What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Two Views on Women in Ministry
Presents two essays representing the complementarian/hierarchical view of women and ministry--one by a man and one by a woman--and two essays representing the egalitarian view of women and ministry--one by a man and one by a woman.
384 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2001
378 people are currently reading
1368 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
Read
October 12, 2024a really excellent book, with excellent points made on both sides and a comprehensive view of both sides. ironically enough, as someone who began on (and still can't help but cling to some of the views of) the complementarian side, all that the complementarians in this collection managed to do was persuade me that they were wrong.
some of that persuasion was the amount of things they were willing to agree were mistranslated, downright wrong, or read into the passages they looked at, while still insisting on the primacy of man. some of it was the disgustingly insidious way that even the most liberal of the two complementarians (and indeed, both of them) continued to insist that they weren't arguing for the ontological superiority of man over women, while arguing exactly the ontological superiority of men over women, due to the creation of man first. it did clarify for me that the grossest part (and imo the most unbiblical) of the complementarian view is the one that says that women were always meant to be in submission to men, and that this is the good plan of God from the start and for all eternity. given the fact that we're told we won't be married (or even male or female) in the recreated and remade world, this is complete nonsense.
all that to say that i really enjoyed this book, and i left it far more persuaded of the egalitarian pov than i ever expected to be. i still have far too many questions and "but"s to be fully convinced that either side has everything right, but so far the more biblical side--the side that most accords with how Christ treated women and what we know of the coming to-be-remade world--seems to me to be the egalitarian side.
one of the biggest things, in fact, that i took away from this book (and i think it is an EXCELLENT point) is that Christians should be able to live and work and walk with one another in faith while disagreeing on this point. especially if the ones who are arguing that women need to submit to men (in general, or husbands in specific) stop trying to force their viewpoint and commandeer the actions and beliefs of (especially) the women around them.
this is so much worth the read, no matter which side you fall on
some of that persuasion was the amount of things they were willing to agree were mistranslated, downright wrong, or read into the passages they looked at, while still insisting on the primacy of man. some of it was the disgustingly insidious way that even the most liberal of the two complementarians (and indeed, both of them) continued to insist that they weren't arguing for the ontological superiority of man over women, while arguing exactly the ontological superiority of men over women, due to the creation of man first. it did clarify for me that the grossest part (and imo the most unbiblical) of the complementarian view is the one that says that women were always meant to be in submission to men, and that this is the good plan of God from the start and for all eternity. given the fact that we're told we won't be married (or even male or female) in the recreated and remade world, this is complete nonsense.
all that to say that i really enjoyed this book, and i left it far more persuaded of the egalitarian pov than i ever expected to be. i still have far too many questions and "but"s to be fully convinced that either side has everything right, but so far the more biblical side--the side that most accords with how Christ treated women and what we know of the coming to-be-remade world--seems to me to be the egalitarian side.
one of the biggest things, in fact, that i took away from this book (and i think it is an EXCELLENT point) is that Christians should be able to live and work and walk with one another in faith while disagreeing on this point. especially if the ones who are arguing that women need to submit to men (in general, or husbands in specific) stop trying to force their viewpoint and commandeer the actions and beliefs of (especially) the women around them.
this is so much worth the read, no matter which side you fall on
January 10, 2023
I wouldn't say that this book is what I wanted WORTHY to be, but it very much is the book I needed right now: four New Testament scholars from a range of complementarian and egalitarian perspectives debating the women's ministry question with a lot of nitty gritty scholarship.
All four of the perspectives are scholarly, I believe all four of them show a genuine attempt to engage with the text from an evangelical, sola scriptura viewpoint, and all of them acknowledge that it's possible to take either position and be orthodox. Which I think is one of the most refreshing things about this book: simply the fact that the discussion can be had at all, without mud slinging either at egalitarians or at women generally. The mere fact that a book like this, and scholars like this, exists is a huge win for me already. The fact that this is four scholars doing their best to argue a point, not just in the main bodies of each of their own essays but in gracious but hard-hitting responses to the essays of the others, makes the book even more valuable. I genuinely believe that this is a book which complementarians, egalitarians, and the undecided can read with great profit, and come away with greater respect for those who don't share their own views.
-
Belleville (egalitarian)
-
The first essay I largely agreed with, though at times it went further than I was capable of following - eg, I can't see that Euodia and Syntyche could be said to be elders of deacons in Philippi, and I can't see any substance to the argument that just because a church meet in the house of a woman, who would be legally liable for the activities of the group under Roman law, that she must therefore have been the "overseer" of the group. (Belleville does provide greater detail to her argumentation here in her responses to the other contributors, however, which leaves me with greater respect and understanding for what seems strained in the original essay). Shortcomings aside, this was super helpful and deeply scholarly - I hadn't heard a thorough defence of Junia as a female apostle, or for female deacons, and this basically clinched it for me. I also deeply resounded with Belleville's model of leadership in the church - the argument that there were not discrete offices, eg separating teachers from prophets, is very strong, as is the point that office in the church was NOT about authority but about equipping the saints for the work of ministry (cf Jesus' comments about the greatest in the kingdom being the servant of all). I've definitely come to distrust a lot of 21st century ecclesiology that reads modern church offices into the NT, which is a big part of why I'm open to rethinking the role of women in ministry at all, and I noticed that the egalitarians were arguing from very similar understandings of the NT church.
-
Blomberg (complementarian)
-
The second essay can be summarised as arguing, "To date, the only restriction on women in ministry we have discovered in either testament is what we may call, admittedly with a little anachronism, the "highest office" of authority and responsibility in the settled life of the community." This is an attractive argument in that it is left without certain exegetical difficulties that more clear-cut egalitarian OR complementarian positions must deal with. However it carries weaknesses of its own. It does not prove that there WAS a humanly perceptible "highest office" in the church (cf Jesus' discouraging response to Salome asking that her sons John and James sit on his right hand and left in the kingdom). It likewise presumes that the distinctive mark of that highest office is authority. And, it further presumes that just because we do not see EXAMPLES of women included in this supposed "highest office", that that must be an exclusion. The argument from silence is worth noting, but it should not be conclusive.
-
Keener (egalitarian)
-
This is the essay I find most careful and convincing, though the greater ambition and scope of Belleville's essay makes it, too, a must read. Keener states that in cases of Biblical prophecy, "authority inheres in the message proclaimed." This is precisely what I've been seeing in Scripture, and is another example of how egalitarianism goes with a specific view of church leadership that I've found myself coming to hold for reasons wholly unconnected with gender. Keener also makes the point that always occurred forcibly to me even at my most patriarchal, which is that if we take the command for women to be silent and neither teach or hold authority over men as an absolute, it contradicts other clear passages of scripture. Which means that both egalitarians and complementarians must contextualise the passage SOMEHOW; the question is not whether, but how. If you don't take the two silence passages as absolute (and no one does), then you have to contextualise them, which means setting them aside in order to determine the slant of the rest of scripture, and then looking for explanations that harmonise with the thrust of the rest of scripture; and if you believe the main thrust of Scripture is egalitarian, then that is how you'll resolve the silence passages. Finally, Keener had me raising eyebrows when he claimed that apostles and prophets, for which we have female examples of both, are greater gifts than teachers or pastors, but when he cited 1 Cor 12:28-31 in support I was astonished to realise he was correct. (And, if Junia was an apostle, and one of the tasks of apostles was to appoint elders in local churches, that's quite a point).
-
Schreiner (complementarian)
-
Schreiner comes out really strong, examining elders/overseers in scripture and positing a complementarian model in which the spiritual gift of teaching is distinct from prophecy though not as important, arguing that from Corinthians women are allowed a passive (sic!) role in transmitting divine revelation so long as they do it in a way that emphasises their submission to their husbands, while 1 Timothy 2 prevents them from teaching, at least adult men. He then explodes this case, in my eyes, by admitting that Priscilla did teach Aquila and that it then follows that women CAN teach men, including in a church setting. "Nonetheless, the above Scripture texts do not indicate that women filled the pastoral office or functioned as regular teachers of the congregation." And there, right there, he's dragged notions of church office into 1 Timothy 2, so that it now reads "I do not permit women to fill the pastoral office as it will be understood in the 21st century" rather than "I do not permit women to teach or usurp authority over a man". I can understand reading it "for the present, the women in 1st century Ephesus should not teach or assume authority over a man" and I can understand reading it "for all time no woman should ever teach or exercise authority over any man" but I can't understand, if you're going to contextualise the passage, why you would contextualise it based on official status (which is one of the least important things we learn about church leadership in the NT) rather than something more natural, like the possibility that Paul was dealing with a lot of new, inexperienced female converts wanting to teach when they hadn't learned. (And it may seem natural to you to equate authority with office, but it doesn't to me: Jesus, for instance, "taught as one with authority and not as one of the scribes"). Another helpful point Schreiner makes is that both in Timothy and Titus, Paul says elders are supposed to be able to teach. This might explain why elders needed to be appointed by apostles in baby church plants - because someone needed to be pointed out as qualified in the right doctrine. Ok that's very helpful background to what the role of an elder was, in overseeing the doctrinal purity of the church, thus showing the need and purpose of the office. In this case, 1 Timothy 2 does have some relation to office, since the women leading or being led astray were evidently enmeshed in the sort of teaching that elders were supposed to warn against. However I maintain that Paul was clearly responding to inexperienced women rather than to women in general (as the analogy with Adam and Eve shows, not that all women are naturally gullible but that the younger, inexperienced party is more likely to be deceived). Also, if doctrinal purity is one of the main rationales of the eldership office, then it makes no sense to have a female apostle/missionary (Junia) but not a female eldership (first taught by female apostles/missionaries and then appointed by them!). As Keener pointed out, allowing women to teach men as long as the latter are from an unchristianised culture is a double standard with more than a whiff of racism about it. Schreiner becomes less convincing when he goes on to argue about egalitarianism in the home, since his argumentation either hinges on very tenuous argumentation or consists of saying "nuh-uh" without much evidence to egalitarian arguments. Finally, his exegesis of the "silence" passage in 1 Timothy 2 was fascinatingly incomplete - there's one verse where he outright says he has no interpretation and no idea what to say about it, and while he tries hard to distinguish between ontological equality of men and women from functional/role inequality, he is incapable of avoiding an interpretation of verse 14 which pitches all women as morally inferior. The egalitarian interpretation of the passage is one that makes sense of the entire passage and sees the point about Eve being deceived first, not as a sexist slur against women but a shrewd observation about the naivete of the inexperienced. Schreiner admits defeat and ignorance rather than admit that his interpretation is sexist, and Keener imports notions of 21st century church offices into the passage to have a bit of both worlds, but it's only egalitarians who can provide a contextualisation that fits the plain meaning of the passage and doesn't paint women as morally or mentally inferior.
-
Some general observations
-
One of the main takeaways from this book is that it pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of "women must be SILENT" - none of them can convincingly argue that women should have NO vocal role in church to both men and women.
