed from Greco-Roman cultural norms and were adopted for Christian households for the purpose of promoting familial order and social cohesion. The problem is that application of these texts to our own setting is not straight forward. Christians today do not live within a Greco-Roman environment where the household codes were formulated and esteemed. Christians generally prefer social orders that are egalitarian rather than hierarchical. Even Christian complementarians who support male headship would not espouse the patriarchal powers normally given to a household’s paterfamilias including the power of life and death over all members. Contemporary Christian expectations of the manner a child’s obedience to his or her parents are markedly different as to what they were in the Greco-Roman world. Christians today overwhelmingly abhor the idea of slavery and usually have had a reformist or abolitionist stance towards its practice. Thus it is legitimate to ask how we are to understand and appropriate the NT household codes for ourselves while recognizing the normative nature of biblical commands and the complexities of applying them in diverse contexts.

One approach for us to consider, at least as a conversation starter, is William Webb’s redemptive-movement hermeneutic.[1] Webb attempts to set up a hermeneutical method by which we can discern which biblical commands remain in force and which biblical commands do not. He does that by observing how biblical texts compare with their broader culture and how they sound within the development of the canon and then applying the developmental pattern to how Christians can now apply biblical commands in their own culture. In which case, Webb plots a way to go beyond the Bible while still following what he sees as biblically defined trajectories.[2]

In the case of the household codes, Webb argues that the theological analogies about Christ’s headship over the church as a basis for male headship over women in Eph 5:22-24 and 1 Cor 11:3 are not necessarily transcultural. That is because similar theological analogies are used to justify slavery and submission to a monarchy in other biblical texts. To prove his point further he says that no man would use God’s command for Hosea to expose Gomer to disgrace as a model for husbands disciplining their wives (see Hosea 2). Male headship may continue to be practiced for pragmatic reasons in instances where physical protection and economic dependence are the norm, but the transcultural aspect here is that husbands and wives are to love and serve each other sacrificially.[3] On the submission of children to parents, Webb believes that some dimension of hierarchy between parents and children is normative in all cultures due to the dependency of children on their parents. Cultural factors in the ancient world meant that such submission would be life-long, whereas such cultural factors do not exist in the present time, with the result that adult children should be expected to honour rather than obey their parents.[4] In the case of slavery, Webb maintains that Scripture does not present a finalized ethic in the area of slavery, but establishes a reformist approach to the institution even when it is treated as normal. Moreover, the NT remarks about slavery logically entail a trajectory for a better ethic that calls for the abolition of slavery. What is more, the idea that employee-employer relationships are an application of master-slave relationships is a misnomer; there is simply no fitting analogy for the application of slavery to our modern context. The application we should make is to follow the biblical trajectory and work to abolish modern slavery and slave-like conditions throughout the world.[5]

[1] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001).

[2] On the idea of having an ethic that is “better” than the Bible, Webb has courted much criticism. See Thomas R. Schreiner. “William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: A Review Article,” SBJT 6 (2002) 46–65; Wayne Grudem. “Review Article: Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An Analysis of William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis,” JETS 47 (2004) 299–346; Benjamin Reaoch, Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012).

[3] Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, 188-90, 213-16, 248-50.

[4] Ibid., 212.

[5] Ibid., 247-48.