Background to this post:
On their blog Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler advance the position that an egalitarian (as opposed to complementarian) view of women in leadership in the church is not merely an area where orthodox believers of good will can reasonably disagree, but rather the egalitarian view “is effectively an undermining of -- a breach in -- the authority of Scripture.”  A discussion on CGO over Mark Dever’s post appears here.  Ligon Duncan then lent his support to Mark Dever’s position, based on four main arguments.  Al Mohler soon followed, affirming the observations and conclusions.  CJ Mahaney’s post has now moved on to “application.”   
------------

Recognizing I am far out of my league in terms of theological education or pastoral experience, I want to try and untangle and then understand the arguments these men have  advanced. I hold each of these men in high regard; yet I am uneasy with their heart-felt conviction on this issue -- not the conviction that the complimentarian view is correct, but that anything else amounts to a rejection of the authority of Scripture. 

 I am uneasy because, as we remain in conversation with the world our God desires to redeem, we live in the middle -- called to bear the Good News, but also needing it ourselves. Therefore sometimes our sincere convictions are spot on and backed by the broad testimony of Scripture (Jesus is the Messiah), and other times they are a product of our historical locatedness, blind spots or sin (solar system theory as in conflict with Scripture; slavery / racial superiority as part of God’s ordering).  It is only through conversation, testing and the continual refinement of God’s Word on us by his Spirit that we discern which is which. To cut off this conversation --especially between those who share many of the same convictions regarding the authority of Scripture -- is a step not to be taken lightly. 

For such an important step, it is unsettling to me is that it is so motivated by observations about culture and trends among younger theologians  -- observations that may be true of those the authors know but that may not be accurate of the wider culture.  These are (as Mohler describes), that (1) “younger, seriously-minded-pastors” are comfortable staking “counter-cultural” positions and that (2) “they have heard and read all the (aging) arguments on behalf of egalitarianism, and they grow frustrated with what they (correctly) see as a pattern of exegetical and theological corner-cutting.  They are convinced that complementarianism is the winning argument.”  Without delving into numerous weaknesses here, it requires a tremendous leap to go from observing a subset of the younger generation has adopted one’s position with conviction to claiming there is no longer need for dialogue.

I need to say at the outset that I am still in flux on where I come down on the underlying issue, and I believe there are persuasive arguments on both sides.  However the arguments advanced by Mohler, Dever and Duncan fall far short of establishing their conclusion that conversation must end and the very authority of Scripture is at stake.  Aside from the above observation, Ligon Duncan’s argument -- the topic of this post -- makes four points, each of which I will try to address briefly. 

First, Duncan argues that “[t]he denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of scripture” based on the “gymnastics” necessary to permit women to teach or exercise authority in the church in view of Paul’s explicit statement in 1 Timothy to the contrary.  Essentially, the passage is so obvious that only “gymnastics” can get around its forceful application, and if we can use gymnastics to get around this straightforward teaching, we can use gymnastics to get around other much less clear teachings of scripture too, leaving it without authority. 

 The chief flaw in this argument is that it assumes the conclusion (Paul is obviously saying ‘x’) and then questions the motives and integrity of the critics (whose interpretive efforts are merely “gymnastics”). The critique may have been fair of a prior generation, using questionable hermeneutics to get around the passage (e.g., “Paul was just wrong, and we now know better”).  But many contemporary orthodox scholars have brought to bear the same interpretive skills used to understand other texts to the handful of passages in Paul, and have come to different conclusions. 

 This is entirely fair -- yes, sometimes we want to dodge the teaching of a hard passage, but sometimes our “obvious” understanding of a passage is taken out of context and just not what the author was getting to at all.  Indeed, the question of whether this passage really is so obvious is invited by Scripture itself (e.g., how do we reconcile this with Paul’s plain statement that Phoebe was a “diakonos” in Romans 16?)  There are ways to work through this tension -- on both the complementarian and egalitarian side -- while keeping faith with the text.  The chief question is what the passage means -- what did Paul intend to communicate here -- and to understand that takes work.

Duncan then notes in passing that there are not many who disagree with this position (complementarianism) and also believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.  In short, this statement simply is not true.  J.I. Packer, John Stott, Gordon Fee, many of the faculty of Gordon-Conwell, and many others have staked out various positions which -- especially on the issue of women in leadership in church -- at least create space for (if not endorsing) an egalitarian view.  (The response is, “these do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture” -- but then you are left with a very small group and the argument becomes much smaller and less persuasive). 

Second, Duncan argues the clarity of Scripture is undermined by egalitarian arguments, because “if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible.”  This slippery slope argument again dismisses out of hand the interpretations of orthodox Bible scholars who -- applying the same interpretive techniques complementarians use themselves to understand other passages -- happen to disagree with Duncan on this issue.  Further, it elevates clarity above intended meaning.  As noted, a passage can appear clear on its face, and that interpretation can be clearly wrong because we are reading it through our ignorance, biases, assumptions and cultural locatedness.  Indeed, in the same passage Paul writes, “She will be saved by childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Ti 2:15). The clear meaning appears that women, to be saved, must have children. My hunch is that Duncan would say that here – in the very next verse -- we must let Scripture interpret Scripture (the same “gymnastics” he has just condemned in others for evading the clear meaning).

One further example. James 2:24: “a person is justified by works and not faith alone.” The plain meaning of this passage seems troublesome to a position of justification by grace alone through faith alone, not by works. To “evade” such a reading, are “gymnastics” (interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture) permissible? Of course. But then, how can Duncan condemn as undermining the authority of Scripture egalitarians for using the same hermeneutical methods he engages in himself (perhaps unaware) (e.g., egalitarians reading 1 Timothy 2:12-14 in light of Galatians 3:28, etc.). Does this mean if you can get women saved by something other than having children, you can get anything from the Bible?

Third, Duncan posits the egalitarian position is rooted in the Enlightenment, not the Bible, and is also a position that parallels those advocated by paganism.  This deconstructs the “true motives” of those who disagree with Duncan (motives other than understanding what Paul is actually saying here).  It is plausible, but it is also a dangerous weapon that, once unsheathed, can equally be turned on the user (e.g., complementarianism is rooted in a foreign strand of patriarchial and prejudiced thought mapped onto the Bible that undermines the actual meaning of the text and, as such, has done great harm).  This also invites guilt by association (do you know who else supports egalitarianism?  pagans!)  -- which could again be turned as well (do you know who else supports complementarianism?  Men who beat their wives!)  This is an entirely unfair critique of either position.  Indeed, Christians share a concern for the environment with pagans, a concern for justice with Muslims and a desire for joy with hedonists.  It is not surprising that some overlap of positions may exist.

Finally, Duncan asserts that egalitarianism denies the biblical distinctions of maleness and femaleness, and when this is denied Christian discipleship is seriously damaged.  This is, simply put, not what this conversation has been about. Gender distinctions in the Bible do not stand or fall on what Paul meant in 1 Timothy regarding women in leadership in the church, any more than they are obliterated by what Paul wrote in Galatians (neither “male nor female”).  Such a description of the egalitarian position on the issue of women in leadership in the church is an unfair mischaracterization.  1 Timothy -- under any understanding -- must still be read in view of the full counsel of Scripture.

At bottom, while Duncan may (or may not) be correct on complementarianism, I do not believe his arguments advance the position that the authority of Scripture is at stake here with much success.  I believe the conversation can -- and must -- continue. This is especially so in view of our command to charity and to humility in Christ. 

© 2006, Paul Yanosy.