One thing that comes up in all essays is the question of whether Jesus was egalitarian, given that his twelve closest companions were all men. On one hand, egalitarians point out that the gospel came into a patriarchal culture and that it would have been reasonable for Jesus to accommodate himself to it for pragmatic reasons. On the other hand, complementarians rightly point out that Jesus had no problems confronting the assumptions of his day, to the point where he literally got executed for doing so. However, I think that the egalitarian argument is more sound, for several reasons:
- Jesus himself told us, in one question of gender rights, that previous divine revelation via Moses was given as a concession to the hardness of men's hearts - with regards to divorce. So we know that God tempers his commands at times to the social reality of fallen man. The parable of the wheat and tares, and the gradual nature of the conquest of Canaan, with the inhabitants not being driven out all at once in order that the land not revert to wilderness, and the images of gradual growth that accompany the growth of the kingdom throughout scripture, all lends itself to a gradual social change as the gospel works its way through society.
- Almost no Christians nowadays would argue in favour of Roman style chattel slavery, despite Paul including slaves in his household codes and instructing them to be submissive and do their work unto the Lord. It's easy for us these days to see that although Paul did not demand his first century listeners to free their slaves and instantly recognise the equality of all human beings, that his teaching subverted the entire institution of slavery merely by treating them as his equals - speaking to them, encouraging them to serve God as their true master, evangelising them to become co heirs with Christ, in such a way that as the gospel has progressed through society it has become impossible to countenance slavery at all. Why should we not at least entertain the possibility that women were meant to be liberated by a similar effect, despite a possible "glass ceiling" in the first century church? (The two complementarians straw-man this by conflating marriage itself with hierarchy and presuming that because we contemplate abolishing the latter, we must intend to abolish the former. A ridiculous argument.)
- It is true that Jesus had no problems going head to head with the authorities and conventions of his day, but surely no one could be foolhardy enough to demand that the Lord who came to save us from our sins should choose female equality (or the liberation of slaves) as his hill to die upon. He was put to death, quite properly, for preaching that he was God, that he had come to forgive our sins and abolish the religious establishment of the day. This was the vital message, and he was content to leave female liberation, like slavery, to the march of history in his footsteps.
The question of how to translate kephale is tricky - in 1 Corinthians Paul says that the head of woman is man, and the head of man is Christ, yet in 1 Timothy he says that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. This I believe, utterly precludes any interpretation that reads kephale in such a way as to place men as intermediary authorities between women and Christ. Linda Bellville's point that we ought to expect kephale to mean something quite at odds with what it meant in the pagan culture surrounding the church is a good one, although I find the complementarian attacks on the kephale = source interpretation to be extremely strong too. However, Blomberg concedes that at its face meaning kephale normally means, quite literally, a body's head. And if there's one image Paul was CONSTANTLY using to express the unity of the church with its members and with God, that image was - a body. So can't we at least try reading all this headship stuff, not as having to do with the authority and hierarchy that both Jesus and Paul explicitly did away with, but rather as having to do with the radical unity between parts of a body? Women trying to get along without men are like a body without a head. Men trying to get along without women are like a head without a body. Am I saying there are no weaknesses to this model? No. But I'd like to see it discussed.
Two things that seemed to me to characterise the complementarian positions argued in this book, are circular reasoning and a clinging to hierarchy. For example, Schreiner says, "Craig thinks it is clear that Junia served as an apostle according to Romans 16:7, but the term more likely designates a missionary and church planter and does not convey the idea that Junia and Andronicus were equal to Paul and the Twelve." Complementarians need to find a hierarchy in church government because, given how many NT women are seen in ministry roles, they need a rationale for excluding women from certain positions. So, around and around it goes: Junia could not have been Paul's equal because her apostleship, if it existed, was inferior, and we know that her apostleship was inferior because she was a woman and women are excluded from the highest rank, which is how we know that certain forms of apostleship are inferior to others. (It is peculiar that this rationale is always authority. There may be a typological rationale for an all-male clergy: for instance, that a priest must symbolise Jesus, the Groom, to the Body, the Bride, but I suppose this is as difficult to prove as authority).
So I think another takeaway is that BOTH sides have weaknesses and difficulties for their position, and while we will all probably come down on one side or another, a) it's something Christians should be encouraged to disagree on in a spirit of love and b) what shouldn't be up for debate is that women do have a role in ministry.
That said, in this book, given my own particular presuppositions, I did find the egalitarian arguments to be stronger. A glance at the other Goodreads reviews will reveal that those who come to the book with complementarian convictions will find the complementarian arguments stronger, of course. I have by no means finished thinking through this topic - I would love to dig a bit deeper into some of the points raised by Schreiner about the role of elders and its connection to teaching, as well as by Belleville in her response to the same, but I'm not sure I'll have the time for that any time soon. What this book has convinced me of is that this is something orthodox Christians can honestly disagree about, like baptism, and should not be made into the shibboleth it was in the circles I grew up in, where gender equality in the ministry was tantamount to heresy.
All four of the perspectives are scholarly, I believe all four of them show a genuine attempt to engage with the text from an evangelical, sola scriptura viewpoint, and all of them acknowledge that it's possible to take either position and be orthodox. Which I think is one of the most refreshing things about this book: simply the fact that the discussion can be had at all, without mud slinging either at egalitarians or at women generally. The mere fact that a book like this, and scholars like this, exists is a huge win for me already. The fact that this is four scholars doing their best to argue a point, not just in the main bodies of each of their own essays but in gracious but hard-hitting responses to the essays of the others, makes the book even more valuable. I genuinely believe that this is a book which complementarians, egalitarians, and the undecided can read with great profit, and come away with greater respect for those who don't share their own views.
-
Belleville (egalitarian)
-
The first essay I largely agreed with, though at times it went further than I was capable of following - eg, I can't see that Euodia and Syntyche could be said to be elders of deacons in Philippi, and I can't see any substance to the argument that just because a church meet in the house of a woman, who would be legally liable for the activities of the group under Roman law, that she must therefore have been the "overseer" of the group. (Belleville does provide greater detail to her argumentation here in her responses to the other contributors, however, which leaves me with greater respect and understanding for what seems strained in the original essay). Shortcomings aside, this was super helpful and deeply scholarly - I hadn't heard a thorough defence of Junia as a female apostle, or for female deacons, and this basically clinched it for me. I also deeply resounded with Belleville's model of leadership in the church - the argument that there were not discrete offices, eg separating teachers from prophets, is very strong, as is the point that office in the church was NOT about authority but about equipping the saints for the work of ministry (cf Jesus' comments about the greatest in the kingdom being the servant of all). I've definitely come to distrust a lot of 21st century ecclesiology that reads modern church offices into the NT, which is a big part of why I'm open to rethinking the role of women in ministry at all, and I noticed that the egalitarians were arguing from very similar understandings of the NT church.
-
Blomberg (complementarian)
-
The second essay can be summarised as arguing, "To date, the only restriction on women in ministry we have discovered in either testament is what we may call, admittedly with a little anachronism, the "highest office" of authority and responsibility in the settled life of the community." This is an attractive argument in that it is left without certain exegetical difficulties that more clear-cut egalitarian OR complementarian positions must deal with. However it carries weaknesses of its own. It does not prove that there WAS a humanly perceptible "highest office" in the church (cf Jesus' discouraging response to Salome asking that her sons John and James sit on his right hand and left in the kingdom). It likewise presumes that the distinctive mark of that highest office is authority. And, it further presumes that just because we do not see EXAMPLES of women included in this supposed "highest office", that that must be an exclusion. The argument from silence is worth noting, but it should not be conclusive.
-
Keener (egalitarian)
-
This is the essay I find most careful and convincing, though the greater ambition and scope of Belleville's essay makes it, too, a must read. Keener states that in cases of Biblical prophecy, "authority inheres in the message proclaimed." This is precisely what I've been seeing in Scripture, and is another example of how egalitarianism goes with a specific view of church leadership that I've found myself coming to hold for reasons wholly unconnected with gender. Keener also makes the point that always occurred forcibly to me even at my most patriarchal, which is that if we take the command for women to be silent and neither teach or hold authority over men as an absolute, it contradicts other clear passages of scripture. Which means that both egalitarians and complementarians must contextualise the passage SOMEHOW; the question is not whether, but how. If you don't take the two silence passages as absolute (and no one does), then you have to contextualise them, which means setting them aside in order to determine the slant of the rest of scripture, and then looking for explanations that harmonise with the thrust of the rest of scripture; and if you believe the main thrust of Scripture is egalitarian, then that is how you'll resolve the silence passages. Finally, Keener had me raising eyebrows when he claimed that apostles and prophets, for which we have female examples of both, are greater gifts than teachers or pastors, but when he cited 1 Cor 12:28-31 in support I was astonished to realise he was correct. (And, if Junia was an apostle, and one of the tasks of apostles was to appoint elders in local churches, that's quite a point).
-
Schreiner (complementarian)
-
Schreiner comes out really strong, examining elders/overseers in scripture and positing a complementarian model in which the spiritual gift of teaching is distinct from prophecy though not as important, arguing that from Corinthians women are allowed a passive (sic!) role in transmitting divine revelation so long as they do it in a way that emphasises their submission to their husbands, while 1 Timothy 2 prevents them from teaching, at least adult men. He then explodes this case, in my eyes, by admitting that Priscilla did teach Aquila and that it then follows that women CAN teach men, including in a church setting. "Nonetheless, the above Scripture texts do not indicate that women filled the pastoral office or functioned as regular teachers of the congregation." And there, right there, he's dragged notions of church office into 1 Timothy 2, so that it now reads "I do not permit women to fill the pastoral office as it will be understood in the 21st century" rather than "I do not permit women to teach or usurp authority over a man". I can understand reading it "for the present, the women in 1st century Ephesus should not teach or assume authority over a man" and I can understand reading it "for all time no woman should ever teach or exercise authority over any man" but I can't understand, if you're going to contextualise the passage, why you would contextualise it based on official status (which is one of the least important things we learn about church leadership in the NT) rather than something more natural, like the possibility that Paul was dealing with a lot of new, inexperienced female converts wanting to teach when they hadn't learned. (And it may seem natural to you to equate authority with office, but it doesn't to me: Jesus, for instance, "taught as one with authority and not as one of the scribes"). Another helpful point Schreiner makes is that both in Timothy and Titus, Paul says elders are supposed to be able to teach. This might explain why elders needed to be appointed by apostles in baby church plants - because someone needed to be pointed out as qualified in the right doctrine. Ok that's very helpful background to what the role of an elder was, in overseeing the doctrinal purity of the church, thus showing the need and purpose of the office. In this case, 1 Timothy 2 does have some relation to office, since the women leading or being led astray were evidently enmeshed in the sort of teaching that elders were supposed to warn against. However I maintain that Paul was clearly responding to inexperienced women rather than to women in general (as the analogy with Adam and Eve shows, not that all women are naturally gullible but that the younger, inexperienced party is more likely to be deceived). Also, if doctrinal purity is one of the main rationales of the eldership office, then it makes no sense to have a female apostle/missionary (Junia) but not a female eldership (first taught by female apostles/missionaries and then appointed by them!). As Keener pointed out, allowing women to teach men as long as the latter are from an unchristianised culture is a double standard with more than a whiff of racism about it. Schreiner becomes less convincing when he goes on to argue about egalitarianism in the home, since his argumentation either hinges on very tenuous argumentation or consists of saying "nuh-uh" without much evidence to egalitarian arguments. Finally, his exegesis of the "silence" passage in 1 Timothy 2 was fascinatingly incomplete - there's one verse where he outright says he has no interpretation and no idea what to say about it, and while he tries hard to distinguish between ontological equality of men and women from functional/role inequality, he is incapable of avoiding an interpretation of verse 14 which pitches all women as morally inferior. The egalitarian interpretation of the passage is one that makes sense of the entire passage and sees the point about Eve being deceived first, not as a sexist slur against women but a shrewd observation about the naivete of the inexperienced. Schreiner admits defeat and ignorance rather than admit that his interpretation is sexist, and Keener imports notions of 21st century church offices into the passage to have a bit of both worlds, but it's only egalitarians who can provide a contextualisation that fits the plain meaning of the passage and doesn't paint women as morally or mentally inferior.
