the heart as it is | courage • grief • beauty

In his 1st chapter discussing egalitarianism vs complementarianism:

Consider the notion that egalitarianism is inconsistent with confidence in the clarity of Scripture. Duncan reasons that the Bible clearly and unambiguously endorses gender hierarchy—and thus, in an effort to avoid that fact, egalitarians must adopt methods of biblical interpretation that obscure the clear meaning of the text. Note that Duncan’s whole line of reasoning is predicated on the notion that complementarians are obviously correct about the meaning and significance of Paul’s remarks on gender. But egalitarians deny this. Rather than engaging egalitarians in good faith—as spiritual and intellectual equals who sincerely disagree—Duncan’s reasoning simply assumes, without argument, that egalitarians are wrong. Assuming that at least some egalitarians are Christians who sincerely believe that egalitarianism is consistent with Scripture, it follows that those egalitarians simply lack the ability to perceive the clear meaning of Scripture (at least with respect to the subject at hand). This is pure common sensism. And for precisely the reasons outlined above, it’s propaganda: Duncan invokes the universal human capacity to directly perceive the meaning of Scripture in order to advance an argument from which it follows that the capacity to perceive the meaning of Scripture is not, in fact, universal.

Before moving on, I should mention three additional flaws in Duncan’s line of argument. One is that his appeal to the clarity of Scripture is hopelessly question-begging. The notion that egalitarianism is inconsistent with the clarity of Scripture presupposes that Scripture clearly mandates gender hierarchy. But that’s precisely the point at issue in the debate: complementarians say that the Bible prescribes gender hierarchy, and egalitarians say that it doesn’t. So unless I’ve already accepted the argument’s conclusion that I should reject egalitarianism, I have no reason to accept its premise that egalitarianism is at odds with the clarity of Scripture. But that’s not how arguing works. An argument doesn’t ask us to assume its conclusion in order to find its reasoning persuasive—it compels us to accept its conclusion with persuasive reasoning. So the appeal to the clarity of Scripture can’t be a good argument for complementarianism, because it isn’t an argument.

A second problem with the appeal to the clarity of Scripture is that it emphasizes isolated prooftexts over and against the whole of Scripture. Favorite complementarian prooftexts include:

• 1 Timothy 2:11–12: “A woman is to learn quietly with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.”
• Corinthians 14:34–35: “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to submit themselves, as the law also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, since it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
• Titus 2:3–5: “In the same way, older women are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not slaves to excessive drinking. They are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands and to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, workers at home, kind, and in submission to their husbands, so that God’s word will not be slandered.”
• Ephesians 5:22–24: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.”

Complementarians like Duncan argue that in light of these verses, no reasonable person can doubt that the Bible prescribes a gender hierarchy in which women submit to the authority of men.

Note the way that this reasoning conflates the contents of a few decontextualized Bible verses with the import of the entire Bible. This is a tacit acknowledgment that the debate around gender doesn’t really turn on complementarian prooftexts. The point at issue isn’t whether we can locate a few Bible verses that seem to support patriarchy—it’s fairly obvious that we can. The point, rather, is whether the Bible as a whole counsels us to pursue gender hierarchy or gender parity. Prooftexts are relevant to the debate only insofar as they constitute part of the Bible (albeit a rather small part). So the question that egalitarians must answer is whether it’s possible to integrate the message of complementarian prooftexts with the assertion that the Bible as a whole encourages us to seek gender parity.

Here’s a plausible story that an egalitarian might tell about why we should think that the Bible as a whole encourages us to pursue gender parity (prooftexts included). Throughout Scripture, God demands justice—it’s one of the Bible’s major themes. Specifically, God commands his people to give a voice to the voiceless, to take up the cause of the dispossessed, and to give the disenfranchised their due. As Beth Allison Barr notes, “As soon as humans forged an agricultural society and began to build structured communities, they also began to build hierarchies of power, designating some people as more worthy to rule than others.” In many places, for much of human history, these social hierarchies have taken the form of patriarchy. And patriarchal social arrangements, by their very nature, leave women vulnerable to financial, emotional, spiritual, and physical abuse. This is manifestly unjust. So part of what it means to fear God and keep his commandments is to resist the kinds of patriarchal social arrangements that leave women vulnerable to exploitation.

This attitude is borne out in the life and teachings of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. In his interactions with women, Jesus consistently flouts patriarchal norms. He chooses a woman as the apostle to the apostles. And the Gospels recount not one instance of Jesus having said a single word in favor of patriarchal social arrangements. If anything, the Gospels leave the opposite impression. According to the tenth chapter of Luke, for instance, when Martha wants Jesus to send Mary to the kitchen to help with women’s work, Jesus passes on the opportunity to lecture Mary about the sacred female calling to domestic service. Instead, Jesus commends Mary for her decision to forgo cooking and cleaning in favor of furthering her education. So Jesus doesn’t seem at all anxious to instill in his followers a special appreciation for patriarchal gender norms. Given that the word of God is most faithfully interpreted by the word of God, and Jesus is the Word become flesh, Christ’s complete and utter lack of interest in promoting gender hierarchy is an important feature of the background information with which I approach the rest of Scripture.

With all of this in view, by the time I arrive at the Epistles, the notion that Paul would direct me to institute patriarchal gender norms in my church or in my home is simply out of the question. Given my understanding of the Bible as a whole, and my conviction that the Bible must be consistent with itself, I’m convinced that whatever Paul is saying, he isn’t saying that. Maybe his apparent endorsement of patriarchy is contingent on cultural factors that no longer obtain—or biblical principles that resemble gender hierarchy when practiced under certain cultural conditions that are remote from my own. Or perhaps Paul is addressing very specific circumstances in the churches to which he’s writing, and he has no intention of laying down universal norms. Regardless, my overall understanding of Scripture is that the Christian life isn’t about instituting or maintaining a social hierarchy that reinforces the position of those who already enjoy the privileges of power—in this case, men. So, for reasons that have nothing to do with secular culture and everything to do with my understanding of Scripture, a handful of decontextualized prooftexts will not suffice to persuade me that Paul—let alone the Bible as a whole—mandates patriarchy. And I categorically reject the proposition that gender hierarchy is in any sense integral to Christian faith or practice.