The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:
Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.
Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.
or…
Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.
Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.
or…
Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.
Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.
While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.
In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:
It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.
Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…
Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.
Here is what Complementarianism is:
Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.
Here is what Egalitarianism is:
The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity.
These, in my opinion, are the foundational tenants of each position without giving examples on how this plays out in the family, the church, or society.
The case I am making here is that in order to be a consistent egalitarian, one must deny virtually all differences that typify men as men and women as women. It is not just about getting women behind the pulpit or the concept of mutual submission in the family. It is much more complex and, in my estimation, more difficult to defend with sensibility.
I had a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who was an Egalitarian (he left because of this—I won’t mention his name). I loved this guy. Still do. Great teacher, thinker, and Christian. In fact, I had him come speak to our pastoral staff at Stonebriar to challenge us on why he became egalitarian and to defend his position. I wanted the staff to understand the “other side” from a very able defender. During his presentation, he painted himself into this very typical corner that I find most all egalitarians end up.
He was advocating a foundational principle of egalitarianism: there are no essential differences between men and women other than reproductive stuff. We were all quite taken aback. Every example we brought up, he shot down by giving a counter-example in the form of an exception. His basic argument turned on finding exceptions to everything. Whether it was that men were less emotional, more aggressive, more one tracked in their thinking, less tender, more competitive, unable to nurture as well as women, or even liked the color blue more, he brought up exceptions that he believed neutralized the “pattern”. Finally, I thought I had him. I said “What about physicality? Men are stronger than women.” He would have none of that. He then brought up examples of German women who were stronger than men! We could not stump the guy!
The problem is that in order to defend egalitarianism consistently, he had to deny all of the common sense distinctions that people have made about men and women since the dawn of time. I won’t get into the science or psychology of this issue as there are many very good resources that do this. To me, it is rather bizarre that one would actually be inclined to produce evidence to prove that men and women are different!
I am of the opinion that many egalitarians would have been appalled by Peter who said that women are the weaker of the sexes (1 Pet. 3:7) siting every exception to this rule and bemoaning this stereotype until Peter cried “uncle.”
Complementarianism says that men and women are different by design. We are different and God did it. It is that simple.
However, most people would not be willing to go as far as my former professor. They realize that sustaining a proposition that men and women have no essential differences is a battle that cannot really be sustained in real life (only theoretical ideology). Men and women are different. Even most egalitarians that I know would give me this. Hear this again. Most egalitarians that I know would admit, when push comes to shove, that there are some essential differences between men and women. Most would even say that there are essential differences that go beyond reproduction and physicality. But I would argue that these people are not really egalitarians, at least in the way I have defined it. They would be complementarians because they would have given up what I believe to be a central driving tenant of egalitarianism and embraced the central tenant of complementarianism: men and women are different by design and their differences complement each other.
Now, having said this, I believe that it is theoretically possible to be a complementarian and yet not take a traditional complementarian stand on the issue of women in ministry. In other words, someone could believe that men and women are different by design yet not think that these differences have any bearing on women in leadership in the church. They may be convinced that the Bible does not really teach that women should not teach men, and yet be complementarian in other issues and, broadly, in their theology of the sexes.
I am interested and committed to complementarianism for more than just the women in ministry issue. This is just one application. But (and here is where I get in trouble with fellow complementarians), I don’t think that it is the most important issue in this debate. Neither do I think that it is the most “damaging” issue.
You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.
We will have troubled men and women groping to find their way and feeling pressured to repress their instincts and giftedness. We will no longer be able to train up men and women in the “way” they should go since there is no “way” they should go. Women can act masculine and men can be feminine. Men can retreat in the face of responsibility because, in truth, they don’t have any “responsibility” other than the one that they choose. This is to say nothing of the implications this has on the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage.
But in a complementarian worldview (even one that allows women to teach men in the church), men are taught to be men and women are taught to be women. They both have defining characteristics. Masculinity and femininity find their place and are exemplified and celebrated. Men protect women from physical danger and take their positions of leadership seriously, without trepidation or fear that they will be seen as power mongers. And women support this. Women take up their positions of nurturing and supporting the emotional well-being of the world. And men support it. No role distinction is seen as inferior because in a complementarian worldview both are seen as essential and of equal importance. Only in complementarianism do we not define the rule by the exceptions and bow to the least common denominator. Only in the complementarian worldview, in my opinion, can freedom to be who we are supposed to be find meaning.