-
Some general observations
-
One of the main takeaways from this book is that it pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of "women must be SILENT" - none of them can convincingly argue that women should have NO vocal role in church to both men and women.
One thing that comes up in all essays is the question of whether Jesus was egalitarian, given that his twelve closest companions were all men. On one hand, egalitarians point out that the gospel came into a patriarchal culture and that it would have been reasonable for Jesus to accommodate himself to it for pragmatic reasons. On the other hand, complementarians rightly point out that Jesus had no problems confronting the assumptions of his day, to the point where he literally got executed for doing so. However, I think that the egalitarian argument is more sound, for several reasons:
- Jesus himself told us, in one question of gender rights, that previous divine revelation via Moses was given as a concession to the hardness of men's hearts - with regards to divorce. So we know that God tempers his commands at times to the social reality of fallen man. The parable of the wheat and tares, and the gradual nature of the conquest of Canaan, with the inhabitants not being driven out all at once in order that the land not revert to wilderness, and the images of gradual growth that accompany the growth of the kingdom throughout scripture, all lends itself to a gradual social change as the gospel works its way through society.
- Almost no Christians nowadays would argue in favour of Roman style chattel slavery, despite Paul including slaves in his household codes and instructing them to be submissive and do their work unto the Lord. It's easy for us these days to see that although Paul did not demand his first century listeners to free their slaves and instantly recognise the equality of all human beings, that his teaching subverted the entire institution of slavery merely by treating them as his equals - speaking to them, encouraging them to serve God as their true master, evangelising them to become co heirs with Christ, in such a way that as the gospel has progressed through society it has become impossible to countenance slavery at all. Why should we not at least entertain the possibility that women were meant to be liberated by a similar effect, despite a possible "glass ceiling" in the first century church? (The two complementarians straw-man this by conflating marriage itself with hierarchy and presuming that because we contemplate abolishing the latter, we must intend to abolish the former. A ridiculous argument.)
- It is true that Jesus had no problems going head to head with the authorities and conventions of his day, but surely no one could be foolhardy enough to demand that the Lord who came to save us from our sins should choose female equality (or the liberation of slaves) as his hill to die upon. He was put to death, quite properly, for preaching that he was God, that he had come to forgive our sins and abolish the religious establishment of the day. This was the vital message, and he was content to leave female liberation, like slavery, to the march of history in his footsteps.
The question of how to translate kephale is tricky - in 1 Corinthians Paul says that the head of woman is man, and the head of man is Christ, yet in 1 Timothy he says that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. This I believe, utterly precludes any interpretation that reads kephale in such a way as to place men as intermediary authorities between women and Christ. Linda Bellville's point that we ought to expect kephale to mean something quite at odds with what it meant in the pagan culture surrounding the church is a good one, although I find the complementarian attacks on the kephale = source interpretation to be extremely strong too. However, Blomberg concedes that at its face meaning kephale normally means, quite literally, a body's head. And if there's one image Paul was CONSTANTLY using to express the unity of the church with its members and with God, that image was - a body. So can't we at least try reading all this headship stuff, not as having to do with the authority and hierarchy that both Jesus and Paul explicitly did away with, but rather as having to do with the radical unity between parts of a body? Women trying to get along without men are like a body without a head. Men trying to get along without women are like a head without a body. Am I saying there are no weaknesses to this model? No. But I'd like to see it discussed.
Two things that seemed to me to characterise the complementarian positions argued in this book, are circular reasoning and a clinging to hierarchy. For example, Schreiner says, "Craig thinks it is clear that Junia served as an apostle according to Romans 16:7, but the term more likely designates a missionary and church planter and does not convey the idea that Junia and Andronicus were equal to Paul and the Twelve." Complementarians need to find a hierarchy in church government because, given how many NT women are seen in ministry roles, they need a rationale for excluding women from certain positions. So, around and around it goes: Junia could not have been Paul's equal because her apostleship, if it existed, was inferior, and we know that her apostleship was inferior because she was a woman and women are excluded from the highest rank, which is how we know that certain forms of apostleship are inferior to others. (It is peculiar that this rationale is always authority. There may be a typological rationale for an all-male clergy: for instance, that a priest must symbolise Jesus, the Groom, to the Body, the Bride, but I suppose this is as difficult to prove as authority).
So I think another takeaway is that BOTH sides have weaknesses and difficulties for their position, and while we will all probably come down on one side or another, a) it's something Christians should be encouraged to disagree on in a spirit of love and b) what shouldn't be up for debate is that women do have a role in ministry.
That said, in this book, given my own particular presuppositions, I did find the egalitarian arguments to be stronger. A glance at the other Goodreads reviews will reveal that those who come to the book with complementarian convictions will find the complementarian arguments stronger, of course. I have by no means finished thinking through this topic - I would love to dig a bit deeper into some of the points raised by Schreiner about the role of elders and its connection to teaching, as well as by Belleville in her response to the same, but I'm not sure I'll have the time for that any time soon. What this book has convinced me of is that this is something orthodox Christians can honestly disagree about, like baptism, and should not be made into the shibboleth it was in the circles I grew up in, where gender equality in the ministry was tantamount to heresy.
July 26, 2012
This book presents a great debate by brilliant, scholarly Christians of various perspectives on a very important issue effecting God's church. It is a mistake to characterize those who disagree with us in whatever nuanced view we may hold as being either feminist or chauvinist, liberal or whatever. Certainly some are these things. However, many are simply trying their best to understand and apply what Scripture teaches about the matter.
Personally, at this stage I am a moderate egalitarian when it comes to church leadership and a moderate complimentarian when it comes to the home. The word moderate seems to be key. The Bible is quite less than one sided (on either side!) concerning this issue and it seems to me that the wise man (or woman) would do well to try and find the balance in the Scriptural position.
Anyhow, for anyone interested in a scholarly debate of the issue, this book is for you!
Personally, at this stage I am a moderate egalitarian when it comes to church leadership and a moderate complimentarian when it comes to the home. The word moderate seems to be key. The Bible is quite less than one sided (on either side!) concerning this issue and it seems to me that the wise man (or woman) would do well to try and find the balance in the Scriptural position.
Anyhow, for anyone interested in a scholarly debate of the issue, this book is for you!
August 15, 2013
Studies from four authors (2 Egalitarian / 2 Complementarian) with rebuttals.
1) I very much appreciated the reasoned, collegial approach of believers with differing views interacting to advance discourse on this topic. Only the barest hints of snark made it to publication and only the slimmest whiff of defensive ego.
2) Not an introductory-level look at the subject. When approaching this book, it's helpful to have done some prior study on the main biblical texts involved.
3) This edition provides helpful, summary snapshots of four opinions along the spectrum of thought. Nothing ground-breaking here, but a helpful encapsulation with many footnote references to lengthier, more complete studies. A good prompter for additional personal study.
4) As snapshots, some questions are given less treatment or omitted altogether - as expected in a book of this type. But the footnotes are helpful breadcrumbs to additional study.
1) I very much appreciated the reasoned, collegial approach of believers with differing views interacting to advance discourse on this topic. Only the barest hints of snark made it to publication and only the slimmest whiff of defensive ego.
2) Not an introductory-level look at the subject. When approaching this book, it's helpful to have done some prior study on the main biblical texts involved.
3) This edition provides helpful, summary snapshots of four opinions along the spectrum of thought. Nothing ground-breaking here, but a helpful encapsulation with many footnote references to lengthier, more complete studies. A good prompter for additional personal study.
4) As snapshots, some questions are given less treatment or omitted altogether - as expected in a book of this type. But the footnotes are helpful breadcrumbs to additional study.
June 24, 2025
This book is an excellent overview of the major arguments about women in ministry. The book consists of 4 essays (2 from a complementarian viewpoint, 2 from an egalitarian viewpoint). Each essay is responded to by the other three contributors. The result is an academic discussion with ideas and counter ideas presented in an engaging and respectful way. (I look forward to reading other books in this series as I greatly enjoyed this format).
While it would be easy to assume that the 2 contributors on the same "side" of the argument would agree, that wasn't the case. While there is consistency and overlap the contribution of four authors on two different views expresses the range and nuance that exists within the subject. No one contributor fully agreed with another, which allowed for different thoughts and arguments to be expressed in a short space.
Given the short space the book does not address every topic regarding women in the church. As the title suggests, the topic was limited to women in ministry and discussion of women within the household was brief, and clearly not the emphasis. The book is well referenced though, allowing the reader to find other works on a specific sub topic if desired (the contributors often encourage this noting their limited space). Overall this is a great starting place if one is curious about the different approaches and views of women in ministry.
While it would be easy to assume that the 2 contributors on the same "side" of the argument would agree, that wasn't the case. While there is consistency and overlap the contribution of four authors on two different views expresses the range and nuance that exists within the subject. No one contributor fully agreed with another, which allowed for different thoughts and arguments to be expressed in a short space.
Given the short space the book does not address every topic regarding women in the church. As the title suggests, the topic was limited to women in ministry and discussion of women within the household was brief, and clearly not the emphasis. The book is well referenced though, allowing the reader to find other works on a specific sub topic if desired (the contributors often encourage this noting their limited space). Overall this is a great starting place if one is curious about the different approaches and views of women in ministry.
July 1, 2012
This book is really a good book. Especially, that it takes a look from two views (four authors - 2 for each view) and goes into the reasons why they feel women should be able to have certain roles in the church or not. The best one is the egalitarian perspective in the beginning of the book. I found myself leaning that way and that after reading her view based from the bible I was sold.
January 10, 2023
An excellent book covering both perspectives. As with most of the books in this series, I'd recommend reading once you already have a thorough grasp of the debate.
In previous years I've started with this series for other issues and left thoroughly confused. In this case I'd already read a reasonable amount on the subject, and as a result, found it provided great clarity.
I think my biggest gripe with the work is Belleville's uncharitable insistence on clinging to the 'traditionalist' rather than preferred 'complementarian' identifier. Belleville is accomplished and argues extremely well for her case, but this choice sticks out rather obviously among the other authors who are (in a much more general way) much more hospitable to opposing views.
In previous years I've started with this series for other issues and left thoroughly confused. In this case I'd already read a reasonable amount on the subject, and as a result, found it provided great clarity.
I think my biggest gripe with the work is Belleville's uncharitable insistence on clinging to the 'traditionalist' rather than preferred 'complementarian' identifier. Belleville is accomplished and argues extremely well for her case, but this choice sticks out rather obviously among the other authors who are (in a much more general way) much more hospitable to opposing views.
February 8, 2016
This is a good book, with good contributors offering good essays and good rebuttals, but in the end, it's too repetitive. Two of the writers, Messrs. Blomberg and Keener, seem very close to the center, and the other two writers are only a bit left and right of the center. As a result, the more extreme positions are lacking, though they do get covered within the essays. While it is not bad to have four more or less moderate opinions, it gets really repetitive in the reading. The book would have been more interesting had there been four quite different views rather than four views clustered together.
