Remark on nathan's absence

I'm presenting today on a significant social and theological issue in many strands of evangelicalism.
The broader issue might be stated to be - “Is there a real theological or practical distinction between
men and women – are those labels meaningful or simply imposed – and if there is a real distinction,
what is it – in theory and in practice?”

A large number of churches in the United Kingdom offer a startlingly traditional response to these
questions. For instance, New Frontiers is a charismatic evangelical network consisting of 100s of
churches in the UK alone. There's one here in Chester, indeed. The network's founder, Terry Virgo,
offers “17 Values for a Spirit-Filled Church”, of which Values 7 and 8 are pertinent to our
discussion1.

7. “A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace
male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and
practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are
affirmed.”
8. “A church led by male elders (one of whom is clearly understood to be gifted to be lead
elder) who are ordained by the Holy Spirit, recognised and confirmed through apostolic
ministry. These men are to be helped in fulfilling their calling through ongoing fellowship
with trans-local ministries.”

Governing leadership in the home and in the church is restricted to men in this model. This is often
dubbed “complementarianism”, whilst its sparring partner (which affirms female leadership) is
often called “egalitarianism”. As I'm about to remark on the controversies involved, it's fair here to
disclose that both Nathan and I find ourselves within that kind of milieu – I am in a New Frontiers
church in Durham, whilst Nathan is in a church here in Chester from a network which is really a
cousin to New Frontiers. I should also say at the outset that we would broadly affirm this
“complementarian” position.

This position is often maligned – sometimes, it feels, quite fairly. Noted egalitarian author Rachel
Held Evans published a book in 2012 called “A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated
Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master”.
Aside from its obviously snarky title, it's an engaging investigation of various things the Bible says
about gender, as well as a source of in-depth interviews with Christian women from all across the
perspective. As Evans observed later of her book, her aim was to “call into question the premise that
Bible presents us with a single, straightforward blueprint for womanhood and that women who
deviate from this blueprint are outside the will of God”2

Evans offers some fairly incredible quotes (obviously quite acontextually) from complementarian
writers – for instance:

Dorothy Patterson saying “keeping the home is God’s assignment to the wife—even down to
changing the sheets, doing the laundry, and scrubbing the floors.”3
or again

1 Terry Virgo, “17 Values for the Spirit-Filled Church”. TerryVirgo.org.

http://terryvirgo.org/Groups/140414/Terry_Virgo/Topic_Folders/V/Vision_and_Values/Vision_and_Values.aspx.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web on the 11th June 2014.
2 Rachel Held Evans. “Will the real complementarian please stand up?”. Rachel Held Evans.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/real-complementarian. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on the 11th June 2014.
3 Rachel Held Evans. A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof,
Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master. New York: Thomas Nelson, 2012.
Mark Driscoll calling stay-at-home fathers “worse than unbelievers”4

It must be said, however, that whilst one may easily find apparently bizarre and patriarchal claims
by complementarians, Held Evans is not innocent either. For instance, one exegetical question she
claims not to have seen answered after reading all the core complementarian texts is about the
Hebrew term for “helper”, 'ezer, important in the gender conversation because of its appearance in
Genesis 25. “Helper”, Held Evans points out, is often a term applied to God in the Hebrew Bible.
How can it imply subordination?

A fair objection, one would think – except she will have seen numerous complementarian answers.
For instance, Wayne Grudem writes that “whenever someone 'helps' someone else, whether in the
Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the
person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person
being helped”6. He goes on to use the analogy of his helping a boy in the neighbourhood fix his bike
– Grudem may well possess more skill, but the boy has the final responsibility and ownership of the
task. This is not just a homely analogy from Grudem though – he cites no less an authority than
David Clines to demonstrate that the word “helper” in the Hebrew Bible ALWAYS implies at least
some subordination7. Clines is a renowned Hebrew Bible scholar and anti-patriarchalist – the paper
Grudem cites was an unpublished conference paper dealing with “Irredeemably Androcentric
Orientations in Genesis 1-3”! So Held Evans is being a little disingenuous at best.

What that was supposed to demonstrate – outlandish moral imperatives from some
complementarians, exegetical disingenuity from some egalitarians, and probably the reverse too – is
that the debate contains a great deal of heat without corresponding light. I could cite innumerable
further examples, but suffice to say that this subject causes what seems to us ungracious
controversy. What are we trying to do ivstead, then? We're not going to be addressing any further
specific exegetical controversies within the paper. Rather, this is an attempt 1) to offer potential
improvement on both theory and praxis within our own complementarian communities; and 2) to
improve the quality of disagreement with those who may themselves hold very different
convictions. We are going to offer a theo-dramatic reading of gender distinction as our main vehicle
for this – but first, I'm going to outline a few of the hermeneutical presuppositions which lead us to
our conclusions.