The true spirit of complementarianism is that God has intentionally created men and women with differences and we are to celebrate this in every way. The true spirit of complementarianism is never domineering (that is a sinful corruption). The true spirit of complementarianism provides no shame only freedom. The true spirit of complementarianism speaks to God in appreciation.
When we attempt to neuter this design, we have lost much more than authority in the pulpit.
Complementarians, while I believe that the Bible teaches the ideal that women should not have authority over men in the church, let us promote the true spirit of complementarianism then simply defending its particular applications.
637 replies to "What Complementarianism is Really all About"
Yes, I see that She does. And is.
If God says something once or 5 times, does the 5 times allow one to ignore the one time?
No egal I know says a wife should NOT submit to her husband, what they say is that a husband should submit to his wife, per Eph 5:21. And they also point out that submit is not the same thing as obey, there is a potential partial overlap, in that obey may at times be an example of submission.
I see Eric is referring to the Spirit using the grammatical gender that Hebrew uses, which is feminine.
What there are are competing scholars, Fee, Payne and a LOT of others are egal. One should always study both sides in a debate such as this, in their own words.
On the straightforward meaning, Rom 16:7 has a primary meaning in the Greek that Junia was an apostle; it is only by talking a secondary meaning (for at least 1 of 3 words) that one can deny that she was an apostle. And some early church fathers said she was an apostle. So the non-egals have to argue against both to believe what they do.
Don:
I requested my comment noting the Spirit’s gender be deleted because it didn’t add anything to the discussion. ruach in Hebrew is feminine (Hebrew has no neuter gender), pneuma in Greek is neuter, but paraklêtos in Greek is masculine – which explains the masculine pronouns for the Spirit in John 14-16 (i.e., the antecedent for each of these instances is paraklêtos, not pneuma).
I suppose since it was the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary that caused her to conceive (i.e., the Holy Spirit performed the male part of Jesus’ conception), and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God/theos, who is otherwise referred to as the Father and never the Mother, it is probably most likely that the Spirit is male (rather than female), if He/She/It even has gender. I tend to refer to the Spirit as “It.” After all, when we refer to our own spirits, we refer to them as “it.” I.e., men don’t refer to their human spirit as “he” and women don’t refer to their human spirit as “she” (at least not that I’ve noticed).
I guess Eric deleted his comment. I was wondering how long it was going to take before someone picked up on that. Eric won! I think he responded in a heartbeat…literally!
Don, I think both sides have studied the subject well and presented it in excellence. I do believe that it can be debated long enough to lose sight of the original intent…the true heart of the matter. After so long a debate, I think there can be risk of getting so lost that it becomes more about egos than truth.
God confronted me a while back that I wanted to win even over love, and I asked him to change me. But it is hard to change, I used to be non-egal, as that was all I had been taught, AND I thought it was so obvious, until I studied both sides in their own words.
P.S. Grammatical gender has no necessary relation to physical gender; I mention this as some do not know it.
And yes, God the Father uses masculine grammatical gender, but it said to have a womb and breasts, but never male genitals. My point is that these are analogies, not physical facts.
So, God is a tranny? 😕
And I know a former egalitarian who used to run in the upper circles of CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) as that is what she was taught, AND she thought it was so obvious, until she studied both sides in their own words… and studied Scripture and prayed for wisdom and courage to act upon that wisdom…
And she joyfully submitted and became a Biblical Patriarchalist.
And I also know a pastorette who renounced her ordained status in order to joyfully submit to God’s Word that she was not to be in that office.
Which proves… what? That people on both sides of the issue can diligently study the issues and change their understanding of God’s Word and joyfully and fearlessly (or with a measure of fear and trembling) embrace what they’ve discovered about God and the Scriptures?
I know of many people who have studied the Scriptures and church history and have left Protestantism for Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as Catholics and Orthodox who have done the same and become Protestant.
I know of Jews who have studied the Scriptures and have become Christians, and of Christians who have studied the Scriptures and the New Testament and have left Christianity to become Jewish.