Additionally, because there are only so many passages that can be appealed to when discussing women in ministry, we end up reading four rather lengthy exegeses on the same few passages, and the writers reference many of the same books, articles, and authors who discuss those same passages. While being very thorough in their coverage, this makes for more repetition in the reading. This is a good book and well worth the read, but if they decide to make another edition I would recommend a more diverse spread of views or shortening the page count of each essay to cut down on the repetition.
Additionally, because there are only so many passages that can be appealed to when discussing women in ministry, we end up reading four rather lengthy exegeses on the same few passages, and the writers reference many of the same books, articles, and authors who discuss those same passages. While being very thorough in their coverage, this makes for more repetition in the reading. This is a good book and well worth the read, but if they decide to make another edition I would recommend a more diverse spread of views or shortening the page count of each essay to cut down on the repetition.
December 8, 2013
I've read most of the popular books on this subject, but this is the first scholarly book I've engaged. I really appreciate the even-handedness and open-mindedness of the writers, as well as the quality of the scholarship. I thought the two Craigs did the best job, and no, nothing I've read so far has influenced me to change my mind. I'm still waiting for someone to present a compelling reason for WHY women shouldn't be able to do everything a man can in the church. In the meantime, I'm happy to see a consensus among these conservative evangelical scholars: this is really not an salvific doctrine. Amen.
February 2, 2024
Very good. Really helpful to have the Egalitarian and Complementarian views presented and explained from four different perspectives. I was able to see the reasoning and convictions of each camp and I realised I've probably held a prideful dismissive attitude towards churches that are egalitarian all the while not understanding the roots of my traditional upbringing to have an opinion at all. This was good for me to see that God fearing and intelligent christians reach different conclusions on this secondary issue.
"The responsibility of men is indicated by the fact that Adam was rebuked before Eve (Gen. 3:8-12). If God were truly egalitarian, Eve would have been reprimanded first, since she ate the fruit before her husband and presumably convinced Adam to eat of it as well. Yahweh spoke to Adam first because he bore primary responsibility for what occurred in the garden. In Romans 5:12-19, Paul confirms this reading of the narrative, for the sin of the human race was traced to Adam, not to Eve. I am not suggesting Eve bore no responsibility for her sin. Yahweh censured her actions as well and judged her for what she did (vv. 13, 16). Greater responsibility, however, is assigned to Adam as the leader of the first human couple."
"If Adam and Eve possessed different roles before the fall, then the distinct roles of men and women are not the result of sin, they would stem from God's intention in creation and everything God created is good. Male leadership is not the result of the fall, but it is God's good and perfect will for man and woman.
The doctrine of creation is of enormous significance for the debate on the roles of men and women. From Jesus himself, we know marriage is to be permanent because permanence in marriage was God's intent in creating us male and female (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:24; Matt. 19:3-12)"
"When Peter describes the submission of Sarah, he uses the word "obey" to portray it. Such submission should not be construed as demeaning or as a denial of a person's dignity or personhood, for Christ himself submits to the Father (1 Cor. 15:27-28) and as the Son, he did what the Father commanded, yet there is no idea that the Son lacks dignity or worth. To say those who submit are of less worth and dignity is not a biblical worldview but a secular worldview that pervades our highly competitive society."
"The responsibility of men is indicated by the fact that Adam was rebuked before Eve (Gen. 3:8-12). If God were truly egalitarian, Eve would have been reprimanded first, since she ate the fruit before her husband and presumably convinced Adam to eat of it as well. Yahweh spoke to Adam first because he bore primary responsibility for what occurred in the garden. In Romans 5:12-19, Paul confirms this reading of the narrative, for the sin of the human race was traced to Adam, not to Eve. I am not suggesting Eve bore no responsibility for her sin. Yahweh censured her actions as well and judged her for what she did (vv. 13, 16). Greater responsibility, however, is assigned to Adam as the leader of the first human couple."
"If Adam and Eve possessed different roles before the fall, then the distinct roles of men and women are not the result of sin, they would stem from God's intention in creation and everything God created is good. Male leadership is not the result of the fall, but it is God's good and perfect will for man and woman.
The doctrine of creation is of enormous significance for the debate on the roles of men and women. From Jesus himself, we know marriage is to be permanent because permanence in marriage was God's intent in creating us male and female (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:24; Matt. 19:3-12)"
"When Peter describes the submission of Sarah, he uses the word "obey" to portray it. Such submission should not be construed as demeaning or as a denial of a person's dignity or personhood, for Christ himself submits to the Father (1 Cor. 15:27-28) and as the Son, he did what the Father commanded, yet there is no idea that the Son lacks dignity or worth. To say those who submit are of less worth and dignity is not a biblical worldview but a secular worldview that pervades our highly competitive society."
February 23, 2022
A great book on an important topic. The arguments are worth reading but I also appreciate the respectable tone and dialogue between scholars who disagree. I especially am drawn to Craig Bloomberg and Craig Keener’s arguments for their respective positions.
June 10, 2024
Month 5: A book targeted at your gender. A very interesting argument for both egalitarian vs complementarian viewpoints, I’m still firmly in the second camp but I found it challenging in a good way to have to navigate the views presented.
July 31, 2024
Best analysis I’ve read on complementarianism and egalitarianism. Both viewpoints are argued and rebutted by New Testament scholars who hold the viewpoints for which they testify. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the theological arguments for each side.
June 4, 2008
I have only read Thomas Schreiner's section called Women in Ministry. This is a very challenging issue to comprehend. I am still in process.
June 20, 2008
Very helpful for anyone thinking about this matter. Presents arguments from scholars on both sides of the issue. Also noninflammatory, which I appreciated.
August 24, 2018
I gave this 5 stars for several reasons. First, I highly appreciate the friendly and respectful way in which these scholars engage one another. They agreed on a guiding statement noted in the introduction, "We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and a commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling." It may be one of the healthiest things for evangelicals today to recognize this issue fits in a category of "open-handed issues" we can disagree on. Second, I love the format of an extended essay followed by shorter responses from the other contributors. I found my ability to grasp the arguments increasing with each section as they were engaged with. Third, this book will thoroughly introduce any reader to the areas of debate and discussion concerning this issue. You'll know clearly where the disagreements lie and will be able to make your own conclusions. Finally, because of these reasons and more, I would recommend it to anyone in my church. Its contributors are committed evangelicals and the debate is framed within a dependency upon scripture (though of course scholars outside of evangelical scholarship have aptly contributed to the conversation). It is important to note that while it isn't overly technical, it isn't for the faint of heart. There are lots of footnotes and some technical exegetical arguments to follow. I would say this is a "starting book" for anyone diving into this topic and I'm thankful for the work these men and woman have done!
January 1, 2020
I appreciated the format of this series where each author gives their position and then the other authors respond directly to their arguments. You are able to evaluate an author's argument for its strengths and weaknesses not just on your own ability but also on the merits of the others' critiques.
While Linda Belleville's argument for egalitarianism is fairly technical/academic in nature and might be difficult for someone who has little theological training to understand/appreciate, the other three contributions were (I believe) accessible whether you have formal theological training or not. Recommended as a good starting place if you want to do further study on the subject.
While Linda Belleville's argument for egalitarianism is fairly technical/academic in nature and might be difficult for someone who has little theological training to understand/appreciate, the other three contributions were (I believe) accessible whether you have formal theological training or not. Recommended as a good starting place if you want to do further study on the subject.
February 20, 2025
Read this whole book in a day as part of my (unconsciously long awaited) deep dive into this question. It was helpful to have a book with essays on both sides of the question, and, of course, I appreciated their emphasis that egalitarian/complementarian views are both within orthodoxy. I continue to be more persuaded by egalitarian arguments, in large part perhaps because I find complementarian interpretations of Gen 1-2 so very far-fetched. Still, many more books to read!
January 24, 2018
This is a helpful read for anyone looking to develop a more informed, nuanced view regarding women in ministry. All of the authors hold relatively moderate positions and, for the most part, dialogue well amongst themselves. At the very least, this book will provide more understanding of some of the major interpretive differences on key texts between complementarians and egalitarians.
February 1, 2018
This is a fantastic book to delve deeper into the Scriptures regarding women’s roles within the church. While not an “easy read”, (I had to really focus and be rested since it was a great deal of information that is presented in each essay), it was well worth the effort. I learned a great deal and found myself more certain of a few things- some of which had puzzled me for years. I highly recommend this book and believe that it will be beyond beneficial to any reader desiring to grow in their knowledge of the Bible and this discussion.
January 5, 2020
Loved the variety of opinions. I lean more egalitarian and agreed with Craig Keener over all. Interesting essays and worth the read if you are interested in this subject.
January 3, 2026
My denomination seems to be in a season of infighting about how to work out this traditional conviction of male-headship in our current cultural moment. Can women have a publicly recognized role in shepherding other women? Can they serve as a deaconess? Can they participate in distributing communion? Can they read Scripture in the corporate gathering? Can they do anything an un-ordained man can do or are there other limitations? These debates inside my denomination sadden me greatly as they seem lack charity and police one another beyond Scripture’s own specificity. So, to brush up on the key passages and modern scholarship on them, I picked up this book.
I’ve greatly enjoyed other books in the Counterpoint series from Zondervan. The format is really helpful. I always seem disappointed with the 4 (or 2 or 3 or 5) voices they choose to represent the positions. I think the editors did a good job deciding to invite four NT scholars (while OT and ST issues will arise). It was a bit odd to learn that the editor is an egalitarian and while two contributors are complementarian, one of whom (Blomberg) calls himself “as close to as an egalitarian as you can be without being one” and is comfortable with women preaching on the Lord’s Day provided she isn’t in the office of elder. I found something fairly close to my view represented between Blomberg and Schreiner, but I’m regularly engaging with folks who don’t think Pheobe was a deacon, and who are much stricter on how these principles work themselves out in the home and church. I wish I could have heard the best of those arguments too, assuming some scholars hold them. I also think it is fine to have four Protestants, but three being Baptists felt like granting a bit of biblicism that changed the way the topic is handled.
Genesis 1-2
I have heard the whole debate summarized as those who read Genesis in light of Paul (complementarians) and those who read Paul in light of Genesis (egalitarians). I’ve always appreciated how egalitarians start with Genesis rather than the household codes.
On the egalitarians side, Dr. Belville argues that Genesis 1-2 does not teach or imply male leadership, as most traditionalists assert. She thinks the main teaching is sameness, even preferring “partner” as a better translation to “helper.” She rebuts four common traditionalists arguments: 1) Eve is called “helper,” 2) Adam names Eve, 3) Adam’s name which can stand in for mankind, and 4) Adam was created first (p. 27-30).
In Schreiner’s essay, he offers six reasons he sees headship-submission in the creation account (p. 289). The most important two (not mentioned by any other author!?) was that God gave the command to Adam before having made Eve and the serpent subverted the pattern by tempting Eve. Only Keener addressed these points in his response, but even here, Keener dismisses the observations as “inference” (338). “God gave Adam rather than Eve the command because he had not yet created Eve.” But why did God do it this way? No one offered a response.