A limited but useful distinction made by one writer, Michael Pahl – in relation to debates like this,
in fact – is that in many contemporary evangelical circles there are essentially two hermeneutical
positions8. Both would sincerely call themselves “Biblical Christians” - but they norm their readings
of the Bible in different ways. There are BBCs – Bible Biblical Christians – who emphasizes 2
Timothy 3.16, that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and of the same norming standard. There are
then JBCs, Jesus Biblical Christians, who norm the rest of Scripture by Jesus' words and actions.
Incidentally, Pahl is more towards the JBC end of the spectrum.

“Bible Biblical Christians” tend to focus more on “individual salvation and personal

morality.” For BBCs, “Bible for divine guidance” means an emphasis on the Bible
asthe source for a particular system of theology and as theguidebook for the particular
moral decisions we face in life”

“Jesus Biblical Christians” tend to focus more on “personal discipleship for social

4 Held Evans. “Will the real complementarian please stand up?”.
5 Ibid.
6 Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Nottingham: IVP, 1994: 461.
7 Grudem, 462.
8 Michael Pahl. “WV, BBCs[,] and JBCs”. Jesus Creed. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/04/04/wv-
bbcs-and-jbcs/. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on the 11th June 2014.
 renewal.” For JBCs, “Bible for divine guidance” means an emphasis on the Bible as
witness to Jesus and his inauguration of the “kingdom of God” with its broad
implications for justice and peace in the world.”

Nathan and I are so-called BBCs – all of Scripture is normative. Indeed, we'd go so far as to
criticise some prominent “BBCs” for being just as incautiously selective in which texts norm which.
We find that conservative interpreters can be just as guilty of lionizing canons within the canon.
Nevertheless, if we take all of Scripture to be authentic, we must make our best effort to treat it as
such. Both sides may agree that Jesus is the one who authenticates Scripture – but how does he
authenticate it? His teachings are proven by His Resurrection; His Resurrection was, according to
His teachings, prophesied – so Isaiah and the rest are proven true. And indeed, Jesus Himself did
not just think those prophetic texts to be authentic – He came not to abolish the Law, but rather to
bring it to fruition on behalf of the Great Lawmaker. Jesus “believed” in the Hebrew Bible in a way
the JBCs often do not. Jesus also authenticates the New Testament. It is His continuing speech to us.
Wes Hill, New Testament scholar and noted for being both a gay Christian but also traditional as to
his views on sexual ethics, notes of this hermeneutical debate:

“Contrary to the “red-letter Christians” experiment, it is simply not a classic Christian

practice—among Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants—to pit the words (or silence) of
Jesus over against other portions of Scripture. The unfolding of the New Testament
canon presents itself as the continuation of Jesus’ speech, so much so that Paul’s words
in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and elsewhere about sexual behavior are to be read as
having the authority of the same Jesus who allegedly said nothing about homosexuality
during his earthly life.”9

So we cannot norm away Biblical statements because they were not spoken by the Galilean
carpenter. The Logos rises behind all of Scripture, bringing light to generation upon generation of
Hebrews by their prophets and through angels until finally He spoke decisively as the Son amongst
us. Instead, we look for the great themes and stories the Living Word tells by His Written Word,
breathed by the Spirit.

And one great theme is about family. These are the texts that drive us to complementarianism. Both
Nathan and I were egalitarians once. But as the majesty of the miracle of God's great poem
overcame us, we could not reject texts we had long held at arm's length. How did God create
finitely perfect humanity? As male and female, TOGETHER constituting His image upon the earth
– His image both as ambassadors and as eikon. Together Adam and Eve had a task – they were
gardeners. Adam was given the Garden and the task of naming – but his image-bearing was
incomplete without Eve, His helper. Together they were put to gardening. We know how that ended.
That original paradigm was marred by the effect of sin – corrupt authority on the part of the Man,
rebellious insubordination on the part of the Woman.

And this broken relationship was echoed in our relationship with God. Eventually God even tried to
show to His people Israel the nature of their rebellion by a living parable – Hosea was ordered to
“take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great
whoredom by forsaking the LORD” (Hosea 1.2). Perhaps you recall the rest of the story; Hosea's
wife Gomer betrays him and commits adultery, but Hosea, at God's command and echoing God's
own actions, buys her back.

The final act of this marriage is accomplished by a human who declared himself the celestial

9 Wesley Hill. “The Silence of Jesus and the Voice of the Apostles”. Spiritual Friendship.
http://spiritualfriendship.org/2014/05/12/the-silence-of-jesus-and-the-voice-of-the-apostles/#more-2251. Retrieved
from the World Wide Web on the 11th June 2014.
bridegroom – Jesus. Finally, in Ephesians, it is made clear by Jesus' Apostle, Paul, that it is not that
marriage is simply an apposite parallel to God's love of His people – God created marriage as a
reflection of his relationship to us – Christ sacrifices all for those who then joyfully submit to Him.
In the final act of the story, His people – now perfect and pure again – will descend to the new
creation like a bride out of heaven.

But as Hosea was not literally God, we must find a way of understanding how this “mystery”
applies to us – the analogy God has placed in the world is not a simple substitutionary one. And so
we turn to the idea of theo-drama.