I used to be a confirmed Coca-Cola-onlyist until one day I was forced to buy a Pepsi and realized then and there that I preferred Pepsi, and have ever since.
To die is to live. To surrender is to win.
You just need to be careful and know whom or what you’re dying for and to whom or what you are surrendering.
Don, meet EricW.
Don, #456: “God confronted me a while back that I wanted to win even over love, and I asked him to change me. But it is hard to change, I used to be non-egal, as that was all I had been taught, AND I thought it was so obvious, until I studied both sides in their own words.”
EricW, #460: “Which proves… what? That people on both sides of the issue can diligently study the issues and change their understanding of God’s Word and joyfully and fearlessly (or with a measure of fear and trembling) embrace what they’ve discovered about God and the Scriptures?”
Probably a distracting tangent that will be ripped to shreds, but on the ‘plain meaning of scripture’…
OT relationships, even of leaders, were polygamous and not condemned.
NT, the instruction was for one spouse.
Cultural context?
Pragmatism in the face of high infant mortality?
Or simply a indication that things move on and that relationships/statuses are very socially contextual and that to suggest that we are hidebound by 1st century social constructs totally misunderstands God’s ‘rules’. Why should the social norms of the time dictate our interpretation of God’s word for today?
OK, asbestos underwear now on. Flame away.
cherylu,
Cutting and pasting snippets of sentences does not a truth make. With a little ingenuity anyone can take pieces of thoughts and reorganize them into a form that supports one’s own thinking.
For instance, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is either a quote from the local Judaizers in an epistle to Paul to which he is replying or it was something added by the early transcribers. It was found in different places in original copies, including on the side of the page and not in the actual body of the letter. It could be both. But they are not Paul’s words. 1) there is no OT law that says it is a shame for women to speak in the assembly. But there is an oral Mishnah (since written down but not at that time). Mishna’s are Pharisaic writings and not Word’s God authored. 2) Paul just finished saying a few chapters ago in the same epistle, that when women are prophesying (preaching) and praying publicly they need to judge for themselves their attire so that they do not bring shame on their heads. Thus, your helicopter hoisting of the verses has Paul disagreeing with himself in the same letter. There is more to it, but the point being that snipping out those two verses, one can make them sound quite different.
“And I know a former egalitarian who used to run in the upper circles of CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) as that is what she was taught, AND she thought it was so obvious, until she studied both sides in their own words… and studied Scripture and prayed for wisdom and courage to act upon that wisdom…
And she joyfully submitted and became a Biblical Patriarchalist.”
Appearances can be deceiving. I know of whom you speak.
TUAD: “And she joyfully submitted and became a Biblical Patriarchalist.”
TL: “Appearances can be deceiving. I know of whom you speak.”
Food fight!!! 😀
Rebecca,
“After so long a debate, I think there can be risk of getting so lost that it becomes more about egos than truth.”
Well said.
And interestingly, even after all this, many can rightly bemoan that their words were not ‘heard’ or understood, and that they’ve not yet made their point.
ERic…..
yes, yes. Food fight!!! jumps in delight!!! 🙂
“After all, when we refer to our own spirits, we refer to them as “it.”
Eric, not so long ago, as nearby as the 1800’s, one soul was always referred to in the opposite gender. I’ve a beautiful collection of copies of William Blake’s illustrations to a poem “The Grave”.
🙂
TL,
OK, CHOP–there goes that verse from Scipture.
How do you disqualify all of the rest of them?
I agree the Bible says we are to “submit to one another”. Did you ever wonder, however, if husbands are to submit to wives in the same way that wives are to submit to husbands, why it is that when referring to the marriage relationship particularly, it is only the wife that is told to submit? If the husband is to submit to the wife in the same way, why isn’t he told to do so every time the wife is?
Cherylu:
It doesn’t remove the verse from scripture, merely preclude you from using it the way you’d like to.
But John O, TL said these are not Paul’s words. So how do you remove the force of what he said in all of the other Scriptures quoted above?