Likewise, most sides seem to acknowledge that the NT appeals to this passage regularly in its discussion of men and women. Schreiner criticizes Belville for seeming to not engage the NT’s handling of the passage at all. Keener’s take was most troubling: “[Paul] employs a standard interpretative technique of his contemporaries: Apply the text the way you need to in order to make your point. While some of us may not want to accept that Paul uses Scripture in an ad hoc way at times (it makes it more difficult for us to teach sound hermeneutics to our students), respect for Scripture requires us to revise our preconceptions in light of what we find in the text” (239). It seems Keener is saying that Paul would fail Keener’s hermeneutics class because of how poorly he uses the OT at many places. The work of Beale/Carson and others have firmly convinced me that the NT were superb exegetes, and we should follow their lead in interpreting the Scriptures.
Therefore, it seems to me that Schreiner had the best reading of Genesis 1-2. I agree with Blomberg that authority and submission are “not what the narrator wants to emphasize the most” (130), and left to these verses only, we don’t have enough data to make a case either way. But the complementarian reading seemed more compelling in the isolated reading of this passage as well as the canonical references to these passages.
Genesis 3:16
Belville did a good job showing some of the interpretative options in this verse and made a good defense for the passage as “a recapping of the relational dysfunction that transpired much earlier in the narrative” (35).
Influential Old Testament Women
All the authors gave space to rehearsing the great number of OT women heroines: Miriam, Deborah, Jael, Huldah, Esther, etc. Interesting (I think trying overstate her case) Belville added Noadiah, Athaliah, and Jezebel to her list (all villains of the story). Blomberg stresses that “one religious leadership role in ancient Israel was uniformly reserved for men-the priesthood” (133). He uses this to argue that this is precisely the case across the whole canon: all leadership open to both genders save one. Belville argues that priests were banned from this role because they were “unclean” once a month. But men also regularly became unclean, so that cannot fully explain it. Plus, the clean and unclean laws come from the same source: God so that would just require us to ask again why God drew it up that way.
Jesus Choosing 12 Male Apostles
This section was fascinating. Why didn’t Jesus choose Mary or Martha or any other woman to be among the twelve? Belville says “He was simply a realist in terms of the amount of change Palestinian culture could accommodate at that point in time” (45). I think every other contributor pointed out how untenable this would be: Jesus was killed for not conforming to societal expectations. He was not reluctant to challenge the status quo. And he regularly countered the Jews relegation of women. Keener made a better response: ‘It was not inconsistent for Jesus to be countercultural in some ways (allowing women disciples) but to accommodate his culture in others (choosing males for the Twelve, whom he would send out to evangelize)” (186). He adds that Jesus didn’t choose any Gentiles in the Twelve, yet we ordain Gentile pastors in our day. The problem with Keener’s take is that Gentiles are clearly ordained at other points in the NT (Titus), but not women (a point developed under future headings).
1 Timothy 2:11-15
This passage got the most attention, rightly so. The way the egalitarian authors compose their case, this seems like one of the only two texts that could possibly be read in favor of the opposition. Keener’s argument was new to me (an argument from local historical context): “The one Bible passage that explicitly prohibits women from teaching the Bible – in contrast with numerous passages that endorse various women communicating God’s message – is addressed to the one church where we specifically know that false teachers were targeting women” (207). The response was that it would be incredibly sexist to silence an entire gender from teaching because some women were being influenced by false teachers. Men were the false teachers. Similarly, some appeal to the education of women. Again, this would be sexist, since some women were educated and many men were uneducated.
Belville’s argument was the familiar one to me (an argument from the meaning of authenteo. It is a very interesting word and Belville did a great job making the case that it is a usurping and domineering word that the women in Ephesus should do (which Paul calls out because they are) but no one should. I have to admit here that I don’t have a strong reason why Paul chose this rare word. Schreiner and Blomberg both appeal to Kostenberger’s scholarship to show that “teach and exercise authority” must be both good words or bad words based on the syntax. That seems to fit the context better, though Belville makes good points.
The complementarians squabbled here on whether “teach and exercise authority” are two actions women are not permitted to do (Schreiner) or two verbs that describe a single duty (Blomberg). I agree with Blomberg. Women can teach in many settings, but they should not teach in the way that is the teaching with the authority of elders. This is precisely where Paul takes the argument in 1 Timothy 3. But Blomberg is incorrect in my view to see that one action as anything other than preaching (see below).
1 Corinthians 11:3-7 + 14:33-34
I don’t have much to reflect on with this verse. I’m grateful that none of the egalitarian authors claimed that this was one of the Corinthian slogans Paul is rejecting. The explanation of women asking disrespectful questions in the gathering is interesting. It could explain the situation, but I’m usually skeptical of interpretations that are steeped in cultural context that we have desperately little insight into: especially if that interpretation overturns the plain reading and the historic interpretation.
I agree that chapter 14 cannot mean absolute silence since women pray and prophesy in chapter 11. All four authors seem to have vastly different and contradictory opinions on what “prophecy” is in the NT era. Until that question gets more clarity, I think this passage continues to have mystery. But no matter how shrouded, it does reinforce the complementarian view: as in all the churches, Paul restricted women in some sense, just as he did explicitly in Ephesus. The burden of proof to overturn the natural and canonical reading of some restriction falls to egalitarians.
Romas 16:1-2 and 1 Timohty 3 (Deacons)
Belville did a great job arguing that Phoebe was a deacon. The term deaconess is a later term. She also provided a convincing amount of evidence that women fulfilled this office in the early church. To my shock, every contributor concurred. (One criticism at this point: both egalitarians made excellent cases here, but used both church history and an appeal to office. Both dismiss church history on the broader question of women in ministry. Furthermore, at least Belville explicitly rejects formal office and ordination. See below.) At present, my denomination forbids women deacons (ordained or commissioned). Needless to say, the exegetical, contextual, and historical arguments are overwhelming. I wish there had been a contributor who disagreed. Blomberg even expresses shock that Schreiner is allowed to hold this view and maintain his post at an SBC seminary (333)!
Romans 16:7
My comments on Junia, well known among the apostles, will be similar to those regarding Phoebe. Belville makes great exegetical and syntactical points. And again, the words of the church fathers carry great weight for me! And again to my astonishment, every contributor agreed. I personally think Schreiner is correct to see the word apostle functioning in a general and a special-office-bearing sense. The term “probably refers to ‘church planters’ or ‘missionaries’ and so does not place Junia and Andronicus at the same level as the Twelve or Paul” (105). Belville thinks this is an anachronism: but I think she needs to acknowledge a concept of ordination within the NT itself.
Cultural Context’s Effect on Interpretation
I’ll move now to overarching topics address. As I wrote above, I’m greatly warry when cultural context (which is important for exegesis) overturns the plain reading. Keener offered a good and comical section on parts of Scripture that all acknowledge are cultural. We don’t greet one another with the holy kiss. We don’t visit Paul in Rome or take a little wine with our water for the sake of our stomach. The point is well taken, but the punch doesn’t land because every complementarian author worth his or her salt understands the cultural dimension. They just think the distinction in roles is the transcultural principle that works itself out differently across situations.
I also have to point out that the egalitarian authors often overplay their hand when it comes to the cultural context. In Corinth, the women are so uneducated that their sincere questions come off disrespectful and distracting. And the women in Ephesus are so empowered that they are full blown feminists bullying their male counterparts. Am I the only that finds this unrealistic? It does feel like they are straining gnats to make the context fit an exegesis that isn’t overly confusing on its face. As Schreiner writes, “most Christians throughout history did not think [1 Timothy 2:11-15] was hard to grasp. I would suggest the verse seems difficult to our own cultural intuitions” (313).
Ordination & Preaching
A rejection of ordination is central to Belville’s argument. She writes “teaching in the NT period was an activity, not an office (Matt. 28:19-20), and it was a gift, not a position of authority (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; 14:26; Eph. 4:11)” (81). Earlier, “Both the term and concept [of ordination] are lacking in the NT – with respect to both men and women. The idea commissioning (i.e., to set apart, dedicate) for a particular ministry is more what we find… But this is a far cry from how churches us ‘ordain’ today” (68).
Besides the questionable interpretation that all the proof-texts allude to, this misses that the NT church practiced ordination. Coming off of a rich theology of ordination in the OT, the NT church set apart people and installed them into a specific number of offices. The work of Jonathan Griffiths demonstrates that there are three technical terms for word ministry in the NT that are exclusively applied to ordained clergy. He writes in his NSBT volume, “none of our three ‘semi-technical verbs’ for preaching the gospel are used anywhere in the New Testament to frame an instruction, command or commission for believers in general to ‘preach’” (36). And again, “Throughout the New Testament, preaching is normally carried out by those who have a recognized role of authority within the church and possess a commission to preach. Preaching is not a generalized activity undertaken by all Christian people or on the basis of the preacher’s own initiative” (128).
This makes Blomberg’s version of complementarianism (which hitherto was most attractive to me) inconceivable. He wants to restrict the office of elder to men, while opening the door for women to preach. More strongly, “not to encourage a woman who appears to have the gift of prophecy to cultivate it in the context of preaching God’s word to his people is to fight against God’s purpose in giving spiritual gifts to all his followers” (158). Blomberg seems to have an office that has no unique duties attached to it. Besides being incoherent, this flies in the face of what ordination is instituted by God to do!
Church History
Against the egalitarians, they seem too quick to dismiss the consensus of the church. As Schriener writes, “An interpretation that has stood the test of time and been ratified by the church in century after century – both in the East and the West and in the North and the South – has an impressive pedigree, even if some of the supporting arguments used are unpersuasive” (266). Yes, we must reject much of what the Fathers and Reformers said about women, but the so-called Great Tradition is (much) weightier than a couple NT scholars.
Against the complementarians, the picture they paint is a bit too neat and tidy. Yes, Rome and the Orthodox limit the priesthood to men. Yes the Fathers and the Reformers are lock step. But Beth Allison Barr has shown that the story is not uninform nor without exceptions.
Church Polity
Belville is right, in responding to Schreiner that “ecclesiology is at the heart of Tom’s repeated clam that women are prohibited from functioning in the pastoral office” (325). Amen! Ecclesiology is key to thinking about offices in God’s church, yes?
Belville thinks this is anachronistic: “Churches have variously adopted episcopal, congregational, and presbyterian forms of government because the perceived biblical freedom to operate by whatever organizational structures best serve them” (329). Biblical theologians need to read systematic and historical theology! No, various forms of church government exist because theologians disagree how Jesus would run his church. But church polity is not, nor ever has been, adiaphora!
Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son
I’m grateful that there was not much writing about EFS. The only exception was the footnote on 303 where Schreiner quotes Keener to “suggestion that the eternal subordination of the Son, rightly understood is biblical.” I say again: Biblical theologians need to read systematic and historical theology!
