From artdaily.org:

Sotheby’s London will present Beautiful Inside My Head Forever, a major auction of new works by Damien Hirst, on 15 and 16 September 2008. …

The centrepiece of the auction, The Golden Calf, is a monumental new sculpture: a bull in formaldehyde, whose head is crowned by a solid gold disc and whose hooves and horns are cast in 18- carat solid gold. Encased in a gold-plated stainless steel and glass box, it measures 215.4 by 320 by 137.2 cm. This exceptional work, which unites the artist’s interests in science, religion, beauty and death, is estimated to realise £8-12 million.

I’ve posted on the topic of complementarianism once before. Here I make a different sort of argument, but to the same end:  i.e., defending egalitarianism on the basis of the biblical texts.

The complementarian position

So-called “complementarianism” attempts to put a positive label on the politically-incorrect notion of male headship:  i.e., that women are always to be under male authority. Scriptures like 1Ti. 2:11-13 are regarded as determinative of church practice:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (Today’s New International Version)

I end the quote at verse 13 because the reference to the order of creation is crucial. Complementarians argue that this is not a transitory rule, required only in the first century context. The rule is rooted in creation and therefore permanent and universally binding.

The egalitarian position

It is obviously true, biologically, that men and women have different and complementary functions. But complementarians elevate this into a general principle, and forbid women to exercise leadership in the church or to teach men. I suppose complementary in this context means, “I rule and teach, and you follow and learn.”

But if women are no less intelligent than men, no less responsible, and no less vessels of the Holy Spirit —

“In the last days,” God says,
      ”I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
      your young men will see visions,
      your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
      I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
      and they will prophesy.”

(Acts 2:17-18, TNIV)

— how is it that complementarians prohibit women from leading or teaching men?

Texts in tension

It’s important to note that the issue doesn’t turn on one side remaining faithful to scripture while the other side repudiates scripture. The issue turns on which scriptures are regarded as paramount. While complementarians emphasize 1Ti. 2 (and other, similar texts), egalitarians emphasize Acts 2 (and other, similar texts).

In other words, an interpretive problem arises when we try to reconcile one thread of New Testament teaching with another thread of New Testament teaching.

For example, St. Paul says (1Co. 14:33b-38 ) that women are to be silent in church. He states that this is the rule in all the churches (taking the latter half of verse 33 with the verse that follows — translations differ on this point).

But elsewhere in the same letter, St. Paul refers to women prophesying and praying. Indeed, as long as women wear a symbol of authority on their heads (1Co. 11:5-16), Paul indicates that it’s OK for them to pray and prophesy during corporate worship.

On the face of it, there’s a contradiction between these two texts, even though they were written by the same author in the same letter. One of the texts must be qualified (interpreted narrowly) in order to bring the two texts into harmony with one another. The question becomes, Which text is paramount, and which text must be construed narrowly?

Rules vs. actual examples

New Testament texts diverge in a similar fashion on the topic of leading and teaching. As with the 1 Corinthians problem, the pattern is this:

1. On the one hand, there is a rule that women are to submit to male authority (which makes it out of bounds for them to teach men) ;
2. On the other hand, there are actual examples of women carrying out ministries that involve leading and teaching.

Thus we can rephrase our earlier question:  Is the rule paramount? — or is the church’s practice paramount?

As noted in the earlier post, John Stott lists multiple examples of women leaders in the Bible:  Huldah, Miriam, Deborah, the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, Philip’s four unmarried daughters (who prophesied), the women who prayed and prophesied at Corinth, Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche, Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, and Junia.

Thus Stott establishes an a priori case that God approves of women ministering in ways that necessarily involve leading and teaching. As in Acts 2, we see the Sovereign Lord pouring out his Spirit on women and empowering them for ministry.

Junia and Priscilla

Stott’s last example is the most intriguing (though not the strongest). Jounian is almost certainly a contraction of the feminine form of the name,¹ indicating that Junia was a woman. Paul describes her (Rom. 16:7) in the somewhat ambiguous phrase, “outstanding among the apostles.” The most natural reading of the verse is that Junia was a woman apostle.

But perhaps my favourite example is Priscilla. She was clearly a teacher:

[Apollos] spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. … When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18:25-26, TNIV)

And at least on this occasion she taught a man (Apollos).

Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned a number of times in the New Testament. Clearly this husband-and-wife team played a leading role in the nascent Church.

Complementarians might prefer to think that Aquila (the husband) was head of the team, but that isn’t the impression one gets from scripture. On the contrary, when the two names are mentioned, Priscilla’s name comes first in five verses out of seven, including the text quoted above. It seems that she was the key figure of the two.

Arguably the saddest New Testament example is the women who were the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. It’s sad because, though the Lord presumably selected them for this honour, “their words seemed to [the apostles] like nonsense” (Luke 24:11). It wasn’t until men subsequently received resurrection appearances that the testimony was believed.

Conclusion:  the church’s witness

To repeat:  there is an a priori case that God approves of women ministering in ways that necessarily involve leading and teaching. Despite many such examples, complementarians regard the “rule” texts as paramount.

Complementarians harden the rule and wield it inflexibly. In effect, they are trying to bind the Holy Spirit. The rule necessarily implies, The Holy Spirit is prohibited from raising up female leaders and teachers.

Of course the Holy Spirit persists in ignoring the rule, just as He did during the biblical era.