LOL cherylu,
I didn’t DISqualify it, I qualified it’s true meaning. Paul was not disagreeing with himself saying that women must be silent. Rather, he was disagreeing with the Judaizers who wanted to impose a Jewish oral law on all the women in order to silence them. Paul wants women to speak publicly (1 Cor. 11:5), pray publicly and bring their gifts to church (1 Cor. 14:26), a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation, and bless the church. He just wants there to be order in the doing.
cherylu,
I’m gathering that you do not understand the force of snipping pieces of sentences together. Haven’t you ever seen a whole letter made by cutting out words and groups of words from a newspaper and pasting them onto another page to form a message?
That is what has been done here. If we take each bit and put it back into it’s respective letter and read before and after it, taking into consideration obscure word meanings, the cultures of the times, etc., we don’t come up with the same conclusions.
FOOD FIGHT? YES!!!! I’ll throw the roles! (rolls, I get it 🙂 )
“why it is that when referring to the marriage relationship particularly, it is only the wife that is told to submit?”
Why is it that only the husband is told to love sacrificially, or it appears so. Do you think that means that the wife is not to love sacrificially?
In actuality, IF YOU WILL READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER, you will find that in the same chapter EVERYONE is told to love sacrificially (vs. 1-2) and EVERYONE is told to submit one to another (vs. 21). Thus, Paul emphasizing one of those to each spouse does not negate the importance of what was said in verses 1-21. In actuality, if you will read them together, everything Paul says in verses 1-21 should be carried forward into all our relationships.
(bolded for emphasis, not shouting!)
Cherylu,
Have you ever noticed how egalitarians misuse and abuse Galatians 3:28?
Misuse and abuse are sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
I am sure that some egalitarians misuse/abuse the verse, as well as other verses, and that some complementarians misuse/abuse the verse, as well as other verses.
TUAD: What is the true/correct meaning and application of Galatians 3:28 in light of the entire chapter, the entire book, the entire corpus of Paul’s writings, the entire New Testament, and the entire Bible. Please support your interpretation in each of these contexts with ample proofs and explanations, as well as valid disproofs of other or alternate or contrary meanings and explanations for the same.
Cherylu says”I agree the Bible says we are to “submit to one another”. Did you ever wonder, however, if husbands are to submit to wives in the same way that wives are to submit to husbands, why it is that when referring to the marriage relationship particularly, it is only the wife that is told to submit? If the husband is to submit to the wife in the same way, why isn’t he told to do so every time the wife is?”
Cherylu, because that would be nagging silly.
Sue (and other Egalitarians who constantly speak about abuse), meet EricW.
EricW: “Misuse and abuse are sometimes in the eye of the beholder.”
TL,
Of course I understand the force of snipping things together. The point is, I have read these verses before many, many times in the context of the whole chapter, and I have not seen them to say anything different then what is said by the verses as given above.
The only one that I might take a different meaning from is the I Cor 11 one which is speaking of coverings, etc.
By the way, speaking of chapter 11 of I Cor, it speaks of women praying or giving a prophesy. That is different then the issue of a woman teaching a man or the context he seems to be speaking of in chapter 14.
Of course everyone is to love superficially and of course everyone is to submit. THE POINT IS (emphasis–not shouting) the emphasis in the marriage is given here–the woman submit and the man love sacrificially.
Cherylu, There is a lot more to be said on each and every one of the verses cited. Whole books have been written about understanding each one. Much research has been done into the original words, history, cultures of the times, etc.
“By the way, speaking of chapter 11 of I Cor, it speaks of women praying or giving a prophesy. That is different then the issue of a woman teaching a man or the context he seems to be speaking of in chapter 14.”
Prophesy is preaching as well as foretelling. Prophesy is also explaining, unfolding, revealing the mind of God. I recommend that you do some research on the Jewish understanding of prophesy.
1 Cor. 14 has nothing to do with a woman in particular teaching a man in particular.
specifically all are admonished to bring teachings….
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”
One cannot teach, or share a revelation, or an interpretation, or sing without opening one’s mouth and speaking. Do you see the problem there?
TUAD:
Have you ever thought of working for eHarmony?
The reason a wife is told to submit is so the word of God is not mocked, that is, so pagans do not reject the gospel implied is because they look at the believer’s marriage as out of order. Recall that there was a pagan cultural assumption that was codified into Roman law somewhat that the husband/paterfamilias RULED the household, including wife, kids and slaves. Believers should always seek to advance the gospel and may decline to exhibit the freedom we have in Christ in order to do so, when that freedom might be seen (incorrectly) as disorder or liscentiousness.