Conclusion on the Question at Hand
Keener writes at one point, “If one could win the debate on women’s ministry simply by the number of Bible passages one could cite, the clear weight of the debate would favor women’s ministry… Two texts can be used to prohibit women’s ministry, of which one (and only one) explicitly addresses women’s ministry in particular. While this one [1 Timothy 2] is rather explicit, if it means all that it could possibly mean, it would represent a radical departure from everything else Paul taught on the subject” (224). While 1 Timothy 2 is clear enough for me, and 1 Corinthians has some issues, Keener’s framing feels exactly backwards in Paul and across the canon. Women are gifted in numerous ways by God’s Spirit. They should receive space to use these gifts. But male leadership is seen across the entire Bible from Adam, to the patriarchs, to the (vast majority) of the Judges, to the Kings, to the overwhelming majority of male prophets, to all the priests, to Jesus, to the Twelve apostles, to the elders ordained and installed in Acts and the Epistles. If one could win the debate on women’s ministry simply by the number of Bible passages one could cite, the clear weight of the debate would favor something that resembles complementarianism.
Conclusion on the Practice of Complementarianism
I long to follow God’s revelation in the Bible when exercising any influence I have in God’s church. Therefore, I cannot support (or agree to disagree) that the office of elder is restricted to called, qualified, and ordained men. But, we need to heed Blomberg's words: “Once you have decided, as best as you can understand it, what Scripture does permit women to do, can any reasonably objective observer of your church and your ministry quickly recognize you are bending over backwards to encourage and nurture women in these roles?” (183). Amen. Let it be so!
I’ve greatly enjoyed other books in the Counterpoint series from Zondervan. The format is really helpful. I always seem disappointed with the 4 (or 2 or 3 or 5) voices they choose to represent the positions. I think the editors did a good job deciding to invite four NT scholars (while OT and ST issues will arise). It was a bit odd to learn that the editor is an egalitarian and while two contributors are complementarian, one of whom (Blomberg) calls himself “as close to as an egalitarian as you can be without being one” and is comfortable with women preaching on the Lord’s Day provided she isn’t in the office of elder. I found something fairly close to my view represented between Blomberg and Schreiner, but I’m regularly engaging with folks who don’t think Pheobe was a deacon, and who are much stricter on how these principles work themselves out in the home and church. I wish I could have heard the best of those arguments too, assuming some scholars hold them. I also think it is fine to have four Protestants, but three being Baptists felt like granting a bit of biblicism that changed the way the topic is handled.
Genesis 1-2
I have heard the whole debate summarized as those who read Genesis in light of Paul (complementarians) and those who read Paul in light of Genesis (egalitarians). I’ve always appreciated how egalitarians start with Genesis rather than the household codes.
On the egalitarians side, Dr. Belville argues that Genesis 1-2 does not teach or imply male leadership, as most traditionalists assert. She thinks the main teaching is sameness, even preferring “partner” as a better translation to “helper.” She rebuts four common traditionalists arguments: 1) Eve is called “helper,” 2) Adam names Eve, 3) Adam’s name which can stand in for mankind, and 4) Adam was created first (p. 27-30).
In Schreiner’s essay, he offers six reasons he sees headship-submission in the creation account (p. 289). The most important two (not mentioned by any other author!?) was that God gave the command to Adam before having made Eve and the serpent subverted the pattern by tempting Eve. Only Keener addressed these points in his response, but even here, Keener dismisses the observations as “inference” (338). “God gave Adam rather than Eve the command because he had not yet created Eve.” But why did God do it this way? No one offered a response.
Likewise, most sides seem to acknowledge that the NT appeals to this passage regularly in its discussion of men and women. Schreiner criticizes Belville for seeming to not engage the NT’s handling of the passage at all. Keener’s take was most troubling: “[Paul] employs a standard interpretative technique of his contemporaries: Apply the text the way you need to in order to make your point. While some of us may not want to accept that Paul uses Scripture in an ad hoc way at times (it makes it more difficult for us to teach sound hermeneutics to our students), respect for Scripture requires us to revise our preconceptions in light of what we find in the text” (239). It seems Keener is saying that Paul would fail Keener’s hermeneutics class because of how poorly he uses the OT at many places. The work of Beale/Carson and others have firmly convinced me that the NT were superb exegetes, and we should follow their lead in interpreting the Scriptures.
Therefore, it seems to me that Schreiner had the best reading of Genesis 1-2. I agree with Blomberg that authority and submission are “not what the narrator wants to emphasize the most” (130), and left to these verses only, we don’t have enough data to make a case either way. But the complementarian reading seemed more compelling in the isolated reading of this passage as well as the canonical references to these passages.
Genesis 3:16
Belville did a good job showing some of the interpretative options in this verse and made a good defense for the passage as “a recapping of the relational dysfunction that transpired much earlier in the narrative” (35).
Influential Old Testament Women
All the authors gave space to rehearsing the great number of OT women heroines: Miriam, Deborah, Jael, Huldah, Esther, etc. Interesting (I think trying overstate her case) Belville added Noadiah, Athaliah, and Jezebel to her list (all villains of the story). Blomberg stresses that “one religious leadership role in ancient Israel was uniformly reserved for men-the priesthood” (133). He uses this to argue that this is precisely the case across the whole canon: all leadership open to both genders save one. Belville argues that priests were banned from this role because they were “unclean” once a month. But men also regularly became unclean, so that cannot fully explain it. Plus, the clean and unclean laws come from the same source: God so that would just require us to ask again why God drew it up that way.
Jesus Choosing 12 Male Apostles
This section was fascinating. Why didn’t Jesus choose Mary or Martha or any other woman to be among the twelve? Belville says “He was simply a realist in terms of the amount of change Palestinian culture could accommodate at that point in time” (45). I think every other contributor pointed out how untenable this would be: Jesus was killed for not conforming to societal expectations. He was not reluctant to challenge the status quo. And he regularly countered the Jews relegation of women. Keener made a better response: ‘It was not inconsistent for Jesus to be countercultural in some ways (allowing women disciples) but to accommodate his culture in others (choosing males for the Twelve, whom he would send out to evangelize)” (186). He adds that Jesus didn’t choose any Gentiles in the Twelve, yet we ordain Gentile pastors in our day. The problem with Keener’s take is that Gentiles are clearly ordained at other points in the NT (Titus), but not women (a point developed under future headings).
1 Timothy 2:11-15
This passage got the most attention, rightly so. The way the egalitarian authors compose their case, this seems like one of the only two texts that could possibly be read in favor of the opposition. Keener’s argument was new to me (an argument from local historical context): “The one Bible passage that explicitly prohibits women from teaching the Bible – in contrast with numerous passages that endorse various women communicating God’s message – is addressed to the one church where we specifically know that false teachers were targeting women” (207). The response was that it would be incredibly sexist to silence an entire gender from teaching because some women were being influenced by false teachers. Men were the false teachers. Similarly, some appeal to the education of women. Again, this would be sexist, since some women were educated and many men were uneducated.
Belville’s argument was the familiar one to me (an argument from the meaning of authenteo. It is a very interesting word and Belville did a great job making the case that it is a usurping and domineering word that the women in Ephesus should do (which Paul calls out because they are) but no one should. I have to admit here that I don’t have a strong reason why Paul chose this rare word. Schreiner and Blomberg both appeal to Kostenberger’s scholarship to show that “teach and exercise authority” must be both good words or bad words based on the syntax. That seems to fit the context better, though Belville makes good points.
The complementarians squabbled here on whether “teach and exercise authority” are two actions women are not permitted to do (Schreiner) or two verbs that describe a single duty (Blomberg). I agree with Blomberg. Women can teach in many settings, but they should not teach in the way that is the teaching with the authority of elders. This is precisely where Paul takes the argument in 1 Timothy 3. But Blomberg is incorrect in my view to see that one action as anything other than preaching (see below).
1 Corinthians 11:3-7 + 14:33-34
I don’t have much to reflect on with this verse. I’m grateful that none of the egalitarian authors claimed that this was one of the Corinthian slogans Paul is rejecting. The explanation of women asking disrespectful questions in the gathering is interesting. It could explain the situation, but I’m usually skeptical of interpretations that are steeped in cultural context that we have desperately little insight into: especially if that interpretation overturns the plain reading and the historic interpretation.
I agree that chapter 14 cannot mean absolute silence since women pray and prophesy in chapter 11. All four authors seem to have vastly different and contradictory opinions on what “prophecy” is in the NT era. Until that question gets more clarity, I think this passage continues to have mystery. But no matter how shrouded, it does reinforce the complementarian view: as in all the churches, Paul restricted women in some sense, just as he did explicitly in Ephesus. The burden of proof to overturn the natural and canonical reading of some restriction falls to egalitarians.
Romas 16:1-2 and 1 Timohty 3 (Deacons)
Belville did a great job arguing that Phoebe was a deacon. The term deaconess is a later term. She also provided a convincing amount of evidence that women fulfilled this office in the early church. To my shock, every contributor concurred. (One criticism at this point: both egalitarians made excellent cases here, but used both church history and an appeal to office. Both dismiss church history on the broader question of women in ministry. Furthermore, at least Belville explicitly rejects formal office and ordination. See below.) At present, my denomination forbids women deacons (ordained or commissioned). Needless to say, the exegetical, contextual, and historical arguments are overwhelming. I wish there had been a contributor who disagreed. Blomberg even expresses shock that Schreiner is allowed to hold this view and maintain his post at an SBC seminary (333)!
Romans 16:7
My comments on Junia, well known among the apostles, will be similar to those regarding Phoebe. Belville makes great exegetical and syntactical points. And again, the words of the church fathers carry great weight for me! And again to my astonishment, every contributor agreed. I personally think Schreiner is correct to see the word apostle functioning in a general and a special-office-bearing sense. The term “probably refers to ‘church planters’ or ‘missionaries’ and so does not place Junia and Andronicus at the same level as the Twelve or Paul” (105). Belville thinks this is an anachronism: but I think she needs to acknowledge a concept of ordination within the NT itself.
Cultural Context’s Effect on Interpretation
I’ll move now to overarching topics address. As I wrote above, I’m greatly warry when cultural context (which is important for exegesis) overturns the plain reading. Keener offered a good and comical section on parts of Scripture that all acknowledge are cultural. We don’t greet one another with the holy kiss. We don’t visit Paul in Rome or take a little wine with our water for the sake of our stomach. The point is well taken, but the punch doesn’t land because every complementarian author worth his or her salt understands the cultural dimension. They just think the distinction in roles is the transcultural principle that works itself out differently across situations.
I also have to point out that the egalitarian authors often overplay their hand when it comes to the cultural context. In Corinth, the women are so uneducated that their sincere questions come off disrespectful and distracting. And the women in Ephesus are so empowered that they are full blown feminists bullying their male counterparts. Am I the only that finds this unrealistic? It does feel like they are straining gnats to make the context fit an exegesis that isn’t overly confusing on its face. As Schreiner writes, “most Christians throughout history did not think [1 Timothy 2:11-15] was hard to grasp. I would suggest the verse seems difficult to our own cultural intuitions” (313).
Ordination & Preaching
A rejection of ordination is central to Belville’s argument. She writes “teaching in the NT period was an activity, not an office (Matt. 28:19-20), and it was a gift, not a position of authority (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; 14:26; Eph. 4:11)” (81). Earlier, “Both the term and concept [of ordination] are lacking in the NT – with respect to both men and women. The idea commissioning (i.e., to set apart, dedicate) for a particular ministry is more what we find… But this is a far cry from how churches us ‘ordain’ today” (68).
