So when people call themselves \u201ctraditionalists\u201d with respect to the role of women, esp in ministry, what do they mean? And, are there traditionalists today? Sarah Sumner\u2019s book, Men and Women in the Church<\/em>, chp. 3, discusses such questions with some interesting results. So when people call themselves \u201ctraditionalists\u201d with respect to the role of women, esp in ministry, what do they mean? And, are there traditionalists today? Sarah Sumner\u2019s book, Men and Women in the Church, chp. 3, discusses such questions with some interesting results.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476,425,1750],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-missional","category-women-and-ministry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nEven if both views \u2014 complementarians and egalitarians \u2014 believe in (what she calls the) primacy of Scripture, neither (in her view) acknowledges often enough the role tradition plays.
\nHere\u2019s one of her comments: \u201cWhereas complementarians wants Christians to believe that women\u2019s worth <\/em>is equal to men\u2019s, egalitarians want Christians to believe that women\u2019s rights <\/em>are equal to men\u2019s.\u201d
\nI\u2019m keen on what you think of this observation: Do you think it is a fair characterization?
\nNow her major claim: complementarians are not genuinely traditionalists because they have significantly modified that tradition. To show what traditionalists believe, Sarah sketches Tertullian (\u201cYou destroyed so easily God\u2019s image, man.\u201d) and speaks of his \u201cincalculable\u201d influence (41). Then she looks at Ambrose (\u201cmen are superior\u201d), Augustine (procreative intent; for friendship men prefer males), and Aquinas (men are shaped by reason, women by sexual appetite). Look,it is easy to find the worst comments and trot them out; this is not Sarah\u2019s style. But, she does show that these leaders said things at a fundamental level about women that have had an enduring impact on how women are perceived. Her bigger point is that these sorts of leaders represent the \u201ctradition\u201d on women in the Church.
\nHer point: these views are closer to what \u201ctraditionalist\u201d means, and no one today \u2014 not complementarians \u2014 are genuine traditionalists.
\nQuestion: does this indicate that the difference between the two views \u2014 complementarians and egalitarians \u2014 is one of the degree of adaptation rather than one being faithful and the other a departure? Are both really departures?
\nHer claim: to argue for women\u2019s equal worth<\/em> is a novelty in the Church.
\nIn her next chp, Sarah weighs in on the issue of \u201ccontradiction in the Christian community.\u201d She thinks most evangelicals are \u201cantifeminist\u201d but not \u201canti-women-in-ministry\u201d (53). Church history shows the impact of women in ministry all along. Alongside that impact is the traditional view, and this creates tension within the Church itself.
\nSo she calls for a paradigm change: account for all the biblical data, magnify the tensions of the old paradigm, and provide additional solutions to old problems.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"