“Of course everyone is to love superficially and of course everyone is to submit. THE POINT IS (emphasis–not shouting) the emphasis in the marriage is given here–the woman submit and the man love sacrificially.”
The words Paul speaks about the marriage relationship do not cancel out the words that Paul speaks to everyone. When one is married, the husband is still a brother in Christ and the wife is still a sister in Christ. Thus, the husband is still to submit to his wife as his sister in Christ and the wife is still to sacrificially love her husband as her brother in Christ. It is not a matter of emphasizing one to the exclusion of the other which is what you suggested by saying that the husband was not admonished to submit, only the wife. Rather, Paul is likely speaking of what was lacking in attitudes. What Paul said regarding all the interpersonal relationships was a smattering of concerns, not a full list of responsibilities.
What is Paul doing, he is emphasizing some aspects of a normal Christian life, to a wife, she is to submit as her temptation might be to not submit, even tho ALL are to submit; to a husband, he is to love sacrificially (nowhere is it said to lead) as his temptation is to not do that, this was a radical idea, as the pagans told him he was boss and Paul tells him to love, with nary a word about bossing.
And I ask again: Why do comps assume that the marriage relationship commands/instructions/etc., regardless of whether such instructions tell the wife to submit to the husband, etc., are supposed to be transferred to or imposed upon the relationships between men and women in the church?
Since when are men and women in the church told to relate to each other as husbands with wives? The CHURCH as the whole Body of Christ is to relate to Christ as a wife to a husband, but in the church, men and women are brothers and sisters of one another, not spouses in a marriage relationship.
Or so I think.
TL,
“Cherylu, There is a lot more to be said on each and every one of the verses cited. Whole books have been written about understanding each one. Much research has been done into the original words, history, cultures of the times, etc”
Rant Alert…..
You know what, I guess I will simply just quit trying to read the Bible and have it say anything to me about anything because if I listened to all of the arguments given on this site, it is simply not possible to draw any conclusions that are reliable in any way, shape or form from reading the Bible as we have it in what are recognized as good translations from Greek to English. We all, it seems, need to have our own personal Greek scholar available to us at all times–to of course argue endlessly for days at a time with the Greek scholar down the road on the nuances of one particular verb on which evidently turns the understanding of the whole doctrine in question. Besides that, we need to read all of the scholarly works available by everyone on both sides of the issue. And of course we can’t read it and understand it all if we don’t know the culture of the day it was written in and, of course, understanding the whole ANE thinking thing–which takes years of study to accomplish. And then to top it all off, we can’t assume that anything that was said in the NT applies to us today in our totally different cultures!
I suppose I should be sorry about the rant, but that is honestly how I am starting to feel about the whole thing.
Cherylu, I feel your pain. You have no idea how much!
cheryl:
If you think that something is lost going from Greek to English, wait till you try going from Hebrew to English. 😀
E.g., did you know that the Hebrew word for “serpent” and “brass/bronze” sounds and is spelled the same, except for minor vowel points (nachash)? And that the word for “bite” is nashach? Look at Numbers 21. Do you realize how much of the intrinsic-to-the-meaning-of-the-text wordplays are going on in the Hebrew text which are lost in English translation?
And when you compare the LXX with the Hebrew text, you find a whole ‘nother group of interesting things going on re: what and how the Greeks translated the Hebrew. Some of Paul’s arguments/points can’t be clearly seen unless one is looking at the LXX he’s quoting or the Greek text of his writings.
While I agree that it can be frustrating when Greek and Hebrew scholars can appear to be in disagreement with each other, there really is no substitute for grappling with the original text if one wants to read WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS and not simply trust what some translation says it says. Interpretation is still required, but at least one removes one layer of interpretation by reading or interlinearing one’s way through the original, even if one then has to deal with the sometimes-conflicting scholarly and linguistic discussions of what the words and texts mean.
I guess one can just ask the Holy Spirit what it means and forego learning what the text in fact says. [/rant]
We all can get frustrated in similar ways. You’re not alone. But what choice do we have, if we don’t want to just give in and give up? 😀
cherylu,
Good rant! You’re absolutely right in a sense. We need to take a step back, use the Spirit to guide us in our reading, test our understanding in our interpretive community… and then not presume to impose our understanding on everyone else.