Besides the questionable interpretation that all the proof-texts allude to, this misses that the NT church practiced ordination. Coming off of a rich theology of ordination in the OT, the NT church set apart people and installed them into a specific number of offices. The work of Jonathan Griffiths demonstrates that there are three technical terms for word ministry in the NT that are exclusively applied to ordained clergy. He writes in his NSBT volume, “none of our three ‘semi-technical verbs’ for preaching the gospel are used anywhere in the New Testament to frame an instruction, command or commission for believers in general to ‘preach’” (36). And again, “Throughout the New Testament, preaching is normally carried out by those who have a recognized role of authority within the church and possess a commission to preach. Preaching is not a generalized activity undertaken by all Christian people or on the basis of the preacher’s own initiative” (128).
This makes Blomberg’s version of complementarianism (which hitherto was most attractive to me) inconceivable. He wants to restrict the office of elder to men, while opening the door for women to preach. More strongly, “not to encourage a woman who appears to have the gift of prophecy to cultivate it in the context of preaching God’s word to his people is to fight against God’s purpose in giving spiritual gifts to all his followers” (158). Blomberg seems to have an office that has no unique duties attached to it. Besides being incoherent, this flies in the face of what ordination is instituted by God to do!
Church History
Against the egalitarians, they seem too quick to dismiss the consensus of the church. As Schriener writes, “An interpretation that has stood the test of time and been ratified by the church in century after century – both in the East and the West and in the North and the South – has an impressive pedigree, even if some of the supporting arguments used are unpersuasive” (266). Yes, we must reject much of what the Fathers and Reformers said about women, but the so-called Great Tradition is (much) weightier than a couple NT scholars.
Against the complementarians, the picture they paint is a bit too neat and tidy. Yes, Rome and the Orthodox limit the priesthood to men. Yes the Fathers and the Reformers are lock step. But Beth Allison Barr has shown that the story is not uninform nor without exceptions.
Church Polity
Belville is right, in responding to Schreiner that “ecclesiology is at the heart of Tom’s repeated clam that women are prohibited from functioning in the pastoral office” (325). Amen! Ecclesiology is key to thinking about offices in God’s church, yes?
Belville thinks this is anachronistic: “Churches have variously adopted episcopal, congregational, and presbyterian forms of government because the perceived biblical freedom to operate by whatever organizational structures best serve them” (329). Biblical theologians need to read systematic and historical theology! No, various forms of church government exist because theologians disagree how Jesus would run his church. But church polity is not, nor ever has been, adiaphora!
Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son
I’m grateful that there was not much writing about EFS. The only exception was the footnote on 303 where Schreiner quotes Keener to “suggestion that the eternal subordination of the Son, rightly understood is biblical.” I say again: Biblical theologians need to read systematic and historical theology!
Conclusion on the Question at Hand
Keener writes at one point, “If one could win the debate on women’s ministry simply by the number of Bible passages one could cite, the clear weight of the debate would favor women’s ministry… Two texts can be used to prohibit women’s ministry, of which one (and only one) explicitly addresses women’s ministry in particular. While this one [1 Timothy 2] is rather explicit, if it means all that it could possibly mean, it would represent a radical departure from everything else Paul taught on the subject” (224). While 1 Timothy 2 is clear enough for me, and 1 Corinthians has some issues, Keener’s framing feels exactly backwards in Paul and across the canon. Women are gifted in numerous ways by God’s Spirit. They should receive space to use these gifts. But male leadership is seen across the entire Bible from Adam, to the patriarchs, to the (vast majority) of the Judges, to the Kings, to the overwhelming majority of male prophets, to all the priests, to Jesus, to the Twelve apostles, to the elders ordained and installed in Acts and the Epistles. If one could win the debate on women’s ministry simply by the number of Bible passages one could cite, the clear weight of the debate would favor something that resembles complementarianism.
Conclusion on the Practice of Complementarianism
I long to follow God’s revelation in the Bible when exercising any influence I have in God’s church. Therefore, I cannot support (or agree to disagree) that the office of elder is restricted to called, qualified, and ordained men. But, we need to heed Blomberg's words: “Once you have decided, as best as you can understand it, what Scripture does permit women to do, can any reasonably objective observer of your church and your ministry quickly recognize you are bending over backwards to encourage and nurture women in these roles?” (183). Amen. Let it be so!
February 27, 2024
This is a dense and informative read.
I appreciated that each contributor responds to each other’s essay with respect. I personally enjoyed the layout of this book. You have the main essay ( defending complementarian or egalitarianism ) and then the other contributors respond.
I recommend reading this if you want a book that covers all aspects of the women in ministry debate.
I do think that a weakness of the book is that it’s covering all aspects of women in ministry, rather than solely focusing on the office of overseers/elders.
However, I still think that it’s a great starting point for the average person to start with regarding women serving in ministries and getting exposure to different views.
I appreciated that each contributor responds to each other’s essay with respect. I personally enjoyed the layout of this book. You have the main essay ( defending complementarian or egalitarianism ) and then the other contributors respond.
I recommend reading this if you want a book that covers all aspects of the women in ministry debate.
I do think that a weakness of the book is that it’s covering all aspects of women in ministry, rather than solely focusing on the office of overseers/elders.
However, I still think that it’s a great starting point for the average person to start with regarding women serving in ministries and getting exposure to different views.
February 21, 2025
I like these kind of books where we can hear multiple views and one Another’s réaction within the same book.
This is one the of them.
Four authors, two main views with slightly nuances. I enjoyed the deapth of the subjec and research.
This is one the of them.
Four authors, two main views with slightly nuances. I enjoyed the deapth of the subjec and research.
August 4, 2013
This book was a good introduction into both sides of the complementarian and egalitarian debate. I appreciated the format with the contributors writing their essays and the others each responding to the essay. It helped me to see that this debate is another area of the Christian life that doesn't seem to have a completely definitive right or wrong. Both sides can be argued legitimately from the scriptures. It's true that one side does resonate with me more and I agree more with those interpretations of scripture, but as Blomberg points out, it is a topic that allows us as Christians to exercise and practice Christian love and grace with each other as we disagree.
The theological/biblical arguments are quite thorough in this book, but I found myself very interested in reading each view and the rebuttals. I wouldn't call it a "page turner" but if you are interested in this topic and want to be more informed about the "debate", it is a great resource to start with. I would be interested in reading others in this series.
The theological/biblical arguments are quite thorough in this book, but I found myself very interested in reading each view and the rebuttals. I wouldn't call it a "page turner" but if you are interested in this topic and want to be more informed about the "debate", it is a great resource to start with. I would be interested in reading others in this series.
December 9, 2018
Introduction
In Stanley N. Gundry and James R. Beck’s book “Two Views of Women in Ministry,” two diverging cases are presented regarding the role of women according to the Bible. This would include women’s roles in the church and family, but also in the society at large. The first view presented is known as “egalitarianism,” and strives for a more equal and less traditional perspective on the nature of the role of women. The second view presented is known as “complementarianism,” and represents a view that favors complimentary but traditional roles existing between men and women. Gundry and Beck’s aim is to accurately present a civil, informative, and engaging discussion between two supporters of egalitarianism—represented by Linda L. Belleville and Craig S. Keener—and two supporters of complementarianism—represented by Craig L. Blomberg and Thomas R. Schreiner. The editors allow the authors to respond to one another’s cases, thus promoting a thorough dialogue. The aim of this work is to summarize and critique Gundry and Beck’s book so as to inform the reader as to its merits and demerits.
Summary
The book starts off with a brief introduction by James R. Beck, where the editor stresses the civility and respect all the involved authors have towards each other, and emphasizes the importance of keeping up to date with the debate on gender roles. The theological environment is constantly changing in regard to this topic, especially since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Therefore, it is important, according to Beck, to be open, honest, and respectful with one another in discussing such a divisive topic.
Linda L. Belleville starts her side of the discussion off by dissecting the creation account to try to show that the traditional view is not substantiated by what is found in Genesis. Belleville writes, “Although male and female can decide on practical grounds how to divide the labor, the assumption of the creation accounts is that both have what it takes to rule and subdue the entirety of what God has created.” Belleville carries this view throughout her reading of both testaments—that the responsibilities given to men and women are the same, whether it comes to subduing the earth, ruling nations, or using spiritual gifts in the church. She maintains that male and females are both gifted by God in the same way with the same set of spiritual gifts. Why should the church then reserve some offices strictly for males? This, in Belleville’s view, has contributed to even psychological damage in women who are told they can not participate in activities God has called them to, such as preaching with men present. Both Belleville and Craig Keener contextualize verses from the Pauline epistles that seem to indicate that the role of pastor/shepherd should be reserved for men. In their estimation, Paul was addressing issues particular to the context of the time period and geographic location. Keener states, “Context and background demonstrate that the two passages used to argue against women’s ministry apply to particular situations within the two particular congregations; these texts, therefore, do not contradict those that support women’s ministry.”
Thomas Schreiner and Craig Blomberg both obviously disagree with Bellville and Keener’s presentations—namely their hermeneutic. Schreiner points outs that Bellville’s interpretation of Genesis disagrees with Paul’s interpretation. He also shows how Belleville creates early church offices that didn’t actually exist in order to recruit women to a position of leadership, such as being a “hostess” or “patron,” which carried no actual leadership role with it. He shows that, “every detail in texts like 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:11–15 is transparent, but the basic teaching is not hard to understand, nor is the main truth in Galatians 3:28 difficult to grasp.” This seems to be one of the biggest critiques leveled against the egalitarian position—that it is simply bending over backwards in order to try to make texts say what they simply do not. One of the more obvious things Blomberg points out is that, “despite all these remarkable ‘advances’ over his culture, Jesus never promotes full-fledged egalitarianism.” His inner circle included only twelve men.
Critical Interaction
Gundry and Beck’s work thoroughly covers this issue in an up-to-date and civil progression. No stone is left unturned. In fact, many stones are turned upside down multiple times as each supporting author reinforces what was stated previously. The authors are very fair-minded, even going so far as to compliment arguments they may disagree with at times. There is no doubt that this work will serve to inform those involved in ministry and theology now, and those involved in generations to come.
Those with a more grammatical-historical hermeneutic will tend to favor the complementarian position as it is supported by the greater context of Scripture and requires less linguistic gymnastics to try to prove. One thing that is highlighted, that many complementarians will appreciate, is the fact that women are not seen to be downgraded by the assessment presented in the book. As one complementarian, John MacArthur states, “God did not create Eve to be superior to Adam' neither did He design her to be his slave. . . Adam saw Eve as one with him in every respect---that was God's design for a perfectly glorious union.” This is the view of Blomberg and Schreiner as well.
Conclusion
Two Views on Women in Ministry should be required reading for any Bible class focusing on the subject on the role of a woman biblically speaking. No matter which side an individual represents, they will be challenged by this work, and they will be familiar with every major argument used by either side to forward their case.
In Stanley N. Gundry and James R. Beck’s book “Two Views of Women in Ministry,” two diverging cases are presented regarding the role of women according to the Bible. This would include women’s roles in the church and family, but also in the society at large. The first view presented is known as “egalitarianism,” and strives for a more equal and less traditional perspective on the nature of the role of women. The second view presented is known as “complementarianism,” and represents a view that favors complimentary but traditional roles existing between men and women. Gundry and Beck’s aim is to accurately present a civil, informative, and engaging discussion between two supporters of egalitarianism—represented by Linda L. Belleville and Craig S. Keener—and two supporters of complementarianism—represented by Craig L. Blomberg and Thomas R. Schreiner. The editors allow the authors to respond to one another’s cases, thus promoting a thorough dialogue. The aim of this work is to summarize and critique Gundry and Beck’s book so as to inform the reader as to its merits and demerits.