I care about this issue for three reasons. First, because I strongly support justice for all social groups, not least women. After all, women make up 50% of the population; and more than 50% of the church population. Complementarians would thus constrain the majority of Christians from fully exercising their spiritual gifts.

Which brings me to my second reason:  I care about this issue for the sake of the Church. The Church is stronger when everyone fully exercises all of his or her spiritual gifts.

Finally, I care about this issue because the complementarian position is damaging to the Church’s witness.

Consider the historical context. This year, Hillary Clinton came very near to winning the Democratic nomination. If she had won, she likely would have become the first woman President.

• India has had a woman Prime Minister;
• England has had a woman Prime Minister;
• Israel has had a woman Prime Minister; and
• Canada has (albeit very briefly) had a woman Prime Minister.
• There are women Justices on the Supreme Court of Canada; and
• women in Cabinet in the Government of Canada, even in a Conservative government.

In contrast, I remind you of that photo of the Gospel Coalition council:

I ask you, how is this complementarianism? How can women complement men when, in practice, they are completely excluded from the councils of leadership? Thus complementarianism is actually a policy of negating women.

Unchurched people in our culture will take away the following message:  women can lead a government, or preside as Chief Justice over a Supreme Court; but they don’t have what it takes to teach a Sunday School class (assuming there are adult males in the class).

Is that message damaging to the Church’s witness? You bet it is!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¹ "… as was taken for granted by the patristic commentators, and indeed up to the Middle Ages. The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity." — James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 38B, ad loc.

It’s a fairly detailed article (four pages) searching for an evolutionary explanation for religion. It’s well worth reading in its entirety, but here’s a bullet-point outline:

• Introductory observation:  even in our scientific era, most of the world persists in religious faith. (Western Europe may be an exception.)
• Mr. Bloom explores, and rejects, two conventional, naturalistic explanations for religious faith:
1. Religion as the opiate of the masses:  to soothe the pain of existence and give meaning to human life;
2. Religion as social glue. Groups with a shared religious faith have an evolutionary advantage over groups without, because religion facilitates social cohesion, which in turn improves the odds of survival.
• Having explored and rejected those two theories, Mr. Bloom turns his attention to a third explanation which he regards as more plausible.

To be precise, the author’s prefered explanation is presented in two complementary parts. I intend to explore only the first half of his explanation here.

Mr. Bloom argues that human beings make a distinction between the physical and the psychological aspects of the world. Here’s his thesis:

We perceive the world of objects as essentially separate from the world of minds, making it possible for us to envision soulless bodies and bodiless souls. This helps explain why we believe in gods and an afterlife.

The tendency to make this distinction is already present in children:

In a significant study the psychologists Jesse Bering, of the University of Arkansas, and David Bjorklund, of Florida Atlantic University, told young children a story about an alligator and a mouse, complete with a series of pictures, that ended in tragedy: “Uh oh! Mr. Alligator sees Brown Mouse and is coming to get him!” [The children were shown a picture of the alligator eating the mouse.] “Well, it looks like Brown Mouse got eaten by Mr. Alligator. Brown Mouse is not alive anymore.”

The experimenters asked the children a set of questions about the mouse’s biological functioning — such as “Now that the mouse is no longer alive, will he ever need to go to the bathroom? Do his ears still work? Does his brain still work?” — and about the mouse’s mental functioning, such as “Now that the mouse is no longer alive, is he still hungry? Is he thinking about the alligator? Does he still want to go home?”

As predicted, when asked about biological properties, the children appreciated the effects of death: no need for bathroom breaks; the ears don’t work, and neither does the brain. The mouse’s body is gone. But when asked about the psychological properties, more than half the children said that these would continue: the dead mouse can feel hunger, think thoughts, and have desires. The soul survives. And children believe this more than adults do, suggesting that although we have to learn which specific afterlife people in our culture believe in (heaven, reincarnation, a spirit world, and so on), the notion that life after death is possible is not learned at all. It is a by-product of how we naturally think about the world.

Thus the distinction between body and soul is innate. That suggests (in Mr. Bloom’s mind) that the distinction arose through evolution.

In fact, we’re talking about two separate systems in the brain. One system processes information about the physical world; the other system processes information about the social world.

It’s crucial to note that the two systems evolved separately:

They evolved at different points in our prehistory; our physical understanding is shared by many species, whereas our social understanding is a relatively recent adaptation, and in some regards might be uniquely human. …

The separateness of these two mechanisms, one for understanding the physical world and one for understanding the social world, gives rise to a duality of experience. We experience the world of material things as separate from the world of goals and desires.

Our innate dualism lays the groundwork for religious convictions:

• A corpse is seen as a body that used to have a soul.
• God is conceived as a soul without a body. Other examples of soulless bodies include angels/demons, poltergeists, and succubi.
• Our dualism also opens up the possibility that “we” (i.e., our souls) can survive the death of our bodies.

I admire Mr. Bloom’s explanation (actually, it isn’t original to him; he refers to several scientists and their studies). It strikes me as reasonable — a coherent explanation of the data.

Nonetheless it is only a hypothesis. I hinted, at one point, that we might interpret the data differently.

But let me turn the floor over to you:  what do you think of Mr. Bloom’s hypothesis?

From a series of twelve news images published here.

I will leave the interpretation of the images up to the viewer. But I thought they were provocative, in juxtaposition like this.