I sometimes think we forget, particularly when embroiled in discussions such as this one, that God’s grace is considerably broader than sometimes we’d like. I can’t help but feel that when we are standing before God, He’ll shake his head, say, “Well I tried to allow you as broad an understanding as I could.” And then He’ll say, “But that’s OK. I forgive you.”
(Except TU..AD, who’ll have a private audience because he’d be desperately upset if he thought any of the rest of us were there 😉 )
“I have been following the conversation resulting from these threads over on Sue’s website.”
Could you give the weblink for this. Couldn’t find where you were referring…. thanks!
EricW,
Sorry, but not everyone is a professional Greek or Hebrew scholar or has the time or money to spend reading all of the latest scholarly material on any given subject in the Bible. And I don’t think God intended us to be either. After all, the world would be quite a place if all Christians ever did was study Greek and Hebrew day after day and read what the other scholars had to say! There would be no good works and no fulfilling of the great commission.
At some point, do we not simply have to accept on faith that God has told us what He wants us to know in His Word and we can read it and follow what it says and not have to spend innumerable hours researching every single nuance of everything and then still having the sholars disagree on the meaning of it all?? Which just leaves us confused in the end and wondering if the meaning of the Bible is truly knowable at all.
For Sue’s website, I just scrolled back up the page to her last comment. Her name is a hyperlink to her site.
Cherylu,
I really DO understand your rant. Been there, done that, and do it again from time to time. I’m a retired senior and have been studying Scripture on and off for 40+ years. Some of the things going on in the church 40 yrs. ago were both awesome, deeply inspiring and horribly abusive. How does one sort that out as a new Christian. I’ve spent at least 30 of those years grappling with these questions while studying the whole of Scripture. I’ve watched the demise of the Shepherding Movement (where this movement got its roots), seen the whole demonology stuff come and go (everything was blamed on demons), watched in amazement as women started speaking up all over the place on this issue when I thought I was the only one seeing a problem…. and so forth. Only by the grace of God do we all survive and make meaningful contributions to society and the church.
Hang in there!
cherylu,
I think you’re quite right – not everyone can be, or even needs to be, a Greek or Hebrew scholar. By the same token, I don’t believe we can properly understand the Bible in isolation, reading only from a translation. We either engage with scholars, or with others within our Christian community. That’s, arguably, why we are called into community.
The problem with scholars, in my experience (and I’ve had this argument with professors at my uni), is that they are generally much too focused on the meaning of the text; and for them that means the historically-critically extracted meaning, because that’s the only academically solid ground that can be argued from. Everything else is too open to interpretation. Yet that’s not how scripture was ‘used’ throughout its interpreted history.
And, with all due respect, you fall into the same trap when you say it “just leaves us confused in the end and wondering if the meaning of the Bible is truly knowable at all”. Why not allow for the Bible to be less restrictive than a meaning?
sorry to bother you Cheryl, I don’t see anything like that on Sue McCarthy’s blog. Susan’s is Reclaiming the mind.org and I’ve no idea where to look to find the list. Could you please do me the favor of finding the link and posting it?
cheryl:
Jews in Israel and Greeks in Greece don’t have to spend all their time learning Greek and Hebrew (though admittedly Modern Greek differs enough from Biblical Greek that the NT can stump Modern Greeks, or so I’ve been told). They speak, write and read it because they know it.
It’s not God’s fault that anglo-saxon people decided to learn and stick with their barbarian tongues and not learn to speak and read and write the languages of the prophets and the apostles who they consider to be speaking and writing the very words of God.
Students of medicine need to learn medicine and its languages of biology, anatomy and chemistry, etc. Students of math or physics or astronomy need to learn the necessary math and formulas. Students of music need to learn to read and use notes and scales and chords, etc. Why shouldn’t students of the Scriptures make at least some efforts to learn the “language” of the subject they’re studying, esp. since they consider it to be the most important subject or object of study in their lives?
Or so I think.
And so did Luther:
http://faculty.tfc.edu/juncker/GRK453LutherOnLanguages.pdf