Summary
The book starts off with a brief introduction by James R. Beck, where the editor stresses the civility and respect all the involved authors have towards each other, and emphasizes the importance of keeping up to date with the debate on gender roles. The theological environment is constantly changing in regard to this topic, especially since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Therefore, it is important, according to Beck, to be open, honest, and respectful with one another in discussing such a divisive topic.
Linda L. Belleville starts her side of the discussion off by dissecting the creation account to try to show that the traditional view is not substantiated by what is found in Genesis. Belleville writes, “Although male and female can decide on practical grounds how to divide the labor, the assumption of the creation accounts is that both have what it takes to rule and subdue the entirety of what God has created.” Belleville carries this view throughout her reading of both testaments—that the responsibilities given to men and women are the same, whether it comes to subduing the earth, ruling nations, or using spiritual gifts in the church. She maintains that male and females are both gifted by God in the same way with the same set of spiritual gifts. Why should the church then reserve some offices strictly for males? This, in Belleville’s view, has contributed to even psychological damage in women who are told they can not participate in activities God has called them to, such as preaching with men present. Both Belleville and Craig Keener contextualize verses from the Pauline epistles that seem to indicate that the role of pastor/shepherd should be reserved for men. In their estimation, Paul was addressing issues particular to the context of the time period and geographic location. Keener states, “Context and background demonstrate that the two passages used to argue against women’s ministry apply to particular situations within the two particular congregations; these texts, therefore, do not contradict those that support women’s ministry.”
Thomas Schreiner and Craig Blomberg both obviously disagree with Bellville and Keener’s presentations—namely their hermeneutic. Schreiner points outs that Bellville’s interpretation of Genesis disagrees with Paul’s interpretation. He also shows how Belleville creates early church offices that didn’t actually exist in order to recruit women to a position of leadership, such as being a “hostess” or “patron,” which carried no actual leadership role with it. He shows that, “every detail in texts like 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:11–15 is transparent, but the basic teaching is not hard to understand, nor is the main truth in Galatians 3:28 difficult to grasp.” This seems to be one of the biggest critiques leveled against the egalitarian position—that it is simply bending over backwards in order to try to make texts say what they simply do not. One of the more obvious things Blomberg points out is that, “despite all these remarkable ‘advances’ over his culture, Jesus never promotes full-fledged egalitarianism.” His inner circle included only twelve men.
Critical Interaction
Gundry and Beck’s work thoroughly covers this issue in an up-to-date and civil progression. No stone is left unturned. In fact, many stones are turned upside down multiple times as each supporting author reinforces what was stated previously. The authors are very fair-minded, even going so far as to compliment arguments they may disagree with at times. There is no doubt that this work will serve to inform those involved in ministry and theology now, and those involved in generations to come.
Those with a more grammatical-historical hermeneutic will tend to favor the complementarian position as it is supported by the greater context of Scripture and requires less linguistic gymnastics to try to prove. One thing that is highlighted, that many complementarians will appreciate, is the fact that women are not seen to be downgraded by the assessment presented in the book. As one complementarian, John MacArthur states, “God did not create Eve to be superior to Adam' neither did He design her to be his slave. . . Adam saw Eve as one with him in every respect---that was God's design for a perfectly glorious union.” This is the view of Blomberg and Schreiner as well.
Conclusion
Two Views on Women in Ministry should be required reading for any Bible class focusing on the subject on the role of a woman biblically speaking. No matter which side an individual represents, they will be challenged by this work, and they will be familiar with every major argument used by either side to forward their case.
March 4, 2013
LOVED this book! It's a back and forth written debate between Complimentarian/Patriarchal and Egalitarian/Feminist believers. Very good and thorough in-depth debate on the topic.
July 19, 2013
Great contributors & great debate. There were some weak points & slanted interpretations of scripture. But overall, the presenters provide a good version of their position
June 22, 2020
This is a thoughtfully written (and edited) book, whereby both the complementarian (Blomberg and Schreiner) and egalitarian (Belleville and Keener) contributors were incisive and concise in their arguments and responses, as well as irenic in their tone and approach.
I was surprised that there are actually a wide spectrum of positions one can hold. Of the four, Blomberg's position caught my attention. He argues that women can teach and exercise authority over men, but they must do so while submitting to the authority of a male elder/leader. He argues that only the "highest" office in the church (as well as in the old covenant) are reserved for men, but that there is no blanket prohibition on women preaching to a mixed congregation of men and women in a church setting.
Schreiner's view advocates "we prohibit women from filling the pastoral office and when we restrict them from regularly teaching the Scriptures to adult males" (p. 320). Belleville and Keener argue that all leadership roles in the church should be open for women, although their approach are slightly different. I found Belleville's more technical (compared to Keener), although the responses from the other contributors (even Keener) did question some of her conclusions.
Most of the essays deal with similar material: all of them consider the creation accounts, women in the Old and New Testament, and of course, the key debated passages. Because of this, it does feel slightly repetitive, but it is fascinating reading how one scholar can argue her point from a passage, while the next argues for a completely different reading!
Noteworthy also is that Belleville and Keener (the egalitarians) tend to emphasise the cultural circumstances to which Paul was addressing, with especial reference to 1 Tim., whereas Blomberg and Schreiner are not convinced that historical/cultural background trumps their creation-order reading.
The root of this debate will ultimately be traced back to creation and God's design for men and women. The issue is not just about interpreting Genesis 1-3 on its own terms, but also in light of what Paul says, especially in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 11 (two of the most important passages in this debate). While considering Paul's writings, it's also important to think about how Paul understands/interprets Genesis, and also how he applies it in both letters. I suspect the debate will continue to rage on, but it will be interesting to see how it finally plays out.
In evangelical circles in Malaysia, this issue of 'women preaching' or 'women ordination' is becoming increasingly divisive. Readers would do well to remember a statement all four contributors affirm in the introduction: We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and a commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling.
I was surprised that there are actually a wide spectrum of positions one can hold. Of the four, Blomberg's position caught my attention. He argues that women can teach and exercise authority over men, but they must do so while submitting to the authority of a male elder/leader. He argues that only the "highest" office in the church (as well as in the old covenant) are reserved for men, but that there is no blanket prohibition on women preaching to a mixed congregation of men and women in a church setting.
Schreiner's view advocates "we prohibit women from filling the pastoral office and when we restrict them from regularly teaching the Scriptures to adult males" (p. 320). Belleville and Keener argue that all leadership roles in the church should be open for women, although their approach are slightly different. I found Belleville's more technical (compared to Keener), although the responses from the other contributors (even Keener) did question some of her conclusions.
Most of the essays deal with similar material: all of them consider the creation accounts, women in the Old and New Testament, and of course, the key debated passages. Because of this, it does feel slightly repetitive, but it is fascinating reading how one scholar can argue her point from a passage, while the next argues for a completely different reading!
Noteworthy also is that Belleville and Keener (the egalitarians) tend to emphasise the cultural circumstances to which Paul was addressing, with especial reference to 1 Tim., whereas Blomberg and Schreiner are not convinced that historical/cultural background trumps their creation-order reading.
The root of this debate will ultimately be traced back to creation and God's design for men and women. The issue is not just about interpreting Genesis 1-3 on its own terms, but also in light of what Paul says, especially in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 11 (two of the most important passages in this debate). While considering Paul's writings, it's also important to think about how Paul understands/interprets Genesis, and also how he applies it in both letters. I suspect the debate will continue to rage on, but it will be interesting to see how it finally plays out.
In evangelical circles in Malaysia, this issue of 'women preaching' or 'women ordination' is becoming increasingly divisive. Readers would do well to remember a statement all four contributors affirm in the introduction: We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and a commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling.
October 11, 2020
This book has many good, interesting, and well-thought out arguments and perspectives, but, ultimately, leaves the reader frustrated in my opinion. Much of this frustration stems from a lack of clarity in terms. While some of the authors do occasionally explain what they mean by a specific term (for example, what an “apostle” means or is), the main disagreements of applying and creating the various interpretations stems from lack of defining terms such as “ministry”, “authority”, “role”, and “office”. One would have expected that at least the topic of the book “ministry” should have been clarified at some point. Much time is spent on defining Greek terms, but without clarity on the meanings of the English terms, it becomes virtually impossible to evaluate the arguments based on the Greek.
I find that the main essays are coherent with their own assumed definitions of terms. However, each chapter ends with responses by the other contributors to the essay that was featured in the chapter. At this point the frustration and confusion arises. It alternately seems that the authors’ responses either misunderstand or ignore the arguments made by their counterparts when writing their responses. At points, there are fruitful interplays of ideas, but mainly what comes across is flat reiteration of an author’s points that stand in contrast to the essay just presented without acknowledging the thought processes in the essay the author is responding too. The problem appears attributable to each author assuming that the other authors mean the same things when referring to terms such as “ministry” or “leader”. However, reading each essay makes it clear the authors do not mean the same things with such terms, although they rarely explain their meanings of English words explicitly. In fact, the whole book seems fairly pointless without a preceding discussion and then agreement of what role a “pastor” actually holds and what church governance should be because disagreements in this realm seem to majorly contribute to the disagreements addressed in the book. Additionally, once an author states a certain piece of evidence, the responders with alarming frequency assume the author is making the “usual” arguments that use that particular evidence instead of actually reading how the author did use that evidence (usually explicitly not in the normal way.) Thus, the responder offers the counter to the “typical” arguments instead of the ones actually presented in the essays. There are even instances when responders essentially repeat the argument of the essay but reach a different conclusion and assume that they have countered what the essay must have said (when they have really not). Overall, the book is a good starting point for finding arguments and ideas for the different possible positions but fails to hold a particularly useful or meaningful cross-positional conversation.
I find that the main essays are coherent with their own assumed definitions of terms. However, each chapter ends with responses by the other contributors to the essay that was featured in the chapter. At this point the frustration and confusion arises. It alternately seems that the authors’ responses either misunderstand or ignore the arguments made by their counterparts when writing their responses. At points, there are fruitful interplays of ideas, but mainly what comes across is flat reiteration of an author’s points that stand in contrast to the essay just presented without acknowledging the thought processes in the essay the author is responding too. The problem appears attributable to each author assuming that the other authors mean the same things when referring to terms such as “ministry” or “leader”. However, reading each essay makes it clear the authors do not mean the same things with such terms, although they rarely explain their meanings of English words explicitly. In fact, the whole book seems fairly pointless without a preceding discussion and then agreement of what role a “pastor” actually holds and what church governance should be because disagreements in this realm seem to majorly contribute to the disagreements addressed in the book. Additionally, once an author states a certain piece of evidence, the responders with alarming frequency assume the author is making the “usual” arguments that use that particular evidence instead of actually reading how the author did use that evidence (usually explicitly not in the normal way.) Thus, the responder offers the counter to the “typical” arguments instead of the ones actually presented in the essays. There are even instances when responders essentially repeat the argument of the essay but reach a different conclusion and assume that they have countered what the essay must have said (when they have really not). Overall, the book is a good starting point for finding arguments and ideas for the different possible positions but fails to hold a particularly useful or meaningful cross-positional conversation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews